Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and Challenges

Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and Challenges

Leo Tan Wee Hin National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Singapore R. Subramaniam National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Singapore

Volume I

InformatIon scIence reference Hershey • New York

Director of Editorial Content: Senior Managing Editor: Managing Editor: Assistant Managing Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design: Printed at:

Kristin Klinger Jamie Snavely Jeff Ash Carole Coulson Chris Hrobak Lisa Tosheff Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference and in the United Kingdom by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel: 44 20 7240 0856 Fax: 44 20 7379 0609 Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com Copyright © 2009 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level : issues and challenges / Leo Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam, editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: "This book provides coverage of significant issues and theories currently combining the studies of technology and literacy"-Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60566-120-9 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-121-6 (ebook) 1. Mass media in education--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Media literacy--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Educational technology--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Tan, Leo Wee Hin, 1944- II. Subramaniam, R. (Ramanathan), 1952LB1043.H329 2009 302.23071--dc22 2009003229 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Editorial Advisory Board

Ronen Mir, SciTech Hands On Museum, USA & Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, USA Dianna Newman, University of Albany/SUNY, USA Anil Aggarwal, University of Baltimore, USA Debby Mir, Northeastern Illinois University, USA

List of Contributors

Ayres, Kevin M. / The University of Georgia, USA ............................................................................ 14 Baird, Derek E. / Yahoo!, Inc., USA .................................................................................................... 48 Bangert, Art W. / Montana State University, USA ............................................................................ 684 Bowyer, Samantha / Coventry University, UK .................................................................................. 492 Brawner, Catherine E. / Research Triangle Educational Consultants, USA.................................... 551 Brent, Rebecca / Education Designs, Inc., USA ................................................................................ 551 Cheah, Horn-Mun / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ............................................... 119 Chera, Pav / Sutherland Institute, UK ............................................................................................... 340 Ching, Yu-Hui / The Pennsylvania State University, USA ............................................................... 353 Coenders, Arno / Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands .......................................................................... 389 Conole, Gráinne / The Open University, UK..................................................................................... 669 Davis, Quintin Q. / Christa McAuliffe Middle School, USA ............................................................ 620 Delfino, Manuela / Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy.................................................................................................................................. 839 Dimitracopoulou, Angélique / University of the Aegean, Greece .................................................... 755 Douglas, Karen / The University of Georgia, USA.............................................................................. 14 Evans, Michael A. / Virginia Tech, USA ............................................................................................ 128 Finger, Glenn / Griffith University, Australia .................................................................................... 326 Fisher, Mercedes / Milwaukee Applied Technical College, USA......................................................... 48 Fitzgerald, Gail / University of Missouri, USA ................................................................................. 529 Fund, Zvia / Bar-Ilan University, Israel ............................................................................................ 216 Garland, Virginia E. / The University of New Hampshire, USA....................................................... 471 Gibson, Susan / University of Alberta, Canada................................................................................. 403 Grabowski, Barbara / The Pennsylvania State University, USA ...................................................... 353 Grafton, Lee / Palm Spring Unified School District, USA ................................................................ 607 Graham, Charles R. / Brigham Young University, USA ................................................................... 823 Gulbahar, Yasemin / Baskent University, Turkey .............................................................................. 702 Hadley, Nancy J. / Angelo State University, USA.............................................................................. 189 Harmer, Andrea J. / Kutztown University and Lehigh University, USA ........................................... 300 Hemphill, Leaunda S. / Western Illinois University, USA ................................................................ 808 Hernández, Fernando / University of Barcelona, Spain .................................................................... 72 Herrington, Jan / Murdoch University, Australia ............................................................................. 203 Hewett, Stephenie / The Citadel, USA............................................................................................... 286

Hlapanis, Giorgos / University of the Aegean, Greece...................................................................... 755 Howell, Lyn C. / Milligan College, USA ........................................................................................... 575 Hsu, Yu-Chang / The Pennsylvania State University, USA ............................................................... 353 Hung, David / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ......................................................... 119 Hutchison, Dougal / National Foundation for Educational Research, UK ...................................... 777 Ilomäkim, Liisa / University of Helsinki, Finland............................................................................. 101 Jamieson-Proctor, Romina / University of Southern Queensland, Australia ................................... 326 Jetton, Tamara L. / Central Michigan University, USA.................................................................... 633 Kankaanranta, Marja / University of Jyväskyla, Finland ............................................................... 101 Kay, Robin / University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada ........................................ 419, 720 Kervin, Lisa / University of Wollongong, Australia .......................................................................... 203 Kiili, Carita / University of Jyväskylä, Finland ................................................................................. 654 Kirtley, Rebecca F. / JC Sawyer Elementary School, USA ............................................................... 620 Koh, Thiam Seng / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore .................................................. 310 Koury, Kevin / California University of Pennsylvania, USA ............................................................ 529 Kramarski, Bracha / Bar-Ilan University, Israel.............................................................................. 794 Langone, John / The University of Georgia, USA ............................................................................... 14 Laurinen, Leena / University of Jyväskylä, Finland ......................................................................... 654 Lazarinis, Fotis / University of Teesside, UK .................................................................................... 457 Leh, Amy S. C. / California State University, San Bernardino, USA ................................................ 607 Levin, Tamar / Tel Aviv University, Israel ......................................................................................... 144 Lim, Wei-Ying / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore....................................................... 119 Lisowski, Joseph A. / Elizabeth City State University, USA ............................................................. 620 Lisowski, Linda R. / Elizabeth City State University, USA............................................................... 620 Littleton, Karen / University of Jyväskylä, Finland .......................................................................... 340 Luik, Piret / University of Tartu, Estonia ......................................................................................... 167 MacKinnon, Gregory / Acadia University, Canada ......................................................................... 505 Mantei, Jessica / University of Wollongong, Australia...................................................................... 203 Marttunen, Miika / University of Jyväskylä, Finland....................................................................... 654 Masters, Jennifer / La Trobe University, Australia ........................................................................... 243 McCaw, Donna S. / Western Illinois University, USA ....................................................................... 808 Merchant, Guy / Sheffield Hallam University, UK................................................................................ 1 Mills, Steven C. / The University Center of Southern Oklahoma, USA............................................. 372 Mitchem, Katherine / California University of Pennsylvania, USA................................................. 529 Monroe, Eula Ewing / Brigham Young University, USA .................................................................. 823 Müller, Jörg / Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain ...................................................................... 72 Pedaste, Margus / University of Tartu, Estonia ................................................................................ 270 Persico, Donatella / Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council,Italy................................................................................................................................... 839 Plester, Beverly / Coventry University, UK ....................................................................................... 492 Qian, Yufeng / St. Thomas University, USA....................................................................................... 257 Rice, Kerry L. / Boise State University, USA .................................................................................... 684 Ryan, Thomas G. / Nipissing University, Canada .............................................................................. 89 Samsonov, Pavel / University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA .......................................................... 480

Sancho, Juana M. / University of Barcelona, Spain ........................................................................... 72 Sarapuu, Tago / University of Tartu, Estonia .................................................................................... 270 Tan, Kim Chwee Daniel / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ...................................... 310 ten Brummelhuis, Alfons / Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands .......................................................... 389 Tondeur, Jo / Ghent University, Belgium ........................................................................................... 389 Tsai, Chin-Chung / National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan ...................... 743 Twiford, Claudia C. / Elizabeth City State University, USA ............................................................. 620 van Braak, Johan / Ghent University, Belgium ................................................................................ 389 van‘t Hooft, Mark / Kent State University, USA ............................................................................... 436 Vanderlinde, Ruben / Ghent University, Belgium ............................................................................ 389 Walsh, Maureen / ACU National, Australia........................................................................................ 32 Way, Jennifer / University of Sydney, Australia ................................................................................ 588 Wentworth, Nancy / Brigham Young University, USA...................................................................... 823 Wood, Clare / Coventry University, UK .................................................................................... 340, 492 Yelland, Nicola / The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong .............................................. 243

Table of Contents

Volume I Preface .............................................................................................................................................. xxix

Section I Issues in New Media Literacy Chapter I Learning for the Future: Emerging Technologies and Social Participation ............................................ 1 Guy Merchant, Sheffield Hallam University, UK Chapter II Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays ................................ 14 Kevin M. Ayres, The University of Georgia, USA John Langone, The University of Georgia, USA Karen Douglas, The University of Georgia, USA Chapter III Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy....................................................................................... 32 Maureen Walsh, ACU National, Australia Chapter IV Pedagogical Mashup: Gen Y, Social Media, and Learning in the Digital Age ..................................... 48 Derek E. Baird, Yahoo!, Inc., USA Mercedes Fisher, Milwaukee Applied Technical College, USA Chapter V New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide ......................................................................................... 72 Jörg Müller, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Juana M. Sancho, University of Barcelona, Spain Fernando Hernández, University of Barcelona, Spain

Chapter VI Teaching and Technology: Issues, Caution and Concerns .................................................................... 89 Thomas G. Ryan, Nipissing University, Canada Chapter VII The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young ........................ 101 Liisa Ilomäki, University of Helsinki, Finland Marja Kankaanranta, University of Jyväskyla, Finland Chapter VIII An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century..................................... 119 Wei-Ying Lim, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore David Hung, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Horn-Mun Cheah, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Chapter IX Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings: Sociotechnical Prescriptions for and Challenges to Curricular Reform ............................................. 128 Michael A. Evans, Virginia Tech, USA Chapter X Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology: Enriched Classrooms ............................................................... 144 Tamar Levin, Tel Aviv University, Israel Chapter XI Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia .............................................................................. 167 Piret Luik, University of Tartu, Estonia Chapter XII Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy ............................................................................. 189 Nancy J. Hadley, Angelo State University, USA Chapter XIII Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners ....................... 203 Lisa Kervin, University of Wollongong, Australia Jessica Mantei, University of Wollongong, Australia Jan Herrington, Murdoch University, Australia Chapter XIV Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry: From Instructional Design to a “Bridge Model” ............ 216 Zvia Fund, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Chapter XV Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts ................................................................... 243 Nicola Yelland, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Jennifer Masters, La Trobe University, Australia Chapter XVI New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments ............................................................. 257 Yufeng Qian, St. Thomas University, USA Chapter XVII The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry .............................................................................. 270 Margus Pedaste, University of Tartu, Estonia Tago Sarapuu, University of Tartu, Estonia

Section II ICT Tools Chapter XVIII Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males................................................................. 286 Stephenie Hewett, The Citadel, USA Chapter XIX Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy .............................................................................. 300 Andrea J. Harmer, Kutztown University and Lehigh University, USA Chapter XX Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education .................................................................................... 310 Thiam Seng Koh, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Kim Chwee Daniel Tan, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Chapter XXI Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use: Developing an Instrument for Measuring Student ICT Use .......................................................................................................... 326 Romina Jamieson-Proctor, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Glenn Finger, Griffith University, Australia Chapter XXII Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development .......................................................... 340 Clare Wood, Coventry University, UK Karen Littleton, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Pav Chera, Sutherland Institute, UK

Chapter XXIII Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age ..................................................... 353 Yu-Chang Hsu, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Yu-Hui Ching, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Barbara Grabowski, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Chapter XXIV Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning with Web 2.0 ................................................ 372 Steven C. Mills, The University Center of Southern Oklahoma, USA Chapter XXV Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education ................................................ 389 Jo Tondeur, Ghent University, Belgium Arno Coenders, Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Johan van Braak, Ghent University, Belgium Alfons ten Brummelhuis, Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Ruben Vanderlinde, Ghent University, Belgium Chapter XXVI Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects................................. 403 Susan Gibson, University of Alberta, Canada Chapter XXVII Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects in Secondary School Classrooms .............................................................................................................................. 419 Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Chapter XXVIII Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices ........................................................................... 436 Mark van‘t Hooft, Kent State University, USA Chapter XXIX Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool ............................ 457 Fotis Lazarinis, University of Teesside, UK Chapter XXX Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies ............................................................................. 471 Virginia E. Garland, The University of New Hampshire, USA

Volume II Chapter XXXI Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential ........................................................................... 480 Pavel Samsonov, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA Chapter XXXII Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy .......................................................................... 492 Beverly Plester, Coventry University, UK Clare Wood, Coventry University, UK Samantha Bowyer, Coventry University, UK Chapter XXXIII Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning .............................................................. 505 Gregory MacKinnon, Acadia University, Canada Chapter XXXIV Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School for Secondary Students with Special Needs ........................................................................... 529 Katherine Mitchem, California University of Pennsylvania, USA Gail Fitzgerald, University of Missouri, USA Kevin Koury, California University of Pennsylvania, USA

Section III Case Studies Chapter XXXV A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom .......... 551 Rebecca Brent, Education Designs, Inc., USA Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants, USA Chapter XXXVI Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes ............................................................................. 575 Lyn C. Howell, Milligan College, USA Chapter XXXVII Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools ....................................................................... 588 Jennifer Way, University of Sydney, Australia

Chapter XXXVIII Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District.......................................................................... 607 Amy S. C. Leh, California State University, San Bernardino, USA Lee Grafton, Palm Spring Unified School District, USA

Chapter XXXIX K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community........................................................................ 620 Linda R. Lisowski, Elizabeth City State University, USA Claudia C. Twiford, Elizabeth City State University, USA Joseph A. Lisowski, Elizabeth City State University, USA Quintin Q. Davis, Christa McAuliffe Middle School, USA Rebecca F. Kirtley, JC Sawyer Elementary School, USA Chapter XL Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students....................................................................................................................... 633 Tamara L. Jetton, Central Michigan University, USA

Chapter XLI Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent...................................................................... 654 Carita Kiili, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Leena Laurinen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Miika Marttunen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Chapter XLII Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice................................................ 669 Gráinne Conole, The Open University, UK

Section IV Assessment Chapter XLIII What We Know About Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools......................................... 684 Art W. Bangert, Montana State University, USA Kerry L. Rice, Boise State University, USA Chapter XLIV Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment.................................................................................... 702 Yasemin Gulbahar, Baskent University, Turkey Chapter XLV A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classrooms............................................................................................................. 720 Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Chapter XLVI Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings................................................................... 743 Chin-Chung Tsai, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Chapter XLVII Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community ................................................................... 755 Giorgos Hlapanis, University of the Aegean, Greece Angélique Dimitracopoulou, University of the Aegean, Greece Chapter XLVIII Automated Essay Scoring Systems..................................................................................................... 777 Dougal Hutchison, National Foundation for Educational Research, UK Chapter XLIX Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion............................................................ 794 Bracha Kramarski, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Section V Professional Development Chapter L Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked .............................................................. 808 Leaunda S. Hemphill, Western Illinois University, USA Donna S. McCaw, Western Illinois University, USA Chapter LI TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program ..................................................................... 823 Nancy Wentworth, Brigham Young University, USA Charles R. Graham, Brigham Young University, USA Eula Ewing Monroe, Brigham Young University, USA Chapter LII Self-Regulated Learning: Issues and Challenges for Initial Teacher Training ................................... 839 Manuela Delfino, Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy Donatella Persico, Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy

Detailed Table of Contents

Volume I Preface .............................................................................................................................................. xxix

Section I Issues in New Media Literacy The new media represents an assortment of ICT tools that span a wide spectrum of uses. Each of these technologies comes with its own unique characteristics to support learning in specific contexts. This section address issues and concerns that surround the use of new media in educational settings and notes how the definition of new media literacy has not been static but has been evolving with the myriad of applications that have come on board with the fructification of research in educational settings. More importantly, the social dimension that it engenders has implications for tapping the preferred learning styles of the digital natives. Chapter I Learning for the Future: Emerging Technologies and Social Participation ............................................ 1 Guy Merchant, Sheffield Hallam University, UK The author discusses how digital literacies that are germane to evolving forms of social practice in today’s society can be incorporated into classroom practice. With the affordability of digital connections, the Web 2.0 environment presents a platform to jump-start social participation and knowledge creation by students. The challenge is to see how communicative and collaborative frameworks can be juxtaposed with new insights into learning so that the potential of these new technologies can be capitalized effectively to promote learning. Chapter II Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays ................................ 14 Kevin M. Ayres, The University of Georgia, USA John Langone, The University of Georgia, USA Karen Douglas, The University of Georgia, USA Digital literacy skills have been framed by keeping in mind the needs of normal students. With technology being an enabling tool, students with developmental disabilities can now interact with electronic

text to make greater meaning of the world around them. In this context, the authors argue for the need for the definition of digital literacy skills to evolve so that the special needs of such students can also be taken care of. Chapter III Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy....................................................................................... 32 Maureen Walsh, ACU National, Australia The transformation of the literacy landscape from one based on traditional text to one based on a range of ICT literacies is heralding a paradigm shift in the way students learn. Reconfiguring pedagogy to meet multimodal literacy needs affords opportunities for producing students who are well equipped to thrive in the new educational milieu. The author explores this standpoint further and also reports on a study in which the pedagogy of literacy in e-learning and multimodal classroom environments was redesigned for classroom practice. Chapter IV Pedagogical Mashup: Gen Y, Social Media, and Learning in the Digital Age ..................................... 48 Derek E. Baird, Yahoo!, Inc., USA Mercedes Fisher, Milwaukee Applied Technical College, USA The digital culture in which students in today’s society are immersed provides immense scope for leveraging on a medley of tools to enhance their learning experiences in the classroom. These new media afford a platform for the students to explore learning based on interactions with others and developing ideas by active engagement, both of which capitalize on their innate need to be part of a community. The authors emphasize the need for instructors to be cognizant of social trends promoted by the new media and reiterate that these need to be integrated into the curriculum so as to tap on the preferred learning styles of the digital natives. Chapter V New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide ......................................................................................... 72 Jörg Müller, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Juana M. Sancho, University of Barcelona, Spain Fernando Hernández, University of Barcelona, Spain This various forms of new media that have come upstream in society have exacerbated the divisions between those who are ICT-literate and those who are disenfranchised from reaping their full benefits. These equity issues raise several concerns which the authors explore from various perspectives. They advance suggestions for bridging this binary divide and emphasize on the importance of school initiatives and other intervention strategies for implementing educational projects that are not only sustainable but are also inclusive so that no student is left behind. Chapter VI Teaching and Technology: Issues, Caution and Concerns .................................................................... 89 Thomas G. Ryan, Nipissing University, Canada

The all-encompassing nature of technology in today’s society means that it is a change agent, an educational tool and an empowering medium. In this chapter, the author flags off some concerns for consideration when technology is used in teaching. He reiterates the message that teaching is very much an individual odyssey and that there is a need for teachers to be mindful of their role through introspection, values clarification and action research so that technology is subservient to the thrust of the educational mission. Chapter VII The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young ........................ 101 Liisa Ilomäki, University of Helsinki, Finland Marja Kankaanranta, University of Jyväskyla, Finland The extent to which strategic initiatives and implementation efforts in Finland have contributed to the ICT competencies of the younger generation is explored in this chapter. It is shown that ICT competencies and attitudes are honed mainly by home resources and leisure time pursuits. Gender differences among the young as well as skills differences between the youngsters and adults in relation to ICT usage are also considered. Chapter VIII An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century..................................... 119 Wei-Ying Lim, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore David Hung, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Horn-Mun Cheah, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Interactive and digital media (IDM) literacy encompasses four aspects: media literacy, technological literacy, social and civic responsibility, and imagination and creativity. The authors advance the need for these competencies to be grounded in school practice so that students are well prepared to face the challenges of the new economy. Recommendations are given for policy makers and stake holders to promote a culture that is supportive of IDM as well as catalyzes the growth of an industry around it. Chapter IX Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings: Sociotechnical Prescriptions for and Challenges to Curricular Reform ............................................. 128 Michael A. Evans, Virginia Tech, USA The author emphasizes that science-based collaborative inquiry mediated within a community of practice needs to be an important goal for the 21st century classroom. Leveraging on the ubiquity of communication channels promoted by wireless and mobile devices and supported by social software, he draws on the results of two studies done in geographically dispersed settings to show that effective learning is possible in a real world context. The challenge is to see how traditional modes of pedagogy can be tweaked to support such learning. Chapter X Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology: Enriched Classrooms ............................................................... 144 Tamar Levin, Tel Aviv University, Israel

The author draws on the results of two longitudinal studies to study the links between teachers’ educational beliefs and their use of ICT in pedagogy. It is shown that extensive use of ICT over the years has, in fact, coloured teachers’ beliefs so much so that they now tend to look at issues from multiple perspectives. The study also shows that the mindset change of teachers is dictated by a number of factors – the kind of ICT tools available in the classroom, the experiential nature of the learning environment, and exposure to new ideas. Chapter XI Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia .............................................................................. 167 Piret Luik, University of Tartu, Estonia The diversity of educational software that are commercially available for bringing multimedia to the educational setting poses issues with respect to selectivity and utility for target audiences. Drawing on the experiences from two experiments involving multimedia textbooks and multimedia drills, the author stresses on the need for a robust design framework for multimedia that takes into consideration the differential learning needs of both genders. He offers recommendations and guidelines for developers of multimedia software to bring effective learning to students. Chapter XII Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy ............................................................................. 189 Nancy J. Hadley, Angelo State University, USA The emergence of new genres of ICT literacy and their nexus with education has necessitated the need for curriculum design to be redefined so as to promote desired outcomes in the learning process in the digital age. In this chapter, it has been suggested that curricula which promote empowerment can help to develop students who are confident in their ability to come up with solutions to problems. With the proliferation of user content in sites such as YouTube and MySpace and these spawning a unique culture, a case has been put forward on the need for a high level of digital literacy skills among citizens. Chapter XIII Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners ....................... 203 Lisa Kervin, University of Wollongong, Australia Jessica Mantei, University of Wollongong, Australia Jan Herrington, Murdoch University, Australia The chapter makes a strong case for technology to be embedded in practice rather than be treated as an adornment if its potential in the classroom is to be realized more effectively. This can be accomplished when teachers develop educational experiences that leverage on authentic learning contexts within the framework of the curricula. Learning tasks that buttress the connections between technology use, literacy and learning are also shown to be effective in this regard. Chapter XIV Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry: From Instructional Design to a “Bridge Model” ............ 216 Zvia Fund, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

In this chapter, a problem-solving and inquiry-based approach was used to investigate science learning among junior high school students. Support models for instruction were based on four components – structural, reflective, subject content and enrichment. The results were used to formulate a theoretical framework called the bridge model, which was able to explain the operation and role of the respective components. Chapter XV Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts ................................................................... 243 Nicola Yelland, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Jennifer Masters, La Trobe University, Australia The diffusion of information and communication technologies in the educational space has provided not only opportunities for teachers to harness these for teaching but also presents challenges for their effective use. In this chapter, an argument is advanced that effective scaffolding techniques are imperative if student learning outcomes are to be enhanced in a topic. The need for teachers to be conversant with various scaffolding pedagogies in teaching practice is underscored by way of two examples. Chapter XVI New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments ............................................................. 257 Yufeng Qian, St. Thomas University, USA 3-D environments are media-rich and technologically intensive platforms for teaching and learning. A number of model 3-D virtual learning programs which promote experiential learning are examined in this chapter. The author makes a strong case for new media literacy frameworks to be reconceptualized so as to take on board the unique needs of such environments. Chapter XVII The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry .............................................................................. 270 Margus Pedaste, University of Tartu, Estonia Tago Sarapuu, University of Tartu, Estonia Inquiry environments based on multimedia are a strong contender to traditional formats when it comes to scaffolding learning among students. For such environments to maximize their efficacy, it is imperative that design considerations be given adequate attention when configuring their delivery format. In particular, the authors stress on the importance of three factors – cognitive load of the problems, sequencing of the problems and profiles of the end users.

Section II ICT Tools The assortment of ICT tools available for use in teaching and learning is formidable! Some of these include video games, wikis, blogs, talking books, WebQuests, mobile devices, PowerPoint – the list goes on! Each of these tools has evolved into specific genres in the taxonomy of e-learning. The chapters in this section explore the utility of these and other tools to promote literacy.

Chapter XVIII Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males................................................................. 286 Stephenie Hewett, The Citadel, USA Whilst traditional literacy skills among males have declined globally, their penchant for video games has allowed them to move up the ladder in digital literacy skills. The interactivity that such games foster provides the necessary support for males to learn effectively in game-based learning environments. The chapter makes a case for teachers to embed video games in context in the school curriculum. Chapter XIX Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy .............................................................................. 300 Andrea J. Harmer, Kutztown University and Lehigh University, USA An activity on environmental pollution in which inquiry elements are embedded contextually and which capitalizes on the tools of new media is described in this chapter. This activity, done in a real world setting and which also entailed collaborative video conferencing with experts, promoted positive learning experiences among students. A case is made by the author that such activities promote effective learner engagement while imbuing them with literacies in new media in authentic contexts. Chapter XX Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education .................................................................................... 310 Thiam Seng Koh, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Kim Chwee Daniel Tan, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore The potential of Web 2.0 technologies to impact on science education and thus enhance science literacy is tremendous. In this chapter, the authors discuss applications of such technologies for classroom practice in science. They advance the point of view that a framework based on social constructivism mapped on Web 2.0 technology environments could promote a rethink on pedagogy and assessment in relation to teaching and learning of science. Chapter XXI Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use: Developing an Instrument for Measuring Student ICT Use .......................................................................................................... 326 Romina Jamieson-Proctor, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Glenn Finger, Griffith University, Australia Whilst the diffusion of ICT in the classroom to support teaching and learning has seen great strides in recent years, there is the question of whether the financial outlays and policy measures that support such initiatives have promoted the desired outcomes in the learning process. In this context, the design and development of an instrument to measure the effectiveness of student use of ICT, as judged from the lens of teachers’ views, is explored. The results from the administering of this instrument on two schools in Queensland reiterate the point that stakeholders need to know regularly whether investments in ICT use for teaching and learning are translating into effective learning gains for students.

Chapter XXII Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development .......................................................... 340 Clare Wood, Coventry University, UK Karen Littleton, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Pav Chera, Sutherland Institute, UK Promoting literacy among beginning readers through the use of ‘books which talk’ is the subject of this chapter. The interactive format and multimedia feature of talking books are factors which appeal to early readers. In particular, the effectiveness of a specific talking book in fostering reading-related skills and abilities is evaluated and, based on this, guidelines are offered for software developers to bear in mind when working at the child-computer interface. Chapter XXIII Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age ..................................................... 353 Yu-Chang Hsu, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Yu-Hui Ching, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Barbara Grabowski, The Pennsylvania State University, USA This chapter focuses on the use of Web 2.0 technologies such as folksonomy, wikis and weblogging to support pedagogical practice. It is shown that the introduction of these diverse tools into teaching and learning can support metacognitve activity and self regulation among learners. Some recommendations on the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies with respect to instructional possibilities are given. Chapter XXIV Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning with Web 2.0 ................................................ 372 Steven C. Mills, The University Center of Southern Oklahoma, USA The emergence of Web 2.0 technologies presents a plethora of opportunities for teachers to engage students in meaningful learning contexts. In this chapter, the author describes how tool kits and information resources for communication based on such technologies can be overlaid on instructional methodologies in the K-12 setting to promote effective learning. In particular, when these are used in collaborative and problem-solving modes, there is tremendous scope for providing rich learning experiences for students. Chapter XXV Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education ................................................ 389 Jo Tondeur, Ghent University, Belgium Arno Coenders, Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Johan van Braak, Ghent University, Belgium Alfons ten Brummelhuis, Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Ruben Vanderlinde, Ghent University, Belgium Integrating ICT into educational settings is more than just supplying computers and linking these to the Internet. The effectiveness of such integration can be better assessed by the availability of suitable

metrics. In this chapter, the authors address the use of online tools that can gauge performance across three fronts: current use of ICT in school, teachers’ knowledge and skill levels with respect to the school vision, and ICT planning. Chapter XXVI Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects................................. 403 Susan Gibson, University of Alberta, Canada ICT skills necessary for the 21st century can be promoted more effectively amongst students if the pedagogical delivery framework can be tweaked to facilitate their acquisition. In this regard, the author espouses the instructional significance of WebQuests and web-based inquiry projects. Examples are provided of these and it is shown that the sourcing of information on the web for open-ended tasks can promote decision-making and problem-solving skills in students. Chapter XXVII Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects in Secondary School Classrooms .............................................................................................................................. 419 Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada The use of learning objects as a curricular resource in secondary schools has not been explored in sufficient depth in the K-12 setting – hence the purpose of this chapter. It looks at both students’ and teachers’ views of learning objects in a variety of subject domains. The results show that for learning objects to be able to engage students and teachers, they have to be well designed, user-friendly and interactive. Chapter XXVIII Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices ........................................................................... 436 Mark van‘t Hooft, Kent State University, USA The prevalence of wireless mobile devices offers yet another avenue to foster digital literacy skills among the younger generation, especially since they are rather savvy with such gadgets. For these to impact on teaching and learning, the right context has to be weaved into the pedagogical framework. A few examples are given of the kind of educational activities that are suitable for use with these devices. Chapter XXIX Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool ............................ 457 Fotis Lazarinis, University of Teesside, UK With web-based learning becoming an important aspect of the education of students, the need to ensure that this impressionable group is not subjected to improper and wrong ideas in their surfing sojourns becomes important. In this chapter, the effectiveness of a filtering tool, developed using Java, is explored using the preferred websites of high school students in Greece. The results show that despite the security features of the computer laboratories, objectionable content that were still able to bypass them were blocked significantly by the filtering tool.

Chapter XXX Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies ............................................................................. 471 Virginia E. Garland, The University of New Hampshire, USA A survey of recent developments in wireless technologies and their role in shifting instructional practice from traditional literacies to multimedia literacies is explored in this chapter. With mobile devices such as smart phones and (ultralight) wireless notebooks offering easy connectivity to the Internet and access to interactive software, the scope for engaging learners with multimedia is greatly enhanced. It is shown that ample opportunities are available to foster inquiry, collaboration and project work among students when multimedia is used.

Volume II Chapter XXXI Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential ........................................................................... 480 Pavel Samsonov, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA The use of PowerPoint as an interactive tool for teaching is explored in this chapter, in contradistinction with its traditional role as a presentation tool. It seems that the full potential of PowerPoint is rarely or only minimally exploited in traditional teaching. The chapter provides practical tips on how simple computer skills can be used to create interactive and fun projects using PowerPoint, and argues for a case for its more effective use in classrooms. Chapter XXXII Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy .......................................................................... 492 Beverly Plester, Coventry University, UK Clare Wood, Coventry University, UK Samantha Bowyer, Coventry University, UK The ubiquity of the mobile phone and the facility that it provides for texting presents opportunities to promote literacy among children. In this chapter, results of three investigations involving primary students’ text messaging in English as well as indicators of their conventional literacy abilities are presented. It has been suggested that texting affords an avenue for children to articulate their thoughts in writing without the necessity to be bound by the rules of grammar and that the versions of words used in such communication suggest an ability to use sounds and words in a playful manner, the basic principles of which still hold in standard English. Chapter XXXIII Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning .............................................................. 505 Gregory MacKinnon, Acadia University, Canada This chapter focuses on the use of electronic concept mapping to organize ideas in a hierarchical manner. The software offer tremendous potentialities for creative configuring of concept maps and allows for their use in settings which promote collaboration, creativity and innovation among students. It has

been suggested that the range of applications for the use of electronic concept mapping in the K-12 classroom presents opportunities for the development of personal and social growth literacies when students negotiate meaning from ideas. Chapter XXXIV Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School for Secondary Students with Special Needs ........................................................................... 529 Katherine Mitchem, California University of Pennsylvania, USA Gail Fitzgerald, University of Missouri, USA Kevin Koury, California University of Pennsylvania, USA There has been very little attempt in the literature to cater to the ICT needs of students with special needs. In this context, this chapter focuses on the use of electronic performance support systems to augment learning among secondary school students with mild disabilities. Several recommendations based on the findings of two funded projects are provided for effective implementation of such systems in the school setting.

Section III Case Studies Case studies are an important aspect of educational research. They are used especially in situations where it is necessary to obtain greater insights and perspectives from a particular research initiative or when it is necessary to focus on small samples as the target for the study. The chapters in this section explore issues such as technology grants to jump start literacy programs, transformations occurring in the ICT practices of model schools, university-high school collaborations involving students, metacognitve strategies of a group of students when they use the Internet to source for material for essay writing, and so on. Chapter XXXV A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom .......... 551 Rebecca Brent, Education Designs, Inc., USA Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants, USA This chapter reports on a study of how two schools which received grants to support technology integration into their curricula fared. Both followed the same integration model but adopted different implementation pathways. The different outcomes achieved in each school offer useful lessons – more importantly, there needs to be buying-in of the idea from teachers as well as the provision of ample support to infuse technology into the full range of their teaching subjects. Chapter XXXVI Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes ............................................................................. 575 Lyn C. Howell, Milligan College, USA

In this chapter, the progress of a school which was a recipient of a technology grant to support ICT integration was traced over a few years. The results show that while the presence of a coach, training programs and incentives to use ICT tools in lessons helped teachers to warm towards these initiatives initially, there was significant waning of enthusiasm after the financing ended. Based on this experience, the author offers useful lessons for other schools and the pitfalls to avoid. Chapter XXXVII Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools ....................................................................... 588 Jennifer Way, University of Sydney, Australia The chapter provides glimpses of the technology transformations in pedagogy that are occurring in some primary schools in Australia. A number of teachers in these schools have taken the lead in setting up learning environments that tap on the inclination of the younger generation to experiment with an array of digital technologies outside their school. This redefining of learning has positive implications in the way in which educational outcomes are assessed. Chapter XXXVIII Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District.......................................................................... 607 Amy S. C. Leh, California State University, San Bernardino, USA Lee Grafton, Palm Spring Unified School District, USA How a technology grant afforded the implementation of initiatives that supported student learning in mathematics and faculty professional development via new media literacy skills is the subject of this chapter. The technologies used were effectively integrated into the instructional process, and this promoted enhanced learning outcomes among students. With respect to the continuing education of faculty, the key determinant of success is the evolution of a community of practice. Chapter XXXIX K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community ....................................................................... 620 Linda R. Lisowski, Elizabeth City State University, USA Claudia C. Twiford, Elizabeth City State University, USA Joseph A. Lisowski, Elizabeth City State University, USA Quintin Q. Davis, Christa McAuliffe Middle School, USA Rebecca F. Kirtley, JC Sawyer Elementary School, USA A collaborative effort between a university and a rural public school, which resulted in a grant to support instructional access to technology, is the focus of this chapter. The partnership exemplifies the kind of change that can be introduced in schools when university researchers take the lead in addressing equity issues in technology in the education setting through support from foundations. Several lessons based on the experience of embedding technology resources in the school are shared by the authors. Chapter XL Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students ...................................................................................................................... 633 Tamara L. Jetton, Central Michigan University, USA

The chapter discusses on a collaboration between university and high school students that entailed the formation of a virtual community. Leveraging on computer-mediated discussions on the subject of literature, the project focused on developing skill sets in technology among students while augmenting their conventional literacies in reading and writing. The collaboration, communication and learning tasks promoted in this manner provided a platform for learning to be taken beyond the confines of traditional physical infrastructure and reiterate the utility of computer mediated discussion as a viable tool to enhance educational experiences. Chapter XLI Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent ..................................................................... 654 Carita Kiili, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Leena Laurinen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Miika Marttunen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland The chapter reports on a study where a group of upper secondary students were tasked to write a composition on a topic using materials sourced from the web. To gain insights into how the students approached their task, considerable emphasis was placed on not only how they searched, processed and evaluated the information but also on how their metacognitive strategies were interlaced within these processes. The results show that a student has to be metacognively competent in order to engage in constructively responsive reading. Chapter XLII Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice............................................... 669 Gráinne Conole, The Open University, UK This chapter emphasizes the importance of focusing on the student voice with appropriate methodologies in an attempt to better understand how they appropriate ICT tools in their learning. Drawing on a case study which explored students’ use of technologies in four disciplines, the author suggests that students are now well entrenched in these learning environments and are able to use digital tools extensively to support their learning experience. These have implications on how courses are tailored and delivered to meet their learning needs.

Section IV Assessment With the proliferation of ICT practices in the educational space and their increasing integration into the curriculum, traditional rubrics of assessment are facing challenges to include online measures to some extent. In this section, issues related to assessment of new media literacy are explored by authors from the lens of their experience - for example, e-portfolios, interactive classroom communication systems, peer assessment using the Internet, automated essay scoring system, assessing course effectiveness in a learning community, and so on.

Chapter XLIII What We Know About Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools......................................... 684 Art W. Bangert, Montana State University, USA Kerry L. Rice, Boise State University, USA The authors review the practice literature of assessing online courses in the high school setting. One of the drawbacks of such assessment protocols is that they are rather broad-based and not fine-tuned for application in specific delivery contexts, thus making it difficult to evaluate the courses despite the existence of general standards but bereft of rigorous rubrics for evaluation. To address this, the authors propose an evaluation framework that focuses on the theoretical underpinnings of three areas: instructional practices that are student-centered, learning communities that promote inquiry, and empirical results emanating from research on online courses. Chapter XLIV Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment.................................................................................... 702 Yasemin Gulbahar, Baskent University, Turkey Assessing learning is often a complex task - more so in today’s classroom where a diversity of delivery platforms, including ICT tools, pervade. The use of web-based electronic portfolios to assess students’ learning in a holistic way is proposed in this chapter. Issues such as alignment with curriculum framework, assessment in relation to a set of rubrics and challenges in its implementation are discussed. Chapter XLV A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classrooms............................................................................................................. 720 Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada The use of an interactive classroom communication system that allows students to respond to multiple choice questions during a lecture is explored in this chapter. Results show that it can be a useful tool for formative assessment and that the use of this tool promotes increased learner engagement, motivation and participation. On the flip side, some students reported heightened stress levels and uncertainty of answers when the system is used in the formal test mode. Chapter XLVI Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings................................................................... 743 Chin-Chung Tsai, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan The Internet provides a valuable platform to promote peer assessment – with no face-to-face interaction and the cloak of anonymity, the scope for provisioning frank feedback and promoting interaction among students is enhanced. Using a high school setting, the chapter presents results to show that effective online peer assessment is contingent significantly on the students’ metacognitive skills being brought to bear on the task in hand. Some practical tips for conducting online peer assessment are provided in light of these experiences.

Chapter XLVII Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community ................................................................... 755 Giorgos Hlapanis, University of the Aegean, Greece Angélique Dimitracopoulou, University of the Aegean, Greece This chapter describes an in-service course on the use of ICT in teaching, conducted via distance learning and implemented in the context of a learning community. Answers to questions such as what constitutes an effective course and what spawns the formation of a learning community are explored in order to derive measures of assessment. A key finding from this study is that the evolution of a learning community which is built on collegiality, commitment and trust is indispensable for the success of a course Chapter XLVIII Automated Essay Scoring Systems..................................................................................................... 777 Dougal Hutchison, National Foundation for Educational Research, UK This chapter explores the computer marking of essays, a task which teachers generally find rather laborintensive! A review of the literature in this area is provided, and this serves as a background to assess how effective the various commercial programs are in marking essays. Whether the automated essay scoring systems can be the final adjudicator of assigning grades for an essay is also considered. Chapter XLIX Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion............................................................ 794 Bracha Kramarski, Bar-Ilan University, Israel The effectiveness of metacognitive support in an online inquiry discussion in mathematics is investigated in this chapter. It is shown that students who have been exposed to the 7-phase teaching steps corresponding to the IMPROVE strategy, which has metacognitive questioning as a key attribute, performed significantly better than those who have not been exposed to this strategy. The results of the study point to the utility of metacognitive feedback as a scaffolding tool to support inquiry learning in mathematics.

Section V Professional Development For ICT practices to be well linked with school practice, the continuing education of teachers is a must. It is only when they ‘buy in’ that the motivation to engage students with new media is given a fillip. In this context, the chapters in this section focus on the professional development of teachers with respect to new media literacy. Chapter L Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked .............................................................. 808 Leaunda S. Hemphill, Western Illinois University, USA Donna S. McCaw, Western Illinois University, USA

The authors report on a teacher professional development program which involved the use of online teaching strategies and tools. Using an open-source course management system, the participants created their basic course shell and worked around this to develop courses to address the varied learning needs of their pupils. Improved learning gains were seen in the achievement tests of students in the different subjects. Chapter LI TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program ..................................................................... 823 Nancy Wentworth, Brigham Young University, USA Charles R. Graham, Brigham Young University, USA Eula Ewing Monroe, Brigham Young University, USA For technology to be well integrated into the school curriculum, it is very important that the pre-service training of teachers prepares them adequately for this challenge. In this chapter, the authors describe the three levels of development in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for the teacher education program at Brigham Young University. They advance the point of view that for a better connect between technology and instruction in schools, it is imperative that teacher educators also share in this vision at the pre-service stage. Chapter LII Self-Regulated Learning: Issues and Challenges for Initial Teacher Training ................................... 839 Manuela Delfino, Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy Donatella Persico, Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy With the pervasiveness of technology in the classroom and the need for students to take ownership of their own learning as well as be versed in collaborative skills, the inculcation of self regulated learning competencies among them becomes crucially imperative. The authors suggest that such competencies need to be developed among pre-service teachers so that they are well equipped to meet the learning needs of their charges when they are posted to schools. They draw on the experiences from a course in educational technology to further develop this thesis.

xxix

Preface

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are pervading society to an extent which many would not have even dreamt about as recently as a decade back. Practically, no aspect of societal endeavor has been left untouched by the relentless march of ICT. The ossified enclaves of many aspects of society have been rendered permeable by the osmotic gradients engendered by the forces of ICT! One area that ICT is continuing to impact vigorously is education. The paradigms of traditional pedagogy are being reframed to the extent that purists set in the classical mould would not even have believed. These developments pose challenges for teachers and students. Policy makers and administrators will also have to increasingly grapple with the ICT dimensions of initiatives in the educational space. The K-12 school setting has seen the influx of a diversity of ICT tools which aim to augment teaching and learning by capitalizing on the potentialities of ICT. For example, e-learning, multimedia, Web quests, electronic portfolios, automated scoring systems, video games, mobile devices, learning objects, 3-D virtual environments and Web 2.0 technologies are some of the ICT tools that have pervaded the educational scene. The K-12 setting has also been a laboratory for the trialing of new technologies for teaching and learning by educational researchers, and this has generated a wealth of findings. The Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and Challenges aims to explore the multi-faceted dimensions related to the use of ICT in teaching and learning in schools. By bringing together a wealth of educational studies on various aspects of ICT, we aim to address the need for practitioners to have a one-stop reference book for ideas on the latest thinking in the field. A novel feature of the Handbook is that all contributions were commissioned from recently published, journal authors working in the field of ICT. This ensures the contemporary nature of the ideas explored in the chapters as well as helps to ensure a desired level of scholarship in the chapters. It was made clear to all contributors that their submissions must also pass the additional test of peer scrutiny. A Call for Chapters was thus not posted in the web, as is normally done for a project of this undertaking. Almost all chapters benefitted from the reviews by other contributors. A few chapters required a second round of revisions. Despite the 2-tier mechanism (commissioning contributions from published authors and peer review) to ensure a high quality of submissions, a handful of chapters had to be rejected – either because the referees’ comments were not favorable or because the authors decided not to revise their chapters on the basis of the major revisions recommended by the referees. In all, there are 52 chapters contributed by 91 authors from 51 institutions in 15 countries for this Handbook – a truly multinational effort! An international collaboration is indispensable when undertaking an ambitious project of this nature as well as for the strategic positioning of the Handbook as a definitive source of reference in the field of new media literacy. For convenience, the 52 chapters have been broadly placed in one of five sections – Issues in new media literacy, ICT tools, Case studies, Assessment, and Professional development. This classification

xxx

allows interested readers to access materials in an area of interest. The classification is guided by our own reading of the chapters and it is possible that a chapter would also be suitable for placement in another section. There may be some duplication of content as judged from the titles of a few chapters – our stand is that different authors approach similar topics from the lens of their own experience and it is necessary to capture diverse perspectives as this can help to consolidate thinking in particular directions. The target audiences for the Handbook include school teachers, educational administrators, policy makers, educational researchers, ICT specialists, and university academics – copies in public and university libraries would help to enhance the outreach effectiveness of the ideas in the Handbook. Rarely has an opportunity been provided to bring together a wealth of ideas in new media literacy from an array of experts under one platform. A book of this magnitude will not have been possible without the support of many people. Our foremost gratitude goes to Dr Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, President of IGI Global, for his invitation for us to edit this Handbook. The staff at IGI Global have been a delight to work with. We appreciate the high level of professionalism and support displayed by their staff – grateful thanks to Kristin Roth, Rebecca Beistline, Julia Mosemann and Christine Bufton! We thank all authors for their chapters. A special ‘thank you’ also to most authors for acting as referees for the submissions of fellow authors! We thank the management of the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University for their support and encouragement in the course of working on this project in the midst of our academic commitments.

Leo Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore

Section I

Issues in New Media Literacy

1

Chapter I

Learning for the Future:

Emerging Technologies and Social Participation Guy Merchant Sheffield Hallam University, UK

AbstrAct Over the last five years there has been a large scale shift in popular engagement with new media. Virtual worlds and massive multiplayer online games attract increasing numbers, whilst social networking sites have become commonplace. The changing nature of online engagement privileges interaction over information. Web 2.0 applications promote new kinds of interactivity, giving prominence and prestige to new literacies (Lankshear and Knobel, 2006). To date, discussion of the opportunities, and indeed the risks presented by Web 2.0 has been largely confined to social and recreational worlds. The purpose of this chapter is to open up discussion about the relevance of Web 2.0 to educational practice. A central concern in what follows will be to show how the new ways of communicating and collaborating that constitute digital literacy might combine with new insights into learning in ways that transform how we conceive of education (Gee, 2004).

IntroductIon The term Web 2.0 was originally coined by O’Reilly (2005) as a way of referring to a significant shift in the ways in which software applications were developing and the ways in which users were adopting and adapting these applications. New applications were tending to

become easier for the non-expert to use and more interactive, thus widening the scope for participation in online communities - it was becoming possible for those with relatively unsophisticated technical skills to create and share content over the internet. The popularity of blogs as a medium for individuals and groups to publish and discuss their concerns, news, and interests (whether frivo-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Learning for the Future

lous or serious) is testimony to the popularity and everyday currency of the Web 2.0 phenomenon (Davies and Merchant, 2007; Carrington, 2008). And so, the increased availability of broadband, together with the development of more responsive and user-friendly software has led to a greater recognition of the internet as a place for social interaction, a place for collaboration, and a place for strengthening and building social networks. Web 2.0 commentators have drawn our attention to the ‘social’ and ‘participatory’ nature of contemporary life online (Lessig, 2004) whereas innovators and early-adopters are just beginning to glimpse the educational possibilities of these new development. Not only do educators need to understand and capitalize on these new ways of being and interacting, they also need to investigate the educational potential of social networking. In order to do this, there is a pressing need to conceptualize the difference between casual and frivolous online interaction and those kinds of communication that have the characteristics of ‘learning conversations’. Whilst there has been considerable development in our knowledge about the characteristics of learning conversations in face-to-face interaction in classrooms (Mercer, 2005; Alexander, 2007) there is little equivalent work in the field of online social networking. Can these new spaces for shared communication provide an arena for the more systematic and structured interactions that are associated with formal education? This chapter addresses this question by both drawing both on the literature and my own research and writing, highlighting how new kinds of software not only involve new literacies but also changing roles for teachers and learners. Most of the material is drawn from classroom studies with children in the 7-11 age range and includes email partnerships, literacy work in virtual worlds, educational blogging and wiki building.

2

technology And lIterAcy Children and young people are growing up in a rapidly changing social world - a social world that is marked by the spread of new digital technologies. The impact of these technologies on the toy and game industry, on mass entertainment and communication, and on the ways in which many of us live and work has been little short of transformative. In schools, despite a substantial investment in computer hardware and software, there is still unevenness of provision and access, and considerable professional uncertainty about how to integrate new technologies into the curriculum and how to develop appropriate pedagogies. Nowhere is this uncertainty more keenly felt than in the area of literacy. Literacy educators, it has been suggested, need to assess the significance of new communication technologies and the ways of producing, distributing and responding to messages that typify them (Lankshear and Knobel, 2003). This involves looking at new genres, emerging conventions of communication and the changes in language associated with them. In doing this, literacy educators will inevitably have to negotiate the tension between notions of correctness and the realities of linguistic change, as well as a whole host of other issues that emerge with the growth of peer-to-peer communication and digitally-mediated social networks. It is against a backdrop of rapid social change and professional uncertainty that the work on digital literacy and new communications technology described in this chapter is placed. The work focuses primarily on digital writing, but partly because of the multimodal nature of this communication, there is an inevitable overlap with the wider area of new media studies. New trends in digital culture, collectively referred to as Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005), have begun to emerge over the last few years. These have ushered in new kinds of social participation through user-generated content, exchange and playful interaction. Of particular note here

Learning for the Future

are individual and group blogs; sites which are designed for collaborative authorship (such as wikis); sites for generating and exchanging media such as music, still and moving image; and 3D virtual worlds. These networking sites provide a context for affinity, and facilitate the development of ad hoc purpose- or interest-driven groups in which self-directed, informal learning can take place. They not only offer us alternative models for envisioning learning communities but also the opportunity, where appropriate, to modify existing practices to fulfill more explicitly educational goals. Popular networking sites allow geographically dispersed groups and individuals to communicate, exchange information and develop ideas. They also serve to thicken existing social ties by opening new channels of communication for those who are already known to each other, such as family and friends. Furthermore they are places for rehearsing ideas, making new connections, and new meanings. As such, the practices of tagging and the creation of folksonomies are a powerful iteration of the new literacy practices involved (Marlow et al, 2006). For an increasing number of young people, social networking provides ways of communicating with friends and ways of making new friends. This sort of interaction lies at the very heart of online social-networking. As we know, computer systems can store and retrieve huge amounts of data in different media. Harnessing this capacity to enhance communication and collaboration is the life-blood of online social networking. At the same time it is important to recognize that social networking is almost exclusively mediated through written communication and as such constitutes a prime site for future research into digital literacy. Similar observations could be made about the communicative spaces provided by virtual world technology. 3-D virtual worlds can provide life-like settings for multiple users to interact in real-time. Users are embodied as human (or nonhuman) avatars in order to explore a virtual envi-

ronment and interact with each other. Again interaction and collaboration are normally achieved through digital writing – and this often resembles the synchronous conversations of chatrooms (Merchant, 2001) and instant messaging. The most popular of these virtual worlds, Second Life, is already being used for educational purposes, but more established providers, such as Active Worlds have designed purpose-built educational worlds (see: http//:www.virtuallylearning.co.uk) as we see later. Web 2.0 developments raise new questions about digital literacy. For instance: what should we teach children about kinds of online communication that are helpful to relationships and helpful to learning; how can teachers support and encourage peer-to-peer interaction without stifling it, and above all how can we help pupils to become critical readers and writers in online environments? My own research (Merchant, 2001; 2003; 2008) has begun to explore the characteristics of digital literacy and has helped in making sense of new forms of synchronous and asynchronous communication, the changing nature of literacy, and the skills, understandings and attitudes that we will need to encourage in our schools. I suggest that a clearer sense of what is involved in digital literacy will result in teachers and pupils being better prepared for digital futures (Merchant, 2007). Gaps between real-world uses of technology and new technology in the classroom continue to be a cause for concern. At the centre of this concern is the sense that a whole range of cultural resources fail to be translated into cultural capital by the school system. What is needed now is innovative work in digital literacy and particularly in educational settings to investigate the implications of new forms of social networking, knowledge sharing and knowledge building. And finally, because of the pervasive nature of digital technology, the commercial interest that is invested in it and the largely unregulated content of internet-based sources we also need to begin to sketch out what

3

Learning for the Future

a critical digital literacy might look like. There is, in short, plenty to be done if we are to prepare children and young people to play an active and critical part in the digital future.

gettIng stArted: dIgItAl lIterAcy As connected leArnIng Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) provide new opportunities for children and young people in educational environments, and learners can now be connected with the world outside the classroom in interesting and productive ways. Even everyday applications such as email can be used to enhance learning and interaction, providing a significantly different kind of experience to traditional literacies. Listserv applications, which automatically update multiple email addresses, have proved to be a very successful tool for mobilizing individuals around a shared interest and in developing a sense of community. Although widely used in academic and professional circles and to a lesser extent with college students, they have made little impact on the education of younger learners. My own fieldwork in UK classrooms suggests that introducing even the simplest of email practices into the curriculum raises practical and structural challenges that are not always easy to resolve. There is a growing body of work in the field of young children’s uses of email communication in classroom contexts and this has raised a number of important issues. For example in a recent study, Harris and Kington (2004) report on a project which put ten year-olds in email contact with employees at a mobile phone factory some 30 miles away from the school. Those employees (or ‘Epals’) learnt about children’s interests and in turn offered insights into the world of work. Teachers involved in the project commented on how they found out more about their pupils’ lives and interests when reading the messages they

4

exchanged. A more formal evaluation showed gains in pupil motivation and social skills. McKeon’s (1999) study of 23 children’s email interactions with pre-service teachers looked at the balance between purely social exchanges and topic-focused exchanges (in this case book-talk). Roughly half of the exchanges of these nine and ten year olds fell into each category, leading McKeon to conclude that: classroom e-mail partnerships may provide students with a new way to learn about themselves as they select information that defines who they are and send it via e-mail to another. (Mckeon, 1999) From this it seems that digital literacy can provide useful opportunities for exploring identity and relationships whilst also providing a discursive form which depends on purposeful communication with audiences beyond the confines of the classroom. However, other commentators have expressed concerns about the use of e-communication in educational settings, suggesting that a medium that clearly works well for informal social interaction may not necessarily be an effective tool for learning. For example, (Leu,1996) suggests that digital literacy needs to do more than appeal to youngsters just because it is ‘cool’. In a close analysis of the frequency and content of email exchanges between 301 eleven year olds, van der Meij and Boersma (2002) draw attention to the inherently social nature of this communication. However, their work appears to be predicated on professional concerns that frivolous social interaction could undermine learning exchanges rather than blend with them. Nevertheless, this work emphasizes the importance of using email as a communicative tool rather than as an explicit focus in its own right (as is sometimes the case in skills-based ICT instruction). The researchers draw attention to the need for more work in this area, observing in passing that ‘email is not yet the integrated communication tool that it is in

Learning for the Future

business settings’ (van der Meij and Boersma, 2002). In short, the ubiquity of interactive written discourse in work and leisure – and even in some educational settings - finds few parallels in most primary classrooms. There is less work on the processes of digital writing. Matthewman and Trigg’s (2003) report on children’s use of visual features in onscreen writing. Their study suggests that visual elements (such as font size and colour, layout and use of image) may be significant at all stages of composition. Similar findings are reported by Merchant (2004) whose analysis of children’s onscreen work focuses on the production of multimodal texts. This on-going attention to the visual appearance of text at all stages in its production contrasts with traditional models of writing which associate presentational features with the production of a final draft. These studies show some of the characteristics of children’s digital writing and their use of e-communication and suggest some important lines of enquiry. A transformative approach would need to be both sensitive to these, as well as the literacy capital of the pupils themselves (Bearne, 2003). Importantly, previous analyses of children’s onscreen writing have provided evidence of children’s expertise, willingness to learn from each other and to solve problems through creative and playful interaction (Merchant, 2003; Burnett et al, 2004). My own study of how teachers of 8-10 year olds set out to provide opportunities for pupils to explore digital literacy in ways which were meaningful to them involved setting up email links between children in geographically dispersed schools (Burnett et al, 2006). The project involved pupils from two very different primary schools emailing each other as a preparation for producing a joint PowerPoint presentation on children’s views and interests to a group of trainee teachers. Although the focus was on pupils’ use of digital literacy, there was a strong feeling from the class teachers involved that the social benefits - in terms of breaking down stereotypes and widen-

ing horizons - were positive by-products of the project. In order to facilitate an initial exploration of views and interests, pupils in both classes were provided with a shoebox to collect artifacts that were of significance to them (an idea first developed by Johnson, 2003). These children then used email to get to know their partners, attaching digital photographs of items from their shoebox as a starting point for their interaction. This use of image acted as a prompt for the receiver who responded by asking questions to find out more about the items and their significance. This project illustrates one way of embedding the use of new communication in the primary classroom. It also suggested that email partnerships can be worthwhile and provide experience of an important medium of asynchronous communication. Furthermore, such partnerships can help to ‘dissolve the walls of the classroom’, and provide new purposes and audiences for children’s writing. School and student partnerships provide opportunities for early exploration of two key characteristic of new media – interactivity, multimodality. But beyond this, the sort of work described here underlines the need to re-interpret the writing process in relation to the production of digital texts – and even more importantly, it suggests ways in which teachers may need to design and choreograph learning experiences that encourage meaningful and educational interaction between peers in different locations.

MovIng on: Web 2.0, pArtIcIpAtIon And leArnIng As the earlier discussion of email and listserv applications suggested, the use of ICTs to promote learning through participation pre-dates Web 2.0. In fact, a number of commentators have observed that the term Web 2.0 is best seen as a way of describing a gradual change or evolution in online communication (for example: Elgan, 2006) Although not normally described as Web

5

Learning for the Future

2.0, listservs and discussion forums do display the characteristic of added value through participation - as user-generated content aggregates information and develops ideas. The development of learning platforms (Virtual Learning Environments and Course Management Systems) shows how emerging technologies have been assimilated into online and blended learning. So, for example, many learning platforms now allow administrators to embed discussion boards, to create student blogs and wikis and to enable RSS feeds. Web 2.0 applications allow users to create and share multimedia content over the internet with a relatively light demand on their technical knowledge. From the point of view of the end-user a commonly used phrase ‘the read-write web’ is useful in capturing the shift that O’Reilly (2005) describes as Web 2.0. The phrase suggests a change of emphasis - one in which web-based activity is no longer simply about storing and accessing information but more about interaction, providing a place in which individuals ‘converse’, react to each others’ ideas and information, and thereby add to the stock of knowledge. User-generated content can vary enormously in topic and can exploit the affordances of different media from written text, to still image, moving image, and sound - and any combination of these. At the same time, user-interaction can be encouraged through applications that allow for such things as profile pages, messaging facilities, group formation, and category tagging. More sophisticated sites also allow you to see which of your friends are online, provide information on the latest changes to your favourite sites (through RSS feeds) and give users the choice of modifying or personalising their home pages, changing their look and the features included. From this brief overview it should be clear that Web 2.0 pre-supposes a more active user – one who is encouraged to design an online presence (an identity, or a set of identities) and to participate, to a greater or lesser extent, in a community of like-minded users. Whether or not the social

6

networks produced can be described as ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger,1999) and how we can best describe the informal learning that takes place in Web 2.0 environments is the subject of much current research activity. The blog format offers a range of interactive and collaborative possibilities for individuals and teams. Some of these possibilities derive from features that are part of the architecture of blogs. During the last five years, a period in which the blogosphere has undergone a rapid expansion, diversification and innovation have been of central importance. So, for example, Lankshear and Knobel (2006) offer a provisional taxonomy of blogs identifying 15 different kinds of blogs, at the same time as recognising that blogs are an unstable form, as they continue to mutate and hybridise. There is clearly no standard way to blog. Arguably, the single defining feature of a blog is that of date-ordering (Walker, 2003). Although periodic updating is also a feature, some established bloggers post daily whilst others are less frequent. The sequential, chronological characteristics of the blog format suggest how it can be useful in capturing such things as the development of a narrative, the design and implementation of a project, the progress of research, emerging processes, the aggregation of links or references, and observations or reflections which develop over time (Davies and Merchant, forthcoming). Blogs, as multimodal texts, also allow us to represent these activities in written, still and moving image or audio format – and of course some of the most interesting blogs are a judicious combination of these modes. Educational blogging can capture learning as it unfolds over time and this has obvious benefits for both learners and teachers. In this most basic sense a blog can provide an analytical record of learning, or an online learning journal (Boud, 2001). Writing in 2003, Efimova and Fielder noted that alongside the ‘diary-like format’ blogs kept for family and friends there was a:

Learning for the Future

…growing cluster of weblogs used by professionals as personal knowledge repositories, learning journals or neworking instruments. (Efimova and Fielder, 2004:1) They go on to suggest that these newer blogs not only serve the needs and interests of those writing them but also display emerging ideas in a public space. This suggests the development of more open learning journals which can be interlinked and commented upon within an emerging community of learners. As Richardson (2006) points out, blogging can also involve users in an important and distinctive kind of learning; one that he characterises as: read- write- think -and -link. Richardson suggests that a blogger develops a kind of practice that he describes as ‘connective writing’ in which active reading, and involvement through comments and hyperlinks work alongside regular posting in the co-construction of meaning through social participation. This view accentuates the significance of a community of bloggers, either in the form of a cluster of related blogs or a team blog. From this point of view we can see blogging as a way of supporting a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) or an affinity space (Gee, 2004a). The growing number of educational blogs provide a variety of examples of how the perceived affordances of blogging can be used to support learning. For example, in my own work I describe how a teacher of 10 year olds used team blogs in the context of work on pollution in the environment (Davies and Merchant, forthcoming). The teams’ initial posts were used to document their existing opinions on the topic. As the project developed, search results and hyperlinks provided a record of their learning and evaluation of web-based sources. Later, on a field visit, the students took digital photographs of environmental hazards such as fly-tipping, invasive non-native flora, and industrial effluent, and uploaded them to their blogs. Towards the end of the unit of work, students used their blogs to reflect on what they had learnt and share it with

the wider school community. Where this project was based on the work of students in one particular school setting, providing a record of their learning over time, other projects have harnessed the potential of Web 2.0 to work collaboratively across settings. Using wiki software, which allows multiple users to co-create interlinked pages, students in geographically dispersed locations can learn about each other and collaborate on shared interests. An example of such work is the partnership between the Helen Parkhurst School in Almere, in the Netherlands and the Gostivar Secondary School, in Macedonia (the MacNed Project). This project is developing intercultural understanding through the use of ICT as students share and analyse their own production and consumption of media. The MacNed Project illustrates how the new ways of communicating and collaborating that characterize Web 2.0 can be used to develop learning. Whilst it could be argued that the same kinds of understanding could be developed through more traditional approaches, the possibility of co-constructing text in different geographical locations, exchanging and commenting on work in different media creates a heightened sense of interactivity and a more overtly participatory space for learners. The work also begins to point to a changing role for educators who, in this case, needed to co-ordinate the work and provide the context for interaction – in short, to design a new kind of learning experience and to encourage participation and peer-to-peer dialogue.

FroM reAl clAssrooMs to vIrtuAl Worlds Similar issues of learning design are beginning to emerge from educational work that is based in virtual worlds, and in this section I explore and illustrate some of these issues. Schroeder (2002) describes a 3D virtual world as:

7

Learning for the Future

..a computer-generated display that allows or compels the user (or users) to have the feeling of being present in an environment other than one they are actually in… (Schroeder, 2002) 3D virtual worlds could well enhance or transform learning, but although recreational virtual world play continues to attract public attention, empirical research that investigates their learning potential in classrooms is still in its infancy. Although there are a number of claims about the high levels of learner engagement in gameplay (Squire, 2002) and the construction of ‘powerful learning environments’ in virtual worlds (Dede, Clarke, Ketelhut, Nelson and Bowman, 2006) there is clearly scope for more empirical evidence to back these claims. Despite the fact that some researchers have claimed that immersive environments may lead to a loss of focus and distraction (Lim, Nonis and Hedberg, 2006), there is, as yet, insufficient evidence to reach firm conclusions. Early studies such as those of Ingram, Hathorn and Evans (2000) focused on the complexity of virtual world chat. Fors and Jakobsson (2002) investigated the distinction between ‘being’ in a virtual world as opposed to ‘using’ a virtual world, but little rigorous attention has been given to their learning potential. The work of the Vertex Project (Bailey and Moar, 2001), which involved primary school children in the UK, makes some interesting observations on avatar gameplay, but placed its emphasis on the ICT learning involved in building 3D worlds rather than the learning and interaction which might take place within them. An educational virtual world project, initiated by a UK local authority in Barnsley, aims to raise boys’ attainment in literacy by an adventurous and innovative use of new technology that foregrounds digital literacy (Merchant, 2008). In partnership with the company Virtually Learning (http:// www.virtuallylearning.com.uk), the project team – a group of education consultants and teachers - designed a literacy-rich 3D virtual world which children explore in avatar-based gameplay

8

(Dovey and Kennedy, 2006). The children, in the 9-11 age range, work collaboratively to construct their own narratives around multiple, ambiguous clues located in the world and, as a result, engage in both on- and off-line literacy activities. The virtual world, called Barnsborough, is a three dimensional server-based environment which is explored from multiple but unique perspectives through local Active Worlds browsers. Navigational and communicational tools are built into the Active Worlds browser, enabling avatars controlled by the pupils to move around in virtual spaces such as streets, buildings and parks, to engage in synchronous written conversations, and in this particular example, to discover clues in order to build their own narratives. Pupils in 10 different project schools have been using this 3D virtual world, interacting with each other using the Active Worlds’ real time chat facility. The world itself consists of a number of interconnected zones which are lifelike and familiar - in fact they are often modelled on real world objects. The zones include a town, complete with streets, alleyways, cafes, shops and administrative buildings some of which can be entered. There is also a park with a play area, bandstand, boating lake, mansion, woodland and hidden caves; a residential area with Victorian and contemporary housing, a petrol station and various local amenities and an industrial zone with old factories, canals and so on. In some of the connecting zones pupils may encounter other sites such as a large cemetery, a medieval castle and a stone circle. Rich media, tool-tip clues, hyperlinked and downloadable texts provide clues about the previous inhabitants of Barnsborough, suggesting a number of reasons why they have rather hurriedly abandoned the area. Some possible story lines include a major bio-hazard, alien abduction, a political or big business disaster or suggest something more mysterious. The planning team has seeded these clues throughout the Barnsborough environment, drawing on popular narratives such as Dr Who, Lost, Quatermass, the Third Man and Big Brother.

Learning for the Future

In this example, a 3D virtual world provides a stimulating environment for online exploration and interaction. Barnsborough is designed as a literacy-rich environment. To enter Barnsborough is to become immersed in a textual universe and to participate in what Steinkuehler (2007) has described as a ‘constellation of literacy practices’. The following is a list of the main kinds of digital literacy encountered in the virtual world. These are not directly used for literacy instruction, with the exception of the hyperlinked texts, which are quite deliberately tied to national literacy objectives.

environmental signs and notices This material forms part of the texture of the 3D virtual world and is designed to create a realworld feel to the visual environment and also to provide children with clues. Examples of this include graffiti, logos, signs and notices, posters, and advertisements.

tool tips These give additional explanations or commentaries on in-world artefacts and are revealed when ‘moused over’ with the cursor. Tool tip messages that draw attention to environmental features (‘looks like someone’s been here’); hold navigational information (‘you’ll need a code to get in’); or provide detail (‘cake from Trinity’s’) are shown in text-boxes.

hyperlinked texts Mouse-clicking on active links reveals a more extended text. Examples include an oil-drilling proposal (a Word document); a child’s diary (a Flash document); and a web-page on aliens. Some of these links are multimedia (such as phone messages and music clips) whereas others provide examples of different text types, such as text messages and online chats.

Interactive chat This is the principle means of avatar interaction and involves synchronous chat between visitors to the world. Comments are displayed in speech bubbles above the avatars heads as well as in scrolling playscript format in the chat window beneath the 3D display. The Barnsborough virtual world experience foregrounds some important dilemmas relating to engagement with digital literacy in the classroom. The most significant of these dilemmas stem from the fact that it introduces pupils and teachers to new ways of interacting with one another. So, for instance, in-world pupil-pupil interaction is not only conducted in the emerging informal genre of interactive written discourse (chat), but it also disrupts ideas of conventional spelling, turn-taking and on-task collaboration. New relationships between teachers, pupils from different schools and other adults have been significant in this work. Issues about authority and what kinds of behaviour are appropriate in a virtual environment were quick to surface, and this in turn has raised new issues for teachers who are understandably concerned about the safety of their pupils as well as how they might monitor children’s online experiences and interactions. Onscreen digital practices can therefore give rise to uncertainty, particularly where these practices do not easily fit into established classroom routines. Squire, in an article on the educational value of video-gaming, suggests that: …the educational value of the game-playing comes not from the game itself, but from the creative coupling of educational media with effective pedagogy to engage students in meaningful practices. (Squire, 2002) This observation could apply equally to 3D virtual worlds as well as the other communicative spaces described in this chapter. In and of themselves, these technologies cannot create new

9

Learning for the Future

forms of learning, but as educators become more familiar with their affordances, and the ways in which they are being used in recreational and work contexts, they can begin to experiment with educational uses, to design specific environments, and to envision new pedagogies.

•

conclusIon

•

In this chapter I have explored the ways in which the digital literacies that are central to new kinds of social practice can be incorporated into classroom settings. I have also shown how literacy continues to play a central role in social participation and knowledge-building – particularly in Web 2.0 environments - and how digital connection allows this to happen in ever more fluid and distributed ways. The question of whether the new communicative spaces described can provide an arena for the more systematic and structured interactions that are associated with formal education is not an easy one to answer. After all, classrooms are quite distinctive social contexts in which patterns of interaction and the availability of communicative tools are often restricted or carefully controlled (Kerawalla and Crook, 2002), and so, adopting and adapting digital literacies easily disrupts traditional classroom practices in ways that are unsettling to teachers. Indeed, as Carrington (2008) suggests alternative learning designs and pedagogies are required, and these may only be achieved through more far-reaching school reform. There are also some important concerns about pupil safety that need to be addressed. Protecting school students from bullying, verbal abuse and inappropriate online behaviour cannot be passed over lightly. The tensions between adult supervision and surveillance, and trust and pupil autonomy become crucially important. Teachers and researchers involved in such work must ask themselves some key questions:

10

•

•

•

How easy is it to leave the comfort zone of conventional, classroom-based pupil-teacher relationships and experiment with new and fluid online interactions? Teachers will have to take risks in using this sort of technology and both teachers and researchers need to document the new ways of working that emerge. What are the implications of working in an environment in which some pupils are more experienced or confident than the teacher? As in many other applications of new technology, children tend to be more experienced and more adaptable than their teachers. Although this is not always the case, teachers do need to be prepared to learn from pupils and to value their experimentation. How can this sort of work be justified and defended in an educational environment which regularly lurches back to a pre-occupation with ‘the basics’ and traditional print literacy skills? New and important digital literacies can be introduced through Web 2.0 work. Experience of these is likely to have a positive impact on learning in general, and on literacy in whatever form. Again more evidence is needed to support this case. How can the level of immersion and flexible online access required by such work be operationalised within the constraints of current resource and timetable structures? As others have observed (eg Holloway and Valentine, 2002) schools need to re-think the location, access and use of computer hardware. In common with other digital literacy practices, Web 2.0 work invites a more flexible approach to curriculum organisation and online access. What additional planning and co-ordination work is necessary to make the most of online work, to facilitate exchange between year groups and interactions between schools? One of the most important features of digital literacy is its potential to connect learners

Learning for the Future

•

with others outside the immediate school environment. This will involve careful coordination and planning between teachers in different locations. What real or perceived risks may be faced by engaging in Web 2.0 practices (eg: child protection; parental censure etc)? New projects need to pay careful attention to issues of online safety. Parents need to be kept informed, and teachers need a carefully rehearsed educational rationale for the work they undertake.

New literacy practices in the classroom contrast starkly with the educational routines of book-based literacy, as well as with the dominant ICT pedagogies. The former privilege print-based routines which, whilst still significant, are insufficient preparation for an increasingly digital future, whereas the latter reify centralised control through teacher-led use of whiteboards, instructional software, and highly structured learning platforms (VLEs and CMSs). Collaborative, peerto-peer interactions, including communication with those not physically present in the classroom, suggest a very different set of resources and educational concerns. In short, everyday uses of new technology, and particularly recent Web 2.0 developments, raise new questions about digital literacy and its role in education. Teachers concerns are for a safe and orderly space where controls, both subtle and gross are evoked to maintain a harmonious learning environment. Moreover, the classroom world is a world in which these relationships have traditionally been mediated by a set of schooled print literacy practices and instructional routines, powerfully structured by curriculum discourse. Disturbing this fragile ecology is a risky business – but experience shows that the use of emerging technologies can often destabilize. Consequently, strong support and sensitive professional development are required if we are to move beyond some of the curriculum constructs and pedagogical

conventions that narrow our vision of learning through digital literacy. Teachers need not be the docile operatives of an outdated, centralised curriculum – as some of the work described in this chapter suggests - they can also be innovative in responding to the potential of powerful new technologies.

reFerences Alexander, R.J. (2006) Towards Dialogic Thinking: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). York, UK: Dialogos. Bailey, F. & Moar, M. (2001) The Vertex Project: children creating and populating 3D virtual worlds. Jade 20(1). NSEAD. Bearne, E. (2003) Rethinking Literacy: communication, representation and text. Reading Literacy and Language, 37(3) 98-103. Burnett, C., Dickinson, P., Merchant, G. & Myers, J. (2004) Digikids. The Primary English Magazine, 9(4), 16-20. Burnett, C., Dickinson, P., Merchant, G., & Myers, J. (2006) Digital connections: transforming literacy in the primary school. Cambridge Journal in Education, 36(1), 11-29. Carrington, V. (2008) I’m Dylan and I’m not going to say my last name: some thoughts on childhood, text and new technologies. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 1-16. Davies, J. & Merchant, G. (in press) Web 2.0 for Schools: social participation and learning. New York: Peter Lang. Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2007) Looking from the inside out – academic blogging as new literacy. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), The New Literacies Sampler (pp. 38 -46). New York: Peter Lang.

11

Learning for the Future

Dede, C., Clarke, J., Ketelhut, D., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2006) Fostering Motivation, Learning and Transfer in Multi-User Virtual Environments. Paper given at the 2006 AERA conference, San Franscisco, CA. Dickey, M.D. (2005) Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439-451. Dovey, J. & Kennedy, H. W. (2006) Game Cultures: Computer Games as New Media. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Elgan, M. (2006, September 14). Here’s the skinny on Web 2.0. Information Week.Accessed 10th August, 2008 from: http://www.informationweek. com/news/software/open_source/showArticle. jhtml?articleID=193000630 Fors, A. C., & Jakobson, M. (2002) Beyond use and design: the dialectics of being in a virtual world. Digital Creativity, 13(1), 39-52. Gee, J. P. (2004) What Videogames Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Harris, S. & Kington, S. (2002) Innovative Classroom Practices Using ICT in England. National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough, UK. Accessed 27th February, 2005 at: http://nfer. ac.uk/research/down_pub.asp Ingram, A. L., Hathorn, L. G., & Evans, A. (2000) ‘Beyond chat on the internet.’ Computers and Education, 35, 21-35. Kerewalla, L. & Crook, C. (2002) ‘Children’s Computer Use at Home and at School: context and continuity.’ British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 751-771. Lankshear,C. & Knobel,M. (2003) New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

12

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007) New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Lessig, L. (2004) Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin. Leu, D. J., Jr (1996) ‘Sarah’s secret: Social aspects of literacy and learning in a digital information age.’ The Reading Teacher, 50, 162-165. Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006) Gaming in a 3D multiuser environment: engaging students in Science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211-231. Marlow, C., Naarman, M., boyd, d., & Davis, M. (2006) HT06, Tagging Paper, Taxonomy, Flickr, Academic Article, ToRead. Accessed 11th August, 2008 at: www.danah.org/papers/ Hypertext2006.pdf McKeon, C.A. (1999). The nature of children’s e-mail in one classroom. The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 698-706. Matthewman, S., & Triggs, (2004). Obsessive compulsory font disorder: the challenge of supporting writing with computers. Computers and Education, 43(1-2) 125-135. Meij, H. van der, & Boersma, K. (2002). E-mail use in elementary school: an analysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 189-200. Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge. Merchant, G. (2001) Teenagers in cyberspace: language use and language change in internet chatrooms. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(3), 293- 306. Merchant, G. (2003) E-mail me your Thoughts: digital communication and narrative writing.

Learning for the Future

Reading, Literacy and Language, 37(3) 104110. Merchant, G. (2007) Writing the future. Literacy, 41(3) 1-19. Merchant, G. (2008) Virtual Worlds in Real Life Classrooms. In V. Carrington & M. Robinson (Eds), Contentious Literacies: Digital Literacies, Social Learning and Classroom Practices (pp. 93-108). London: Sage. O’Reilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Accessed 10 April, 2007 at: http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/03/ what-is-web-2.0.html Schroeder, R. (2002) Social Interaction in Virtual Environments: Key Issues, Common Themes, and a Framework for Research. In R. Schroeder (Ed.) The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments, (pp.1-19). London: Springer. Steinkuehler, C. (2007) ‘Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming as a Constellation of Literacy Practices.’ E-learning, 4(3), 297-318). Squire, K. (2002) Cultural Framing of Computer/ Video Games. Game Studies. Accessed 12th May, 2007 at http://gamestudies.org/0102/squire/ Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Key terMs And deFInItIons

symbolic representation that is mediated by new technology (Merchant, 2007). Whilst recognizing that many online texts are multimodal, digital literacy places the focus on the semiotic of written communication. Folksonomy: Related to the term ‘taxonomy’, this describes the way in which participants in a Web 2.0 space have assigned tags or labels to content. These tags identify the prevalent themes, topics or areas of interest for individuals in that particular environment. Aggregating these tags creates a folksonomy. Visitors to the site can then search ‘by tag’ and see all the objects labelled by that specific tag. Interactive written discourse: This is a term used to describe computer-mediated communication (CMC) that is based on two or more people ‘taking turns’. These conversational exchanges range from email replies, to forum exchanges and synchronous chat. Learning platform: A catch-all term for online learning environments designed for the education market. These are usually closed or controlled intranet systems. Alternative designations are Learning Management Systems or Virtual Learning Environments. Some Learning Platforms also include student-tracking and assessment data – sometimes these integrated systems are called Managed Learning Environments. Multimodality: This term is used to describe the different modes of human communication (visual, verbal, gestural etc). In many web-based texts, meaning is communicated through a subtle interplay between different expressive modes.

Digital Literacy: This term has been defined in different ways. I use it to describe written or

13

14

Chapter II

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays Kevin M. Ayres The University of Georgia, USA John Langone The University of Georgia, USA Karen H. Douglas The University of Georgia, USA

AbstrAct As with technology, literacy is evolving. No longer is word decoding a sufficient skill for independently navigating a text rich environment. For individuals with severe developmental delays accessing literacy has always been a distant, seemingly unachievable goal. As technology has transformed what it means to be literate, it also has transformed how individuals can interact with text. Through technologymediated interactions with electronic text, individuals with developmental disabilities are beginning to have greater access to the world around them. While technology is no panacea for the learning difficulties these individuals exhibit, it potentially can alter how these individuals gain meaning from text. The purpose of this chapter is to explore this evolving definition of literacy in terms of technology, paired with universal design, which might allow teachers to provide students with severe developmental delays greater access and interaction with text.

IntroductIon Traditional concepts of text-based literacy are narrow, exclusive, and dated (Katims, 2000). The

idea that for a person to be “literate,” translates into gaining meaning by decoding text and mastering advanced language skills, quite possibly marginalizes a population of individuals whom

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

have very little likelihood of mastering these skills (i.e., phonemic awareness, working memory, long term memory). Arguably up to a few years ago, the only way for individuals with significant developmental disabilities to interact with text was to have someone read to them. Similarly, because of their significant learning differences, these individuals would not be able to interact with text in a functional way (Katims, 1996; Fish, Rabidoux, Ober, & Graff, 2006; Copeland & Keefe, 2007). For example, an individual with a severe cognitive deficit or developmental disability (DD) could not reasonably be expected to read and follow a recipe to make a meal. It would also be unreasonable to expect them to independently decode the words, interpret the language concepts, and comprehend to any great extent a news story in the daily paper. As we merge text with technology, new frontiers are opening to students who have severe DD that may allow them to extract greater understanding from an environment saturated with text. Electronic text, in the form of web pages, textbooks, and leisure reading material, offer a malleable medium that can tap into other information sources and provide literacy supports for non-readers (Brochner, Outhred, & Pieterse, 2001; Koppenhaver, Coleman, Kalman, & Yoder, 1991). Generally, to educators and the lay public the ability to read translates into a description of the mechanics of phonetic analysis and comprehension (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001; Ehri, Nunes, Willow, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001). Certainly, much of the emphasis of education law in the United States involves analyzing and comparing standardized test scores using measurements of reading ability (Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005). Others can argue whether or not this approach or narrow description of reading success is warranted for the general education population. However, it should be evident that for individuals with moderate to severe DD, standardized measures of reading will not provide us with an accurate picture of literacy gains or use. Our

contention in the sections that follow will be to view literacy in terms of the end result such as understanding concepts or information presented through electronic text (e-text), how individuals interact with text (e.g., manipulation and use of technology that presents e-text and supports), as well as if and how they use the information gained from this interaction (e.g., following an e-text recipe). Specifically, we intend to link literacy with the researched based practices for curriculum development and implementation that have been the foundation for high quality programs for these individuals since the 1970’s. We will also advocate for defining literacy based on the inclusive environments where many parents and professionals attempt to structure environments that allow individuals with moderate to severe disabilities to meaningfully interact with peers from the general population. For example, an adult with DD interacting with electronic text delivered on a mobile internet device at a Laundromat (as opposed to reading a magazine) is as natural a definition of literacy as is a friend without disabilities reading a leisure book while waiting for her/his laundry. In this scenario, the fact that both individuals are engaging in similar pursuits sets the stage for communication about what they each are reading. The interventions presented in this chapter that we, as well as others, are testing are designed to determine what electronic supports will best help students gain information and enjoyment from their interaction with literacy related materials presented by technology-based delivery systems. In addition, we will discuss how these interventions can impact the current view of literacy as a concept. Finally, we will discuss how we might enhance literacy beyond the interaction of electronic text and provide individuals with information in other media formats. Before discussing the expanding definition and conceptualization of literacy, it is important to consider the learners on whom this chapter is centered.

15

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

learner characteristics In order to understand how persons with moderate to severe disabilities can interact and engage in literacy based activities and benefit from increased access to literacy related materials, it may be helpful to know more about the learning and behavioral characteristics of these individuals. The following discussion is particularly important in light of our contention that the three principles of universal design for learning (UDL) discussed later in this chapter are the foundation for how we can best provide meaningful literacy based activities for all individuals regardless of the challenges they face. Persons with moderate to severe DD actually constitute a heterogeneous group of individuals (Beirne-Smith, Ittenbach, & Kim, 2006). Some of these individuals might have severe intellectual disabilities, whereas others might have cognitive differences in combination with physical challenges. Some individuals who have cognitive differences might be ambulatory and have full use of the limbs, whereas others might have little motor control requiring wheel chairs for enhancing mobility. Any grouping of these individuals is artificial and done for the purposes of discussion related to technological devices that can improve the quality of their lives. The term moderate to severe DD generally has been defined in a number of ways (Luckasson, Coulter, Polloway, Reiss, Schalock, Snell, Spitalnik, & Stark, 1992; Grossman, 1983; Gardner, 2000). This term (i.e., developmental disabilities) suggests that individuals with severe disabilities have more debilitating problems than those with mild disabilities. Generally, persons with moderate to severe disabilities have multiple problems that could be manifested in a decreased ability to learn, deficits in social skills, sensory deficits, and possibly physical disabilities (Beirne-Smith et al., 2006). Persons with moderate to severe DD may exhibit excessive behavior such as self-stimulation

16

or tantrums (Dever & Knapczyk, 1997). Such behaviors can also affect their attention span, thus interfering with their learning and their ability to comprehend even the simplest concepts. They may also be deficient in areas such as self-help and often have significant deficits in language and functional communication. Individuals with severe disabilities do not effectively model the behavior of others and have difficulty processing information presented to them by parents and teachers. They also have difficulty with memory, attention, and perception. When individuals analyze and use information they have perceived, they have processed that information. For persons with severe DD, their difficulties in attention and perception exacerbate their problems processing information. Overcoming attention and perception problems while providing learners with new information are major goals for professionals. Technology solutions can enhance their efforts by providing learners with a variety of educational software and assistive hardware devices that allow learners access to the software (Silver-Pacuilla & Fleischman, 2006). Integrated or multimedia applications hold the greatest promise for helping learners assimilate and accommodate new information, thus potentially improving their ability to access literacy based activities. For example, electronic text paired with many appropriate visual images has photos, videos, and graphics to reinforce important concepts presented in the story. In terms of cognitive processes, memory is complex in its relation to attention, perception, and information processing. Memory is the process whereby individuals store information they gather in their central nervous system and retrieve it for later use (Baddeley, 1986; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993). A key component to the process of memory involves peoples’ ability to rehearse the material they perceive. When people efficiently rehearse (i.e., repeat or practice) information in their short-term memory, they can improve long-term memory (Belmont & Butterfield, 1971; Brown,

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Campione, & Murphy, 1974). Similarly, when people analyze information in a more detailed way or pair the information with other knowledge, the better the chances for retention. Most people with severe DD are not efficient in rehearsing information and need a considerable amount of repetition in order for them to store information for later retrieval (Brooks & McCauley, 1984). As typical individuals grow, they begin to develop rehearsal strategies that serve them in improving their memories. Learners with DD have considerable problems learning to use rehearsal strategies compared with their typical peers and have greater problems developing independent rehearsal strategies (Borkowski, Peck, & Damberg, 1983; Ellis, 1963). A number of technology solutions can assist individuals with severe DD to compensate for their memory differences. For example, a number of handheld computer applications assist these individuals in maintaining a schedule, following a complex series of directions, and locating places in the community (Davies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2002a, 2002b; Riffel, Wehmeyer, Turnbull, Lattimore, Davies, Stock, & Fisher, 2005). When the information presented by the handheld device is paired with associated photos and videos, over time and through repeated trials the users might have a better chance of storing the information in their own memories for later use. Difficulties in maintaining attention to relevant details of a task and problems discriminating between important stimuli are commonly faced by learners who have DD (Westling & Fox, 2000). For those persons who have cognitive differences and have motor problems, less than optimum interaction with their environment can essentially exacerbate similar problems in attention and discrimination skills. Technology solutions potentially can help all individuals with disabilities improve their attention to relevant stimuli (Langone, Shade, Clees, & Day, 1999). Electronic text presented by computers can, for example, help students focus their attention on

important sounds, words, or phrases. When the software also includes visual or graphic cues, the students stand a better chance comprehending the material they interact with during literacy activities (Detheridge, 1996). When stimuli are presented to the brain by an individual’s senses, the ability to interpret information is called perception (Polloway & Patton, 1997). Research suggests that infants can perceive visual and auditory stimuli and their perceptions provide a foundation for later learning (Cook, Tessier, & Klein, 2007). As colors, sounds, and smells become meaningful for learners, they can use the information they obtain to help them continue learning. People with severe DD are limited in their ability to perceive events around them (Olson & Platt, 2007). Similar to the aforementioned examples, technology can provide both visual images and sounds that may help individuals with severe DD to pay closer attention to salient features of story lines and thus improve their perception to events important to understand the material being presented. Technology solutions can provide a large variety of stimuli to accompany important skills targeted for acquisition by the learner. Multimedia or integrated media instruction can help learners with disabilities experience events that may have previously been out of their reach (e.g., a visit to an art gallery in another country-a form of new literacy).

linking to literacy The field on Special Education is at a crossroads in relation to defining literacy for individuals with moderate to severe developmental disabilities. The definition of literacy for these learners has and in many cases still is defined narrowly to include sight word instruction, specifically in relation to functional skills. Currently, there have been calls from a group of parents, policy makers, and researchers to redefine one component of literacy as allowing these students access to

17

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

the general education curriculum. The reality of this situation that is affecting students with more severe developmental disabilities in every state is that the definition relating to literacy resulting in programs that expose them to general education content at every age level. It is not unusual to enter classrooms that house only learners with more significant disabilities, who are being read to by electronic means, content in history literature, science, etc. Certainly, teachers are being encouraged by state education agencies to modify the concepts on a cognitive level for these students which they then place into electronic text with other supports, however, these same agencies do not appear to be considering relevance of the content being presented to the student based on their immediate and future needs. One could argue that the technology now allows for such activities to occur that on the surface look impressive, but that still do not take into account student needs. Our contention throughout the rest of this chapter is that the content being targeted for instruction is not necessarily the most important consideration for students with more significant developmental disabilities, but rather the context under which the content is presented. For example, a student with disabilities who is participating with general education peers developing a PowerPoint presentation about a subject in science benefits from the interaction with peers in terms of social skills and functional communication. The peers benefit from the interaction in terms of learning about human differences and similarities among other things. At least for the student with disabilities, learning about the science concepts if in fact they are capable in doing so, becomes secondary in nature. The next section will provide a general outline and a contemporary rationale for reexamining literacy for individuals with moderate to severe DD. We will present a short overview of the current state of research on reading and literacy by relating this to the typical deficits that act as barriers to traditional reading for individuals with DD.

18

Importance of literacy Literacy has been defined in many ways, but at its essence it appears to clearly focus on ones’ ability to derive meaning from printed text. Everyone reading this chapter most likely will use their literacy skills to extract meaning from the text in relation to their careers. Everyday we use our literacy skills among other things to read directions, use shopping lists, and order food from menus. We also use our literacy skills for recreation and leisure such as reading books and magazines, the news on Internet sites, as well as email messages from friends. All of us are part of a literate community because we have the ability to derive meaning from printed words. Most students with DD are not a part of this community. Technological tools are now available that can assist these individuals in becoming more active in similar literacy-based activities. Before we can appreciate the definition of literacy as it applies to individuals with moderate to severe DD, we should examine some criteria related to literacy from the community described earlier. On the surface excluding individuals with severe DD from literate community might seem to be simply due to the fact that they have significant and multiple learning challenges. Their inability to gain meaning from print because of multiple disabilities hinder them from fluently decoding words. Typical emerging readers who cannot decode words can still enjoy reading because they have mastered the early language skills that allow them to comprehend what is being read to them using developmentally appropriate materials. Individuals with significant developmental disabilities generally have not yet gained those same language skills, so their ability to comprehend what is being read to them is hampered. However, their difficulty in mastering the language skills that are needed for them to comprehend what has been decoded by others or by technology, should not justify their exclusion from taking part in activities that have practical,

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

and recreational value (Beck, 2002). For example, we would not argue that one could not enjoy playing golf because they cannot hit a ball as far as professional golfer. Most of us can participate in many activities to some extent without mastering all aspects of the tasks. Participating at various levels allow us to gain some enjoyment, some value, or some professional advantage based on our level of participation and capabilities. Likewise with literacy, we potentially can all gain meaning from printed text with the addition of technological supports that are available. There has been considerable attention focusing on issues related to literacy and to functional literacy in both the professional and popular media for a long period of time. The ability to obtain levels of literacy, particularly functional literacy, continues to be a concern among the general population. In March 2007, The Washington Post reported that 36% of the residents in the District of Columbia were functionally illiterate (versus 21% across the United States). This means that they cannot read well enough to do simple tasks like fill out job applications much less read for pleasure (Alexander, 2007). In our research into the subject we have discovered a model for defining literacy based on its applications to a person’s life and this model seems to be a good fit as the foundation for our discussion here on literacy for individuals with more significant disabilities (Browder, Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Karvonen, Spooner, & Algozzine, 2004).

components of literacy: Implications for persons with severe developmental disabilities Wells (1990) defined a literate individual as one who can “engage appropriately with texts of different types in order to empower actions, feelings, and thinking in the context of purposeful social activity” (p. 14). This definition is similar to others that can be found in large numbers throughout the professional and popular literature. For example,

John Hertrich in the HMI Secondary Literacy Survey believed that “Literacy can be defined on a number of levels. It is obviously concerned with the ability to read and write but a fuller definition might be the capacity to recognize, reproduce and manipulate the conventions of text shared by a given community.” (National Literacy Trust, 2008) The components of “purposeful social activity” as defined by Wells and “shared by a given community” as identified by Hertrich are critical to the current discussion in that literacy should not be viewed in isolation, but in the context of how literate individuals can use the skills for many purposes across all aspects of their lives. In addition, views on literacy have been further expanded to include much more than printed text as is emphasized in school. Hertich in his report also stated, “There are new forms of literacy (on-screen literacy and moving image media) to consider alongside the more traditional print literacy. Literacy is important because it enables pupils to gain access to the subjects studied in school, to read for information and pleasure, and to communicate effectively.” School-based literacy can at times be significantly different from literacy individuals need in other aspects of their lives. This aspect or component of literacy involves a students’ ability to interact with text as it applies to or presents information related to the general education curriculum. In the past, professionals who worked with students who had moderate to severe DD did not readily address this component of literacy. Currently, access to the general education curriculum and participation in statewide assessment programs for these learners, has been a priority among state departments of education. In many respects advances in technology have made this movement possible since students, who because of significant cognitive differences may not effectively interact with traditional print based materials, may now appear to interact with electronic text and other multimedia supports.

19

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Unfortunately, across the nation we are witnessing questionable models of this approach to using technology for enhancing school-based literacy. As we mentioned earlier, many activities related to accessing the general education curriculum and alternative assessment strategies are conducted in self-contained classrooms (away from the general education). In addition, assessment activities using technology (e.g., PowerPoint presentations) designed to demonstrate mastery of skills (e.g., learning about the planets of the solar system) are either completed with heavy input by the adults in the classroom or are presented in a fashion that does not take into account the learning characteristics (e.g., memory and language differences) of these students. First and foremost, efforts to improve skills related to increasing access to literacy rich materials for students who have significant cognitive differences should be based on the premise of increasing contact with typical learners. Historically, increased interaction with typical peers has always been the most important reason for increasing access to the general education curriculum (Frywell & Kennedy, 1995; Hunt, Alwell, Farron-Davis, & Goetz, 1996; Kennedy, Cushing, & Itkonen, 1997). High quality activities that center around the use of electronic text with multimedia supports have great potential for encouraging this interaction across peer groups and thus, allow for teachers to also address issues related to social communication and social skills in addition to instructing content based skills (Beck, 2002). Functional literacy as a concept seems to be the component of a global definition of literacy that has been largely ignored by education systems in the United States. This definition is another component of a global definition that been loosely defined over the years depending on the professional focus of those attempting to define it. In terms of a generic definition, functional literacy has been defined as the basic reading one needs to survive in society to a preparation

20

for the roles one needs to enter the workforce. In Special Education, functional literacy seems to have been condensed down to one type of activity, teaching sight words found in the community (e.g., emergency words such as danger, signs on rest room doors) (Conners, 1992). Unfortunately, this narrow translation of functional literacy by special educators has had the effect of eliminating a variety of important skill sets for students with significant DD (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006). Functional literacy as a concept or component of a global definition of literacy should include the ability of individuals to interact with electronic text and multimedia supports to gain knowledge and skills across a wide variety of skill sets that provide for a more independent way of life. Being able to set your DVD player by using text-based directions, reading recipes, locating items in a grocery store by reading aisle caps, are all examples of functional literacy. The use of electronic text with multimedia supports for helping individuals with more significant disabilities interact with and participate in many activities associated with daily living events is an area we are currently researching. As mentioned, our emphasis is to find the right mixture of supports that enhance understanding while interacting with such materials (e.g., use of video and photographs to support text). Personal literacy is a component of a global definition of literacy that we have long ignored as educators. The use of elements of literacy (i.e., reading & writing) for pleasure such as engaging in hobbies, forming friendships, and expanding/ enhancing other areas of one’s life (exploring new subjects) is often lost in our classrooms for typical students and is often non existent in classrooms for students with significant disabilities. We see this component of literacy as possibly the most important for students with significant DD for a variety of reasons, not the least of which it potentially holds the greatest promise for integrating these individuals with their peers in general education.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Transactional literacy is a component of literacy that is based on theories of how learners construct or assign meaning while interacting with text. These theories stress that a persons’ background information about a subject will effect how they gain meaning while interacting with text-based materials. A concern among professionals who understood that this lack of background information or the inability to bring background information into play when needed was a key reason why poor readers had difficulty constructing meaning from what they read. Our approach to transactional literacy has been that for students with significant DD, the ability to gain meaning from text (in this case electronic text) will be directly proportional to our ability to provide them with high quality visual and auditory supports that compensate for their lack of background knowledge and/or their ability to access background knowledge they interacted with at a previous time. Significant deficits in memory, particularly resulting in problems with working memory, may impede the ability of these learners to interact with text in any form if we do not provide them with the power of immediate and/ or hyperlinked supports such as photos, graphics, animations, video, and sound. Our current research endeavors are focusing on how best to provide these supports and in what format the supports should take. One final component of a global definition of literacy that has long been debated by professionals is emergent literacy. This component has surfaced in professional discussions for why developing activities related to the general education curriculum and for access to alternative assessment programs. In a sense, some professionals appear to latch on to the developmental basis for emergent literacy in the sense that if learners with significant DD have DD they must be ready for emergent literacy activities. That may be why we are observing more activities in classes for older students teaching the alphabetic principles.

We believe that there are a number of principles associated with emergent literacy that are important for all student with significant DD if we maintain an age appropriate approach to the instruction and activities. Our activities should involve all the tools of literacy including listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities while they engage in age appropriate activities (e.g., email friends with text-based messages or audio files of their message). This directly relates to the role of UDL and assistive technology.

research on reading and Moderate to severe disabilities Students with significant DD need intense, systematic instruction in order to learn to read (Erickson & Koppenhaver, 1995; Kliewer & Landis, 1999). If reading becomes a higher priority, students may increase opportunities for themselves in adulthood (Browder et al., 2006). The National Reading Panel (NRP; 2000) identified five essential components of reading instruction: (a) phonemic awareness, (b) phonics, (c) fluency, (d) vocabulary, and (e) comprehension. Literacy research conducted with students with moderate to severe DD usually addresses only one of these components. Even though phonemic awareness and letter knowledge are the best predictors for how well students will learn to read (Ehri, 2004; Share, Jorm, MacLean, & Matthews, 1984), only a few studies have focused on teaching phonics to students with severe intellectual disabilities (Basil & Reyes, 2003; Hoogeveen & Smeets, 1988; Hoogeveen, Smeets, & van der Houven, 1987), and of these studies, only one had a strong effect size (Hoogeveen et al., 1987). Additional research should focus on how to teach phonemic awareness and phonics to students with DD as a generalized skill. Since there is little research in these areas, the potential outcomes of explicit instruction are unknown (Browder et al., 2006). The challenge is to balance these the time required to meet these goals, with the time needed to address functional life skills. 21

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

In another area of literacy for students with DD, research has evaluated fluency. These studies have included measures of counting words read correctly by individuals with moderate disabilities (Singh & Singh, 1984, 1985, 1988; Singh, Winston, & Singh, 1985). Future research in these areas may further evaluate the effectiveness of guided oral reading and repeated readings as possible strategies for students to become more fluent readers. The part of literacy instruction for students with DD with the most empirical supports is in the area of sight word reading. Students with moderate to severe DD have been taught to read sight word vocabulary through repeated (massed) trials with systematic prompting (Moseley, Flynt, & Morton, 1997; Rohena, Jitendra, & Browder, 2002; Mechling & Gast, 2003), as well as through picture and symbol identification (Romski, Sevcik, Robinson, Mervis, & Bertrand, 1996; Worrall & Singh, 1983). Learning word and picture vocabulary has been beneficial to improving comprehension. While students demonstrated comprehension by matching words to pictures (Eikeseth & Jahr, 2001; Mechling, Gast, & Langone, 2002; Rehfeldt, Latimore, & Stromer, 2003), there is not a database yet that shows the effects of metacognitive comprehension monitoring, cooperative learning, graphic organizers, story structure, questioning, and summarizing on comprehension (all typical interventions used with other struggling reader populations). The use of assistive technology and electronic text with supports may be the most effective and efficient method for teaching individuals with moderate to severe disabilities to become literate and this may take the form of UDL

universal design for learning: guidance for literacy Activities for persons with severe dd UDL originated from the field of architecture and the practice of universal design, where the goal

22

was to create and plan structures to be universally accessible that would not require later adaptation (CUD, 1997). For example, a universally designed building would have curb cuts and would integrate entrances that do not require stairs (e.g. ramps) rather than add a ramp after construction when a potential user of the building was unable to navigate a wheel chair into the building. These features, when integrated into the initial conceptualization of a building design are often used by, but not noticed by users who do not need them (e.g. consider oversized door knobs that are engaged with a downward pushing motion on a handle rather than the twisting of a knob). This integrated flexibility allows users to access the building using the supports they need without being marginalized because of their disability. When these principles are applied to learning and academic content, we commonly refer to this as Universal Design for Learning (Meyer & Rose, 1998; Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL is perfectly blended with the flexibility offered by new media because users of new media (e.g. electronic text) can access ands use that text in multiple ways based on their individual needs. There are three underlying principles of UDL and they directly relate to literacy and our broadened definition of literacy: multiple means of representation, multiple means of expression, and multiple means of engagement (CAST, 1998). We will take each of these in turn and describe the principle as well as examples and applications of how current technologies work to achieve universal design. We will then discuss how to evaluate the appropriateness of any single technology based support. Multiple means of representation. As we have stated, individuals with moderate to severe DD do not learn concepts and skills easily. They will always take longer to learn and will require many concrete examples relating to the skills or concepts we have targeted for their use. Our ability to provide them with many visual and auditory examples, which are directly related to the salient

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

features of the task, will determine whether not they are able to master the target skills and gain information from what is being read to them. The first principle of universal design for learning, multiple means of representation, provides an important foundation for the use of e-text and the supporting visual and auditory anchors that can help these individuals gain meaning from literacy-based activities (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 2007; Beck, 2002). The simplest form of this comes in the use of electronic text that is supported by audio (the text being read from the computer). Some teachers use the free Microsoft Reader software to generate their own e-text materials (see Figure 1 for an example). More elaborate electronic adaptations are available as well. For example, short targeted videos that support a storyline potentially will assist learners understand key concepts related to characters, location of the story, and sequence of events. Simple photographs with an accompanying auditory description may also provide users of the

Figure 1. Microsoft Reader document. A teacher generated MS Reader document that includes hyperlinks to key words in a glossary and also is read to the student by a speech synthesizer.

material with a richer understanding of the story being read to them. Similarly, symbols that help individuals’ associate meaning with words and phrases are also being used more readily in classroom-based programs for students with significant cognitive delays (See Figure 2 for an example). It is also possible that over the next few years researchers will discover that some form of cognitive mapping strategy may also be of assistance in helping individuals gain meaning from text. Cognitive mapping strategies that are solely text-based, however, will probably not be of much use unless they are augmented with video and audio supports. Developing materials that provide users with many representations of information being presented in text or e-text formats will help learners interact with materials associated with a variety of curricular areas. For example, individuals with moderate to severe DD frequently participate in activities designed to help them become as independent as possible in the areas related to independent living, vocational, and leisure recreation. Modified recipes that include e-text with supporting visual anchors can be helpful for learners who are mastering cooking skills (See Figure 3 for an example). These can be generated by a teacher in programs like PowerPoint that can include a wide range of supports. There are number of methods that can be used to assess the extent to which individuals gain meaning from e-text with these types of visual and auditory supports. Generally speaking, simple frequency counts relating to an individual’s ability to answer comprehension questions related to the story lines is a fairly quick, yet accurate measure (Cook, Langone, & Ayres, in review; Ayres, Langone, Douglas, Meade & Bell, in review). Some form of a simple checklist that monitors and individuals use of the e-text product is simple method for assessing use of the literacy materials. Teachers can also assess the value of these types of supports using traditional multiple choice or

23

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Figure 2. News-2-You Screen Capture. This shows an example of multiple means of representation where a news story is shown with words and pictures. This is an alternative to a traditional news article and provides students with another means for accessing similar information. This is commercially available from www.news-2-you.com

Figure 3. Teacher Generated Adapted E-text recipe. Teachers can use readily available technologies to adapted recipes or other materials to make them accessible to a wider range of students.

cloze activities that provide a student with the opportunity to express what they have gleaned from the text. Teachers have to be cognizant at this point to be flexible in their means of assessment to allow students the greatest opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned and this

24

is reflected in the next principle of UDL, multiple means of expression. Multiple means of expression. Most individuals with moderate to severe DD have significant language differences and require alternative and or augmentative methods in order to communicate their thoughts. Too often we as a society over rely on speaking or writing as the only means of expression we accept in our interactions with each other. The second principle of UDL this has been termed multiple means of expression, helps us to understand that individuals with various learning differences and capabilities often require different methods to communicate what they want and what they know. For students with moderate to severe DD their need to use alternative and augmentative forms of expression is critical if they are to get the most out of literacy-based activities. As readers we often enjoy discussing with others information we have gathered from things we have read. This information can be related to factual knowledge gained from nonfiction readings as well as storylines in character related

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

information we have gained from reading works of fiction. As individuals with DD gain access to reading materials through the use of e-text, their ability to discuss the information with others can help to improve their overall language development, understanding of the information presented in the readings, and general social skills (Beck, 2002). Electronic communication boards, symbol system communication devices, and photographic based communications and can assist individuals in participating with their peers. For example, an elementary school student with moderate DD who is participating in a general education class, specifically in a story time activity, can answer questions related to the story and presented by the teacher by using an electronic communication board if that student is unable to produce speech. Similarly, students can use photographs to support their ideas when they can produce speech but have difficulty being understood (Bondy & Frost, 2001; Schwartz, Garfinkle, & Bauer, 1999). There are a number of opportunities for individuals with DD to socially interact with typical peers and the ability to be able to discuss culturally relevant information that has been gained from interacting with text increases their chances to make friends and to improve their social skills. Due to significant learning deficits related to written language, specifically spelling problems, vocabulary acquisition problems, grammar deficits, and problems relating to handwriting, individuals with moderate to severe DD have traditionally been unable to express their thoughts in writing. New software solutions that provide individuals with a structure for creating sentences by choosing between pre developed grids containing the parts of sentences and/or vocabulary can help these individuals express their thoughts in writing. For example, a program entitled Clicker 5 can provide users with models of sentences and pre develops grades for their choice in conveying their ideas. There are a number of programs that are similar to this on the market with more to come in the immediate future.

Word prediction programs also may be of use for individuals who have significant learning challenges. Some individuals with DD who are unable to spell because of language deficits can identify the appropriate word if it is provided in a list of similarly spelled words. Programs such as Co:Writer (by Don Johnston) when paired with talking word processors such as Write Out Loud (also by Don Johnston) can help learners create written products. For example, word prediction and talking word processors might be used to assist individuals with DD to create e-mail messages that they can use to interact with their friends. There are a variety of other software solutions that can be used by individuals with DD to express their ideas, demonstrate their abilities, and improve their own self determination. For example, electronic portfolios and resumes have been developed by older individuals with mental retardation to assist them in applying for jobs. PowerPoint has been used to present photographs and/or videos depicting an individual’s work experience as a method to support their job application. Multiple means of engagement. Educators have long realized that learning activities that capture their students’ attention is the key to increasing the probability that they will learn targeted skills. At the most basic level, it seems obvious that the more engaging (i.e., interesting) the activity the better the chances the students will stay on task and learn what we want them to learn. In terms of UDL, the principle of multiple means of engagement especially as it applies to individuals with disabilities can have a broader meaning than simply providing interesting and exciting materials. Activities that are designed to capture the attention of not only students with disabilities, but also the attention of their typical peers can serve to improve the inclusion of those students with disabilities. Technology solutions that appeal to all individuals increase the probability that we can foster relationships that go beyond simply completing

25

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

the task. Electronic readings about topics that appeal to all learners of a certain age group and that also include video and audio supports, establish an environment where educators can use the opportunities fostered by group activities to teach social communication and related skills (see screen capture of reading related to High School Musical). When activities and simulations related to topics of interest can also be in an engaging format for group activities they can serve as a springboard for teaching socially related communication and other skills (e.g., cooperation, manners). Perhaps, overwhelmingly, the most important factor for individuals with DD is for literacy related activities to be meaningful. Engaging in meaningful activities either alone or with companions (whether the activities are leisure related or functional in nature) are, in the end, why literacy is so important.

conclusIon As evidenced by the state of research for literacy instruction for students with severe DD, and the possibilities presented by technology, we must remember that materials are only as good as the pedagogy on which they are based and the way they are used by teachers, students, and society in general. Applying the principles of UDL to the development of literacy materials for individuals with moderate to severe DD is one of the more promising and exciting movements from the perspective of societal change. Unfortunately there are pitfalls that are not a function of universal design, but may be a function of where researchers and practitioners are placing their emphasis in developing these materials. Problems seem to be occurring when, in their enthusiasm to implement a new tool or set of materials, researchers and practitioners inadvertently

26

overlook the need to identify what is important for individuals to learn and what is interesting for them to have access to while they engage in literacy based activities. We believe that we need to look at the content of what individuals are interacting with and decide if, in fact, it is worth learning. Keeping in mind that the individuals being discussed in this chapter may not have the ability to comprehend such complex concepts due to their DD, the more important question may be what value does this material have to them even if they do have the ability to gain knowledge from the information. One could argue that if these activities are being implemented in the general education classes, that the students with disabilities and their typical peers are gaining valuable social interactions while engaging in the general education curriculum. In the larger world though, does this matter? Does this type of literacy translate? If any instructional tools fall short of helping students to develop knowledge and learn skills that will lead to their becoming independent workers and enjoying a high quality of life then these materials are a waste of time. Many of these general education related curriculum materials that are being touted by our schools and available today suffer from the same problems inherent in most textbooks, that is, they are simply text based with some supporting images. Often, they do not meet the litmus test of being functional and interesting to the learner. Universal design of poorly conceived materials is not going to result in better outcomes for individuals with severe DD. Rather, we should conceptualize and develop literacy materials rich in functional information, and then look to universal design principles when presenting it. This information would be presented in multiple formats to allow students many forms of expression, and to encourage student engagement with materials in a variety of ways.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Author note The preparation of the chapter was supported in part by funding from a grant of the Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs that was awarded to the National Center for the Study of Supported Text in Electronic Learning Environments, University of Oregon.

reFerences

Borkowski, J. G., Peck, V. A., & Damberg, P. R. (1983). Attention, memory and cognition. In J. L. Matson & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Handbook of mental retardation (pp. 479-497). New York: Pergamon. Brochner, S., Outhred, L., & Pieterse, M. (2001). A study of functional literacy skills in young adults with down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 48, 67-90.

Alexander, K. L. (2007, March 19). Illiteracy aid found to lag in district: High rates said to hurt economy. The Washington Post, pp. B01.

Brooks, P. H., & McCauley, C. (1984). Cognitive research in mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 479-486.

Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153-160.

Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. Journal of Special Education, 37, 211-223.

Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., Douglas, K. H., Meade, C., & Bell, V. (in review). Structural analysis of UDL reading supports for students with intellectual disabilities. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Basil, C., & Reyes, S. (2003). Acquisition of literacy skills by children with severe disabilities. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 19(1), 27-48. Beck, J. (2002). Emerging literacy through assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 44-48. Beirne-Smith, M., Ittenbach, R. F., & Kim, S. H. (2006) Mental Retardation: An introduction to intellectual disability (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Belmont, J. M., & Butterfield, E. C. (1971). Learning strategies as determinants of memory deficiencies. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 411-420. Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (2001). The picture exchange communication system. Behavioral Modification, 25, 725-745.

Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., AhlgrimDelzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 392-408. Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Murphy, M. D. (1974). Keeping track of changing variables: Long-term retention of a trained rehearsal strategy by retarded adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 453-466. Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST]. (1998). What is universal design for learning? Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www.cast.org/research/udl/ index.html. Center for Universal Design [CUD]. (1997). Principles of Universal Design. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ Conners, F. A. (1992). Reading instruction for students with moderate mental retardation: Review and analysis of research. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 96, 577-597.

27

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Cook J., Langone, J. & Ayres, K. M. (in review). Effects of UDL for improving comprehension of age-appropriate leisure reading material by students with intellectual disabilities. Cook, E., Tessier, A., & Klein, M. D. (2007). Adapting Early Childhood Curricula for Children with Special Needs (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Copeland, S. R., & Keefe, E. B. (2007). Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Moderate or Severe Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Co:Writer. [Computer Software]. Volo, IL: Don Johnson. Davies, D., Stock, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002a). Enhancing independent task performance for individuals with mental retardation through use of a handheld self-directed visual and audio prompting system. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 209-218. Davies, D., Stock, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002b). Enhancing independent time management and personal scheduling for individuals with mental retardation through use of a palmtop visual and audio prompting system. Mental Retardation, 40, 358-365. Detheridge, T. (1996). Developing literacy through symbols. Closing the Gap, 15(1), Apr/ May, 12-14. Dever, R. B., & Knapczyk, D. R. (1997). Teaching Persons with Mental Retardation: A Model for Curriculum Development and Teaching. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. ( 2001, Autumn). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393-447.

28

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willow, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287. Ehri, L. C. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics: An explanation of the National Reading Panel meta-analyses. In P. McCardle & V. Chhadbra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 153-186). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Eikeseth, S., & Jahr, E. (2001). The UCLA reading and writing program: An evaluation of the beginning stages. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 289-307. Ellis, N. R. (1963). The stimulus trace and behavioral inadequacy. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency (pp. 134-158). New York: McGraw-Hill. Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). Developing a literacy program for children with severe disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 48, 676-684. Fish, T. R., Rabidoux, P., Ober, J., & Graff, V. (2006). Community literacy and friendship model for people with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation, 44, 443-446. Frywell, D., & Kennedy, C. H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students’ social relationships. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 259-269. Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working Memory and Language. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Publishers.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Grossman, H. J. (1983). Classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Hintze J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 372-386. Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Hoogeveen, F. R., & Smeets, P. M. (1988). Establishing phoneme blending in trainable mentally retarded children. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 45-53. Hoogeveen, F. R., Smeets, P. M., & van der Houven, J. E. (1987). Establishing letter-sound correspondences in children classifies as trainable mentally retarded. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22, 77-84. Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creating socially supportive environments for fully included students who experience multiple disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 53-71. Katims, D. (1996). The emergence of literacy in elementary students with mild mental retardation. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 147-157. Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3-15. Kennedy, C. H., Cushing, L. S., & Itkonen, T. (1997). General education participation improves the social contacts and friendship networks of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 167-189.

Kliewer, C., & Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy instruction for young children with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66, 85-100. Koppenhaver, D. A., Coleman, P. P., Kalman, S. L., & Yoder, D. E. (1991). The implications of emergent literacy research for children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1(1), 38-44. Langone, J., Shade, J., Clees, T., & Day, T. (1999). Effects of multimedia instruction on teaching funcational discrimination skills to students with moderate/severe intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 493-513. Luckasson, R., Coulter, D., Polloway, E. A., Reiss, S., Schalock, R. L., Snell, M. E., Spitalnik, D. M., & Stark, J. A. (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classifictation, and systems of supports. Washington, DC: AAMR. Mechling, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2003). Multi-media instruction to teach grocery word associations and store location: A study of generalization. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 62-76. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Langone, J. (2002). Computer-based video instruction to teach persons with moderate intellectual disabilities to read grocery aisle signs and locate items. Journal of Special Education, 35, 224-240. Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (1998). Learning to read in the computer age (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Moseley, V. P., Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (1997). Teaching sight words to students with moderate mental retardation. Reading Improvement, 34, 2-7. National Literacy Trust. (2008). Definitions of Literacy. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http:// www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/quote.html.

29

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Olson, J. L., Platt, J. C., & Dieker, L. A. (2007). Teaching Children and Adolescents with Special Needs (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Polloway, E. A., & Patton, J. R. (1997). Strategies for teaching learners with special needs (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Rehfeldt, R. A., Latimore, D., & Stromer, R. (2003). Observational learning and the formation of classes of reading skills by individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 333-358. Riffel, L., Wehmeyer, M., Turnbull, A., Lattimore, J., Davies, D., Stock, S., & Fisher, S. (2005). Promoting independent performance of transition-related tasks using a palmtop PC-based self-directed visual and auditory prompting system. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 5-14. Rohena, E., Jitendra, A. K., & Browder, D. M. (2002). Comparison of the effects of Spanish and English constant time delay instruction on sight word reading by Hispanic learners with mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, 36, 169-184. Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., Robinson, B. F., Mervis, C. G., & Bertrand, J. (1996). Mapping the meanings of novel visual symbols by youth with moderate or severe mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 391-402. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

30

Schwartz, I. S., Garfinkle, A. N., & Bauer, J. (1999). The picture exchange communication system: Communicative outcomes for young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 144-159. Share, D., Jorm, A., MacLean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences in reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324. Silver-Pacuilla, H., & Fleischman, S. (2006). Technology to help struggling students. Educational Leadership, 63, 84-85. Singh, J. & Singh, N. N. (1985). Comparison of word-supply and word-analysis error-correction procedures on oral reading by mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 64-70. Singh, N. N., & Singh, J. (1984). Antecedent control of oral reading errors and self-corrections by mentally retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 111-119. Singh, N. N., & Singh, J. (1988). Increasing oral reading proficiency through overcorrection and phonic analysis. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 312-319. Singh, N. N., Winston, A. S., & Singh, J. (1985). Effects of delayed versus immediate attention to oral reading errors on the reading proficiency of mentally retarded children. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 6, 283-293. Wells, G. (Winter, 1990). Talk about text: Where literacy is learned and taught. Curriculum Inquiry, 20(4), 369-405. Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2000). Teaching students with severe disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Worrall, N., & Singh, Y. (1983). Teaching TMR children to read using integrated picture cueing. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 422-429.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Write Out Loud. [Computer Software]. Volo, IL: Don Johnson.

Key terMs And deFInItIons e-Text: A visual, electronic depiction of text whereby the text itself is digitally recognizable by both the user and the computer. Allows for the use of screen/text readers and other assistive technology. Literacy: Gaining meaning from text. This might include phonetically decoding and comprehending words as well as listening to those same words being spoken. Multiple Means of Engagement: A UDL practice where by students are presented with several ways to interact with and learn from instructional materials and where teachers allow

students flexibility to work with instructional materials (or text) in the way that best meets their needs. Multiple Means of Expression: A UDL practice of allowing different students, based on their abilities, to communicate “the answer” in a way best suited to their communication strengths. Multiple Means of Representation: The UDL practice of presenting the same basic learning materials in more than one medium or manner. This could include text-based presentation coupled with auditory presentation. Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Derived from the field of architecture and the practice of making buildings universally accessible to users, UDL is an education practice founded on designing learning materials and environments so that all students are able to learn to the greatest extent of their abilities, regardless of disability.

31

32

Chapter III

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy Maureen Walsh ACU National, Australia

AbstrAct This chapter discusses the changed nature of literacy within new communication contexts, the literacy that is needed for reading, viewing, responding to and producing multimodal and digital texts. Potentials for redesigning literacy pedagogy within new modes of communication are demonstrated for educational contexts. As a basis for this discussion, the author analyses classroom evidence using examples of three case studies from a research project conducted in primary schools in Sydney, Australia. In the research project teachers in several primary schools worked with the author/researcher to consider ways of redesigning literacy pedagogy within e-learning and multimodal classroom contexts. Interesting and significant changes occurred in their classroom practice. Teachers developed programs that incorporated a range of technology, including Web 2.0, and were able to maintain a balance between print-based and new literacies. Examples are presented and discussed to highlight the differences in pedagogy needed for ‘multimodal literacy’ combined with traditional literacy practices.

IntroductIon There is now an acceptance of the textual shift that has occurred for today’s students whose environment is filled with visual, electronic and digital texts. The terms ‘multiliteracies’ (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Unsworth, 2001), ‘new literacies’ (Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. 2003), ‘multimodal texts’, ‘multimodal discourse’ and ‘multimodality’1 (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, 2001, 2006)

represent attempts to describe the textual shift that has occurred and to conceptualise the changed learning paradigm that is fundamental for literacy and learning in an age of increased digital communication. Students of today quickly learn the range of technology that allows them to multi-task with a variety of digital media and mobile technology to surf the internet, send a text message or photo to a friend, play a digital game while listening

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

to music, or create their own multimedia texts through hybrid texts such as weblogs. ‘Texting’ or SMS messaging is part of what has been termed the new ‘textual landscape’ (Carrington, 2005) that has expanded rapidly with the introduction of Web 2.0 technology. The multi-tasking involved in texting, that may incorporate rapid use of abbreviated spelling, numbers, photos, graphics and icons, is a skill needed for activities such as blogs, wikis, podcasting or gaming. Moreover, this multitasking itself incorporates the merging and synchronising of text, images, sound and movement. Do we really know how such multi-tasking and morphing is affecting the way children learn? Are the processes involved in activities such as texting, blogging, or communicating online developing different cognitive abilities than those required for reading and writing traditional print-based texts? Or are these new modes of communication merely requiring traditional literacy skills to be applied to new types of texts? Such questions are currently being investigated by many researchers world wide. We are in a time of transition with new theories and new pedagogy evolving while at the same time newer forms of digital communication are emerging. There are arguments that classrooms are in danger of becoming redundant unless significant changes are made to curriculum and assessment practices. A recent report in the United Kingdom (Bearne et al, 2007) has shown that children of all ages are more likely to access digital rather than print-based texts outside school. This research has implications for the use of texts inside school. We need to consider what type of pedagogical shift is needed to incorporate the textual shift that has occurred and the underlying digital cultures that are embedded within multimodal communication. There are many reasons why schools cannot be expected to replicate the multimedia experiences that students engage in outside school. However we do need to examine how new modes of communication can be integral to classroom communication.

Curriculum documents and assessment requirements for reading and writing are based on established theories around the reading and writing of print-based texts. These theories have determined specific approaches and strategies for teaching reading and writing to assist learners at all stages of learning. We need ongoing research to theorise the interactions that occur as readers process various visual, aural, spatial and textual modes, separately or simultaneously, in digital texts. Do students read digital texts for meaning in the same way as they read print-based texts? What digital reading strategies need to be developed for deeper levels of inferential, analytical, critical and evaluative understandings? What differences are there between the process of sending a text message and handwriting a message on paper? How do we incorporate the possibilities of imaginative design and production possible for a website, blog or DVD into the writing curriculum? If we consider the types of digital texts that students may access from the perspective of literacy education, it is evident that such texts involve much more than the traditional processes of reading and writing print-based texts. Often ‘reading’ may involve viewing, listening and responding, while ‘writing’ may involve talking, listening, designing and producing. In fact the traditional ideas of texts are blurred, as are the processes of literacy. Many texts have become hybrid texts that may involve an interchange of modalities and processes. For example, a blog is designed, produced and written for a screen to function online. It may include written text, images, graphics, video and sound and can be read, listened to and responded to by others with text, images, video or sound. The increased popularity of social networking sites like YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and Second Life, where people can participate with information about themselves or with a different identity, demonstrates that people are responding to the need to participate, create and produce their own texts for communication. Brun (2007) has highlighted this trend and has

33

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

developed a theoretical framework around “produsers” to encapsulate the practices and cultures that have developed around user-led environments of the Web, especially Web 2.0. People are not just viewing and engaging with the Web but using and producing their own versions of texts and/ or participating in the texts of others. They are designing, creating and authoring their own work on the web in various ways. This is the digital environment that students of today are able to access and participate in. While we may acknowledge this changed paradigm, we are a long way from understanding how these changes can be realised pedagogically. We need to investigate the way meaning is constructed through multimodal texts and different semiotic systems. The synchronous functioning of the modes of image, movement, colour, gesture, 3D objects, music and sound on a digital screen require a different type of ‘reading’ or ‘writing’, a literacy that entails non-linear and simultaneous processing. We need to understand the impact and demands of new forms of literacy mediated through more varied technologies including digital communication devices, internet search engines, social networking, interactive gaming, digital imaging, film and video. In addition to understanding how these are influencing students’ motivation and learning, we need to know how to develop classroom learning experiences that are appropriate for both conventional and new forms of literacy. Several studies in recent years have investigated specific aspects of this complex area emphasising the importance of teachers knowing how to use multimodal texts and how to develop multimodal learning environments to enhance student learning. Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis (2001) have looked at the multimodal environments of Science classrooms while Jewitt (2002) has examined these environments in English classrooms. Bearne (2003) has examined students’ production of their own multimodal texts, demonstrating how they need to be incorporated in literacy as-

34

sessment. Callow and Zammitt (2002), Unsworth (2003) and Walsh (2006) have examined the different types of reading needed for multimodal texts. Several ongoing studies are providing insight into the way the literacy curriculum needs be reframed for new modes of communication. For example, Unsworth, Thomas & Bush (2004) have investigated the way images are used in standardised tests while Simpson (2005) has analysed the pedagogy of online communication through ‘Book Raps’. Several researchers in the UK are investigating different aspects of digital literacies. For example, Marsh (2007) has been researching Primary school student’s use of blogs within the literacy curriculum. More recently Kalantis and Cope (2005) and Healy (2008) have been developing and applying a ‘Learning by Design’ curriculum that extends further on Cope & Kalanzis’ (2000) ‘multiliteracies framework’, and Walsh (2008) is analysing classroom examples to theorise the exact nature of multimodal literacy within classrooms. This chapter now presents an analysis of three examples of case studies from a recent research project to demonstrate the potential for changed pedagogy. The three examples are from a large study conducted in several primary schools in the metropolitan area of Sydney, Australia. Each of the schools had large numbers of students from language backgrounds other than English and from a range of home languages. Although only three out of seven case studies are described here, they represent patterns and interactions that were typical of all the case studies across the different classes and schools.

the study The aim of the research project was to consider the pedagogical applications of new modes of communication within classroom contexts. The project’s research focus was designed to investigate two questions:

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

i.

ii.

What are the literacy strategies that students need for reading, using and producing multimodal texts? What is the relevant and explicit pedagogy appropriate for integrating multimodal literacy with conventional literacy practices?

The design of the study was an incorporation of professional learning and research, therefore collaborative and investigative on a number of levels. Teachers were engaged in learning to review theories of literacy within new communicative or multimodal environments while considering current research in the area. They worked collaboratively with the researcher who provided input and support at different stages through the project. Teachers in many of the schools worked in a team and this collegial process was reinforced by the meetings with the whole group at different times throughout the year. The research undertaken was qualitative, using a multiple case study focus. Each case study involved one or more teacher or, in some cases, students from different classes across the years of primary school. Data consisted of teachers’ programs, video tapes of classroom episodes, teachers’ notes, observations of students by researcher and teachers, and samples of students’ work in print and digital mode. The project involved teachers and students in primary classes ranging from Kindergarten (first year of school) to Year 6 (11 to 12 year olds). A wide variety of programs were planned by the teachers so that they addressed a range of outcomes across different Curriculum areas, such as Mathematics, Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE), Science and Technology and Creative and Practical Arts (CPA). The study entailed progressive stages that involved three full day meetings with all the teachers. In these meetings teachers were given detailed information about the purpose of the project, guidelines and procedures, their role as ‘teacher researchers’ and further professional development regarding current theories and research

on visual and multimodal literacy. Ethics approval was obtained from the researcher’s university and appropriate procedures were followed according to the guidelines to obtain consent from principals, teachers, parents and students to maintain confidentiality and privacy. At the end of the project, the teachers demonstrated, discussed and reflected on the outcomes of their work. Teachers produced their own written and/or digital reports and a DVD with examples of classroom episodes was produced. Some teachers have since presented at conferences with the researcher. A rich range of data was obtained and analysed in relation to the two research questions. While each case study involved students of different ages and topics, consistency was maintained through the analysis which coded data to identify specific aspects of literacy and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) skills used within the learning experiences. Specific aspects of literacy that were identified were talking, listening, reading and writing. In talking and listening experiences, we identified where students were using talking and listening to learn, to respond to texts, to problem solve, to collaborate, and to develop metalanguage of the literacy/learning process itself or of the content area. For reading, we used Luke and Freebody’s (2002) reading practices (coding practice, semantic practice, pragmatic practice and critical practice) to identify various aspects of decoding, comprehending and responding to texts. For writing, we identified knowledge of text genre, structure and language that was needed for particular tasks. All of the literacy criteria were not identified in all tasks but they provided a consistent framework for analysis. Similarly we identified where students used different ICT skills and strategies as they worked with digital texts. The ensuing discussion shows some of the analysis with reference to three examples from the research project. The examples demonstrate how, through the analysis, we examined ICT skills that were linked to literacy processes. Through this

35

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

analysis we were considering whether the use and production of digital texts was changing the nature of literacy itself, and to what extent pedagogy needs to be redesigned for such changes.

the lIterAcy strAtegIes students need For reAdIng, usIng And producIng MultIModAl teXts In each of the case studies, the teachers embedded digital technology into their literacy program thereby creating multimodal environments where students worked with and incorporated different modes of print-based and digital texts within curriculum tasks. There were many literacy strategies that were used by the students that could be described as ‘the same’ as those used with traditional classroom texts in English and other Curriculum areas. Aspects of literacy that are defined in current curricula, i.e. talking, listening, reading and writing occurred with various levels of meaningmaking. There were, however, a number of ‘differences’ in the way these aspects were operating. These differences have been identified in the data as related to the convergence and interrelationship between modes of spoken and written language, sound, image and gesture. This convergence will be examined in the following discussion, using several examples from the learning episodes that students were engaged in.

Example 1. Convergence of the modes of sound and image with traditional writing Podcasting is a development within Web 2.0 technology and it enables a range of modes to be used in the production of a multimedia experience. Example 1 illustrates a teacher’s work with a class of Year 3 (8 year old) students who produced podcasts. The students were engaged in a range of literacy tasks of researching, planning and writing texts for broadcasting while learning about the technology of using audio and video files to produce their podcasts. In pairs, students were required to plan, develop, draft, produce and edit a 5-8 minute podcast suitable for sharing with a broad audience. The final podcasts were uploaded to iTunes as well as onto the School’s website. Table 1 summarises the learning experiences that students were engaged in. The description in Table 1 is a summary of detailed work that occurred over a number of weeks with the teacher modelling and scaffolding different stages of the process. The students’ work was linked to curriculum outcomes and assessed within this rich learning environment that incorporated those aspects of literacy identified in curriculum documents as talking, listening, reading and writing along with aspects of digital technology. Table 2 shows an analysis of the literacy processes within these learning experiences, considering those processes that would normally be considered ‘literacy’ and those that

Table 1. Learning experiences with podcasting, integrating English, Science, Mathematics and Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE)  Teachers and students examined the components of a podcast and the technology needed. Students listened to examples of other podcasts and the teacher explained the stages of the podcast that students would produce: Title, Greeting, Introduction, Information Report (Spider), Narrative Episode, Conclusion.  In pairs students planned different parts of their podcast with the additional criteria of combining words, pictures, music and sound effects.  Students wrote storyboards for each section, took digital photos, saved and varied these using ‘Comic Strip’/Photo story software, used graphics, pictures, artwork and learnt how to combine these into the podcast files.  Students practised recording in pairs with microphone and edited their recordings; added and edited sound and music using Garage Band software.  Students evaluated each other’s podcasts then podcasts were uploaded to iTunes.

36

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

are ‘different’ because of the incorporation of digital technology. The left hand column shows those literacy practices defined in current English/ Literacy curriculum documents. The right hand column shows processes that are now identified as ‘different’, different because they suggest changed literacy and learning practices that occur within digital communication. Although viewing has been included in some English curricula in Australia for some time, aspects of viewing are included in the right hand column as it is less related to traditional views of literacy. While the columns are separated for the purpose of analysis, these processes were usually occurring together as indicated by the arrow at the top of the table. It is this integration of processes that can be defined as a new type of literacy or multimodal literacy. The differences in literacy practices evident in the right-hand column are not just the result of the use or integration of technology. Students were engaged in processes that combine traditional aspects of literacy with other modalities and semiotic systems. These processes involve multimodality, which is a convergence, or an interconnection and interdependence between the modalities of written text, image and sound. In the podcast the mode of sound was predominant

as students incorporated written text and visuals into the audio production that included their use of voice with simultaneous integration of music and sound effects. There was the further visual process of the editing of the recording, music and sound occurring on the screen along with images and graphics. All of these needed to be synchronised into the final product that would be logged as audio and visual files onto a website. If we consider our first research question, What are the literacy strategies that students need for reading, using and producing multimodal texts?, the answer has to include traditional literacy strategies combined with the use of different modalities and semiotic systems. These modalities have always existed but have not had the potential within communication that now exists within many aspects of everyday communication. As students combine different modalities it is essential that they understand them. For example, in the podcasting text the mode of sound was predominant so students needed to learn to use aspects of tone, intonation, pause, pitch, modulation and stress in their voices as they prepared their text. Our observations showed that they became very conscious of their enunciation and of the effect of their voice on the listener/audience. Music and

Table 2. Analysis of literacy practices Literacy processes

‘Different’ processes

 Reading: use of coding, semantic and pragmatic practice - linking of students’ background to new knowledge, understanding the purpose of different types of texts and audience.  Researching and reading for information across other content areas. Integration of different content areas.  At relevant times, teacher modelled and scaffolded the overall podcast genre with the different text types: information report and narrative, including concept of ‘serialised’ version or ‘chapters’ of narrative.  Students planned and wrote different text types needed.  Peer collaboration and support essential throughout with teacher demonstration and scaffolding. Talking and listening occurred throughout.  Varied use of ‘voice’ for different sections.

 Teachers and students learning together: using and learning ‘Web 2.0’ the technology of podcasting.  Understanding combined use of audio and video files.  Viewing and designing.  Awareness of elements of sound production through voice, sound effects, music and timing with visuals - use of laptops and iPods.  Production of ‘storyboards’ for both information report and narrative using digital photos, graphics or drawings.  Combination of visual, written and audio modes - students composed and designed, read and recorded programs within a time limit with sound and music.  Used different ICT software, web protocols with associated metalanguage.  Visual and digital modes combined with text.  Viewing, designing, producing combined with talking, listening, reading, writing: all used in an interdependent process.  Developed a sense of an audience - ‘authentic task’.

37

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

sound effects were integrated while producing a text on screen and these were synchronised with visual modes. At the same time the use of written text was integral as a dominant mode since the students had to write each text-type, or genre, and plan the sequencing of the language for their audio production. This whole process demonstrates a different literacy where modes converge. It was evident that these 8 year old students achieved a depth of literacy and learning about information reports and narratives along with the design and production of the podcasting process. Engagement of students was high, particularly of the boys whom the teacher had found were often disengaged from classroom learning. There was a cohesion in the literacy and learning that occurred. This was indeed a multimodal learning environment that involved students working together: talking, listening, planning, reading, researching, designing, writing and producing. Example 2 demonstrates how multimodal literacy was being developed in a different way with Kindergarten students (first year of school). Example 2. Interactivity of visual and gestural modes with reading and writing One of the predominant features of an Interactive White Board (IWB) is its interactivity and this interactivity has been established by other

researchers (e.g. Munns et al, 2006). IWBs were used in two different Kindergarten classes in this project and teachers spoke of the IWB as a most motivating, challenging and successful learning tool. Students enjoyed the speed, colour and movement of the texts and the kinaesthetic opportunities that the technology provided. Example 2 demonstrates where visual and gestural modes combined both literacy and learning in other content areas. In this case the school librarian and Kindergarten teacher planned a unit of work using an IWB within a unit of work on the theme of ‘Healthy Eating’, integrating the subjects English, Mathematics and Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE). Table 3 summarises these integrated learning experiences. In this program the teachers used a variety of multimodal texts and concrete materials to engage their young students in developing concepts of print for reading, understanding of a literary narrative, shapes for mathematics and concepts of healthy food types. The tasks were based around the mathematical concepts of shapes found in the environment. Teachers aimed to relate these to the students’ life experiences and integrated the mathematical manipulatives with Science and Technology, focusing on both healthy eating and farm animals. Story reading and concrete experiences were combined with use of the IWB, digital photography, interactive computer programs and

Table 3. Kindergarten students working with the theme of ‘Healthy Eating’  Teachers developed shared reading and reading activities with picture book The Very Hungry Caterpillar, including phonics, word recognition and comprehension activities.  Students were encouraged to consider concepts of food types and healthy food.  Shapes of food that represented healthy eating were examined as well as other shapes. Concrete objects were used to reinforce shapes e.g. an orange cut in half with discussion of what the shape looked like.  Teacher modelled correct computer/mathematical terminology for the students.  Students used a Tangram computer program to manipulate shapes. 2 & 3 dimensional shapes were made with playdough then on a geoboard. Students worked in groups to identify and make patterns with different shapes, then created an image of piece of fruit with Microsoft Paint.  Students used interactive website - ‘The Salad Factory’ - making a healthy salad [shapes/colours].  Visual identification and digital photography were used as students explored playground/local environment to identify shapes in a ‘shape hunt’. Students found a shape, took a digital photo, downloaded it on to the computer and IWB. Digital photos were categorised and highlighted to identify shapes. The IWB was used to transfer photos of shapes and work with these.  Students used blocks to make the shapes that they could see on the IWB.

38

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

Photo Story software. The differences between literacy practices with print and digital texts are displayed in the two columns in Table 4. Table 4 demonstrates that a variety of rich literacy and learning experiences occurred for these young students across different curriculum areas. It is evident that the teachers continually scaffolded students’ learning as they segued between prior knowledge and new experiences, concrete and abstract learning, and print and digital modes. In this case the modalities that were used to accompany traditional literacy and learning were principally visual and gestural, with gestural linked to both tactile and kinaesthetic senses. These modalities were operating as students identified and made different concrete shapes that were transferred into digital interactions either with computers or the IWB. These interactions involved visual recognition of images and gestural aspects that included the physical movement of using the mouse to click on icons or hypertexts and students pointing to significant images or shapes as well as using and manipulating the IWB board marker on the board. Visual, tactile and kinaesthetic senses have always been important for learning, particularly

for young learners. However the differences that were occurring in this example, and in other cases in the project, were in the way these sense experiences were used with and transferred into digital modes. In one way we could argue that this is traditional learning being enhanced by new technologies, however we need to acknowledge the possibility that a different process of learning is occurring in the way modalities are merging. This interdependence of print and digital modes, with the dominance of visual, sound or other modes together with the immediacy of technology, provides the potential for establishing classroom literacy and learning experiences that are dynamic and cohesive. Clearly the IWB technology engaged students’ attention so that they were motivated and interested in their learning. As one Kindergarten teacher commented, “Students are motivated by being able to touch something on the screen and move it around.” The main differences in literacy processes while using the IWB were that activities were occurring within a digital mode using the electronic screen, windows and facilities of a computer and its software. This is quite different from the traditional reading lesson for young students

Table 4. Analysis of literacy practices for Example 2 Literacy processes

‘Different’ processes

 Talking and listening were essential and ongoing for these young learners throughout. Language for students was continually modelled and scaffolded. For example, teachers encouraged students when they were outside and modelled language e.g. “Can you see something around here that is a triangle?” “I can see a rectangle over there. That is a window”. “How many triangles can you see?” “Why are the wheels round?”  Reading and writing: concepts of print, word-picture recognition, understanding of a narrative.  Concepts of healthy/unhealthy food.  Concepts: names and identification of foods, life cycle.  Integrated with mathematical concept of shapes, building shapes, development of tessellations with concrete materials and on screen.  Concrete manipulation of 3D shapes to 2D representations.  Use of positional language, e.g. “flipping and sliding”.

 Manipulation of shapes on screen. Tangram computer program - flipping, sliding, rotating, tessellating and discussion of shapes/features.  Transfer of concrete and visual 3D knowledge to 2D in digital mode.  Reading of digital texts - reading ‘on screen’. Visuals, graphics, audio, animation, text and interactive tools.  Visual modes: design and creation on digital screen.  Kinaesthetic: Importance of shape, colour, line direction and mouse control.  Visual, graphic mode with animation and sound. Students used visual and audio skills to make a healthy salad.  Visual, tactile and gestural modes. Reinforcement of 3D shapes then 2D - digital mode used to take photos of different shapes from playground.  ICT skills: students used tool bar and navigated the IWBused a highlighter to examine the shapes found in the photograph on the screen. Students needed to correctly identify icon and use the tool bar to access the next photo.  Using the downloaded photos, students highlighted the shapes using the IWB pen, e.g. rectangle.

39

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

where a teacher might demonstrate reading with print-based texts using a large book or text on a conventional board or an overhead projector. The facility of the IWB for teaching reading, for example, meant that the whole class could easily view and manipulate the ‘reading text’ on a screen that had the same components and files as a computer. Teacher and students were simultaneously identifying and moving the words within a digital text. The obvious advantages were the facilities for displaying different aspects of the text easily, speed for completion and potentials for self-correction. Obvious questions that arise are, how do we ensure that students are not becoming dependent on the screen if they are not writing the words themselves? Are the same ‘reading/learning processes’ occurring as previously? The analysis of the data from this project is demonstrating that there are differences in the processing of modes and in the affordances that technology provides for simultaneous articulation of these modes (Kress, 2003; Walsh, 2006). One teacher commented on how she would not like to revert to a classroom without technology, saying, “I’ve become used to just dragging things across, making them easy that way. I would have to go back to pen and paper method… photocopying things and sticking it up on the board to draw the children in that way. I would find it very difficult.” At the other end of the spectrum Example 3 shows the results of work by older students in

Year 6. The teacher, who was initially nervous about using new technology, engaged her students in highly productive and innovative learning in a unit of work. This teacher created opportunities for students to read, write, view, design and produce in both print and digital modes so that there was a continual articulation between written and digital modes. Example 3. Articulation between written and digital modes This Year 6 class consisted of high ability students so the teacher developed the content to provide for students to work on material that required higher levels of abstraction and complexity. The unit of work was on the theme of ‘Change’. It integrated English, HSIE, CPA and Technology. There was a strong focus on creative thinking, group problem solving and divergent thinking. Within the theme of ‘Change’ the focus was on the Australian Gold Rush but students were required to research and report on information using a variety of resources, including the library and the internet. Table 5 summarises the learning experiences that occurred. All tasks planned for this unit were product orientated and students were able to present their work to the rest of the class and, in the case of the movies, to other classes and parents. It was expected that students would demonstrate their

Table 5. Year 6 filming and editing within the theme of ‘Change’  Within the theme of ‘Change’ students researched the history of gold and gold rushes: ancient civilisations, legends, fables and language about gold. They developed a timeline of events in Australia from 1700-2006; gathered information, identified and reported on an individual or group involved in the discovery of gold.  Students examined the impact of the discovery of gold on the Australian Aboriginal community and used statistics to graph the population increase at the time and evaluate the reporting process.  Excursion to Bathurst assisted them to understand the experience of life on the Goldfields; compared different perspectives of life on the Goldfields; evaluated the influence these events had on the growth of Australia as a nation.  Students categorised the effects the goldrush and current mining techniques have on the environment.  Concept of Change was further explored through literature and film e.g.: Reading the novel “Jeremy, Jeremiah”; viewing the film: “Fairytale, A True Story”. Guided reading from websites was based on topics from the movie.  Students researched the Holtermann Nugget and developed a mind map to plan a group film which was to be a narrative from the perspective of an individual effected by the discovery of the Holtermann Nugget.  Students used storyboarding on Comic Life as a narrative scaffold & iLife; wrote a script as a narrative, set up scenes and costumes; dramatised the script, filmed & edited it using GarageBand to import music and sound effects.

40

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

engage in the tasks. When asked about the film study and listening to the story read aloud, many commented on the fact that all were sharing the same experience simultaneously so discussion and clarification of ideas could be shared together as opposed to individually reading a novel whereby students read at their own pace. The group included some reluctant readers who found it very difficult to settle to prolonged independent reading. In this work a rather quiet student became the class expert on all things to do with camerawork and editing. The teacher had to open the classroom at lunchtimes to have the movies completed and most students attended these extra sessions. Before the teacher could call in an expert to demonstrate the iMovie application, the students had taught themselves and were teaching other class members. Students taught themselves how to use GarageBand to add music and sound effects to the movies. All movies contained authentic details of life on the goldfields and some used the narrative technique of a time slip, as was used in the novel read aloud to them. Parents attended the premiere and were very supportive of the learning their children had been involved in. The three examples presented have demonstrated that the merging and interdependence, or convergence of modes, that occurs within

abilities to produce creative projects that exemplified the growth of their higher order thinking skills. Students were able to select from a wide range of products, both written and oral, to present their individual and group tasks. Opportunities were provided for short term and long term projects. The teacher commented, “The depth to which they undertook each task was far beyond my original expectations. It was interesting to observe the group task of movie making in particular and to note the ability of different members of the group to cooperate, negotiate and lead.” This unit had very little emphasis on teacher talk and indeed even discussions after viewing the movie and during Guided Reading rarely had the teacher in a central role, as the teacher said, “I enjoyed this aspect of the unit and found myself learning alongside the students. They responded to this in a positive manner and were eager to share their knowledge, not just with me but also with their peers. It was almost as if the classroom became a level playing field.” Table 6 shows that the literacy practices were occurring more often with digital than print-based texts. Some students found the flexibility of structure a little difficult at first and struggled to work independently, but as the unit unfolded and the students observed their peers, they were able to Table 6. Analysis of literacy practices for Example 3 Literacy processes

‘Different’ processes

 Talking listening & reading throughout: research skills, working individually and in groups.  Reading: semantic, pragmatic and critical reading practice occurred with various developments of inferential and evaluative comprehension needed.  Writing and talking: students presented a report on their research to the class.  Understanding the difference between information texts and narratives.  Understanding and writing narratives.  Understanding narratives in print compared with film.

 Research used both print and digital texts.  Reading digital texts and screens: students navigated and evaluated websites with laptops instead of books used for Guided Reading groups.  Group of boys assigned the role of “web detectives”.  Guided reading activities conducted as a group discussion or online as a forum.  Report produced as digital text.  Produced graphs in digital form.  Narrative aspects of novel and film compared - print and digital texts. Used factual events and settings as basis [the Holtermann Nugget].  Students wrote narrative scripts for film as a collaborative project, using the same narrative from different perspectives.  Reading ‘contract’ applied to reading of film.  Narrative presented as a movie.  Narrative storyboarding to represent episodes and sequence.

41

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

multimodal literacy and learning experiences involves a different literacy that many researchers are still attempting to theorise. In the podcasting example the process of the students’ writing being produced in audio and video files on to a website for others to access digitally is what Kress (2003) has referred to as “transduction”. Transduction is “…a process in which something which has been configured or shaped in one or more modes is reconfigured, reshaped according to the affordances of a quite different mode” (p.47). This transduction process is one aspect of multimodality. Alternatively there are other aspects that can occur within multimodality such as the interaction between visual and gestural modes that occurred in Example 2. Sometimes it is not transduction that occurs but a simultaneity and interdependence as different modes are processed together as in the modes of image, sound, gesture and movement that occur in a movie or in other combinations of modes. Currently other researchers are developing different terms, for example, “intersemiosis” (O’Halloran, 2003) and “co-articulation” (Martin, 2007), to further theorise the interrelationship between modes in a multimodal text or activity. Much more research and theorising are needed for us to understand such processes and to consider their educational applications. Nevertheless the classroom experiences that occurred through this project provide evidence of a variety of ways in which students were making interconnections or transitions between traditional aspects of reading and writing within visual and digital modes. Further examples of a multimodal process occurred in other tasks where students were working with combinations of print-based texts and digital texts. For example, various activities on the IWB required students to identify information, drag across the appropriate text or visuals, enlarge items and change colour or size. These actions entailed simultaneous processing of visual and tactile modes, sometimes with sound effects along with aspects of reading, spelling or writing. In conjunction with this enthusiasm was a will-

42

ingness to learn the metalanguage of computers. Teachers in the case study schools were conscious of encouraging its use. One Kindergarten teacher said children moved from ‘I am pushing on X’to ‘should I close the window?’ ‘Do you want me to minimize or maximize this?’.” Children were able to explain their processes to others: “We get the pictures ‘from [the] file … from the desktop … we’re using Max Paint. These three examples demonstrate that teachers were finding significant ways to integrate multimodal with traditional literacy practices and that all the teachers were involved in combining these in a variety of ways. Through their planning teachers were engaged in reframing pedagogy and this reframing is discussed in the next section.

the relevAnt, eXplIcIt pedAgogy ApproprIAte For IntegrAtIng MultIModAl lIterAcy WIth conventIonAl lIterAcy prActIces As with the cohesive learning illustrated through Examples 1, 2 and 3, other case studies revealed teacher approaches to pedagogy that incorporated both print-based and digital texts, integrated different curriculum areas, and focused on learning through different modalities, especially by transferring concrete experiences to digital modes. Teacher planning demonstrated that teachers were considering how to incorporate digital technology within one or more curriculum area in order to maximise students’ literacy and learning while using a combination of traditional, print-based texts as well as digital texts. Each teacher’s plan showed extreme detail that considered aspects such as the background knowledge and literacy ability of individual learners as well as the learning content needed for one or more curriculum area. There was effective integration of content

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

learning together with the strategies and skills that would be needed for researching, reading, writing and/or using ICT. Assessment was planned to be integral to the work and related to the relevant Syllabus requirements. Innovative features of planning and multimodality occurred. There were significant changes that teachers made that were different from previous approaches to their teaching. These changes demonstrated that teachers were developing multimodal learning environments in their classrooms in various ways to allow for the stage of their learners and the resources available. One aspect that emerged through the data was the predominance of design within the reading and production of digital and multimodal texts.

design within the literacy/english curriculum Design in the school curriculum is usually associated with the curriculum areas of Science and Technology or Visual Arts. It is significant that design emerged as an integral process in all of the seven case studies. The potentials of digital technology provide facilities for photographs, film, graphics and sound to be incorporated in a text, including easier access and variation for layout, fonts and publishing forms. In recent years literacy theorists, particularly the New London Group (Cope and Kalantzis, 2000), Kress (2003) and Christie (2005), have stressed the importance of design within new modes of communication. As previously mentioned, Kalantzis & Cope (2005) and Healy (2008) are applying a new learning pedagogy of design within the context of multiliteracies. Such a focus on design within new pedagogy confirms Kress’s (2003) explication that design is a link between old and new media of communication, stating that: The world of communication is now constituted in ways that make it imperative to highlight the concept of design, rather than of concepts such

as acquisition, or competence, or critique.” He adds: “In multimodal communication, the concept of design is the sine qua non of informed, reflective and productive practice. (pp.36-37) Our data supports Kress’s contention, as design was predominant through all the case studies so that ‘informed, reflective and productive practice’ was occurring for teachers and students alike. Design was integral within the literacy processes and learning experiences of students throughout the project. To read and respond to multimodal texts students often need to navigate and manipulate, as well as understand, the relationship between images, text, sound and other modes that may occur. They need to understand how the affordances of particular modes are constructing meaning separately or combined with other modes, particularly through photography, animation, film and the effect of hypermedia. Design was central within one of the case studies, for example, where the teachers developed a unit of work on fairytales using literature, drama, art and craft. Activities led to the design and creation of concrete as well as digital products so there was a cohesive merging of print-based and digital texts within the fairytale theme. Students produced a story in a print version and then a digital version with claymation, using props and puppets they had made. In another example students in a Year 6 class produced e-narratives for Kindergarten students. Design was pivotal to this process. Within the development of narratives in digital form, along with filming and sequencing, students needed to understand the relationships between image and words, the colour and size of image and text, the importance of volume, pace and tone in the use of voice and sound to accompany the narrative. Through this process the teacher encouraged students to visualise what they thought was happening in their story. Once again this example shows that design was an essential feature of students producing a digital product for their

43

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

younger audience. Students needed to understand the whole design of pages on screen, visual and digital metalanguage, along with the technology needed to create narrative in digital form, e.g. loading photography, storyboarding, scanning, filming, recording and editing. When creating screen segments, students consistently requested other students to critique the effectiveness of their images in relation to their text. Evidence, from all the case studies, confirms that design is an important element that needs to be considered for literacy in all curriculum areas, particularly the subject English itself, where multimodal texts are being read or produced. Thus the conceptual understanding of design may assist teachers in redesigning pedagogy.

conclusIon The data from this research project provides classroom evidence that enables closer theorising about multimodal literacy, particularly in relation to our two research questions. In response to the first question, What are the literacy strategies that students need for reading, using and producing multimodal texts?, significant conclusions can be drawn. To read and produce multimodal texts, students need to be able to combine traditional literacy practices with the understanding, design and manipulation of different modes of image, graphics, sound and movement with text. The case studies have shown that this combining of traditional literacy with new technology can incorporate a range of variations. Sometimes there will be a transference between written and digital modes that transforms the product. At other times there will be interactivity between modes, at other times a convergence of modes. This may be a simultaneous process or a particular mode, such as written text, image or sound, may be dominant. Then there is the consideration of how particular modes, for example sound or visual, are constructing meaning and being processed. While

44

researchers may still be searching for the exact terminology, there is an articulation and interdependence that occurs when multiple modes are processed. This processing is quite different from our traditional theories of the processes involved in reading and writing print-based texts. For the range of communication needed in their future lives students need to be able to understand, use and combine these different modes as well as being able to communicate with printbased and multimodal texts that combine these modes. While students may be adept at the skills for using and combining different modalities outside school, it is essential that they learn the meaning-making potential of these modes within different curriculum areas and learn to evaluate and critique these. Proficiency in literacy indeed requires multimodal literacy, that is the practices of talking, listening, reading and writing together with processing the modes of image, sound and movement. As the varied examples in our case studies have shown, there was cohesiveness in teacher planning and student learning when these were developed carefully with different stages that scaffolded the particular literacy or learning required. In response to our second question, What is the relevant, explicit pedagogy appropriate for integrating multimodal literacy with conventional literacy practices?, each of the case studies contributed to the ways in which theory can be realised in practice. Each case study demonstrated how teachers planned units of work that drew on the potentials of multimodal texts or digital technology in innovative ways. Teachers constructed learning experiences with multiple layers of learning ensembles, combining concrete experiences and print-based texts with digital texts. There was a strong focus on teachers’ modelling and scaffolding students’ learning with all types of texts used and produced. Rich learning experiences were developed and these experiences enabled the gradual development of metalanguage and metacognition. The common

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

elements of the learning experiences were peer collaboration in investigating, reading, writing and producing multimodal texts as well as learning the content and skills needed for specific curriculum areas. The innovative approaches to cross-age grouping or learning were a result of teachers being given the opportunity to plan creatively to engage learners and to utilise the potentials of technology resources. Although the term and process of design was not a focus in the initial briefing and planning of the teachers, the data reveals that it is an essential feature for multimodal literacy. The potential of design being considered within literacy pedagogy provides scope for understanding and planning with multimodality. If we consider the processes involved in reading, critically evaluating texts, writing and producing texts for particular purposes and audiences, then design is an integral factor. Design may be the significant factor that will assist teachers in the future as they need to incorporate traditional with multimedia and digital communication. While a great deal of further research is needed, this research study has illustrated the potential for change in classroom practice in ways that can be beneficial for both teachers and students. Different aspects of literacy and pedagogy have been demonstrated and these have implications for new theories of literacy and for future pedagogy. Dynamic and cohesive learning experiences occurred without radical changes, within current Syllabus requirements and in ways that can be sustained. Teachers developed multimodal environments that were appropriate for our multi-media age but within the realities of their schools’ resources and students’ development. The case studies are evidence that classrooms can be places where print-based texts and digital texts are read, viewed, responded to, designed and produced. Such approaches can engender a holistic literacy and learning that involves listening, reading, viewing, talking and interacting with texts and with others. In this project teachers and students explored

and demonstrated the potentials for literacy and learning in a new age.

AcKnoWledgMent The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the Catholic Education Office Sydney for its ongoing support for this research, and to thank the teachers and students involved for their enthusiastic participation in the project.

reFerences Bearne, E. (2003). Rethinking Literacy: Communication, Representation and Text. Reading Literacy and Language, 37(3), 98-103. Bearne, E., Clark, C., Johnson, A., Manford, P., Mottram, M., Wolstencroft, H., Anderson, R., Gamble, N. & Overall, L. (2007). Reading On Screen. United Kingdom Literacy Association/ Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Bearne, E. (2007). Personal communication. Brun, A. (2007, March). Beyond Difference: Reconfiguring Education for the User-Led Age. Paper presented at Ideas, Cyberspace, Education (ICE) 3 Symposium, Scotland, UK. Callow, J. and Zammitt, K. (2002). Visual literacy: from picture book to electronic texts. In Monteith, M. (Ed.) Teaching Primary Literacy with ICT (pp.189-201). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Carrington, V. (2005). New textual landscapes, information and early literacy. In J. Marsh, (ed.) Popular Culture, New Media and Digital Literacy in Early Childhood. London: Routledge Falmer. Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan.

45

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

Healy, A. (ed.) (2008). Multiliteracies and Diversity in Education. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Jewitt, C. (2002). The move from page to screen: the multimodal reshaping of school English. Visual Communication, 1(2), 171-195. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & the Learning by Design Project Group (2005). Learning by Design. Altona, Australia: Common Ground Publishing with the Victorian Schools Innovation Commission. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1996; 2006). Reading Images The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse. London: Routledge. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning. The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London: Continuum. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Kress, G. & Jewitt, C. (Eds.) (2003). Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang. Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (2002). Further notes on the four resources model. Reading Online. http:// www.readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody. html Martin, J. (2007, April). Described in a Seminar on Multimodality, University of Sydney, Australia. Marsh, J. (2007, March). Play, Learning and Digital Cultures. Seminar presentation, Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln, UK.

46

Munns, G., Arthur, L., Downes, T., Gregson, R., Power, A., Sawyer, W., Singh, M., Thistleon-Martin, J. and Steele, F. (2006). Motivation & engagement for boys. Evidence-based teaching practices. Canberra, Australia: DEST. http://www.dest.gov. au/NR/rdonlyres/29CFF6D4-7567-4C06-A43CA82079197F1F/13866/FinalReport1.pdf O’Halloran, K. (2003). Intersemiosis in mathematics and science: Grammatical metaphor and semiotic metaphor. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Ser. 4(236), 337-366. Simpson, A. (2005). Booktalk ‘on line’. Learning about literature through ‘book raps’. In L. Unsworth, A. Thomas, A. Simpson, & J. Asha, Children’s Literature and Computer Based Teaching. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Unsworth, L. (2003). Re-framing research and literacy relating to CD ROM narratives: Addressing ‘radical change’ in digital age literature for children. Issues in Educational Research, 13(2), 55-70. Unsworth, L., Thomas, A. and Bush, R. (2004). The role of images and image-text relations in group ‘basic skills tests’ of literacy for children in the primary years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 27(1), 46-65. Walsh, M. (2006). The ‘textual shift’: examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 24-37. Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have meerged: classroom evidence of changed literacy practices. Literacy, 42(2), 102-108.

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

Key terMs And deFInItIons Multimodality: Refers to the simultaneous reading, processing and/or producing and interacting with various modes of print, image, movement, graphics, animation, sound, music and gesture. These modes, as well as language, are often referred to as different semiotic resources (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) in that they each are symbol systems for communicating meaning. Multimodal Texts: Those texts that have more than one mode, such as print and image or print, image, sound and movement. A multimodal text is often a digital text but can be a book, such as picture book, information text or graphic text. Multimodal texts require the processing of more than one mode and the recognition of the interconnections between modes. This process is different from the linear reading of print-based texts. Multimodal Literacy: Refers to meaningmaking that occurs at different levels through the reading, viewing, understanding, responding to, producing and interacting with multimodal texts and multimodal communication (Kress & Jewitt, 2003). It may include listening, talking and dramatising as well as the writing, designing and producing of such texts.

Multimodal Learning Environments: Refer to classroom environments where teachers and students are using and interacting with different types of texts and tasks across a range of curriculum areas. Literacy and learning may occur as cohesive processes in the interchange between texts and learners.

endnote 1

Definitions: ‘multimodality’, ‘multimodal texts’, ‘multimodal literacy’ and ‘multimodal learning environments’. Different terms have been used to describe literacy for new forms of communication, for example ‘new literacies’ (Lankshear & Knobel, 2000, 2003, 2006), ‘multiliteracies’ (Cope & Kalantzis, 2001; Unsworth, 2001, 2006) and various terms such as ‘digital literacy’, ‘information literacy’ or ‘e-literacy’. While these are all valid, the above terms are maintained within this study because of the theoretical and research base of multimodality within the field of literacy education (e.g. Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, 2001, 2006; Kress, 2003).

47

48

Chapter IV

Pedagogical Mash Up:

Gen Y, Social Media and Learning in the Digital Age Derek E. Baird Yahoo!, Inc., USA Mercedes Fisher Milwaukee Applied Technical College, USA

AbstrAct In this chapter we outline how educators are creating a “mash up” of traditional pedagogy with new media to create a 21st Century pedagogy designed to support the digital learning styles of Gen Y students. The research included in this paper is intended as a directional means to help instructors and course designers identify social and new media resources and other emerging technologies that will enhance the delivery of instruction while meeting the needs of today’s digital learning styles. The media-centric Generation Y values its ability to use the web to create self-paced, customized, on-demand learning paths that include using multiple platforms for mobile, interactive, social, and self-publishing experiences. These can include wiki, blogs, podcasts and other developing social platforms like Second Life, Twitter, Yackpack and Facebook. New media provides these hyper-connected students with a medium for understanding, social interaction, idea negotiation, as well as an intrinsic motivation for participation. The active nature of today’s digitally connected student culture is one that more resourcefully fosters idea generation and experience-oriented innovation than traditional schooling models. In addition, we describe our approach to utilizing current and emerging social media to support Gen Y learners, facilitate the formation of learning communities, foster student engagement, reflection, and enhance the overall learning experience for students in synchronous and asynchronous virtual learning environments (VLE). Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Pedagogical Mash Up

IntroductIon to Web 2.0 & generAtIon y The basic idea of the Web is that an information space through which people can communicate, but communicate in a special way: communicate by sharing their knowledge in a pool. The idea was not just that it should be a big browsing medium. The idea was that everybody would be putting their ideas in, as well as taking them out. — Tim Berners-Lee

Web 2.0: It’s All About relationships (and Interaction) In the past social interaction required students and teachers to be tied to a physical space—such as a brick and mortar classroom. But as the Web has evolved, students and teachers have been able to utilize new media technologies to replicate face-to-face social interactions into Web-based learning environments. This movement of using Web-based platforms for social interaction has been dubbed “Web 2.0.” One of the main attributes of Web 2.0 is the transition of the user as passive participant to an active co-participant who creates both the content and context for their experience. Web 2.0 (social media) is based on three very simple, yet often overlooked principles: 1) humans are inherently social creatures; 2) the continued

viability of any social system is rooted in an individual’s ability to trust the members of the group and control their level of interaction; and 3) social networking should be used in a situated and engaging context. A 2005 study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (Lenhart & Madden, 2005) reported that 48% of teens feel that using the Internet improves their relationships, and 74% report using Instant Messaging (IM) as the technology of choice when it comes to fostering and supporting social relationships with their peers. In an educational context, social technologies, such as those outlined in the Pew Internet Study, have the potential to engage students in the learning materials and allow them to be included as active participants. Since Gen Y students are drawn to Web 2.0 tools, learning is facilitated by technology as they construct a learning landscape rooted in social interaction, knowledge exchange, and optimum cognitive development with their peers.

Meet generation y: Wired, digital, and Always-on Raised in the world of interactive, Web-based new media, today’s student has different expectations and learning styles than previous generations. A key attribute valued by Gen Y is their ability to use the Web as a platform on which to create a

Table 1. What are the key attributes of Web 2.0? Foundation Attributes • User-contributed value: Users make substantive contributions to enhance the overall value of a service. • Network effect: For users, the value of a network substantially increases with the addition of each new user. Experience Attributes: • Decentralization: Users experience learning on their terms, not those of a centralized authority, such as a teacher. • Co-Creation: Users participate in the creation and delivery of the learning content. • Re-mixability: Experiences are created and tailored to user needs, learning style, and multiple intelligences by integrating the capabilities of multiple types of social media. • Emergent systems: Cumulative actions at the lowest levels of the system drive the form and value of the overall system. Users derive value not only from the service itself, but also the overall shape that a service inherits from user behaviors.

(Schauer, 2005)

49

Pedagogical Mash Up

self-paced, customized, interactive, on-demand experience, with plenty of opportunities for social networking with peers, and self-publish content to the Web. A recent study conducted by the US-based Kaiser Family Foundation (Rideout, Roberts, & Foehr, 2005) found that teens routinely incorporate multiple forms of new and old media into their daily practice. For example, teens listen to music on their iPod, while simultaneously sending instant messages, watching TV, scouring the Web for information and writing a report for school. The end result is 8.5 hours of media consumption and multitasking squeezed into 6.5 hours a day (Rideout et al., 2005). Moreover, although 90% of teen online access occurs in the home, the Kaiser Foundation Study (Rideout et al., 2005) found that many students access the Web via mobile devices such as a cell-phone (39%), portable game (55%), or other Web-enabled handheld device (13%).

Everyone involved in education needs to pay attention to these emerging sociological trends and design learning environments that will appeal to the “digital reality” of today’s students. While the move from “Mass Media” to “My Media” is a shift in thinking for many, Gen Y views the world of virtual, social and always-on interactivity as their reality.

understanding gen y & digital learning styles In the 21st Century classroom, the student wants to control the how, what, and when a task is completed. Social media and other Web-based technologies are well suited to provide avenues for students to engage in a social, collaborative, and active dialogue in the online learning environment with their peers and instructor. A study conducted by the UK-based NESTA FutureLabs (2005) reported that the education

Table 2. Gen Y digital learning attributes •

Interactive

Interactive, engaging content and course material that motivates them to learn through challenging pedagogy, conceptual review, and feedback. Students expect to find, use, and “mash up” various types of web-based media: audio, video, multimedia, edutainment and/or educational gaming/simulation.

•

Student-Centered

Shifts the learning responsibility to the student, and emphasizes teacher-guided instruction and modeling. Customized, ability to use interactive and social media tools, and ability to self-direct how they learn.

•

Situated

Reconcile classroom use of social media with how technology is being used outside of the classroom. Use of technology is tied to both authentic (learning) activity and intrinsic motivation.

•

Collaborative

Learning is a social activity, and students learn best through observation, collaboration, and intrinsic motivation and from self-organizing social systems comprised of peers. This can take place in either a virtual or in-person environment.

•

On-Demand

Ability to multitask and handle multiple streams of information and juggle both short and long term goals. Access content via different media platforms, including mobile, PC based, or other handheld (portable) computer device.

Authentic

Active and meaningful activities based on real-world learning models. Industry driven problems and situations are the focus and require reflective elements, multiple perspectives and collaborative processes for relevant applicable responses from today’s student.

•

(Baird, 2006)

50

Pedagogical Mash Up

“should be reversed to conform to the learner, rather than the learner to the system.” Moreover, NESTA found that social media should be used to enable learners to study and be assessed according to their own learning style (BBC, 2005). Digital learning theory and pedagogical practice also centers on the concept that learning needs to be situated in a social and collaborative context. Discussion among peers can make the often invisible community threads more visible and accessible, and may lead students to find others in the group who share the same interests. Students are hard wired to look at the variety of available Web 2.0 technologies and then construct their own learning path, and content based on their intrinsic learning needs. As students go through process of choosing, utilizing, integrating and sharing content it provides opportunities for them to be actively engaged, provide and receive feedback, as well as acquire, share, and make use of community knowledge. More importantly, this emerging digital pedagogy emphasizes providing students with a broad range of technology tools, then providing them with avenues to develop their own understanding and knowledge. As a result, students are highly motivated to discuss and create content, solve problems together, and apply new concepts which relate to their own practice. This approach also provides student’s with access to flexible, selfpaced, customizable content available on-demand for learning opportunities. The use of social and new media provides students with an opportunity to self-assess their understanding (or lack of) of the current course topic with their peers. Moreover, as students utilize social technologies to share their thought processes and provide feedback to their learning community, they are able to help each other work through cognitive roadblocks, modify their perceptions, and negotiate their own views while simultaneously building a collaborative peer support system. In addition, collaborative project-based learning environments help students develop critical

thinking and problem solving skills—both essential skills for students to compete in today’s global knowledge-based workforce.

digital disconnect: sociological trends and Implications As you may expect, traditional academic institutions have generally resisted the influence and increasingly pervasive presence of social networking activities in the life of their students, but recently the same institutions have had to look with new eyes at all of the aspects and consequences of these new modes of technological socialization sweeping the younger generations. — Ruth Reynard Gen Y students have grown up surrounded by new media and value the ability to choose how, what, where, and when they will learn. According to the 2005 Pew Internet study, teenagers are actively embracing the interactive capabilities of the Internet to create, publish, and share their own content (blogs, podcasts, Web pages, photographs, wiki, and/or video). In fact, the Pew Internet Study concluded that fully half of all teens who use the internet could be considered content creators (Lenhart & Madden, 2005). Students report feeling a sense of growing disconnect between the authentic ways they use technology outside of the classroom and the ways they use it in the classroom (Levin, Arafes, Lenhart, & Rainie, 2002). This growing disconnect has resulted in many students feeling bored and constrained by traditional curriculum and pedagogical theory. According to the High School Survey of Student Engagement, the majority of students interviewed reported they don’t feel challenged in their coursework at school. Students also cited that they never or rarely received feedback from their teachers (Sanoff, 2005). The expectation for highly interactive, flexible, collaborative, and desire to play a more active

51

Pedagogical Mash Up

role in their own learning has already had an impact on the way colleges and even high schools educate students. The Michigan State Board of Education recently mandated that every high school student would have to take at least one online course to receive a diploma (Carnevale, 2005). Among the many reasons cited for adding the online course requirement was the realization that “much learning is going to take place in the 21st Century online.” The combination of social interaction with opportunities for peer support and collaboration creates an interesting, engaging, stimulating, and intuitive learning environment for students (Fisher & Baird, 2005). Effective course design will blend traditional pedagogy with the reality of the new media multitasking learner.

digital divide The infusion of social and new media into the 21st Century pedagogy isn’t without challenges. One of the key areas of concern is providing universal access to the Internet and bridging the digital divide between students and/or teachers who have technology and those who don’t. The issues around the digital divide, first raised in the 1990s, continue to be an area of concern. Even in countries where the Internet is widely accessible, there are still regions that remain digitally isolated. According to 2008 National Technology Scan, a report conducted by Parks Associates, nearly 20 million American homes report being without Internet access and/or self-identified as lacking the technological expertise required to create content, search for information, or send an email. At the 2008 ad:tech Miami Conference, Fabia Juliasz of ibope/NetRatings noted that Internet access in Latin America (Brazil 22%, Mexico 22%, Argentina 26%, and Chile 41%) continues to expand at a steady but slow pace. Since most student consumption of new and social media technologies occurs in the home, lack of at home

52

access makes educational uses of the Internet problematic. This also makes it difficult for the teacher to assign projects or homework to students that require Internet access. Increasingly there is a trend towards providing professional development online via Web-based platforms (Elluminate, Tapped-In, Facebook, Classroom 2.0, LearnHub etc.) all of which require participants to have Internet access. Teachers without access to the Internet at school or at home will miss out on these valuable opportunities to network with their colleagues and learn emerging and new best practices. On a positive note, the divide has closed and the rapid adoption of mobile devices and broadband connections will continue to help shrink the divide and provide opportunities for students to participate in mobile learning (mLearning) environments.

neW MedIA, socIAl netWorKs, & vIrtuAl leArnIng envIronMents (vle) Learning requires more than just information, but also the ability to engage in the practice. — Paul Duguid The use of new media and social networks in a situated context provides both the structure and building blocks for interaction to take place. The end result is an environment which combines social media, Web-based information resources, and communities to provide a more diverse, active, and engaging learning experience. Papert (1996) asserts that learning “is grounded in the idea that people learn by actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information ‘poured’ into their heads.” Moreover, he asserts that people learn with particular effectiveness when they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful artifacts”, such as Weblogs, iPod, podcasting/audio blogs, wiki, social

Pedagogical Mash Up

bookmarking, and other types of user-generated content (UGC).

how social Media supports digital learning styles The formation of an online learning community allows students to learn in a social context and turn to peers who are subject matter experts for immediate feedback and assistance. This approach also provides opportunities for students to learn through a cognitive apprentice with instructor and/or peers. In addition, opportunities should be provided for students to quantify their knowledge and skills in order to help them identify their place as well as other students with specific expertise. It’s important to allow a community the freedom to discover where they fit in the learning community. The collaborative and interactive aspects of projects undertaken in a course allow students to interact with other members of the class, allow students to identify who has a particular skill or expertise they want to acquire, and then provides opportunities for them to model and scaffold this knowledge from their peers. In addition the virtual learning environment allows students to explore and negotiate their understanding of the course content and find ways for the learner to develop a sense of intellectual identity (Papert, 1999). When students collaborate they form social ties which motivate them to establish an identity within the group through active participation and contributions to the collective knowledge pool. Through this process learners become motivated on an individual level as well as fostering a sense of accountability to the group to continue to participate. Anthropologist Lori Kendall, who spent almost two years researching the dynamics of social identity and community, concluded that members of virtual environments have intact social systems, and at times highly charged social relations. But unlike the electronic window of television,

Kendall found that members of an online community feel that when they connect to an online forum, they enter a social, if not physical space (Kendall, 1999). In this new digital age, we need to redefine our concept of what constitutes a legitimate “social system”, “learning community” or “social interaction.” In many ways, the effective use of new media to support instruction provides the same or better quality of socialization than a traditional classroom. If we are truly to expand educational opportunities via virtual learning environments and social networks, we will need to recognize and validate the existence of online communities, relationships, and interaction.

teaching & learning in social networks Critics of e-learning often characterize online classrooms as neutral spaces devoid of human connection, emotion, or interaction with instructors or peers. However, effective use of social networking and new media technologies provides educators and students with the ability to interject emotion in the online space, thereby providing opportunities for peers to make emotional connections with classmates, and create a community of practice just as they do in the ‘real time’ world of the brick and mortar classroom. Social networks can also provide an outlet for students who are socially isolated or shy in the traditional classroom, a way connect, share ideas and collaborate with their peers. Clearly, the key to a successful online user experience is to help students find ways to construct relationships with their peers, while simultaneously meeting their digital learning styles. A digital ethnographic study conducted by Goldman-Segall (1997) at the University of British Columbia pointed out how media tools create a constructivist learning environment which allows people to build interpretations of their data and utilize their individual life experi-

53

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 3. Education social networks Platform •

LearnHub

http://learnhub.com

•

Tutor Linker

http://tutorlinker.com/

•

Apple Learning Interchange

http://edcommunity.apple.com/ali/

•

Discovery Education Network

http://www.discoveryeducatornetwork.com/

•

Elgg Spaces

http://elggspaces.com/

•

Classroom 2.0/Ning

http://classroom20.com

ence, multiple intelligences, while still working as part of a collaborative team. Tosh and Werdmuller (2004) point out that students can use social networking to create their own learning and social communities. These self-directed learning communities could then provide resources, increase engagement in the course content, as well as provide a “network of knowledge transfer.” In the same vein as Vygotsky and other social learning theorist, their “power in the process” hypothesis states that the development of optimum cognitive development is rooted in the social exchange of information on both “the individual and collective levels” resulting in “opportunities to build one’s learning instead of just being the recipients of information (Tosh & Werdmuller, 2004).” Social networking media is an effective and authentic tool that engages the user in the content and allows them to be included as an active participant social interaction, knowledge exchange, and engagement with their peers.

theory to practice: social Media in the classroom While teens have become increasingly hyperconnected and mobile, schools have been slow to respond to this cultural shift in the way students learn and communicate with each other. For the most part, educators, parents and school administrators have responded to the new digital reality by filtering, blocking, and restricting the use of

54

url

digital devices, Web sites, new media and social networking in the classroom. This growing tension between the digitally wired teens and their schools is reflected in a 2007 study by the US-based National School Board Association which showed that 96% of students use social networking technologies, such as chatting, text messaging, blogging, and participating in online communities such as Facebook, MySpace, and Webkinz, or Moshi Monsters (NSBA, 2007). Adding to the growing sense of disconnect between wired teens and their schools, nearly 96% of districts participating in the NSBA study report that teachers are assigning homework that requires internet (NSBA, 2007). Moreover, the NSBA study found that nearly 60% of online students report discussing education-related topics such as college or college planning, learning outside of school, and 50% of students reported that they use social networks to connect with peers to talk specifically about schoolwork. In short, today’s Web-savvy students are stuck in text-dominated classrooms.

preparing teachers for 21st century learning The other challenge is providing educators with the necessary professional development and training they need in order to effectively integrate new and social media technologies into their curriculum, as well as helping them develop a deeper understanding of the sociological shifts in students’ learning styles.

Pedagogical Mash Up

In his book, “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns”, Harvard University professor Clayton Christensen focuses on how education, technology, and innovation will impact the future of learning. Among other things, Christensen predicts that by 2019 half of all high school courses will be taught online. If learning moves online as Christensen predicts, what are the implications for educators? Teaching online with new and social media requires a different pedagogical approach from traditional teaching methods. Which raises an important question: Are educators getting the training and/or professional development required to teach our 21st Century students? In the immediate future, teachers will need access to the correct pedagogical training for this shift — especially so they can realize the possibility that new and social media technology can truly improve learning.

student safety & social networks Many educators face resistance from parents and school administrators about student use of the social Web. As a result, many schools use Web filters that block out large swaths of information. Understandably, the concern is that students will encounter inappropriate information or sexual predators. However a recent study in the Journal of the American Psychologist (Wolak, Finkelhor, David, Mitchell, and Ybarra, 2008) found that many of the beliefs about sexual predators on the Web are overblown and, in some cases, not true. The study found that “the stereotype of the Internet ‘predator’ who uses trickery and violence to assault children is largely inaccurate.” While there isn’t an easy solution when it comes to student Internet use, parents, teachers, and educators--need to take a less hyped, rational, measured approach on using social media in the classroom—and at home.

As a community, educators need to work on educating students to be more aware of the potential hazards and implications of disclosing too much personal information on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. At a time when teens are constantly being reminded about the dangers lurking in social networks, it’s always good to remind them that there are still plenty of dangers left in the nondigital world.

pedAgogIcAl MAsh up: gen y & leArnIng In the dIgItAl Age Perhaps our generation focused on information, but these kids focus on meaning -- how does information take on meaning? – John Seeley Brown The variety of Web 2.0 tools are providing students with the opportunity to socialize around the context of the content, in terms of subject matter, production and commentary. These experiences become integrated into today’s use of everyday devices in the everyday lives of the students for whom we design. As a result, the learning is embedded in and transferable to other contexts for the student. Here we provide an overview of the current wave of Web-based tools and outline how social and new media can work together to support learning, and foster community in the frontline and offline classroom.

social bookmarking and social search Social bookmarking provides students with a platform to exchange and share information found on the Web. As students search the Web they can save their search results, tag them with keywords, and then depending on whether they have marked the links private or public, share their pool of links

55

Pedagogical Mash Up

and resources with their learning community and classmates. Members of a community can also search, structure, and self-organize content via tags (keywords). You can then see what resources they are sharing with the community and add the ones you find most relevant to your tag list. And vice-versa. In this way, social bookmarking becomes an organic learning tool, evolving with the interests and needs of the community and the course.

using social bookmarking to support Instruction A teacher can place links in a community knowledge repository as a jumping off point for students. As students begin to research a topic, they can add content to and search the community pool. In this manner, students are scaffolding their own knowledge and the teacher is working as a facilitator, instead of a “sage on the stage”. Table 4. Social search/bookmarking resources Platform

url

•

del.icio.us

http://del.icio.us

•

H20 Playlist

http://h2obeta.law.harvard.edu

•

Rollyo

http://rollyo.com

•

Blinklist

http://blinklist.com

•

Diigo

http:// diigo.com

Weblogs/blogs Weblogs, more commonly known as “blogs”, allow students to publish their thoughts and reflections while participating in a collective environment. As students reflect on their own Weblog entries, read their peers posts, receive feedback and network with their community of learners they are creating an environment for knowledge transfer to take place. The user’s ability to connect with members of their learning community via differing types of social media is an important consideration for today’s learner. The interactive, collaborative, engaging nature of a blog combined with the ability to instantaneously publish content on the Web, enables students to use technology as a vehicle for presenting their own work as well as providing opportunities for feedback from their peers. Moreover, blogs give students a chance to read, write, and expand their computing skills. For example, if one student reads another student’s blog and sees a video in the blog, they want to learn how to complete that same skill. As a result, they collaborate with their peers to learn how to complete the same task (put video in a blog). Vlogs or Movlogs are blogs which allow users to put video content on their blog. Platforms such as Flickr, contain mobile blogging tools, titled Moblogs, in which users post photographs or video taken from their camera enabled mobile phone.

Table 5. Student perspectives on blogging Source • Synchronous Course Discussion

• Course Blog

Comment “One ‘attitude’ that might have changed for me regarding blogs, is that they don’t necessarily have to be eloquently written (personal conversation, Mar 1, 2005)” “Other than using mandatory course-related academic discussion boards, I have never participated in this particular style of communication medium. It is necessary to become technologically informed and literate so thanks for providing this opportunity (personal conversation, February, 2005).”

• Synchronous Course Discussion

“I think if there is a focus or topic to blog on then the impact on a learning community would be tremendous—a guided blog. This type of journaling would offer a variety of POVs (point of views) and foster a culture of learning (personal conversation, March 1, 2005).”

56

Pedagogical Mash Up

using blogs to support Instruction The key feature of blogs is the author’s ability to self-publish in an easy and quick manner on the Web. Students could be required to maintain a Web log (blog) or other Web-based journal throughout the program, as well as individual blogs for each course. Reflection is a major component in online courses, and provides students with an avenue for expressing their own observed growth, and ability to make multiple connections within a course. Many students today use these types of blogs naturally and almost automatically. In addition, unlike previous generations, today’s digital student doesn’t learn or consume information in a linear path. Rather they have an “always-on” learning style that is driven by their intrinsic interests and looking at chunks of materials how and when they want. Table 6. Weblog/blog resources Platform

url

•

Blogger

http://www.blogger.com

•

Vox

http://vox.com

•

Squidoo

http://www.squidoo.com

•

Typepad

http://www.typepad.com

•

Wordpress

http://wordpress.com

•

Edublogs

http://edu.blogs.com

•

Gaggle

http://gaggle.net

By integrating a blog into your course, your class materials are available “on demand” thereby meeting the new digital learning styles of today’s Gen Y student. In addition, students are able to utilize the latest in mobile technologies to access a myriad of information—including your course blog, right from their mobile phone.

podcasts & Audio tools The Kaiser Family Foundation Study (Rideout et al., 2005) found that 65% of teens have a portable mp3 device. The ubiquitous use of these types of portable devices provides educators with a unique opportunity to use podcasts as a mobile content delivery tool. Not only will students and teachers will be able to use podcasting technology to locate and then download audio content, but it will also provide them with the software and tools to be able to create and share their own content in a podcast. Teachers who incorporate podcasting into their curriculum cite many benefits, including an increased sense of student motivation stemming from community feedback, authentic and situated use of social technology in an instructional context, and the freedom to download the podcast content “on-demand.”

using podcasts to support Instruction

Vlogs/Movlogs (Video Blog) Platform

url

•

Blip.tv

http://www.blip.tv

•

OurMedia

http://www.ourmedia.org

•

YouTube

http://youtube.com

•

Jumpcut

http://jumpcut.com

•

Vimeo

http://vimeo.com

Moblogs (Mobile Blog) Platform

Podcasting will allow teachers to easily publish (or podcast) lectures, photos (perfect for the art history or architecture student), or foreign language accents pronunciations and drills, along with a myriad of other course content. Students will be able to subscribe to a course content feed and then automatically receive the content on their mp3 device.

url

•

Flickr

http://flickr.com

•

Shozu

http://shozu.com

•

Vox

http://vox.com

yackpack Developed by researchers at the Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford University, YackPack is a 57

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 7. Podcasting/audio resources Platform

url

•

Kidcast

http://www.ftcpublishing.com/kidcast.html

•

Odeo

http://odeo.com

•

Education Podcast Network

http://epnweb.org

•

Yahoo! Podcasts

http://podcast.yahoo.com

•

iTunes U

http://www.apple.com/education/itunesu/

•

BBC MP3

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/mp3.shtml

•

Yahoo! Audio Search

http://audio.search.yahoo.com/audio/learnmore

social audio platform that allows users to record and send audio messages to friends inside privately formed groups. While there are other products that provide avenues for collaboration over the Web—most notably message boards, email, and instant messaging—YackPack is among the first social media tools to allow users to share both live and asynchronous voice messages. The ability to interject voice into an online space is important because it provides opportunities for members of a community to convey the expression, emotion, and intimacy embedded in human speech. The ability to integrate human speech into the curriculum becomes even more important in pure online learning context where students and teachers only meet in a virtual environment.

using Audio Messaging to support Instruction An EFL (English Foreign Language) teacher (or Spanish, German, etc.) can post audio messages (verb conjugation, dialogue, etc) to an entire class. In turn, the students can respond to the teacher via a YackPack audio message. Instructors can Table 8. Yackpack resources

58

•

Yackpack

http://yackpack.com

•

StorytellingU

http://storytellingu.com

•

Yacklearning

http://yacklearning.net

•

Yackpack + PBWiki

http://www.blip.tv/file/196824

also use YackPack as a tool to provide narrative feedback, assessment, and student support. In addition, you can also post Yackpack audio in PBWiki.

Wiki A wiki is a collaborative Website where members can add, delete and change the content as needed. Wiki’s can be used to brainstorm on ideas, create “work-in-progress” drafts, organize content, and provide participants with opportunities for interaction. Wikipedia is one of the most extensive and popular wiki’s on the Web. Many wiki clients allow you to create a mash up of rich media such as video, audio, PowerPoint, RSS feeds, widgets and other social media into your wiki. Not only does this make your wiki more interactive, but it also allows you to offer a variety of media that supports the multiple learning styles of students. The WikiMedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that maintains several wiki’s including one of the most well known, Wikipedia, a Web-based collaborative encyclopedia project. Since WikiMedia is an open-source technology, students take can actively contribute to any of the WikiMedia projects.

using a Wiki to support Instruction An instructor can have students form groups, conduct research on a topic of their choice, and then add their findings to the corresponding entry

Pedagogical Mash Up

in Wikipedia. Or teachers could start a wiki to share teaching resources, curriculum ideas, or a forum for community support and interaction. Wiki’s are well suited to facilitate collaboration, communication and extend learning between peers. Most wiki clients provide privacy controls allowing you to choose which wiki pages you want to be public. Most importantly, wiki’s provide a platform where everyone can contribute their ideas and extend the virtual boundaries of classrooms.

rss Really Simple Syndication (RSS) technology is an XML based format that provides the backbone for the distribution of Weblog, podcasting, and other content. RSS allows users to easily syndicate or publish their content for use by others. There are several free RSS aggregators or news readers available, including Bloglines, Feedburner, My Yahoo!, Google Reader and Yahoo! Pipes. After a user subscribes to a RSS feed, the content (blogs, Websites, online community groups) automatically updates and is displayed in the feed reader. RSS readers also allow students to self-publish and share their content feed with members of their learning community.

using rss to support Instruction A key benefit is the users ability to pick and choose (subscribe) to a particular RSS feed and then have

the content updated in real time. In this manner, RSS is an important educational media tool to facilitate and support the “always on” learning styles of Gen Y. RSS readers allow students to self-publish and share their content feed with members of their learning community. The use of RSS further supports multiple learning styles by allowing the user to select which content is relevant and then have it delivered directly to them for “on demand” viewing at their convenience. As an assessment tool, RSS feeds provide teachers with several benefits. For example, instructors can subscribe to each students RSS feed and have their homework delivered directly into their aggregator, saving them the time consuming task of entering each student’s URL in order to view their e-portfolio or blog.

Flickr Sharing photos is an inherently social activity and Flickr, a Yahoo! company, was the first Web-based photo hosting service to successfully translate this experience into the online space. The key element that makes Flickr so unique is that active exploration and community are interwoven as main components of the design. Flickr is important because its ease-of-use allows students to keep their focus on acquiring new skills, building on existing knowledge while at the same time developing writing, software, and strengthening social ties within their learning

Table 9. Wiki resources Platform

url

•

PBWiki

http://pbwiki.com

•

Swicki

http://hnu.ida.liu.se/scwiki/Wiki.jsp

•

Wikimedia/Wikipedia

http://www.wikimedia.org

•

Zoho

http://wiki.zoho.com

•

Wetpaint

http://wetpaint.com

•

Social Text

http://www.socialtext.net/medialiteracy/index.cgi?wiki_resources

•

Miki (mobile wiki)

http://www.socialtext.com/node/75

59

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 10. RSS resources & tools Platform Yahoo! Pipes

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes

•

Google Reader

www.google.com/reader

•

Bloglines

http://www.bloglines.com

•

Feedburner

http://www.feedburner.com

•

New York Times RSS Generator

http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink

circle. This is especially important in geographically dispersed learning communities, where students may have limited face-to-face time to build a support network with their peers.

using Flickr to support Instruction One of the unique features of Flickr is the ability of users to use their camera phones to take and upload pictures directly to their photoblog. Since most students already have access to a camera enabled cell phone, students can integrate Flickr into a mLearning activity. For example, students can use their camera phone fon a field trip to take pictures, and easily post them to their own Flickr photoblog. Later, students can write about their experiences on the field trip, reflect, and share their thoughts with their learning community via a Flickr group (Baird, 2005). Flickr holds great potential as part of a multifaceted approach that blends constructivist learning theory and mobile technologies in the curriculum. To be sure, Flickr and other mobile social media cannot, and should not, replace faceto-face communication between teachers and students; rather, it should be used as one of many digital tools that, when skillfully integrated into the curriculum, has the potential to open lines of dialogue, communication, and learning. One of the challenges for educators is finding open copyright images and graphics they can use in their classroom. A partnership between Creative Commons, a non-profit that provides an alterna-

60

url

•

tive to copyright, Flickr and the generosity of the Flickr community has resulted in over a million photographs being made available for educators to use in their classroom. Flickr provides educators with a powerful resource that can support differentiated instruction and support the multiple learning styles of their students. The visual and interactive nature of Flickr supports students who excel in learning activities that are centered on visual, kinthestic, and tactile learning activities. Moreover, Flickr provides opportunities for students and instructors to create an engaging, open, and decentralized learning environment where ideas, creativity, and dialogue can be shared in an “always on” format that meets the needs of today’s digital learner.

educAtIon 2.0: MAsh up, reMIX, reuse A mash up is a Website, widget, or Web application that uses content from more than one source to create a completely new service (Wikipedia, 2006). They combine separate, stand-alone technologies into a new application. The following chart illustrates how mash ups of new media platforms have been mashed up to create social and interactive learning activities that appeal to the digital and mobile sensibility of Gen Y students.

Pedagogical Mash Up

Looking towards the future, the next wave of learning will take place in the mobile space. The convergence of mobile technologies into student-centered learning environments requires academic institutions to design new and more

eMergIng educAtIonAl MedIA The fates guide those who go willingly; those who do not, they drag. — Seneca Table 11. Educational mash-up of Web 2.0 platforms Platform

URL

About

Flickr •

http://www.delivr.net

Search Flickr tags to find photos and create postcard or greeting cards.

http://www.slide.com/flickr

Create embeddable slideshows using Flickr tag(s).

http://metaatem.net/words

Use Flickr tags to enhance your spelling lists.

delivr

•

Slide

•

Spell with Flickr

•

Huge Big Labs

http://bighugelabs.com/flickr

Several Flickr mashups including mosaic maker, slideshows, calendar & more.

•

Bubblr

http://pimpampum.net/bubblr/

Create comic strips using Flickr photos and/or tags.

•

Findr

•

Spell with Flickr

http://www.krazydad.com/defacement/squirclescope.php

Create a kaleidoscope using Flickr tags.

•

North American Wildflower Guide

http://www.flickr.com/groups/wildflowers/

Search and discover hundreds of images of North American wildflowers.

•

Boardr

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/12356/locale/en

Create a storyboard using Flickr photos.

http://maps.google.com

View landmarks & read narratives of the historic Route 66

http://www.googlelittrips.org

Google Earth Maps mashed together with pictures, videos and other information tied to classic literature.

http://www.forestandthetrees.com/findr

Use Findr to locate photographs by related tags and refining your tag search.

Google Maps •

•

Oral History of Route 66

Lit Trips

•

Google Mars

http://www.google.com/mars/

View topography, narratives of space explorers, and view spacecraft used to explore the Red Planet. Created in conjunction with NASA.

•

Jack Kerouac

http://maps.google.com

View landmarks and see pictures of the places in Kerouac’s “On the Road.”

continued on following page

61

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 11. continued Yahoo! Maps Created by the Kennedy Center, this map plots the life and works of William Shakespeare.

•

Exploring Shakespeare

•

Geologic Atlas of the United States

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/2490/locale/en

Map gallery of geologic features.

•

Life in San Francisco

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/1/locale/en

Watch videos mashed together with Yahoo! Maps explore San Francisco.

•

Disappearing Places

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/13126/locale/en

Archive and collective map of places that no longer exist.

•

Mile Calculator

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/5551/locale/en

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/11863/locale/en

Allows users to drag a path using the mouse on a mapped location and finds the miles or kilometers traversed over it.

Yahoo! Pipes (RSS) •

Yahoo! Pipes

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_id=hMj_ M5_42xG0ZSPIJhOy0Q

Edublog mash up

•

WPR Science & Education

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_ id=DrfI595U3BG5Ef_VouNLYQ

WPR interviews on science and education.

•

Second Life

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_ id=qswEzwu92xGA5Up_lfXiAA

Mash up of RSS feeds on using Second Life in education.

•

CS Education

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_ id=Hr9BCQTE2xGFf5qPmLokhQ

Mash up of K-12 CS education blogs.

•

Yackpack + PBwiki

http://www.blip.tv/file/196824

Video showing how to embed Yackpack audio into a PBWiki.

•

WikiMapia

http://www.wikimapia.org/

Community generated content and Google Map mash up.

•

Musipedia

http://www.musipedia.org/

Collective musical encyclopedia & wiki platform.

http://www.frappr.com/

Social map application; created with Google Maps. Users can create maps and embed on wiki, blog or web page.

http://memorywiki.org

Community generated collective encyclopedia of first-person narratives of historical events. Created using the Wikimedia suite of tools.

Wiki

•

•

Frappr

MemoryWiki

continued on following page

62

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 11. continued MS Office •

Blogger for Word

•

Creative Commons for MS Office

http://buzz.blogger.com/bloggerforword.html

Publish to Blogger via MS Word plug-in.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Microsoft_Office_Addin

Easily apply a Creative Commons license to your MS Word documents with this plug-in.

effective learning, teaching, and user experience strategies. The rapid adoption of wireless, mobile and cloud computing by Gen Y learners will require educators to designl earning environments for wireless, mobile, or other portable Web-enabled devices (video iPod, PSP, Palm, iPhone). In addition to mLearning (mobile learning), Web applications like Twitter, Facebook and Second Life hold great promise as an educational platform.

twitter Twitter is an online microblogging application that is part blog, part social networking site, and part mobile phone/IM tool. It is designed to let users describe what they are doing or thinking at a given moment in 140 characters or less. As a tool for students and faculty, Twitter could be used academically to foster interaction and support metacognition (Educase, 2007). Twitter also holds great promise as a way for seasoned educators to easily and quickly share their practice with novice or pre-service teachers. In this way, Twitter is being used as a digital legitimate peripheral participation or mentoring tool (Holahan, 2007).

Facebook Facebook has taken an open source approach by releasing an API which allows developers to create Facebook Applications for the education

community. The Facebook team has issued a call to action for the developer community to “create the applications that help people connect, track, and collaborate with their teachers, professors, and classmates (Moran, 2007).” This open platform approach has resulted in an influx of new educational oriented Facebook Apps as well as a mash up of existing Web 2.0 tools. For example the wiki you created with Zoho can now be used in Facebook with a mash up between Zoho and Facebook. Other popular education tools like Slideshare, Flickr, Twitter, delicious and YouTube have all recently created Facebook applications.

second life Second Life is an advanced virtual world simulation where users can create their own avatar (digital identity) and connect with other members of the Second Life community. Many higher education institutions, including ISTE, have already set up a virtual campus, classroom space and other learning environments within the Second Life grid. This globally connected virtual learning environment (VLE) is also being used as a way to supplement traditional classroom activities, provide avenues for collaboration, as well as hosting distance-learning courses. There is also a new mobile version of Second Life that allows users to be connected anywhere they have an internet connection.

63

Pedagogical Mash Up

iphone The iPhone, a mobile device created by Apple, is getting a lot of buzz in educational circles as the next “killer app” for e-learning. In fact, since its release, several higher education institutions have started pilot programs to test the viability of using the iPhone as a mobile learning platform. The App Store on iTunes has thousands of applications, many of them educational, that users can download to their iPhone. In addition, students can download podcasts and video from iTunes U and YouTube, created by their professors, onto the iPhone for on-demand viewing.

learning 3.0: Mobile learning The use of mobile technologies continues to grow and represents the next frontier for learning. Increasingly we will continue to see academic and corporate research invest, design and launch new mobile applications, many of which can be used in a learning context. Learning 3.0 and beyond will be about harnessing the ubiquity of the mobile phone/handheld device and using it as an educational tool. At the 2006 International Consumer Electronic Show, Yahoo! CEO Terry Semel outlined the ex-

plosive growth of mobile technology. According to Semel (2006), there are 900 million personal computers in the world. But this number pales in comparison to the 2 billion mobile phones currently being used in the world. Even more astounding is how mobile devices are increasingly being used as the primary way in which people connect to the Internet. In fact, Semel notes that 50% of the Internet users outside the US will most likely never use a personal computer to connect to the Internet. Rather, they will access information, community, and create content on the Internet via a mobile device. The convergence of mobile and social technologies, on-demand content delivery, and early adoption of portable media devices by students provides academia with an opportunity to leverage these tools into learning environments that seem authentic to the digital natives filling the 21st Century classroom. Clearly, the spread of Web-based technology into both the cognitive and social spheres requires educators to reexamine and redefine our teaching and learning methods. The 2005 study conducted by the USA-based Kaiser Family Foundation (Rideout et al, 2005) found that, although 90% of teen online access occurs in the home, most students also have

Table 12. Second life teaching resources Platform

url

•

Tutorial for Teen Second Life

http://wintermute.linguistics.ucla.edu/lsl

•

Salamander Project

http://www.eduisland.net/salamanderwiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

•

Second Life Tutorial

http://cterport.ed.uiuc.edu/technologies_folder/SL

Table 13. Other emerging educational technologies Platform

64

url

•

Twitter (Mobile)

http://twitter.com

•

Second Life

http://secondlife.com/education

•

Red Halo (Mobile)

http://redhalo.com

Pedagogical Mash Up

Web access via mobile devices such as a mobile phone (39%), portable game (55%), or other Web-enabled handheld device (13%). Palm estimates that mobile and handheld devices for public schools will be a 300 million dollar market. A few progressive school districts in the USA, UK, and Ireland have already started using mobile devices in the classroom. Mobile devices are also seen by many as the solution bringing Internet access and information to students living in developing countries. In order to create a better learning environment designed for the digital learning styles of Generation Y, there is a need to use strategies and methods that support and foster motivation, collaboration, and interaction. The use of mobile devices is directly connected with the personal experiences and authentic use of technology students bring to the classroom (Fisher & Baird, 2006). The use of mobile technologies is growing and represents the next great frontier for learning. Increasingly we will continue to see academic and corporate research invest, design and launch new mobile applications, many of which can be used in a learning context.

age: “We now accept the fact that learning is a lifelong process of keeping abreast of change. And the most pressing task is to teach people how to learn.” The proliferation of old and new media, including the Internet and other emerging social and mobile technologies, has changed the way students communicate, interact, and learn. And a new digital pedagogy, based on authentic learning activities, observation, collaboration, intrinsic motivation, and self-organizing social systems, is emerging to meet the needs of Gen Y students filling our educational institutions. In many cases, students spend as much (or more) time, receive more feedback, and interact with peers more in an online environment than they do with their teachers in the classroom. In fact, a 2002 Pew Internet Study (Levin, et al, 2002) found that 90% of student media consumption (8 hours worth) occurs outside the classroom. Now more than ever, instructors must keep track of these sociological trends and learn how to effectively integrate social media into their curriculum as a means to meet both the learning goals and digital learning styles of their Gen Y students.

conclusIon: It’s About leArnIng, not technology

reFerences

With knowledge doubling every year or two, “expertise” now has a shelf life measured in days; everyone must be both learner and teacher; and the sheer challenge of learning can be managed only through a globe-girdling network that links all minds and all knowledge…We have the technology today to enable virtually anyone to learn anything…anywhere, anytime. — Lewis Pereleman Looking towards the future, perhaps the advice of management guru Peter Drucker provides educators with a mantra for teaching in the digital

Baird, D. (2006). Learning 2.0: Digital, Social and Always-On. Barking Robot. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www.debaird.net/blendededunet/2006/04/learning_styles.html Baird, D. (2005). FlickrEdu: The Promise of Social Networks. TechLEARNING, 4(22).. San Francisco, CA: New Bay Media. British Broadcasting Corporation. (2005). Make Lessons ‘Fit the Learner’. BBC News Education. Retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://news. bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4482372.stm Carnevale, Dan (2005). Michigan Considers Requiring High-School Students to Take at Least

65

Pedagogical Mash Up

One Online Course. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 14, 2005 from http:// chronicle.com/free/2005/12/2005121301t.htm Christensen, Clayton. “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns.” Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. Educase (2007). 7 Things You Should Know. EDUCASE Learning Initiative. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/7Things YouShouldKnowAboutSeries/7495 Fisher, M. & Baird, D. (2007). Making mLearning Work: Utilizing Mobile Technology for Active Exploration, Collaboration, Assessment and Reflection in Higher Education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(1). Fisher, M. & Baird, D. (2005). Online Learning Design that Fosters Student Support, Self-Regulation, and Retention. Campus Wide Information Systems: An International Journal of E-Learning, 22. Fisher, M., Coleman, P., Sparks, P. & Plett, C. (2006). Designing Community Learning in Webbased Environments. In B.H. Khan, (Ed.), Flexible Learning in an Information Society. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Goldman-Segall. (1998). Points of Viewing Children’s Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer’s Journey. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Holahan, C. (2007). The Twitterization of Blogs. Business Week. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070604_254236.htm Kendall, Lori. (2002). Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lenhart, A, & Madden, M (2005). Teen Content Creators and Consumers. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 4, 2005,

66

from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/166/ report_display.asp Levin, D; Araheh, S; Lenhart, A, & Rainie, L. (2002). The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between Internet-Savvy Students and their Schools. Pew Internet and American Life. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www. pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=67 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006). 2005 Program Evaluation Findings Report. Available at http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/FA49E066B838-4985-B548-F85C40B538B8/0/05_Prog_ Eval_Report_Final.pdf (last accessed Sept. 19, 2006). Moran, D (2007). Goodbye Facebook Courses, Hello Facebook Platform Courses. The Facebook Blog. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://blog. facebook.com/blog.php?post=4314497130 National School Board Association (2007). Creating & Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social and Educational Networking. Retrieved August 14, 2007 from http://nsba.org/ site/doc.asp?TRACKID=&VID=2&CID=90& DID=41336 Navidad, Angela. Potentially Useful Data on Latin American Internet Culture. ad:tech Blog. Retrieved June 3, 2008 from http://www.adtechblog.com/archives/20080603/potentially_useful_data_on_latin_american_internet_culture/ Papert, Seymour. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Parks Associates. National Technology Scan. Retrieved May 13, 2008 from http://newsroom. parksassociates.com/article_display.cfm?article_ id=5067 Pope, Justin (2006). Some Students Prefer Classes Online. ABC News. Retrieved January 15, 2006 from http://abcnews.go.com/Technol-

Pedagogical Mash Up

ogy/wireStory?id=1505420&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 Reynard, Ruth. (2008). Social Networking: Learning Theory in Action. Campus Technology. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved May 29, 2008 from http:// www.campustechnology.com/articles/63319/ Richmond, T. (2006, September 15). OER in 2010 – Wither Portals? Innovate Journal of Online Education, 3(1), October/November . Online wiki article retreived Sept. 21, 2006 from http:// www.nostatic.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Rideout, V, Roberts, D., & Foehra (2005). Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year Olds. Kaiser Family Foundation Study. Retrieved November, 24, 2005, from http://www.kff.org/ entmedia/7251.cfm Sanoff, Alvin. (2005). Survey: High School Fails to Engage Students. USA Today. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/ education/2005-05-08-high-school-usat_x.htm Schauer, B. (2005). Experience Attributes: Crucial DNA of Web 2.0. Adaptive Path. Retrieved December 5, 2005 from: http://www.adaptivepath. com/publications/essays/archives/000547.php Semel, T. (2006). Yahoo! Keynote at 2006 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES). Retrieved January 6, 2006 from: http://podcasts. yahoo.com/episode?s=fa88e89d49dbbdbc77221b 561570105a&e=15 Tosh, D. & Werdmuller, B. (2004). Creation of a learning landscape: Weblogging and social networking in the context of e-portfolios. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from: http://www.eradc.org/papers/ Learning_landscape.pdf Wikipedia, (2007). Multiple Learning Styles. Retrieved (n.d.) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Multiple_intelligence Wikipedia, (2006). Mashup (Web application hybrid). Retrieved (n.d.), from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Mashup_(Web_application_hybrid)

Wikipedia, (2006). RSS (file format). Retrieved (n.d.), from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_ file_format Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M. L. (2008). Online “predators” and their victims: Myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63(2) Feb-Mar, 111-128.

Author note Links for all of the resources, references, and services cited in this chapter can be found at http:// del.icio.us/mashup.edu

Key terMs And deFInItIons Blog: A blog, short for “Weblog”, is a Web site in which the author writes their opinions, impressions, etc., so as to make them public and receive reactions and comments about them. Instant Messaging (IM): Instant messaging is the act of instantly communicating between two or more people over a network such as the Web. Mash Up: A Web application that combines data from more than one source into an integrated experience. Moblog (Mobile + Blog): A site for posting blog content from a mobile device, usually a cellular phone. Most often refers to photo sharing via a camera phone. Palm: A handheld portable device or personal digital assistant. Really Simple Syndication (RSS): Really Simple Syndication feeds provide Web content or summaries of Web content together with links to the full versions of the content. RSS is used by news Websites, Weblogs and podcasting to synch and deliver content. 67

Pedagogical Mash Up

SMS (Short Message Service): Written messages that you can send through a mobile phone. Social Networks: A term used to describe virtual or online communities of shared practice. Social Software, Social Media: Social software enables people to connect or collaborate through computer-mediated communication (wiki, Weblog, podcasts) and form online communities. Text Messaging (TM): Another term used to describe SMS.

68

Web 2.0: Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the Web that lets people collaborate, and share information online. Vlog (Video + Blog): A Weblog using video as its primary presentation format. Wiki: A collaborative environment where any user can contribute information, knowledge or embed rich media such as video, audio, or widget(s) (Adapted from Wikipedia and Wiktionary, 2006).

Pedagogical Mash Up

AppendIX A: overvIeW oF socIAl leArnIng theory

•

• • Situated Learning (Lave/Wenger)

• • •

•

Constructivist Theory (Bruner)

•

Social Development Theory (Vygotsky)

•

Multiple Intelligences (Gardner)

•

•

•

Social Life of Information (Seeley/Duguid)

Cognitive Apprenticeship (Brown, Collins, and Duguid)

Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave/ Wegner)

• •

Knowledge needs to be presented in an authentic context. Learning requires social interaction and collaboration with peers. As learners engage in social interaction they become involved in a community of knowledge and practice. Learners construct new ideas based on their current or past knowledge or experiences. Learners acquire new knowledge by building upon what they have already learned. Understanding comes through “active dialogue” Learning takes place via collaboration and social interaction with peers.

• •

Full cognitive development requires social interaction. The range of skills that can be developed with peer collaboration exceeds what can be attained alone.

•

Human intelligence is comprised of several faculties that work in conjunction or individually with each other to achieve full cognitive development.

• • •

Become a member of a community of practice (CoP) Engage in its practice Acquire and make use of its knowledge

•

Cognitive apprenticeship is an instructional design and learning theory wherein the instructor through socialization, models the skill or task at hand for the student. Students may also receive guidance from their peers. The role of the teacher is to help novices clear cognitive roadblocks by providing them with the resources needed to develop a better understanding of the topic.

•

• •

Theoretical description of how newcomers are integrated into a community of practice (CoP). Newcomers ability to observe experts in practice enables them to be integrated deeper into the community of practice. Chart adapted from Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com)

69

Pedagogical Mash Up

AppendIX b: roles oF students In vIrtuAl leArnIng envIronMents/socIAl netWorKs Roles

Task

Procedure

Group Value

Organizer

Provides an ordered way of examining information

Presents outlines, overviews, or summary of all information

Facilitator

Moderates, keeps on task

Assures all work is done and/or all participants have opportunity

Strategist

Decides the best way to proceed on a task

Organization

Analyst

Looks for meaning within the content

Realizes potential of content to practical application

Supporter

Provides overall support for an individual or group

Looks for ways to help members or groups

Summarizer

Highlights significant points; restates conclusion

Reviews material looking for important concepts

Narrator

Generally relates information in order

Provides group with a reminder of order

Keeps group focused on goal

Elaborator

Relates discussion with prior learned concepts or knowledge

Presents previous information as a comparative measure

Application or expansion

Researcher

Supplies outside resources to comparative information

Goes looking for other information with which to compare discussion

Inclusiveness

Antagonist

Supplies contrasting ideas

Looks for opposing viewpoints and presents in a relative way

Opposing viewpoint

Lead thinker Inclusive Detail Analytical Helpful Gives the overall big picture

(Fisher, Coleman, Sparks, & Plett, 2006)

70

Pedagogical Mash Up

AppendIX c: glossAry oF neW/socIAl MedIA terMs Definition

Term •

Mash up

A Web application that combines data from more than one source into an integrated experience.

•

Social Software, Social Media

Social software enables people to connect or collaborate through computer-mediated communication (wiki, Weblog, podcasts) and form online communities.

•

Blog

A blog, short for “Weblog”, is a Web site in which the author writes their opinions, impressions, etc., so as to make them public and receive reactions and comments about them.

•

Moblog (mobile + blog)

A site for posting blog content from a mobile device, usually a cellular phone. Most often refers to photo sharing via a camera phone.

•

Vlog (video + blog)

A Weblog using video as its primary presentation format.

•

SMS (Short Message Service)

Written messages that you can send through a mobile phone.

•

Palm

A handheld portable device or personal digital assistant.

•

Social Networks

A term used to describe virtual or online communities of shared practice.

•

Web 2.0

Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the Web that lets people collaborate, and share information online.

•

Instant Messaging (IM)

Instant messaging is the act of instantly communicating between two or more people over a network such as the Web.

•

Text Messaging (TM)

Another term used to describe SMS.

•

Really Simple Syndication (RSS)

Really Simple Syndication feeds provide Web content or summaries of Web content together with links to the full versions of the content. RSS is used by news Websites, Weblogs and podcasting to synch and deliver content.

•

Wiki

A collaborative environment where any user can contribute information, knowledge or embed rich media such as video, audio, or widget(s). (Adapted from Wikipedia and Wiktionary, 2006)

71

72

Chapter V

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide Jörg Müller Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Juana M. Sancho University of Barcelona, Spain Fernando Hernández University of Barcelona, Spain

AbstrAct This chapter explores the intimate relationship between new media literacy and the digital divide. The longer and deeper digital technology (DT) penetrates the fabric of society, the more it becomes connected to broader social concerns such as disadvantaged minorities, long-term poverty, access to resources or equal opportunities for all citizens. Contrary to initial expectations, DT is far from providing immediate responses to educational problems and even less, automatic relief to real world injustice; left to its own devices, it tends to reflect and increase existing forms of exclusion rather than ameliorate them. In order to address these issues, this chapter combines three major topics. Firstly, we summarize the argument on the closing vs. deepening digital divide. Physical access figures are presented according to adult and younger population, their socio-economic status and in relation to schools. Secondly, more recent findings are shown, dealing with the quality and use of the Internet by pupils. Thirdly, a more general reflection is introduced in relation to the role of schools and intervention strategies for implementing sustainable educational projects aimed at helping to improve social participation in a society for all.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

FroM the dIgItAl dIvIde to socIAl InclusIon

computer and Internet Access in schools

The more digital technology (DT) pervades society, the more it becomes attached to existing patterns of social inequalities. It is increasingly evident that DT does not provide a ready-made remedy for real-world injustice. On the contrary, it rather tends to strengthen existing social structures and inequalities (van Dijk, 2005; Warschauer, 2000). Young people are no exception. Nevertheless, they use DT more than any other age group. As their lives are increasingly mediated by DT at home and at school, existing socio-economic patterns permeate their usage. Schools are crucial in this context because they provide a major access opportunity, especially for less advantaged, students and can offer alternative usage profiles. As the academic and policy discussion has moved beyond a binary understanding of the digital divide between “haves” and “have-nots”, different concepts of media-, computer-, information- and multi-literacies have emerged. Indeed, the early concerns with providing physical access have been largely resolved in OECD countries –although it is not the case for the great majority of the rest. Despite this success in terms of infrastructure in technologically developed countries, social inequalities at large are still present. The question, therefore, is how can schools contribute to a more encompassing sense of digital equity and ameliorate the multi-dimensional gaps that separate the information poor from the information rich? This is an especially pressing problem, since new media literacy cannot be addressed in an isolated fashion within schools (Kalantzis, Cope, & Learning by Design Group, 2005). Wider social networks and pupils’ cultural capital emerge as decisive differential factors. Earlier differences in access are thus repeated in contemporary inequities of skills and sophistication of usage of DT. This implies that theoretical and practical counter-measures directed at reducing inequalities in the digital realm have to merge forces with strategies for social inclusion as such.

To the degree that societal organization resorts, to a large extent, on information, social participation depends on having access to a communication infrastructure. Early conceptions of the digital divide foregrounded consequentially the gap between those who have access to technology and those who do not. The ensuing policies to close the gap in terms of providing inclusive access to DT have been successful, at least in technologically developed countries. According to the latest figures of the PEW Internet & American Life Project (2006, 2007b), compared to 66 percent of online users in 2006, 75 percent of all United States adults were connected by the end of 2007. Access is clearly patterned in terms of socioeconomic status (SES), although the gap is not as big as it was in earlier years. Data from different statistical sources coincide in a strong correlation between income and likelihood of being online (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Among family households with income above US$100,000, 95 percent had at least one computer and 92 percent had Internet access at home. This contrasts with only 41 percent of households with income below US$25,000 having a computer. The inequality of computer and network access for low-income households appears to remain fairly stable when compared to more recent data from PEW (2006). Again, just 53 percent of adults with less than US$30,000 annual income go online versus 91% of adults living in households earning more than US$75,000. A similar pattern has to be described when taking ethnicity into account. 71 percent of all whites vs. 60 percent all Afro-Americans and 56 percent of Hispanics of the adult population are connected. Language barrier is, for example, an important aspect for the Hispanic and other non-English speaking population. Only 32 percent of the non-English speaking Hispanics are online (PEW, 2007a).

73

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Sonia Livingstone has recently argued for substantial differences between the digital divide for young people and adults in the UK, concluding that, “... binary divide between “haves” and “have-nots,” or users and non-users, no longer applies to young people as it does to the adult population.” (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007, p. 676). Similar data is available for Germany, for example, where 97 percent of young people aged 10-24 have had access to the Internet since 2005 (Federal Statistical Office, 2007, p. 114). Taking into account the figures presented by the survey of the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2004, opportunity of access is equally distributed in the U.S. with 96 percent of young people aged 8 to 18 reporting to have gone online independent of ethnicity, household income or parent education. One reason for these positive figures is the high penetration of computers in schools. Since 9 out of 10 children across the K-12 grades used a computer in school, most children have come in contact with the online world (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, p. 7). Broadband is a reality for 97 percent of state schools and the ratio of students to instructional computers has dropped from 12.1 to 1 in 1998 to 3.8 to 1 in 2005. These gratifying figures even hold when school characteristics are taken into account: independent of minority enrollment or the socio-economic status of the communities they serve, Internet penetration in state schools rose to nearly 100 percent. Clearly, the physical divide in terms of access to DT in schools has been closed. Schools, at least in technologically developed countries, guarantee that most children can connect, however sporadically, to the Internet leaving only a very small percentage of non-users. However, widening the perspective from the narrow focus on schools being hooked up to the general younger population also re-introduces well-known patterns of social inequalities. The nearly 100 percent access to the Internet in state schools irrespective of poverty levels contrasts with persisting disparities in terms of ethnicity

74

and income for computer access at home. This fact can hardly be overestimated since home connections introduce a qualitative difference to usage and literacy skills that children and young adults will have (see the following). The general pattern of differences in computer accessibility and Internet access holds for children enrolled in Grades K-12 (see U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, p. 8). Children from affluent family households (US$100,000 or more) exhibit the highest rates of computer use at home, 92 percent vs. 41 percent of families with income less than $25,000. Again, the highest and lowest rates for computer use at home correlates with race: 80 percent of non-Hispanic white children compared to 48 percent each of Afro-American children and Hispanic children. This emerging pattern can be extended to most OECD countries and their respective minorities.

social Inequality and schooling Digital equality in terms of access in schools does not mean social equity. Rather, the closing of the digital divide in schools appears to be a tiny drop in the ocean of social injustice. The review of school inequity in the U.S. by Philips & Chin (2004) makes the case in point. Over the period covering the 1980s and 1990s, access to computers and the Internet has improved for the whole student population. Class size and nonserious crimes also have declined across the board. However, during the same period gaps in teachers’ education, credentials, subject matter knowledge, or cognitive skills favoring white and non-poor schools have increased. The continuing inequalities of infrastructure, support staff or overcrowded classes for non-white and poor students continue to exist and stand in sharp contrast to the only improvement in access to computers. More recent data confirms this picture. The 2006 edition of PISA underlines the continuing relationship between academic performance and socio-economic status. However, there are

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

decisive differences in how SES determines academic outcome across countries (OECD, 2007, p. 183). The study for the U.S. portrays a rather negative picture. Together with Luxembourg and the Slovak Republic, the U.S. students in science display below-average performance combined with an above-average impact of socio-economic background (ibid., p. 189). Finland, Canada, Korea and Hong-Kong China are countries with belowaverage impact of SES on student performance whereas France, Germany, Belgium, Hungary and the U.S are among the countries with the highest impact of socio-economic background on student performance. They can be characterized by a high degree of inequity since SES background determines above average educational outcomes of OECD countries. Moreover, this relationship appears to be non-linear especially for the U.S.: the higher the socio-economic advantage, the greater the advantage this has in terms of student performance (ibid., p. 187). This paints a rather negative picture for schools, since they do not ameliorate the impact of socio-economic status on their students. Considering school dropout rates for high schools there is equally no clear sign of increased equity. Although dropout rates have continually declined over the decades, disparities between white and non-white students remained stable. Summarizing the literature and statistical trends one can argue that the physical access barrier is in the process of becoming partially resolved. Almost every school is connected and a growing percentage of citizens in OECD countries have gone online. However, considering the wider socio-economic picture, familiar patterns of social inequality re-emerge. Questions of access show little impact on the deeply ingrained racial, ethnic and income disparities. In order to appreciate further these multi-dimensional aspects of the digital divide we have to turn now to quality of access, usage and skills of digital technologies.

dIgItAl lIterAcy by non-dIgItAl MeAns The analysis of the preceding paragraphs juxtaposes the rising digitalization of society with rather stable patterns of socio-economic inequalities. The “knowledge gap” hypothesis as already established in the 1970s has not lost its plausibility. It states that new flows of information into a community are likely to increase further the existing inequities as higher status groups possess more resources to convert potential benefits of information into real advantages (Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1970). Theories of social stratification confirm this view. As the market continually innovates, higher SES households can secure their advantageous position because their resources guarantee faster access to emerging technologies, which also translates into quality of uptake (Bourdieu, 1984). Partly inspired by this persisting and even deepening divide, research has refined its vocabulary. Seemingly too simple questions of equality of access have been supplanted with explorations of the multiple dimensions of digital inequalities.

diversifying Access DiMaggio and collaborators (2004) propose a five-fold model of digital inequalities. Besides inequalities of “technical means” a more realistic picture of the digital divide is achieved by taking into account “autonomy of use”, “skill”, “social support” and “purpose of use.” Technical access refers to the much-discussed availability of hardware, software and connectivity as described in the preceding section. Autonomy of use captures the level of control users have over the technical infrastructure: at home or at work, bound to leisure activities or certain tasks, if they have to share computers with others or not. Access to computers at home for example has been shown to have a decisive impact on student performance (Cleary, Pierce, & Trauth, 2006; Livingstone

75

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

& Helsper, 2007). Inequalities of skill refer to the varying abilities of people to use computers and the Internet. As such, it involves the whole range of technical skills as well as information literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Hargittai (2003) has conducted pioneering research in this field showing that skills understood as the ability and the time required for completing information retrieval tasks strongly correlate with the level of education. Newer findings on search-engine usage suggest that hands-on experience over several years can ameliorate socio-economic status and education levels (Howard & Massanari, 2007). A fourth dimension of digital inequality concerns social support. It has been shown that people who have peers, parents, or co-workers with experience in DT are usually better-off in terms of acquiring information literacy (Cleary, Pierce, & Trauth, 2006). Household access to computer resources combined with a strong social capital in the form of technical support, informal training and expertise shows a strong potential to reduce differences in Internet use. Finally, the fifth dimension of inequality concerns variations in DT usage. Income, education and other factors appear to influence the purposes for which DT and especially the Internet is used. Thus, young people from low-income homes show a limited range of Internet usages, most commonly e-mail and chats, whereas youngsters from higher income families use the Internet in much more varied ways including creating websites or contributing to message boards (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007). Similar sub-divisions of the digital divide can be found with van Dijk (2005) and Warschauer (2003). The overall schema that distinguishes between certain technical skills and more strategic objectives remains the same. What unites both approaches, however, is a certain need to take into account cultural beliefs and values in order to understand the digital divide. Van Dijk proposes along these lines to take into account “motivational access”, besides “material access”, “skills access”, and “usage access”. Motivational

76

access explains, for example, that elderly people are online less not because of a small pension but the general difficulty of interpreting and contextualizing the available online information within their social environment (Paul & Stegbauer 2005). The Internet simply does not appear as something meaningful, useful and desirable in the first place, as it fails to overlap with values and interests of close peers. Warschauer draws upon the literature of “communities of practice” (Brown & Duguid, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991) to underline the importance of the wider social context for learning. He distinguishes between operational (computer literacy), informational (searching, selecting, processing information towards own goals) and strategic skills to assess the digital divide. Strategic skills show to which degree DT is used as self-evident resources in daily activities across business, employment, education, politics, social relations or leisure activities. Interestingly, strategic skills are often not learned explicitly by “transmission or discovery but by acting as members of a particular social and cultural context” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 91).

the socio-economic skills gap in schools As the notion of the digital divide has become more sophisticated, empirical research has scrutinized the situation in schools. A recent report from the 2007 National Educational Computing Conference published in Education Week on the Digital Divide foregrounds the fact that SES is related to quality of use. Children from low-income households are often put to “skill-and-fact drills” opposed to creative, “constructivist” experiences available to their middle-class peers. One reason for this performative oriented approach to computer usage was seen in the “No Child Left Behind” law of the Bush administration. As the report continues “...school districts are spending their educational technology budgets on ‘drill and kill’ tools because of the overwhelming pressure

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

to meet federal requirements for test performance ...” (Trotter, 2007). The finding that types of computer usage correlate with SES is not new. This is a persisting problem. In 1998, Wenglensky already presented similar results by analyzing National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data. Students pertaining to a minority (Afro-American or Hispanic) were considerably more exposed to drill practices with computers than white and middle-class students. They were less likely to work with DT in a creative way, fostering higherorder thinking skills. Becker (2000) came to similar conclusions based on national survey data of 4,000 teachers from grades 4-12 in 1998. Low SES students currently use computers more frequently than students with higher SES. However, the way computers are used differs as well with low-income pupils engaging in drill exercises in Math and English whereas high-income pupils use computers in science for simulation and research. “The main advantage for students in higher-SES schools is their access to a teaching approach that enables them to master computer skills in the context of solving real problems and gaining deeper understanding of an area of study, compared with an approach more common in lower-SES schools that emphasizes skills reinforcement and remediation” (Becker, 2000, p. 69). Similar findings emerge from the work of Mark Warschauer. His one-year research in Hawaii into low and high socio-economic schools implementing similar school reforms revealed that technology was put to remarkably different uses. The elite school continues to socialize students into academia whereas the poorer school socializes students into the workforce (Warschauer, 2000). What becomes especially pointed is the fact that DT tends to increase further existing inequalities; it does not change the nature of schooling in itself. “Evidence suggests that the use of computers in education is tending to worsen rather than help to overcome societal inequality” (ibid., p. 129-

30). This was also the crucial finding that came from a qualitative survey among 12 Californian state high schools (Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004). The accent changes slightly with this research: usage patterns are not directly related to the different socio-economic status. Rather, the introduction of technology into schools serves to amplify existing forms of inequality. “Differences in human support systems for technology use, homework assignment patterns, and emphases on preparation for testing all mitigated the extent to which technology could be used effectively for academic preparation in low-SES schools.” (ibid., p. 584).

looking beyond technology What these findings from digital divide research show is the fact that digital technology in itself does not ameliorate school experience and social inequalities. DT does not produce any “megachanges” in itself. Rather, social inequalities affect the potential impact a given technology might have. How DT will be used depends on the existing cultural beliefs, the social context and individual idiosyncrasies (such as education or motivation). Present research acknowledges the non-technical dimensions of the digital divide theoretically but not practically. Otherwise van Dijk’s call (2006) for more interdisciplinary and phenomenological research to unlock the cultural dimensions of the everyday digital divide would not be plausible. A positivist, technical lens clearly prevails for assessing the gap: skills are framed in terms of information retrieval and evaluation; social support is framed in terms of available peer support to solve technical questions; variation of use is confined to frequency and duration of using different software applications! In contrast, from our perspective in order to go beyond the mapping of socio-economic disparities that mirror the digital divide it becomes crucial to address the cultural and social context first. The recent exhaustive review of Effective Use of ICT

77

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

in Schools by the Swedish National Agency for School Improvement (SNASI, 2008) confirms this point, “... simply focusing on the technology as such will not contribute to the attainment of positive effects; rather, focused efforts to link technology to a pedagogical concept are necessary.” In other words, the social inequalities of the high-tech society have to be addressed by taking non-technological means into account. This is especially true for the context of education and schools. As the research has shown, the principal difficulties for taking advantage of DT in education are the prevailing “grammar” of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994) and the cultural beliefs about teaching and learning (Catalan Open University, 2004). These are inherently non-technological reasons to explain why the update of DT has remained quite superficial in contemporary schools. The comparative overview of 17 DT impact studies in Europe shows that even when teachers are sufficiently confident about their technical skills, they lack the pedagogical training to make effective use of DT in their classrooms (Balanskat, Blamire, & Kefala, 2006). Lacking adequate training, they tend to incorporate DT according to the prevailing cultural beliefs about education in which teaching is telling, learning is listening, and knowledge is what is in books or online (Cuban, 1993). Thus the results are the already describe drill-practices that concentrate on mastering certain technical skills instead of engaging students in more complex and creative tasks. On the other hand, existing assessment and evaluation methods focus primarily on factual and conceptual content and little on complex issues that usually top 21st century skill lists, such as critical thinking, teamwork and collaboration, or creativity (e.g. enGauge, 2003). However, as long as teaching and learning practice is dictated by scoring in standardized tests, there is neither time to use DT in innovative ways nor space for

78

exploring alternative but much-needed pedagogical models. In fact, the reflection on standardized tests especially prevalent in U.S. and U.K. schools invites a further reflection on the shortcomings of digital divide research itself. In the face of the multi-dimensional nature of the digital divide that goes beyond the purely technical, the question is, to which degree does research tend to simplify the problem at hand because it aims to establish clear, measurable inequalities. Indeed, as Sonia Livingstone remarks, research on the digital divide gets messy when assessing how people use the Internet and with what consequences: “For example, how should we conceptualize the practical skills and subtle competencies which facilitate confident Internet use, the lack of which limits the use of new and inexpert users if not excluding them altogether?” (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007, p. 674). The drive to produce comparable, general data that hold for all digital gaps, threatens to erase precisely the mechanisms that would explain the success or failure of DT usage. Research studies generally agree that the way DT is used is decisive for student learning. However, the fact that there is not one single and specific definition of “innovative” teaching makes it difficult to demonstrate a direct correlation between a certain situation, a certain type of usage or specific teaching approach and a positive impact (SNASI, 2008, p. 5). The result is that such important factors as teachers’ pedagogical approach are largely absent from digital divide research in schools. This is to say that in the same way that standardized tests prevent schools from effectively incorporating DT into their education, standardized measurements re-inscribe a certain simplified notion of the digital divide in research. Underlying this duality is a general trend towards conceiving these problems in terms of performativity.

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

chAngIng schools For neW MedIA lIterAcy: WhAt MIght WorK For socIAl InclusIon Western societies are increasingly permeated by the principles of the technological imperative, based on the idea that having a particular technology available means that we can do something (it is technically possible) then this action either ought to (as a moral imperative), must (as an operational requirement) or inevitably will (in time) be taken (Ozbekhan, 1968). The technological imperative is a common assumption amongst new technologies’ gurus who not only see the digital technology revolution as unavoidable and urge users to learn to cope with it, but invest it with special powers to solve current educational and social problems (Papert, Perelman, Gates, among others). One of the effects of the technical imperative in education is the tendency to pursue problems not only because they are technically sweet but because those clinging to this idea seem to be convinced, against all evidence, that the greatest feat of technical performance which is currently available will be the solutions to all educational and social problems. As we have discussed in the previous sections, these assumptions have been proved not only to be wrong, but must assume the responsibility of having laid the foundations for inadequate policies which only focus on providing educational systems with hardware and software (never enough, mostly not fitted to meet educational needs); while systematically forgetting the massive complexity of educational and social systems. In this part of the chapter we map out those fundamental issues often forgotten in educational policy and practice that might be the base for major changes for schools wanting to envision new media literacy as a trigger for improving learning processes and making progress towards social inclusion. This includes the links between new media literacy demands and the current voices that reclaim the necessity of a more inclusive

narrative for schooling; and the need to take into account the socio-economic implications and the sustainability of the use of DT in current educational systems.

new digital literacies for an Inclusive education With the advent of the Knowledge Society and the overload of multimodal information, scholars are focusing their attention on people’s relationship to new media (Castells, 2002; Tyner, 1998). Much research in this field has focused on the influence of new media on people, particularly on young people’s behavior and attitudes (Buckingham, 2000). There is a plethora of studies dedicated to cell-phone usage (Humphreys 2005; Wei & Lo, 2006); to the effects of the Internet on users (Livingstone, 2003; Wolak, Kimberly, & Finkelhor, 2003; Gross, 2004; Lee, 2005). The underlined interest in these studies seems to be the belief that new audiovisual media are powerful resources that permeate everyday life; especially of young people because it constitutes one of the pillars of their life experience (Vadenboncouer & Patel, 2005; Sancho, in press). While debates rage as to the advantages (e.g., Johnson, 2005; Sefton-Green, 1999) and disadvantages (e.g., Anderson, 2004; Wingood, et al., 2003) of these practices, a certainty is the ubiquity and relative permanence of these experiences, particularly in terms of how today’s learners are growing up fully immersed in an information age that demands wholly different kinds of literacy practices, skills, and processes. In the case of young people, they move fluently among different technologies such as the Internet (e-mail, surfing, chats, blogs), cell phones, TV, MP3, radio and printed material, rather than being dominated by one specific medium. In this context, as Kress (2003, p. 1) has argued, nowadays we are able to observe, “the broad move from the now centuries-long dominance of writing to the new dominance of the image

79

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

and, (…) from the dominance of the medium of the book to the dominance of the medium of the screen.” This change is producing a shift in the uses and effects of literacy and of associated means for representing and communicating at every level and in every domain of social and cultural experiences. This turn was noticed in the mid-1990s, when the seminal article “A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures” (New London Group, 1996) was published. One of its impacts on the rethinking of schooling was the questioning of the concept of literacy isolated from the vast range of social, technological and economic factors. In this context, as Matthews (2005, p. 209) has pointed out, “the term ‘multiliteracies’ refers in a broad sense to the impact of new economic and cultural conditions on literacy. Because communication is conducted though new texts and media and because literacy now takes place through visual, audio, and gestural mediums, it is necessary to change how literacy is taught.” Another consequence of this new scenario was a displacement from a linguistic notion of literacy to a socio-cultural one. Social and academic reasons for this twist have been explained in detail by Lankshear and Knobel (2003, p. 5-11) and some of them could illustrate our arguments on the relevance of including multiliteracy forms of learning into the new narrative for an inclusive schooling. In contemporary societies students need to learn to proficiently analyze, evaluate, and produce meaning in visual, oral, corporal, musical and alphabetical forms of communication. However, “meaning does not reside in the media text itself. Audiences negotiate meaning from the various media they consume depending on a range of factors including gender, class, race, ethnicity, age, and culture” (Goodman, 2005, p. 221). To respond to this necessity learners need new operational and cultural knowledge and skills that allow them to acquire new languages and strategies to understand and produce those meanings

80

represented in cultural texts. This background could provide students access to new forms of work, civic, and private practices in their everyday lives. They are also required to learn how to read (as interpretative cultural process) new and old media and multiple conflicting discourses and meet the challenges posed by visuality –the cultural forms of seeing and representing what has been seen (Matthews, 2005). The main consequence of this approach is, as Lankshear and Knobel have pointed out (2003, p. 12), that, “being literate involves much more than simply knowing how to operate the language system. The cultural and critical facets of knowledge integral to being literate are considerable”. Paying attention to these issues seems relevant because with, “a new work life comes a new language, with much of it attributable to new technologies like iconographic, text and screen-based modes of interacting with automated machinery and to changes in the social relations of work.” (Kalantzis & Cope, 1996, p. 5). Kress’s (2000) notion of “design” is pivotal in order to bring the consequences of this turn into school. It is intended to provide a broad metalanguage which replaces the term “grammar” and focuses attention on the historical and social production of multiple texts. Design for Kress supersedes critique in as much as, “critique looks at the present through the means of past production” while, “design shapes the future through deliberate deployment of representational resources in the designer’s interest” (Kress, 2000, p. 160). Translating this conception of “design” into a pedagogic approach leads to connect functional linguistics to linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial, and multimodal design and meaning making; and the notion of multiliteracies engages with: (a) a student’s own experience-situated practice; (b) teaching meta-languages -overt instruction; (c) investigating the cultural context of designs (critical framing); and (d) applying designs to new contexts-transformed practice (Matthews, 2005, p. 209). Kalantzis, Cope, and the Learning

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

by Design Group (2005) have brought the notion of design into classroom practice by offering schools a conceptual frame where teaching and learning pedagogies can be developed. This frame organizes the learning experience according to four objectives, named experiential (related to the self), analytic (linked with the ways students think about things), conceptual (aimed at establishing connections) and applied (making public the learning process). In this latter one, students are encouraged to represent the development and results of their learning by using a variety of forms of literacy expression. One of the best and at the same time paradoxical examples that illustrate how the multiliteracies approach could be placed in the school context has been the experience developed by Queensland Educational Department (2001) in the “New Basics” for its educational reform. This foundational document recognizes that, “communications media require mastery of symbolic codes ranging from number systems to sign language, from linguistic grammars to computer codes. Networked societies call for various kinds of literacy simultaneously, the mastery of many different codes, and the capacity to switch between and blend Multiliteracies”. However, policies, including this reform effort in Australia, failed not in its conceptualization or in the resources put into its development and implementation. The main difficulty was, “to link what is new in the policy to what has already been existing practice. For many teachers, this lack of historical reference to their existing practices acts as implicit criticism, telling them that what they have been doing is insufficient and that they should now overhaul both their ideologies and practices in order to more closely reflect the new policy. Predictably, educational policies and professional development are then met with resistance, challenges and sometimes even silence” (Patel Stevens, 2007, p. 56). On the other hand, the introduction of a multiliteracies approach into schooling is not a neutral

and solely pedagogical decision. “Multiliteracies takes as given the primacy and inevitability of a particular permutation of capitalist economic globalization and assumes a future global scenario driven by technology and economic imperatives” (Matthews, 2005, p. 210). Assuming this aim the multiliteracies approach to schooling contributes to providing a necessary fuel to the, “new spirit of capitalism” (Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999), by giving to “the marketable workplace expertise, abilities, innovation, and creativity needed to compete with other nation states in a technological and knowledge-based economy of the 21st century. This vision of the future extends current Western-oriented perspectives and lends currency and credence to neo-liberal, skills-based, employment-oriented, technocentric radicalism” (Matthews, 2005, p. 210). In this ambivalent scenario, we could ask ourselves how giving students alternative strategies for understanding and appropriating elements of literacy and textual components of discourse could do something more than replicate a system that traditionally transfers privileged monocultural knowledge, skills, values, and identities. Alternatively, how can we offer students literacy skills in a way that allows them to question the existing structures of inequality, old hierarchies, and patterns of exclusion? How can we promote a critical education based on a multiliteracies approach that contributes to create a new narrative for schooling where all kinds of learners have access –not only as consumers but also as producers– to new media and feel empowered to write their own history? If we want a future other than the one the mainstream of economic power is projecting, it is necessary to go beyond the idea of media literacy for efficient economic globalization and consider literacy for a desirable and alternative future; this may well translate into critical literacies for sustainability, peace, justice, collaboration, and human and animal rights.

81

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

socio-economic dimensions of new Media literacy An essential philosophical, moral and political question underlying the topic addressed in this chapter is to what extent profoundly uneven and unjust societies which maintain a large percentage of their population under unbearable rates of material, intellectual, emotional and moral poverty can implement educational systems, allowing every child to fully develop their own potential and being a fundamental means for social inclusion? Most educational systems were developed under the idea or the wish of converting compulsory education into the major driving force of economic growth and social cohesion. Today both endeavors are under debate; but as made evident in the 1970’s by Bowles and Gintis (1976) and has been repeatedly confirmed by empirical research, educational systems tend to maintain (or even deepen –as they certify poor people’s inadequacy) the social divide. The digital divide being, as discussed earlier, a consubstantial part of the social divide, the former cannot be addressed if the latter is ignored.

“teaching to change the World” The claim that education is both a moral and a political endeavor has frequently been made by prominent educators wanting to meet the dangers brought about by a pretended neutral and technical approach to a profoundly human and social issue (Freire, 1970; Postman, 1995, among others). This idea has been perfectly understood by scholars such as Jeannie Oakes and Martin Lipton -after whose book we have titled this section-, and all those who consider quality education as a civil right. For this reason they look critically at digital technologies and put them to use in order to serve their educational ideas and social aims. These ideas are anchored in two fundamental concepts: the thought of a socially just education and the notion of rigorous authentic learning experiences.

82

For those that see changing the world as the central aim of teaching, a socially just education as one built on three main dimensions: “(1) It considers the values and politics that pervade education, as well as the more technical issues of teaching and organizing schools; (2) it asks critical questions about how conventional thinking and practice came to be, and who in society benefits from them; and (3) it pays particular attention to inequalities associated with race, social class, language, gender and other social categories, and looks for alternatives to the inequalities.” (Oakes & Lipton, 2007, p. xix). While they understand rigorous authentic learning experiences, “as curriculum, teaching, and assessment that allow students to construct and use knowledge in ways that: (1) transform their thinking, (2) promote their intellectual development, and, over time, (3) prepare them to participate in and benefit from their society and knowledgeable citizens, capable force participants, and contributing members of families and communities. By knowledge, we mean culturally valued traditions, facts and skills, as well as new and dynamic forms of intelligence, understanding, and problem-solving skills necessary to fill important roles in a diverse and democratic society” (ibid, p. xix). This and other social and politically committed and critical educational movements recognize that new media literacy has clearly become a fundamental part of education. However, to be coherent with an education system aimed at empowering all students and achieving a more inclusive society, traditional instruction wrapped up in electronic packages should be systematically avoided, especially with students with poorer learning opportunities. Digital technologies used in the context of authentic and active learning communities can scaffold learners’ explorations beyond the bounds of their current knowledge and provide multidimensional routes of investigation. As an example of such kinds of usages, Oakes & Lipton (2007, p. 196) propose to use digital technology for:

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

• •

•

Providing challenging tasks, opportunities and experiences. Allowing students to learn by doing. Engaging students in planning, reflecting, making decisions, experiencing consequences, and examining alternative solutions and ideas. Providing guided participation and content customized to suit the particular needs or interests of students.

This educational use of digital technology ranges far beyond the mere access to digital devices to be located in the complex socio-economic realm surrounding education made up of cultural inertia, power relationships, deeply rooted practice, etc. This scenario was made evident in a European project (School+ More than a platform to build the school of tomorrow - http://fint.doe.d5.ub. es/school-plus/ ) aimed at creating a culture of pedagogical and technological change within schools which included the design, development and testing of a virtual Learning Management System (LMS), based on the idea that technological implementations must be reliant on innovative educational practices in order to become effective tools for educational change. In this context, taking into account the socio-economic dimensions involved in such a process allowed us to draw a complex picture of the multiple features involved in the incorporation of digital technologies into sound educational proposals.

estimating the real cost of a digitally Inclusive school As discussed earlier the socio-economic costs of digital infrastructure in schools has been traditionally made up of two basic aspects: on the one hand, the availability of hardware and software, and on the other, Internet connectivity. However, in the School+ project we built on the idea that progress in the use of digital technology to promote school change and new media literacy

remains sterile inasmuch as it is not linked to a rethinking of prevailing beliefs underpinning the persisting “grammar” of schooling (Tyack & Tobin 1994). As a result of this basic principle, as we have discussed in a previous work (Müller, Sancho, Hernández, Giró, & Bosco, 2007) the School+ project continuously stressed the active role of the school community –paying special attention to the whole educational community, including families’ involvement through technology– as an agent for change and innovation. A socio-economic evaluation of all dimensions drawn in the process showed that the real costs related to such a comprehensive model of educational change could not be reduced to the price of the technological infrastructure, but should take into account the investment required to empower primarily the school and the teachers –which requires some of the scarcest resources: time and the willingness to learn and change-, and also the educational community as a whole. As an integral part of the school community, lower middle class and working class families find it difficult to meet both the educational and technological challenges posed by emerging digital technologies.

concludIng reMArK: the sustAInAbIlIty oF educAtIonAl chAnge The socio-economic aspects of fostering new media literacy at school must not only indicate the immediate economic requirements for starting, but also the capacity for providing a lasting impact beyond initial funding. This means assessing the sustainability of educational achievements during the project’s lifetime. Indeed, sustainability according to Hargreaves (2002) has become one of the key priorities of the educational field. As Sarason (1990) pointed out, change over time in education has the rather dubious fame of resulting in predictable failure. In the long run, initial enthusiasm and improvements fall prey to the ingrained

83

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

teaching and learning practices, the very persistent “grammar” of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). An additional drawback, as Hargreaves emphasizes, lies in the accumulative aspect of stalled change which easily produces a cynical attitude being shown by teachers towards prospects for future improvements. Since the experience of repeated failures undermines the possibility of change, it becomes vital to guarantee its sustainability, to make improvements that last. Hargreaves maps out an extended notion of sustainability. The first step is precisely to recognize that sustainable change involves more than simply the durability of some innovations that have been implemented. Sustainability has to be understood as a conscious strategy that takes into account the availability and restrictions of resources over a long period of time with the aim of nourishing diversity without “feeding” on other, parallel initiatives. Hargreaves (2002) endows “sustainability” with the following four dimensions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Improvement endures over time. This touches on the very meaning of sustainability. Improvement that can be supported by available or achievable resources. Improvement should not have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. Ecological diversity: only diverse school environments are sufficiently flexible and stimulating to build up a self-sustaining dynamic.

Extending the notion of sustainability in this way deepens our understanding of true and lasting change but it tells us little about its methodological aspects. It informs us as to what it is, but little about how to implement and achieve it. Drawing from the literature available on the one hand and from the experiences of School+ project on the other, strategies for enduring educational change include:

84

• • • • • • • • •

Building a teachers network inside the school. Building a teachers network among schools. Involvement of the wider school community. Community support. Fostering organizational changes and institutionalization. Encouraging school initiatives. Paying attention to affective dimension of participants; their emotional involvement. Establishing relationship with official policies. Challenging existing structures. Analysing the resources available and needed after the project ends.

The main challenge for educational systems relies on the fact that identifying indicators of sustainable change can become a vicious circle, since it assumes from the outset that lasting changes have taken place.

reFerences Anderson, C. (2004). An Update on the Effects of Violent Video Games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113-122. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT Impact Report. A Review of Studies of ICT Impact on Schools in Europe. European Schoolnet. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from http://insight. eun.org/shared/data/pdf/impact_study.pdf Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s Wired and Who’s Not? The Future of Children, 10(2), 44-75. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (1999). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books. Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of childhood. Growing up in the age of electronic media. Cambridge: Polity Press. Castells, M. (2002). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Catalan Open University (2004). La escuela en la sociedad red. Internet en el ámbito educativo no universitario. Barcelona: UOC. Retrieved July 10, 2006 from www.ouc.edu/in3/pic Clearly, P., Pierce, G., & Trauth, E. M. (2006). Closing the Digital Divide: Understanding Racial, Ethnic, Social Class, Gender and Geographic Disparities in Internet Use Among School Age Children in the United States. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(4), 354-373. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990. New York: Teachers College Press. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital Inequality: From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social Inequality (355–400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. enGauge (2003). enGauge 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group. Retrieved January 17, 2008 from http:// www.ncrel.org/engauge Federal Statistical Office (2007). Statistical Yearbook 2007. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Goodman, S. (2005, April 26-28). The Practice and Principles of Teaching Critical Literacy at the Education Video Center. A collection of articles and chapters submitted by participants. 21st Century Literacy Summit, pp. 217-240. San Jose, CA. Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report? Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633–649. Hargittai, E. (2003). How Wide a Web: Inequalities in Access to Information Online. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton. Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainable Educational Change: The Role of Social Geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3-4), 189-214. Howard, P., & Massanari, A. (2007). Learning to search and searching to learn: Income, education, and experience online. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12(3). Retrieved February 4, 2008 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol12/issue3/howard.html Humphreys, L. (2005). Cellphones in public: Social interactions in a wireless ear. New Media & Society, 7(6), 810-833. Johnson, S. (2005). Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today’s Popular Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Kaiser Family Foundation (2004). Survey snapshot: The digital divide. Retrieved February 23, 2008 from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/7151. cfm Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (1996). Multiliteracies: Rethinking what We Mean by Literacy and What We Teach as Literacy –The Context of Global Cultural Diversity and New Communication Technologies (Occasional paper no. 21). Haymarker,

85

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Austraila: Centre for Workplace Communication and Culture. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Learning by Design Group (2005). Learning by Design. Melbourne, Australia: VSIC, Victorian Schools Innovation Commission. Kress. G. (2000). Design and Transformation. New Theories of Meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies. Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London and New York: Routledge. Kress, G. (2003). Literacies in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies. Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E., (Eds.). (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, L. (2005). Young people and the Internet: From theory to practice. Young Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 13(4), 315-326. Livingstone, S. (2003). The Changing Nature and Uses of Media Literacy. MEDIA@LSE Electronic Working Papers. Retrieved 17 March, 2006 from http://ww.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/pdf/ Media@lseEWP4_ july03.pdf Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in Digital Inclusion: Children, Young People and the Digital Divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671-696. Matthews, J. (2005). Visual Culture and Critical Pedagogy in ‘Terrorist Times’. Discourse. Studies in the cultural politics of education, 26 (2), 203-224. Müller, J., Sancho, J. M., Hernández, F., Giró, X., & Bosco, A. (2007). The Socio-Economic Dimensions of ICT-driven Educational Change. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1175-1188.

86

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92. Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (2007). Teaching to change the world (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. OECD (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World (Vol. 1).Paris: OECD. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from http://www.pisa. oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf Ozbekhan, Hasan (1968). The triumph of technology - “can” implies “ought”. In N. Cross, D. E. Nigel, & R. Roy (Eds.), Man-Made Futures: Readings in Society, Technology and Design. London: Hutchinson. Patel Stevens, L. (2007). Para una alfabetización crítica en Australia. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 374, 54-57. Paul, G., & Stegbauer, C. (2005). Is the digital divide between young and elderly people increasing? Firstmonday, 10(10). Retrieved October 19, 2005 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/ issue10_10/paul/index.html Pew Internet & American Life Project (2006). Data Memo: Internet Penetration and Impact. Retrieved January 27, 2007 from http://www. pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_Impact.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project (2007a). Latinos Online. Retrieved February 17, 2008 from http://www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/Latinos_Online_March_14_2007.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project (2007b). Tracking Survey. Retrieved February 17, 2008 from http://www.pewInternet.org/trends.asp Philips, M. & Chin, T. (2004). School Inequality: What Do We Know? In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social Inequality (467–519). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Postman, N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Knopf.

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Queensland Department of Education (2001). The New Basics Curriculum Organisers. Retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://education.qld.gov.au/ corporate/newbasics/html/curric-org/curricorg. html

(CPS). Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http:// www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p23-208.pdf

Sancho, J. M. (in press). Digital Technologies and Educational Change. In A. Hargreaves, M. Fullan, A. Lieberman, & D. Hopkings (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change. London: Kluwer Academic Press.

van Dijk, J. A.G.M. (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sefton Green, J. (1999). Creativity, Young People and New Technologies: the Challenge of Digital Arts. London: Routledge. Swedish National Agency for School Improvement (SNASI) (2008). Effective Use of ICT ini Schools: Analysis of International Research. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from http://www.skolutveckling.se/publdb-portlet/fileDownload?publ_ id=594&file=publication Tichenor, P., George D., & Olien, C. (1970). Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth of Knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159-170. Trotter, Andrew (2007). Digital Divide 2.0. Education Weeks Digital Directions, 1, 26-28. Retrieved January 25, 2008 from http://www.edweek.org/ dd/articles/2007/09/12/02divide.h01.html Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-480. Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (2005). Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2003 Current Population Survey Reports

Vadeboncoeur, J. A., & Patel Stevens, L. (Eds.) (2005). Re/Constructing ‘the Adolescent’. New York: Peter Lang.

van Dijk, J. A.G.M. (2006). Digital Divide Research, Achievements and Shortcomings. Poetics, 34, 221-235. Warschauer, M. (2000). Technology and School Reform: A View from Both Sides of the Tracks. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(4). Retrieved Feburary 15, 2008 from http://epaa.asu. edu/epaa/v8n4.html Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588. Wei, R., & Lo, W. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8(1), 53-72. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center. Retrieved February 12, 2008 from ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/ technolog.pdf Wingood, G., DiClemente, R., Bernhardt, J., Harrington, K., Davies, S., Robillard, A. & Hook, E. (2003). A Prospective Study of Exposure to Rap Music Videos and African American Female Adolescents’ Health, American Journal of Public Health, 93(3), 437-439.

87

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Wolak, J., Kimberly, J. M., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26(1), 105-119.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Digital Divide: Inequality in terms of access and usage of digital technologies. This includes imbalance in physical access to communication networks, computer hard- and software as well as imbalance in terms of motivation, skills and usage. Digital Equity: Broad, encompassing formulation of digital inequality taking into account not only inequalities in terms of resources and opportunities but also inequalities in terms of constrains under which given groups of people have to perform. Equitable situations take into account the equal distribution of opportunities and constrains.

88

Digital Inclusion: The incorporation and use of information and communication technologies into communities in order to promote education and improve the quality of life. Multiliteracy: Multiliteracy is the ability to identify, interpret, create, and communicate meaning across a variety of visual, oral, corporal, musical and alphabetical forms of communication. Beyond a linguistic notion of literacy, multiliteracy involves an awareness of the social, economic and wider cultural factors that frame communication. Socio-Economic Barriers: Include a lack of general acknowledgment of technology’s growing importance, a lack of acceptance of technology, and a lack of resources- maintenance, use, and effectiveness-for poorer schools and families. Sustainability Change: Sustainable improvement endures over time while being supported by available resources and without diminishing the ecological diversity of the environment in which it takes place.

89

Chapter VI

Teaching and Technology: Issues, Caution and Concerns Thomas G. Ryan Nipissing University, Canada

AbstrAct In this chapter technology is viewed as a tool and an enterprise that can be used to educate, change and empower people in schools and society. However, we need to remember that teaching is still a personal human journey that is influenced by many forces related to technologic change which are infused with human relations. We are duty-bound to become self-aware through the clarification of values, reflection and action research. We need to remind ourselves to look at the messages we send, and most importantly, become aware of the behaviors, modeling and leadership we provide at all levels to ensure that we drive the vision for technology and not let technology mute nor drive the humanness from either the classroom or the education system.

IntroductIon The following illuminates several intersecting issues connecting technology and teaching. Technology is something that is used daily within a teacher’s life yet what is technology? Globally we may define technology as “. . . the know-how and creative process that may utilize tools, resources and systems to solve problems, to enhance control over the nature and man-made environment in an endeavor to improve the human condition” (UNESCO, 1985). However, within a local context this definition will be truncated to suit the immediate culture or cultures. Caution need be exercised

as the impact of technology in classrooms can be discrete and incremental leading to an erosion of the human element in teaching and education. This is the first of many cautions offered to teachers who must decide how to use technology while educating; yet what is teaching? Teaching is “the use of preplanned behaviours, founded in learning principles and child development theory and directed toward both instructional delivery and classroom management that increase the probability of affecting a positive change in student behaviour “(Levin & Nolan, 2004, p. 16). We need to be aware and reminded of the human traits expected by students, peers and the

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Teaching and Technology

community. Teachers need to employ a sense of humor, enthusiasm, a desire for learning, health and wellness, nonverbal qualities and be a role model (Kirchner & Fishburne, 1998). As well, the Ontario College of Teachers adds, Teachers share their enthusiasm for learning. They exude a passion for their subject matter that is infectious. They delight in the demands of a career that continually exposes them to new learning, new situations, new people, and new opportunities for personal and professional growth and leadership. They draw energy and satisfaction from sparking the achievement of others. Exceptional qualifications, curious by nature, dedicated to helping children grow and thrive – these are the hallmarks of good teachers. Good teachers build society one student at a time. Good teachers are organized, flexible, thoughtful, caring and nurturing. They are drawn to the profession b e c a u s e it’s demanding, exciting, and rewarding. It a t t r a c t s people who are committed to lifelong learning for themselves and others. It inspires people to learn as they teach and teach what they love. (Ontario College of Teachers, 2004) We need to ensure that humanness of teaching is not muted nor replaced by technology. Hence a cautionary tone is used henceforth via a Canadian perspective put forward to provide a view of teaching and technology that may be unique to Canada. The inherent issues and cautions detailed have been included to alert the reader to a North American stance. Hereafter, education and technology have been addressed in a gentle and narrow manner to raise concerns that teachers, who are the users of technology, may need to heed. Overall the message delivered is that behind all technology is human nature and it is this human nature that drives teaching and the use of technology and not technology that drives education in Canada.

90

educAtIon And technology Educational technology is much more than computers and calculators; it is all of the inventions that enable teachers to reach their goals, outcomes and expectations via the utilization of such tools as the chalkboard, overhead projector, digital videodisc and satellite communications. As with most technologic innovations, each must be employed in strategic and carefully planned programs. Technology within a program shall be employed by qualified professionals and not just a well-meaning individual (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006). For instance, the special educator who is using technology to aid learning-disabled students needs to be both trained and informed in order to implement technology in an ethical and prudent manner. Furthermore, as we educate our students for the computerdominated future, we must address the growing opportunities for dishonest use of technology . . . . Educators unaware of the possibilities and resources available to computer-age students are at the mercy of these technologically hip kids. (Renard, 2000, p. 38) This observation is not a new reality, just a prominent and on-going concern for educators and students who may be ethically challenged users. Educators have choices, look at the concerns or look away. However, according to futurists, students will continue to use more and more technology in the coming years. Is this good news or bad news? Many say that it is great news! They claim that failing to use such technologic advances will shortchange children and prevent them from fully participating in the global village of the future. Others disagree and direct educators to ask why, to what end, and what regarding the uses of technology, not just how and how soon. They believe that educators are unthinkingly accepting technology without

Teaching and Technology

evaluating its impact on the curriculum, student learning, and the social settings for education. (Parkay, Hardcastle Stanford, Vaillancourt, Stephens, 2005, p. 348) Teachers need to be reflective and time needs to be provided for collective groups of educators to explore the issues while discussing concerns and heeding sensible cautions from well informed colleagues.

base and graphics programs, accessing wide-area networking capabilities such as e-mail and the Internet, learning the basics of developmenttype programs such as Logo or HyperStudio and developing an awareness of the social impact of technological change. Technology does affect us and in ways users may not be aware of therefore it is not enough to just monitor usage we must look beyond narrow curriculum towards emerging issues and technologic innovations within a human context.

Issues And cAutIons teAchIng WIth technology The issues surrounding the use of technology are multifaceted yet attempting to confront each concern is a proactive enterprise. By addressing technologic concerns in the educational arena, we suggest to others that we ought to be cautious while working towards our vision for the use of technology in education. After all, “the use of technology should not drive the vision. The vision should drive the use of technology” (Surgenor, 1992, p. 137). Our human capacity to take and shape technology is of prime importance as a creative, inventive energy within education. Energetic educators with vision are likely to be involved with discovery teaching (Whittier & Hewit, 1997) as they make use of multiple and varied means to move students towards preplanned outcomes in a manner guided by values, beliefs and ethics. The paths chosen are very much personal matters for teachers that often are endorsed by larger organizations such as teacher unions, government bodies (Canadian Teachers Federation; Ontario College of Teachers), or local school Boards. Typically, a student in Ontario will be focusing on several basic functions such as keyboarding skill development, basic computer operation and care of files and media, working on basic concepts and terminology (the core of technological literacy), using common tool-type computer applications, word processing, spreadsheets, data

Teaching today is a personal journey that is influenced by many forces that are in some way related to technology. Students in their classrooms can watch real time footage of astronauts, soldiers, mountain climbers and deep-sea divers. Students have a new level of awareness when it comes to current events both globally and in their community. They carry iPods, digital camera phones and work in class at powerful computers. At each moment of the school day technology is involved. Indeed, “technology is so deeply intertwined throughout our lives that it is sometimes hard to recognize, because of its pervasive nature . . . . [and] when people consciously alter their environment, they are creating technology” (Ortega & Ortega, 1995, p. 11). The creation and use of technology is a human exercise that needs to be guided by other human qualities such as attitude, values, and ethics. We are reminded of the humanness of the activity underpinning technology in that people and their actions (behaviors) create technologic innovations sometimes without fully understanding the impact of such actions. Technology can be used to work within, or outside certain laws hence, “the key to successful implementation of technology into the curriculum is the teacher’s attitude “(Johnson, 1999, p. 162). For instance instructing the class to back-up their own work on compact disc is quite a different enterprise than

91

Teaching and Technology

suggesting to students that they can now make illegal copies of copyright materials. Society, expects an approved ethical stance from teachers, and students, and yet “educational systems are hard-pressed to meet today’s expectations, so raising the bar so far in one generation will put enormous pressure on an already troubled institution “ (Walker, 1999, p. 21). Schools are moving forward faster than policy can be laid down (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006). For example, the cell phone that is also a digital camera can be used to take inappropriate pictures within the school and these same images can appear on school web sites within minutes. This technologic concern is not limited to a local school it is a societal problem that spans our entire country.

AssessMent And evAluAtIon: outcoMes And IMplIcAtIons Within Canada, we have begun to evaluate our curricula, students and performance on a large scale and this process is aided by technology that can produce results rapidly. Canada, as a country regularly compares educational results (Standardized Testing) with other countries, and we then borrow and use other country’s ideas in order to match or exceed their academic success (Naested, Potvin & Waldron, 2004). Is this comparative existence appropriate or necessary within our education system? Probably not, as Woelders & Moes (2002) explain, Koreans are flocking to Australia, America, Britain, and Canada. The reason? For many it is to ensure that their children avoid the Korean public education system, unaffectionately known by some students as ‘exam hell’. . . . The career and lifestyle choices for both high achievers and low achievers are limited early in life. (p.20) Canada and its moderate approach to testing is attractive to people outside its borders yet it is

92

possible that the attraction is to an educational system that is flexible, innovative and constantly evolving. We have many good ideas in our classrooms and we need not compare ourselves to others to advance our students or our society. Still, many of our local innovations are hidden behind the walls of the school and not publicized. What is often publicized via the media (TV, papers, mail, radio) on a daily basis, is the seemly endless controversies in education. Faced with technologic intrusion of decidedly downbeat media messages, such as a low evaluation ranking from large scale global and provincial testing, teachers need to self-examine and situate themselves along a continuum of growth and development in order to maintain perspective. In other words, keep pace somehow and work to mitigate the ever-present forces of media. In so doing, teachers can illuminate certain elements of practice such as image, accomplishments, originality, and professional development.

InForMed And reFlectIve Educators realize that cutting and pasting no longer only involves scissors and glue, it can mean that someone has used computer programs to produce a product (paper), than could be fraudulent. Educators need to align themselves with technology and not cling to denial hoping that students are being honest and ethical in task completion. Choosing not to embrace technology, however, sends messages to students. Teachers, in this fast-paced technologic environment need to be aware of the messages they send to the children, peers and the community both verbally and nonverbally. Daily reflection in this technological age helps us to understand ourselves and determine the degree to which we are achieving personal, professional, and political outcomes. Reflection may include personal narratives, pictorial images, and action research. Action research has a presence in all Canadian provinces and it is

Teaching and Technology

for good reason that this has occurred as Squire (1999) advocates; action research is seen as a viable way for teachers to research and explore their own work instead of looking to “outside experts” for theoretical answers. Respecting the professionalism of teachers by validating their experience and practical knowledge, action research also allows teachers to model the kinds of learning experiences they encourage for students. Action research offers teachers and teacher educators an opportunity for individual professional growth through ongoing dialogues with people and texts and an equally important opportunity to create a learning community within a school. (p.2) Faced with media misrepresentation, and the isolation of classroom educators in this time deficient profession, can make the use of technology necessary to reach out and investigate their own practice. Educators are turning to email, digital cameras, and video conferencing to diminish isolation. Also, action research can be a tool and a means to publicize their discoveries, daily work and on-going professional development using technology (seminars, workshops, chat rooms, journals, presentations).

educAtIon – WhAt guIdes teAchers And teAchIng? Teaching, as defined earlier is also a means to get children to understand and embrace values (Beck, 1995). In other words, a “planned arrangement of experiences to help a learner develop understanding and to achieve a desirable change in behavior “(Kellough & Kellough, 2003, p. 410). Educators can realize this outcome regularly through dialogue, modeling, and reflective tasks. Teachers model thoughtfulness, integrity, and relationship development each day (Naested, et al. 2004). These modeled teaching qualities, it can

be argued, are also values which can be utilized to demonstrate other values such as the work ethic, the completion of tasks, and the production of work of a certain quality. Educating at the moment, and in the future requires us to look into not only the impact of technology but also the way in which we imagine its use and abuse. Teachers have to be aware of boundaries and limitations. Teachers need to value standards. Dugger (1995) suggests in The Technology Teacher that “in educational terms, standards can be considered as descriptive statements established by key professionals, used as a model, to assess the degree to which a curriculum, student performance, or educational program meets qualitative and quantitative characteristics of excellence” (p. 3). Is it enough that only key teachers invest in, or be saddled with this responsibility? No. Each teacher is responsible. Each teacher needs to be aware of their personal and practical knowledge, values, behavior, and then move on to the task of educating in a manner that achieves certain standards. In a sense, the policy for technology education should reside in each one of us and be communicated to others by means of modeling, dialogue and reflection. John Dewey (1938) suggested, the teacher’s business is to see that the occasion is taken advantage of. Since freedom resides in the operations of intelligent observance and judgment by which a purpose is developed, guidance given by the teacher to the exercise of the pupil’s intelligence is an aid to freedom, not a restriction upon it. Sometimes teachers seem to be afraid even to make suggestions to the members of a group as to what they should do. (p. 71) There is a need for breadth and balance in education through the sharing of perspectives and discourse. These activities encourage thinking because if only the teacher asks questions; who is learning? We need an exchange of ideas to ensure that educators receive feedback from

93

Teaching and Technology

students. This in turn contributes to the reflective process and leads to self-analysis and growth. Teachers and students alike begin to question, and this can cause changes in behavior. Further, reflection can change not only attitudes and behaviors but our individual values as well. Neden (1994) explains, Technology education programs grew out of a self-analysis of the profession and the insight to move into the curriculum designs that would adequately prepare students for a future that would be much different than anything we can imagine at this time. For some, this transition was seen as a natural progression, while others felt confused, uncertain and inadequate to meet this challenge. (p.29) This viewpoint addresses the concern that a gap between what is intended and what is implemented is inevitable. Again, the human element needs attention. Our perception of a change causes emotive reactions that may alienate colleagues from one another. Still, as Hodson (1994) makes clear “. . . teachers will need to work closely together and assign responsibilities appropriately . . . . teachers will also need to work closely with colleagues . . . . (p. 78). Educators need to move forward together putting values first and not our fragile egos. Some educators may fear technology and some embrace it yet each educator will need to put their personal feelings aside if the profession is to advance technologically, professionally and politically (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006). Barlow and Robertson (1994) point out that, “we have reached the limits of the changes possible through incrementalism; transformational change is required” (p. 147). In addition, the editorial in Business Week (April 17, 1995) pointed out that “re-engineering this [school] apparatus, in much the same way Corporate America has been restructured, is critical to providing quality education. Most schools are nothing less than a caricature of an old industrial factory - rigid, top-down, bureaucratic, and rules-

94

driven, it makes for incredible inefficiency” (p. 114). We need to ask: Where are we going and how will we get there?

ontArIo post-secondAry trAnsForMAtIon: K-12’s Future We need to look at this level of education in order to predict what may be coming to the secondary and/or elementary levels in the near future. In Ontario there is a well established trickle down effect that has both a tradition and impact on teaching and technology usage. At present within the post-secondary level there is a transformation in progress. Ontario, a province in Canada, has retained a former premier (transformative leader) to lead the transformation of post-secondary education using technology as a tool to unite post-secondary institutions. Recently it has been announced that, Ontario’s high performance computing community is ecstatic over to day’s announcement that the Ontario Government has come through with $19.3 million in matching funds for a $50 million expansion of the project, giving the green light to a new consortium of 11 Ontario institutions and creating among the top 70 most powerful research facilities in the world. The July 24 announcement from the London [Ontario] based Shared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing Network (SHARCNET), follows a previous announcement of $19 million from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). Providing the globally-leading optical network infrastructure that connects the computing facilities at the 11 member institutions, ORION is among the private sector and institutional partners contributing up of $10 million in in-kind and equipment support. (ORION, 2004, p. 1) The stakeholders in the project need to be reminded that even though vast sums of money have been invested, the people behind the technology remain anchored to the same values, ethics and

Teaching and Technology

accountability criteria. It is one decision to invest and build the network it is another task to oversee and monitor its usage as intended. Specifically we are told that, ORION is an advanced high-speed fibre optic network that connects research and education institutions to each other and to colleagues around the world. Spanning 4,200 kilometres to 21 cities throughout the Province of Ontario, ORION was created to bring leading-edge network capability to the publicly funded R&E community and to become a catalyst for creative and innovative next generation Internet applications. ORION is owned and operated by the Optical Regional Advanced Network of Ontario ORANO). For more information, visit our web site at http://www.orion. on.ca. (ORION, 2004, p. 1) Consider the intersection of teaching and transformational change, and ask: Are values changed as teachers attempt to respond to changing technology and curricular demands?

vAlues, teAchIng & technology At any level authentic education is or should be constructed carefully and demands that “values learning must be in context to specific problems . . . . People learn a great deal about values through their own everyday experience and through reflecting on these and discussing them” (Beck, 1993, p. 229), with others. Teachers as agents of society transmit values via instruction, rules and procedures. As well, “individual perspectives and personal feelings are always subtly present in the classroom, no matter how apparently ‘objective’ the lesson or how much the teacher attempts to remain neutral” (Kobrin, 1992, p. 173). This is so because “technology is so deeply intertwined throughout our lives that it is sometimes hard to recognize, because of its pervasive nature” (Or-

tega & Ortega, 1995, p. 11). Teachers therefore may be unaware of the extent or attitude toward technology they transmit to students. A student may mistakenly learn that certain areas of the curriculum (technology) are not valued and thus not important. Kellough and Kellough (2003) state, Today, there seems to be much agreement that the essence of the learning process is combined selfawareness, self-monitoring, and active reflection. Young people learn these skills best when exposed to teachers who themselves effectively model those same behaviors. The most effective teaching and learning is an interactive process, and involves not only learning, but also thinking about learning and learning how to learn. (p. 66) Teachers who model discipline and values such as honesty, trust, and consideration soon may find that this becomes a characteristic within a class. Instruction in these classes most often is learner focused within small groups of three to five students who work on well-defined tasks to realize mastery (Naested, et al. 2004). Naturally, this cooperative learning environment is built upon valuable and intense communications. However, teachers who elect to ignore opportunities to discuss emotions, values or affective concerns are actually dehumanizing the teaching experience. In fact, “we now realize that if we had pursued using technology and a cooperative learning approach separately, we undoubtedly would have remained in the constricting boxes of our disciplines . . . . [instead we] . . . help train . . . . students to work cooperatively and how to effectively communicate in the workplace. . . . a team approach to real life” (Olds & Lightner,1995, p. 24). The days of doing your own thing in solitude are numbered. The focus is, and really has been for many years, on team building in elementary and secondary classrooms and to do this you need to know yourself and understand the humility of others. Indeed, “a rich emotionality is essential to well being - and even to academic learning for both students and

95

Teaching and Technology

teachers” (Beck and Kosnik, 1994, p. 15). Experiences within affective curricula are certain to impact values of students and teachers alike. Ultimately, educators are interested in teaching people however, effective teaching requires “one who is able to convince not half or three-quarters but essentially all of his or her students to do quality work in school. This means to work up to their capacity, not to ‘lean on their shovels’ as so many are doing now ” (Glasser, 1990, p. 14-15). To move and inspire people is to motivate. This is very important not only to the student but the teacher as well. Educators use past experiences to motivate themselves to go forward and to arouse interest in students. Unfortunately, negative experiences can stop an educator and cause them to move backwards to safer less risk-taking traditional teaching behaviours. For instance, the loss of report cards on a computer is traumatic enough to propel teachers back to hand written reports.

reFlectIve prActItIoner Back in 1987, Donald Schon coined the phrase ‘reflective practitioner’, “as a way of describing and developing skilled and thoughtful judgment in professions like teaching” (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1991, p. 67). To question what was done or how it was done is a critical element of reflection and periodically becomes a time of values clarification. This task can be unsettling, depending on who questions. Take for example the only crime that Socrates committed as he, was asking questions of a lot of people - especially young people. For that he was put to death . . . . The relentless questioning was designed to force people to know more about themselves . . . . Discussions can be ‘dangerous’ because they have the power to unsettle people and initiate change. (Korbrin, 1992, p. 111)

96

Frequently reflection, questioning and eventual self-analysis provides limited information. Skynner and Cleese (1993) explain that “we never have enough experience ourselves so, to fill in the gaps, we have to rely on advice that is based on the experience of other people” (p. 242). In essence, no educator is an expert; we are more like, or hope to be like, a community of learners sharing experiences. An astute educator, upon reflection, may discover that neither personal goals nor student goals have been achieved and even though this can be stressful, it may be viewed positively. The teacher, reflecting, may notice an opportunity even though goals have not been achieved, to change, to grow and to move forward. Moreover, Wood (1992) explains that “good teachers do not teach subject matter, they teach who they are” (p. 71); a three dimensional person with feelings as well as cognitive and physical abilities. Hungerford and Volk (1989) advise us to provide “a curriculum that will teach learners the citizenship skills needed for issue remediation as well as the time needed for the application of these skills; and.... provide an instructional setting that increases learners’ expectancy of reinforcement for acting in responsible ways, i.e., attempt to develop an internal focus of control in learners” (p. 14). If we fall short, will we be unduly punished? Is this the prudent guidance we need? Recent paradigms in education promote and encourage disclosures admitting, “total teachers are not perfect teachers” (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991, p. 16), and therein resides a potential source of stress for those who believe they should be competent in all areas. As we reflect upon our performance we decide, what we need to change, and often, what we change is in reaction to external pressures from such as parents, administrators, colleagues and students who are using or may want to use the latest technology.

Teaching and Technology

school & coMMunIty Community realization that teachers need other people to help in the schoolhouse is now commonplace in many schools. Most contemporary scholars such as Beck (1995) promote the view that “teachers do not need more pressure; rather, they need support and help” (p. 4). This change in attitude towards education and teaching has been encouraged by other researchers, such as Parkay, et al. (2005), and Squire, (1999), who promote ideas such as community, collaboration, and networking, as well as affective education and reflection. Even the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (March 2004) has begun to identify the degree and form of support both the Ministry and parents will provide via curriculum development and school councils mentioned in the Backgrounder. Educators can only wait and see if these changes will improve results found in the classroom. Yet the interaction of parents and teachers is essential. Communication between people whether they be parents or educators brings about shared responsibility. It is easy to see why networking and collaboration have become the ‘buzz’ words in education. Whittier and Hewit (1993) found “teaching in today’s educational system involves the development and imparting of positive attitudes learned through interpersonal communication and collaborative efforts” (p. 86). Educators therefore need to reach out, get involved and become more aware of self. Most often self-directed learning is best because “learning directed by others is often ineffective, either because the learner is not vitally engaged or because the program of study is not sufficiently focused on what the learner needs” (Beck, 1993, p. 260). An educator is required to be proactive and initiate rather than passive and reactive however, one study demonstrated that teachers were less willing to accept the technology if they believed its implementation would require them to alter their teaching style (Dorman, 1998). Overall, educators often “feel inadequately prepared to

use newer technology in their teaching “ (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006). A survey by Volk (1995) found that representatives from manufacturing firms ranked the following skills as most important. These include from most to least: • • • • • • • • •

Group interaction skills - team member, respecting others Employability skills - work habits, pride in work Personal development skills - self-esteem, personal goals Critical thinking skills Leadership skills Technological system skills Reading, writing and math skills - just basic skills Communication Skills Computer skills - desktop publishing. p. 38

A “lack of interaction among teachers at various placements along the continuum brings rigidness and narrowness to all teachers” (Ringlaben & Weller, 1981, p. 20). Teachers and students need to improve interpersonal skills since our focus in education is nowadays on life-long learning both for students and teachers. Korbin (1992) has suggested teaching is a complicated moral craft and to survive, “as in life, it’s either change and grow or wither and ‘die’” (p. XIV). To change is to adapt to stress with an aim of achieving a healthy ‘good-life’. To do this we need to examine, question and reflect on our experiences. As a result, our individual value systems may change. Occasionally we remodel our value laden mind-maps and from time-totime as suggested by Skynner and Cleese (1993) we use “experience. . . . and myths” (p. 247), and “we have to rely on advice, which is based on the experience of other people” (p. 242), to complete our perspective. Doing so allows us to fill-in the grey or unknown areas of our mind-map. Indeed,

97

Teaching and Technology

each remodeling or change in personal values is stressful for the educator and this appears to be a constant developmental stress that increases and decreases over a period of years.

conclusIon The previous discussion has included several aspects of both technology and teaching. Technology is a tool and an enterprise that can be used to educate, change and empower people in schools and society. We need informed and reflective educators to ensure desired outcomes however. We have faced this technologic hurdle before with the motion picture innovation of 1922, the radio station of 1945, followed by 1960’s programmed instruction and then television was predicted to revolutionize education yet instead it merely provided another mode to instruct. Arguably, the revolution forecasted failed to appear. Teaching in the present day is still a personal human journey that is influenced by many forces that are in some way related to technologic change infused with human relations. Educators must respond because it is this constant technologic innovation that is affecting and altering the educational landscape. We are duty-bound to become aware of ourselves as teachers through the clarification of values, reflection and action research yet how do we keep pace, current and informed with wave after wave of technologic innovation? We need to remind ourselves to look at the messages we send, and most importantly, become aware of the behaviors, modeling and leadership we provide at all levels to ensure that we drive the vision for technology and not let technology mute nor drive the humanness from either the classroom or the education system.

reFerences Barlow, M. & Robertson, H.J. (1994). Class warfare. New York: Plume Books. 98

Beck, C. (1993). Learning to live the good life: Values in adulthood. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press. Beck, C. (1995, February 3rd). Let’s work WITH teachers. A response to the Royal Commission’s “Vision for schools,” (Vol. 2). Presented at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, OISE/ UT Forum, (pp. 1-7), Toronto, Canada. Beck, C. & Kosnik, C.M. (1994). Caring for the emotions: Toward a more balanced schooling. Unpublished manuscript. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. Dorman, S. M. (1998). Assistive technology benefits for students with disabilities. Journal of Health, 68(3), 120-124. Dugger, W.E. (1995). Technology for all Americans. The Technology Teacher, 2, 3-6. Editorial. (1995, April 17). Now, reinvent the schools. Newsweek, p. 114. Fullan, M.G. & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’s worth fighting for? Toronto, ON: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation: OISE Press. Gage, N.L. & Berliner, D.C. (1984) Educational Psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. Toronto, Canada: Harper & Row. Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalization and politisation of science education. Curriculum Studies. 2(1), 71-98. Hungerford, H. R. & Volk, T. L. (1989). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 8-21. Kellough, N.G., & Kellough, R.D. (2003). Secondary school teaching: A guide to models and resources. (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice-Hall

Teaching and Technology

Kircher, G. & Fishburne, G. J. (1998). Physical education for elementary school children. (10th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Korbin, D. (1992). In there with the kids: Teaching in today’s classrooms.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Levin, J. & Nolan, J. F. (2004). Principles of classroom management: A professional decisionmaking model. (4th Ed.). New York:Allyn & Bacon. Liedtke, J.A. (1995). Changing the organizational culture. The Technology Teacher, 3, 9-14. Ministry of Education and Training. (March, 2004) Backgrounder. New foundations for Ontario education. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education. Naested, I., Potvin, B., & Waldron. (2004). Understanding the landscape of teaching. Toronto, Canada: Pearson-Prentice Hall. Neden, M.W. (1994). Technology 2000. The Technology Teacher, 9, 29. Okojie, M, & Olinzock A. (2006). Developing a positive mind-set toward the use of technology in classroom instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 33-41. Ontario College of Teachers (2004). How to become a teacher. Retrieved March 23, 2004, from http://www.oct.ca/en/CollegePublications/PDF/ becoming.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education (1994). The common curriculum. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education.. Olds, A. & Lightner, R. (1995). Technology as a tool for learning. The Technology Teacher, 4, 23-28. Ontario Royal Commission on Learning (1994) Ontario Royal Commission on Learning - For the love of learning. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer.

ORION. (2004, July). Orion research and discovery news. 2(7). 1-6. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.orion.on.ca/newsletter/ ordnjuly04.pdf Ortega, C.A. & Ortega, R. (1995). Integrated elementary technology education. The Technology Teacher, 2, 11-16. Parkay, F. W., Hardcastle Stanford, B., Vaillancourt, J.P., & Stephens, H.C. (2005). Becoming a teacher. (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson. Ringlaben, R.P. & Weller, C. (1981). Mainstreaming special education. Education Unlimited. 3(4), 19-22. Skynner, R. & Cleese J. (1993). Life and how to survive it. London: Methuen. Surgenor, E. (1992). Designing learning systems. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Squire, F. (1999) Action research and standards of practice fro the teaching profession: Making connections. The Ontario Action Researcher (6)1,4. Retrieved October 17, 2003, from http://www. nipissingu.ca/oar/oarArch99-20/webArc-99-20. html UNESCO (1985). Technology education as part of general education. Paris: UNESCO. Volk, K. (1995). Necessary skills for high school graduates. The Technology Teacher, 2, 37-38. Whittier, K.S. & Hewit. (1993). Collorative teacher education: The elementary education/special education connection. Intervention in School and Clinic, 2(29), 84-897. Woelders, A. , & Moes, E. (2002). Testing that undermines education in Korea. Teacher Newsmagazine for the B.C. Teachers’ Federation, 14 (4), 20. Wood, G.H. (1992). Schools that work. New York: Penguin Books.

99

Teaching and Technology

Key terMs And deFInItIons Action Research: A means of professional growth via dialogue with people and texts in order to reflect upon lived experiences in a strategic and systematic modes that produces both insight and direction for individuals, schools and the system they work within. Educational Technology: Inventions that enable teachers to reach their goals, outcomes and expectations via the utilization of tools. Ethical Stance: A position assumed that a person believes to be right and true.

100

Reflection: The process or mode of reviewing by playing back mentally and questioning what has happened to support self-analysis and examination of the lived experiences. Teaching: Preplanned behaviours informed by learning principles and child development theory which directs and guides instruction to ensure desired students outcomes. Technology: The creative energy used to solve problems which enhance control over nature and the man-made environment to improve the human condition. Values: The ideals that guide or qualify your personal conduct and interaction with others.

101

Chapter VII

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young Liisa Ilomäki University of Helsinki, Finland Marja Kankaanranta University of Jyväskylä, Finland

AbstrAct This chapter discusses the information and communication technology (ICT) competence of the young. The discussion focuses on students at lower and upper secondary school, especially young people aged 10-18. It explores how the strategic initiatives and implementation efforts of ICY have reached out to the level of young citizens. The aim is to consider their ICT competence as well as their use of ICT in school and during the leisure time. The authors also consider the significance and role of gaming, the gender differences regarding ICT skills and use, and the differences between the young and adults in their skills and use of ICT.

the KnoWledge socIety And eXpectAtIons oF Ict In educAtIon The rapid distribution of information and communication technology (ICT) in almost all areas of society has also occurred in education, and all OECD countries have invested heavily in ICT for educational use (OECD, 2004). The same trend

regarding heavy ICT investment in education has become evident in many developing countries, especially in South-East Asia (see Pelgrum, 2008). Worldwide, the utilization of information technology in education has been regarded an essential factor for economic growth, and the concept of the information society1 is based on the belief that knowledge is the driving force for technology development and that the knowledge work

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

and knowledge workers form a relatively large proportion of the employment. In policy discussions, the arguments for using ICT in education are often based on promoting the information society, which sets demands for improved teaching and learning. The new jobs require new skills, namely, those needed for interaction with the new technology (European Commission, 1998), but also more general skills, such as collaborative knowledge creation and sharing as well as metacognitive skills, as Kozma (2005) suggests based on pedagogical theories. ICT has also been regarded as a strategy to improve teaching and learning and to implement and facilitate the new pedagogy of the information society (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; OECD, 2004; Voogt & Pelgrum, 2005). For the knowledge economy, it is not only a question of whether people can access information but also how well they can process and utilize this information as well as create novel information (Hargreaves, 2003). Education is essential to answer the needs of technology and society (Waters, 1998), and it is regarded as not only as the means to meet the ICT revolution but also the means to keep pace with the continuing ICT development. This emphasis on ICT in the knowledge society also has practical consequences. As early as 1996, the European Commission emphasized the need to exploit new ICT in education, and to achieve this it was necessary to target teachers (and trainers) in introducing ICT into education and to link schools into the full networking potential of the information society (European Commission, 1998). In the same year, President Clinton laid out four similar goals in the USA: computers accessible to every student, classrooms wired to one another and to the outside world, educational software to be integrated with the curriculum, and teachers to be ready to use and teach with technology (Cuban, 2001). During the last decade, policy initiatives and diverse educational master plans around the world have generated national implementation priorities for ICT use at schools,

102

such as the provision for ICT-infrastructure, teachers’ professional development, and technical and pedagogical support for teachers (Pelgrum & Law, 2008). During recent years, there has been an obvious strategic shift in the focus from merely utilizing ICT to generating knowledge-based growth. The focus has also widened from the core promotion of work and employment purposes to efforts to contribute to the general well-being of people in their daily life, both at work and in their leisure time. This shift can be seen, for example, in the most recent Finnish knowledge society strategy which has as its general vision the promotion of a good life for all citizens vis-à-vis the information society (Prime Minister’s Office, 2006). The three main sectors of reformation concern competent and learning individuals and work communities, an innovation system in which ideas are turned into products and services, and the building of a human-centric and competitive service society. According to Ståhle (2007), the major challenges for enhancing learning in the global information society centre on gaining an understanding of virtual and actual knowledge creation processes, steering and managing such processes, and integrating them with other activities. Diverse new learning technologies such as social software and sharing technologies (wikis, blogs and RSS services) facilitate online learning in networks and within and across different communities and virtual learning environments, thereby expanding learning outside formal education for different age groups. This interest in information technology has often developed even into enthusiasm; Selwyn (2002) calls it ‘techno-romance’. The introduction of computers in education gave even rise to the expectations that they would revolutionize both learning and teaching (see Law, Pelgrum & Plomp, 2008). As a result, the role of information technologies in educational development is established – even to the extent that it is believed there would be no educational development without ICT (Nivala, in press; Selwyn, 2002; Waters, 1998).

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

From Ict skills to digital competence2 In the modern world, the competencies that an individual needs have become more complex, requiring more than the mastery of certain narrowly defined skills; it is necessary to go beyond taught knowledge and skills. This is also true in the question of ICT, or wider, digital competence, which has been discussed in various forums; nonetheless, there is still a lack of common agreement and definition about the necessary digital competence. The European Commission (see Punie & Cabrera, 2006) has defined digital competence as involving the confident and critical use of Information Society Technology for work, leisure and communication. Digital competence is grounded on basic skills in ICT, i.e. the use of computers to retrieve, assess, store, produce, present and exchange information, and to communicate and participate in collaborative networks via the Internet. The adoption of the necessary skills and competence to use ICT needs to be complemented with the mastering and understanding of ICT. In the Nordic ICT study (Pedersen et al., 2006), digital skills are defined as basic cultural skills, such as reading and writing. One further example of widening the technology-related skills to wider competencies is ISTE’s (International Society for Technology in Education) educational technology standards for students (ISTE, 2007). The main competencies are creativity and innovation; communication and collaboration; research and information fluency; critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making; digital citizenship, and technology operations and concepts. In The OECD Program Definition and Selection of Competencies (2005), a competency was defined as not only consisting of skills and knowledge, but also involving the ability to meet complex demands in a particular context. In the OECD’s framework, the key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society are classified into three

broad categories that the person should master: 1) use tools interactively, 2) interact in heterogeneous groups, and 3) act autonomously. Each of these key competencies implies the mobilization of knowledge, cognitive and practical skills, and social and behavioural components including attitudes, emotions, values and motivations. The first key competence, ‘use tools interactively’, is especially important when thinking about ICT in school. This competence means the ability to use technology interactively, which requires an awareness of new ways in which an individual can use technologies in his/her daily life. An individual should have the ability to make use of the potential of ICT to transfer the way of working, to access information, and to interact with others. A first step is to incorporate technologies into common practices to produce familiarity with the technology. In this article, we will explore how successfully the strategic initiatives and implementation efforts have reached out to the level of young citizens. The aim is to consider their ICT competence and skills as well as their use of ICT in school and during the leisure time. The aim is, further, to consider the significance and role of gaming, the gender differences regarding ICT skills and use, and the differences between the young and adults in their skills and use of ICT. The discussion focuses on students at lower and upper secondary schools, especially young people aged 10–18.

students’ Ict use And Access to Ict At homes: Ict use is Wide and Inspiring For students, ICT resources at home are most important for access and development of skills; Pedersen et al. (2006) even argue that there is a digital gap between school and home. Although potential access to computers is greater at schools

103

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

than at home, the 15-year-old students were using their computers at home more frequently than at school (OECD, 2005). Similar findings have been reported in some national studies, e.g. in Slovakia, nearly 90% of 15-19 year-old students used a computer at home but only about 60% in the school (Kubiatko, 2007; see also ImpaCT2, 2001). In the PISA 2003 survey (Eurydice, 2005), 81% of students aged 15 said that they had a computer at home, and that use of the computer was routine: 99.3% of students had used it. Over 50% said that they use it regularly, mainly for playing games (53% of the students), for looking for information on the Internet (55%) and for communicating via e-mail or ‘chat-rooms’ (56%) (OECD, 2005). Although usage is very common, the length of time using a computer varied widely from one country to another; it was highest in the Nordic countries, in which the majority of students had used a computer for over five years. Leisure time use is more active, richer, more extensive and more orientated toward recreational use of ICT and some advanced technologies than the school use. Young people, especially boys, use ICT as a tool but also, and mainly, for recreational surfing and downloading games and music (Ching, Basham, & Fang, 2005; Gansmo, Lagesen, & Sørensen., 2003; Lewin et al., 2004).

At schools: differences of Access between countries and schools In general, the access to ICT at schools has improved rapidly around the world during last 5– 8 years. National information strategy goals have been implemented through provisions that help educational establishments acquire the necessary infrastructure and by developing technical networking between schools. According to the results of the recent SITES 2006 study (Second Information Technology in Education Study), the majority of 22 participating educational systems around the word could provide students with almost full access to computers and Internet

104

at lower secondary schools in 2006 (Pelgrum, 2008). The increase has been especially rapid in Internet connections, as the results of the PISA surveys from 2000 to 2003 already indicated (Programme for International Student Assessment, 2005; see also Korte & Hüsing, 2007). In addition, the development has concerned the ratio regarding the number of students per computer (Pelgrum, 2008). Based on this ratio, the level of computerisation in schools varies widely from one country to another as, for example, Korte and Hüsing (2007) have pointed out. In 2006, on average, 9 students shared a computer, but the differences among 27 European countries are wide: in Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Luxemburg there are 4–5 students per computer. In Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Greece, 17 students share a computer (Korte & Hüsing 2007). SA similar trend is evident between educational systems around the world according to the SITES 2006 study (Pelgrum, 2008). The student-computer ratio was very favourable, which is considered to be fewer than 5 students per computer, in more than half of the schools in Norway and Alberta (Canada). In many countries (e.g. Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, and Singapore) the ratio is favourable (under 10 per computer) in the majority of the schools. Nevertheless, there were educational systems, especially in developing countries, in which this ratio still varies from 10 to 40 in most of the schools. A closer look at the average ratio indicates also the huge differences between schools in most of the countries that participated in the SITES study. For example, in about 20% of Finnish lower secondary schools there are fewer than 5 students per computer, and in almost 80% the ratio is less than 10. There are also almost 20% of schools in which the ratio is 10–19, and there are some schools with even more than 20 students per computer. The availability of different equipment, tools and software at schools is another important access-related factor. The Nordic countries, the

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Netherlands, Estonia and Malta have the highest share of broadband connections, in about 90% of the schools (Korte & Hüsing, 2007). The SITES study (Pelgrum 2008) provides an indication that general office software, such as word-processing, databases and spreadsheets, are available at almost all lower secondary schools around the world (except South Africa and Thailand), but in regard of other technology applications there is more variation between countries. The most distinct differences are in the availability of email accounts for teachers: while in some countries, such as Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and Finland, almost all schools provide their teachers with email accounts, there are many countries in which less than 70% of schools guarantee email accounts for teachers. Moreover, the availability of email accounts for students is much lower in all countries as in most countries less than 70% of schools report such provision. Simulation software, data logging tools, smart boards and mobile devices have not yet found their way to being typical ICT tools at schools.

the use of Ict at school For students, the use of ICT in education is only one part of the overall use of ICT, but it is very important, especially for achieving academic skills: in school, students receive models of learning and working with ICT. There are different estimations about the amount of computer use in education, probably depending on the methodology of the study, but the general trends are similar. The results of the PISA survey (OECD, 2004) of 15-year-old European students showed that frequency of computer use in school varies widely and that this is, naturally, related to the number of computers in the school (Korte & Hüsing, 2007; OECD, 2004). A first indicator is the amount of computer use in school, which is still quite low and varies remarkably among countries, as the results of the PISA survey in 2003 show (reported in Eurydice, 2005). However, the ratio

of students per computer or availability of different applications and tools does not directly reveal anything about the actual use of computers for teaching and learning, or about the pedagogical contents of the use; it simply provides information about the resources available. Altogether, 13% of students aged 15 said that they never used computers at school, and the girl/boy differences were significant in many countries, including the Nordic countries. In the Nordic countries and Austria, use of the Internet is particularly frequent (and low in Spain, Italy, Latvia, and Poland). Students use computers for email and browsing the Internet, while the use of educational software appears to be declining (OECD, 2004). According to Korte and Hüsing (2007), teachers often use computers in classroom, but again, the differences among countries are remarkable. The highest percentages of teachers that use ICT in the classroom are in UK (96) and in Denmark (95), the lowest in Latvia (35) and Greece (36). The SITES 2006 study highlights that at the moment the schools are not utilizing ICT in teaching and learning to the extent that the issues of access enable. The optimistic visions about deeplevel changes in educational practices towards desired pedagogical outcomes over the years have not been realised (see, e.g. Cuban, 2001; Meelissen & Drent, 2008). In many schools ICT is utilized in different subject domains ‘sometimes’ or ‘occasionally’, but more regular use is limited. For example, in Finland the use of ICT is most common in social sciences, foreign languages and the domestic tongue, in which subjects about 35% of Finnish schools report regular use (Kankaanranta & Puhakka, 2008). However, only about 15% of the science teachers and 9% of the mathematics teachers reported using ICT in their instruction once a week or more often, and 28% and 14% respectively reported using ICT during a specific period during the school year. The SITES study indicates, further, that even though the integration of ICT into science and mathematics is slowly

105

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

becoming commonplace in many countries in the world, there is still a sizeable proportion of teachers around the world that had not once used ICT with their target class (grade 8 in the SITES study) within the academic year. The differences between educational systems are again wide. In Singapore and Hong Kong, over 80% of science teachers and about 70% of maths teachers reported that they had utilized ICT with their grade 8 students during the academic year 2005–2006 whereas, there were 12 countries (out of 22 countries) in which less than 60% of science teachers and 15 countries with less than 60% of maths teachers reported ICT use. The lowest usage levels were in South Africa as 18% of the maths teachers and 16% of the science teachers reported the use in the academic year 2005–2006.

characteristics in students’ Ict skills The present-day students are essentially in a different situation from previous generations, with the large majority of students having ICT skills that are of a different type from their teachers’ and often better and wider than their teachers’; even the time spent using a computer efficiently supports the improvement of ICT skills (see, e.g. Kennewell & Morgan 2006). Digital skills divide into very different sub-skills of which only some are considered to be relevant or important and used in school. Students’ informal learning of ICT and experiences using ICT are far more attractive than the school can typically offer. As a result, students face few challenges in using ICT in school; in the curriculum of various subjects and in ICT itself: they are taught ICT skills that they already possess (ImpaCT2, 2001). Moreover, there is probably a group of students with high-level expertise in ICT in every school. These “student-experts” have the kind of adaptive expertise which is useful in novel situations with technology: they learn quickly in practice, they have networks to help and give guidance, they

106

are committed, and they are not afraid to face challenges (Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Ilomäki & Rantanen, 2007). To accept and value students’ ICT-related expertise is a question of shifting authority and power to students, but, according to Wexler (2000), it requires that teachers and school understand the value of integrating technology into learning. However, only seldom can these “student-experts” gain from the ICT use in school, although they could be an important source of help and support at school level, for instance in ICT maintenance. According to the SITES 2006 study, students’ technical expertise is still rarely utilized in different countries as a means for support (Pelgrum, 2008). Only in Hong Kong, Moscow and Singapore did more than half of the schools reported that students were providing technical support. In some earlier studies, students’ competence is reported to be used in schools with new and innovative ways of utilizing ICT (Venetzky & Davis, 2001). We do not need to over-romanticize the younger generations’ digital competence, but it should certainly have an effect on classroom practices and on the teacher’s role, and as such, it is a challenge to teachers; although less discussed. Erstad (2007) describes the different strategies that teachers used in Norwegian case studies when facing students’ better ICT competence. Some teachers competed with students, to some it was a challenge for their didactic and subject-oriented skills, while other teachers simply ignored computers. There are some characteristics in students’ ICT skills which are essential when thinking about their use in school. The Nordic comparison indicated that students and teachers have very different perceptions of what constitutes digital competencies (Pedersen et al., 2006). For example, the teachers emphasized that students’ ICT competences are highly overrated when it comes to school-related software. However, naturally the students did not agree with their teachers. Students’ ICT skills are often learned in informal learning contexts, at home and with friends; this

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

concerns especially boys (as discussed previously and reported in several studies, for example, Eurydice, 2005).The informal learning sometimes means insufficient or odd ways of working, and that especially the information-processing skills need support: students’ searching procedures are inefficient and they need more systematic guidance to develop these (Ruthven, Hennessy, & Deaney, 2005). Similar findings were reported, for example, in a study on sixth grade children studying science (Wallace, Kupperman, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2000): students were not very effective in finding useful information, but students were well engaged and involved in the inquiry and search activities. In another study on literacy skills of sixth grade children (Bowler, Largeb, & Rejskindc, 2001), the researchers found that factfinding skills were inadequate, and efficient use of the web implied a background of knowledge about computers and inquiry. Students did not understand their role as knowledge makers and the need for responsible use of information. As the authors say, understanding that one must back up statements and opinions with reliable proof should be seen as a life skill, but such understanding was missing. They emphasized further that the needs and abilities of grade-six students do not match the design of the Web. Similarly, it has been discovered that the older students also have problems. Most of the upper secondary school students only seldom evaluated the credibility of information, and the evaluation of relevance was more important than the evaluation of credibility. Some students did not find relevant and correct information, although teachers were not aware of this and they trusted the students’ information skills too much (Kiili, Laurinen & Marttinen, 2008-2009). Lallimo, Lakkala and Paavola (2004) present in their review3 that the starting point for effective information-seeking with technological support is embedded in a sound theoretical understanding of the information seeking process, as it is intertwined with meaningful pedagogical practices. The authors put the ques-

tion of whether ICT presents totally new challenges for students’ information-seeking skills, actual new knowledge practices, or is it more a question of supporting students’ basic information-seeking skills regardless of the technology.

the role oF dIgItAl gAMes As the PISA 2003 study indicated, one of the young students’ main purposes for regular use of ICT is game playing (OECD, 2005). It is even argued that games form one of the major media participation forms of the young (Jenkins, 2006). Jenkins (2006) emphasizes that these new forms and cultures offer young people new opportunities for emotional growth and intellectual development but also require new kinds of ethical responsibilities. Typically, young people play for the reasons of fun, entertainment, challenge and competition, and to spend relaxed and enjoyable spare time either alone or together with friends (Ermi, Heliö & Mäyrä, 2004; Salokoski, 2005). Games and game playing can also have different personal, social, emotional and collective dimensions (Eskelinen, 2005; Kankaanranta, Kirjavainen, Nousiainen & Ukkonen, 2006; Salokoski, 2005). Young people with their varied interests generally choose their own favourite games on the basis of their own and peer groups’ interests. Games provide them with important virtual spaces for identity formation and youth culture, which are necessary for their development towards adulthood as well as for their ‘existence’ as young people. The problem is that even though games are, for the younger generation, a distinct form of out-ofschool ICT literacy practice, they are still almost non-existent in the school-based lICT iteracy curriculum (Buckingham & Burns, 2007). In the SITES 2006 study, the majority of Finnish maths and science teachers at lower secondary schools reported that they had never used digital learning games in instruction (Kankaanranta, 2007). The technical co-ordinators stated that digital learning

107

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

games were available at only 20% of the Finnish lower secondary schools; however, 61% expressed a need for learning games at schools in which they were not currently available. The SITES 2006 study also revealed that maths and science teachers faced several problems and obstacles in the use of learning games at school. The most typical problem, mentioned by over half of the teachers, was the teachers’ lack of knowledge of learning games. Almost half of the teachers, moreover, thought that the use of learning games would take too much time during the lessons. Problems were also caused by a lack of good learning games (about 38% of the teachers) and relevant ICT resources (33% of the science and 41% of the maths teachers). About one fourth of the teachers also had problems with their own motivation to use games in teaching, and they did not see learning games as bringing any added value to teaching or supporting learning in any way. They also thought that familiarizing themselves with and using learning games would require too much effort. It may be expected that the attitudes towards the use of entertainment games are even more negative. In recent years, the educational value of digital games has been embraced at least in the emerging literature and studies related to the potential of games for learning (Gee, 2003). According to Jenkins (2006), it is through games that children learn how to play, perform, express themselves, and collaborate in large-scale communities. Children are also adept at learning new content, as has been revealed by studies in which digital games have been used in the classroom. There is growing evidence showing the importance of giving digital games and game playing space a significant role at schools as part of the curriculum and ICTenhanced school practices. The pedagogical use of digital games has the potential to intensify a more critical use and understanding of varied forms of media. As claimed by Jenkins (2006), different game literacy skills have implications for “how we will live, work, and vote in the future”.

108

At the same time, digital games have the potential to diversify the ways information and communication technology is utilized at schools and how schools help students to become digitally competent and ethical citizens of the information society; there is evidence that gaming can increase attainment in other aspects of computer use (Kennewell & Morgan, 2006). This would help us, among other things, to bridge the diverse digital divides – those between teachers and students, parents and students, boys and girls – and to better understand what kinds of digital worlds young people are living in. It would also give them the opportunity to have a say in the planning of learning goals and ICT-enhanced learning practices; to teachers and parents it would offer the opportunity to learn from these young natives of digital technologies.

Ict And gender Gender is an essential factor regarding the use of ICT (Gansmo et al., 2003; Melkas, 2004)4, but the relationship between gender and ICT appears to be in a state of flux because the use of ICT has changed so rapidly, and the Internet in particular has become an ordinary tool for many citizens. According to the PISA 2003 survey (Eurydice, 2005), the majority of students had the skills for performing simple activities, such as using a file and communicating via the Internet. Although the majority of students also managed more complex file management activities, girls more often had problems, and, further, girls had fewer skills in “complex communication” (such as attaching a file to an e-mail message) and advanced applications (such as constructing a web-page or creating a program). There are still several indications of gender differences in relation to the use of ICT. Boys use computers and the Internet more at home (Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Kubiatko, 2007; Papastergiou & Solomonidou, 2005; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008),

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

and during leisure time they are more computerorientated than girls (Ching et al., 2005; Gansmo et al., 2003; Melkas, 2004; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008). According to the Slovakian study, girls use the Internet for obtaining information and for communication (Kubiatko, 2007). Boys are also more involved in entertainment-related Internet activities (such as online gaming, and the downloading of music, games and video clips) than in using computers for more practical purposes (Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Nurmela 1997; Papastergiou & Solomonidou, 2005). Boys have a greater belief in their ability with games than girls have (Kennewell & Morgan, 2006) as well as in the use of computers and ICT-applications in general (Meelissen & Drent, 2008). However, the intensity of computer use and self-efficiency have a positive effect on both boys’ and girls computer attitude, but boys also tend to overestimate their skills while girls tend to underestimate their skills (Meelissen & Drent, 2008). For boys’ competence, informal learning is important; they learn computer technology at home independently, with friends or by themselves, while girls learn their ICT skills primarily at school. Their know-how is multidimensional (Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Ilomäki & Rantanen, 2007; Nurmela, Heinonen, Ollila & Virtanen, 2000; Pedersen et al. 2006). Boys network with other enthusiasts and perform various tasks that are difficult for them. The self-learning might explain also the boys’ stronger self-confidence about their proficiency in ICT skills, in comparison to the girls (see Nurmela, 1997; Pedersen et al. 2006). According to Sanford and Madill (2006), boys in particular are currently keeping up with the technological changes and developments better and also more productively than are schools. For boys, the use of computer technology is a way of maintaining and developing friendly relations with other boys (Facer, Furlong, Furlong & Sutherland, 2003). In general, the culture of ICT among boys seems to involve features of an adaptive expert culture (Alexander, 2004; Facer,

Sutherland, Furlong, Furlong, 2001; Mieg, 2001). The technology-orientated “student experts” are most often male (Hakkarainen et al., 2001; Ilomäki & Rantanen, 2007). An important finding by Meelissen and Drent (2008) showed that parents’ encouragement shows a very strong effect on the computer attitude of both girls and boys; and we may ask whether boys and girls are encouraged similarly at homes. There are results that show that the difference between boys and girls in ICT use and competence is diminishing. The difference between boys and girls is not simple and straightforward, and it is changing rapidly because of the extensive use of the Internet, but apparently, and especially, this equalization mainly concerns younger age groups (Facer et a., 2001; Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Knezek & Christensen, 2002; Melkas; 2004). ICT and technology have been thought of as a male issue (Clegg, 2001; Gansmo et al., 2003), and this male association has emphasized the technical aspect of ICT. With time, the technology has become less technical and its communicative and creative affordances have become stronger, easier to use, more popular and motivating; we can even call this technology ‘digital media’ (Buckingham, 2007). The gender issue is no longer apparent, and the gender differences diminish or disappear. However, the interest in technical features, such as hardware and programming languages, seem to remain male-related. In their study, concerning the relationship of gender and attitudes towards computers, Oosterwegel, Littleton and Light (2004) claim that it is necessary to recognize the diverse context and forms of computer use, and not only ask about children’s attitudes to and engagement with computers as an undifferentiated and uniform experience. Only then will we begin to understand which specific ICT applications are gendered. There might also be one important factor concerning skills, use and attitudes and gender differences: if access to computers is still low, i.e. not all young have access, then boys might

109

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

have better access, skills, and self-esteem; they use ICT more than girls. If the ICT penetration is close to 100%, then the use will perhaps become so ordinary that the gender differences diminish, at least outside school.

genders and Ict use in school In schools, there are gender-related differences in the use of ICT which indicate that apparently different things motivate girls and boys in learning with ICT. In an older study, boys participated more actively in collaborative virtual discussions, and the researchers proposed that the novel technology interested especially boys – at that time ICT was still very new in schools as well as at homes (Hakkarainen, Järvelä, Lipponen, Lonka & Lehtinen, 1998). This external motivation is no longer accurate. The use of ICT in teaching can at least partly increase or reduce differences in attitudes towards ICT between the genders. According to Stepulevage (2001), ICT competence is related to the development of gender identity, and she claims that teachers support the gender-based digital divide, often without noticing. Krapp and Lewlter (2001) suggest that when schools provide students with an opportunity to use ICT in learning they can increase equality in the use of ICT. Sølvberg (2002) found that girls benefited more from ICT teaching at school, because their beliefs in their own skills and know-how developed to the same level as the boys’ beliefs. According to Sølvberg (2002), girls have the same attitudes towards computers as boys when they have the same amount of similar experiences. The theory of the teacher as a role-model also in the use of ICT has been discussed. Jensen, de Castell & Bryson (2003) reported about a feminist intervention project in which girls and female teachers were trained to become ICT-experts in their school so that they would then train other students and teachers. This increased the consciousness of gender-based inequities, but it also showed the strongly male-dominance in ICT in

110

school. In addition, Meelissen and Drent (2008) found a small effect on girls’ computer attitude if the female teacher has computer experience. The importance of female role-models was also emphasized by Apiola (2008). A case study by Ilomäki and Rantanen (2007) about students’ intensive use of lap tops revealed that both genders achieved good competence in their usage, although some of the boys were more interested in the technical possibilities of ICT; the computer science teacher was a female. Some recent studies indicate results that there are no differences between the genders, as, for example, the study of Greek 12–16 years old students shows concerning the use of the Internet in school (Papastergiou & Solomonidou, 2004), so we may expect that the relationship between gender and ICT will change rapidly. Roe and Muijs (1998) examined children’s overall media use and found that a heavy use (more than two hours a day) of computer games is associated with negative outcomes in terms of academic achievement, school commitment, and academic self-concept. In the study, 9.4% of the respondents fell into this category, and 76.8% of these heavy users were male. Roe and Muijs (1998) also analyzed this result from the point of view of the structural-cultural model of media use, which reverses the perspective, seeing children’s school experience as affecting media use. They hypothesize that the more successful school achievers become more involved with more approved cultural forms and the more unsuccessful choose to compensate for their school failure with heavy engagement in generally disapproved media forms. Game playing is still commonly regarded as negative media use (Sanford & Madill, 2006). They continue that male youth in particular may utilize games to consciously or unconsciously resist institutional authority, school activities and assignments. It must be remembered, though, that games provide interesting, engaging, dynamic and social spaces for boys of many kinds, not only for those who are not doing well at school.

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Moreover, games are spaces in which the young can succeed. In these spaces they can also be involved in different out-of-school ICT activities and learn digital competencies. The problem is that such ICT-enhanced practices and digital competences are not valued at school and as school-related ICT-practices.

dIFFerIng dIgItAl cultures It is remarkable that young students’ ICT skills and attitudes are mainly based on home resources and leisure time use. School teaching has probably had the main impact on female students’ skills, although it has also improved ICT working practices in particular among boys for whose skills the leisure time use has been more important. In general, students have the skills to use new kinds of applications and new forms of technology, and their ICT skills are wide (see Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2003), although not necessarily adequate as their working habits might be ineffective and even incorrect Teachers’ skills are more heterogeneous. There are teachers with high-level digital skills; they are often male and young teachers. The large majority of teachers have sufficient skills for everyday and routine working practices, but many of them still have difficulties in finding meaningful pedagogical use for technology. There is still a small group of teachers, more often middle-aged and older females, who lack even basic ICT skills, which is probably a question of motivation and interest (see Korte & Hüsing, 2007). The generation difference is apparent also in applications used at school: based on the Nordic comparison, Pedersen et al. (2006) argue that students and teachers utilize entirely different software. The differences between young students but also the youngest male teachers and teachers is characterized by Selwyn (1999) as different computing identities; it is possible that these identities will grow even further apart because many new technology affordances are not familiar to

teachers, or older generations, in general. Very few teachers know what is going on in the digital world of a 13-year-old student. This differentiation and students’ ICT competence are challenges for teachers because digital skills are contemporary basic skills, such as reading and writing (Pedersen et al., 2006). The new technology has several such affordances and functionalities that are neither necessary nor needed for existing teaching and learning practices; one reason might be that to use the new functionalities effectively the existing practices should be changed. In formal learning contexts this seems to be difficult and demanding, as many studies indicate (Cuban, 2001; Ganesh & Berliner, 2005; Gibson & Oberg, 2004; Pedersen et al., 2006). However, the new features label characterisethe ICT culture of young people. Examples of new kinds of technology application, and affordances, are for instance, applications which support distributing personal information – even playing with identities – and networking in the Internet, in MySpace, Facebook or blogs. Similarly various wiki-applications are a challenge for the “copyright generation”: everything is free and the improvement is in collective responsibility. Technology is not essential; the social forms of it are in the centre (Buckingham, 2007). These new applications are not only tools that replace some previous manual practices; they change many of our existing conceptions, from own cultural basis to values, attitudes and practices; and, as Bryant (2007) reminds us, it is the social affordances, not the technology itself, that is new and exciting. The very different experiences and conceptions that generations have about technology leads, in the worst case, to a digital gap in education (and at homes!); the technology used in school is boring, ineffective, and it does not provide the competence needed for using advanced technology in learning. The concept ‘digital divide’ is used in discussion to describe different social groups’ access to digital services, and in general, different groups’

111

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

abilities to make use of various digital possibilities (see Facer, 2002; Norris, 2001; van Dijk & Hacker, 2003). Gaps based on age, gender, educational level and geographical location have been postulated. On the basis of large European and American statistical data, van Dijk & Hacker (2003) point out that the digital divide does not simply divide people into two classes but rather shows relative and gradual differences in the possibilities of using information and communication technology. The digital divide is usually discussed in the context of adults, but there is also a digital divide among children and the young concerning their resources to use ICT, as national studies from Greece (Vekiri and Chronaki, 2008) and the UK (ImpaCT2, 2001) show about ICT resources; the digital divide among children and the youth is based on economic background.

For Further dIscussIon Investigating ICT-related phenomena is strongly time-related. Distribution, use and practices, as well as individuals’ ICT skills change rapidly as new applications replace old ones, and new tools and applications come on the market every month. Research data inevitably describe a past situation. During the last twenty years, the nature of technology has changed from a technical connotation towards a communicative connotation, mainly because of the development of new applications in the Internet. This has increased the use of ICT dramatically. Similarly, access to ICT has improved among students and teachers, and both at home and at school. There is an obvious need for further studies: we need large international surveys about ICT resources and the use of ICT, both at school and at homes, but there is also a need for snapshot studies; qualitative studies which can catch the cultural practices of the young and which can also inform us about the rapid changes in the practices of ICT. For the younger generation, using ICT is easy and ordinary, characterizing a life-style which 112

consists of the functions of working and learning, as well as functions of leisure time, such as gaming or uploading and listening to music. Nardi and O´Day (1999) call this phenomenon ‘information ecology’, by which they mean a system of people, practices, values and technology in a certain environment. In such an “ecosystem”, technology in not in the centre, but it is integrated into the existing practices and manners, and users and tools form a wide range, complementing each other. In particular, Internet services challenge previous practices of working and learning. Weller (2007) suggests that the essence of the Internet is in robust, decentralized and open communication; these technological features have also become social features and influenced the social values of the net. Many virtual communities have adopted these, but, as Weller says, these elements do not characterize learning communities, not even elearning communities. Yet, the new generation of learners will become used (and some of them already are) to these features and they also demand them in the learning communities. The challenge is how to integrate the technological possibilities, the sophisticated communication strategies of the learners accustomed to the Internet, and the formal structures of learning organizations.

the challenge for school Recent results indicate the presence of further challenges, especially in the educational sector, for initiatives designed to intensify the use of ICT at school. It is acknowledged that not all students have equal opportunities to acquire information society skills. There is also growing evidence that the pedagogical use of ICT at schools is decreasing or that it is not at the level it could be based on the issues of access even though research indicates that ICT has a positive impact on students’ learning outcomes, (Law, Pelgrum, & Plomp, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2006). Moreover, although potential access to computers is greater at schools than at home, the home use is more

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

important, more effective and more inspiring for the students. These trends raise questions on how to support and encourage schools to become more diversified ICT users in order to support students in becoming competent members of the knowledge society. The role of informal learning is a current issue. Because ICT has so strong a status in children’s and students’ everyday life it is necessary to bridge out-of-school ICT-enhanced learning and schoolbased teaching and learning in computer or ICT literacy. This is necessary also in order to ensure that all children have an equal opportunity for varied ICT use and to become competent members of the knowledge society. This means that schools should take into account children’s out-of-school learning experiences and build school learning upon these (Marsh, 2002).

reFerences Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, Emotion and Cognition. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

becta.org.uk/uploaddir/downloads/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies07.pdf Buckingham, D., & Burns, A. (2007). Game literacy in theory and practice. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16, 323-349. Ching, C., Basham, J., & Fang, E. (2005). The legacy of the digital divide: Gender, socioeconomic status, and early exposure as predictors of full-spectrum technology use among young adults. Urban Education, 40, 394–411. Clegg, S. (2001). Theorising the Machine: gender, education and computing. Gender and Education, 13, 307–324. Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12, 113–124. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813–834.

Apiola, M. (2008). Sukupuoli ja kiinnostus tietotekniikkaan [Gender and the interest in information technology]. Kasvatus, 39, 72–77.

van Dijk, J. & Hacker, K. (2003). The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315–326.

Bowler, L., Largeb, A. & Rejskindc, G. (2001). Primary school students, information literacy and the Web. Education for Information, 19, 201–223.

Ermi, L., Heliö, S., & Mäyrä, F. (2004). Pelien voima ja pelaamisen hallinta. Lapset ja nuoret pelikulttuurien toimijoina [The power of games and the monitoring of games. Children and the young as actors in game cultures]. Hypermedia Laboratory Net Series 6. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from http://tampub.uta.fi/tup/951-445939-3.pdf

Bruer, J.T. (1993). Schools for thought. A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Bryant, L. (2007). Emerging trends in social software for education. In Emerging technologies for learning (Becta report Vol. 2/2007, pp. 9–18). Retrieved February 4, 2008, from http://partners.

Erstad, O. (2007). Integrating institutional and educational practices - Norwegian experiences on ICT and teacher professional development.

113

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Unpublished manuscript, Summer Institute 2005, University of Oslo, Norway..

ing and Instruction 2005 Biennial Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Eskelinen, M. (2005). Pelit ja pelitutkimus luovassa taloudessa [Games and game research in an innovative economy]. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from http://www.sitra.fi/Julkaisut/Raportti51.pdf

Gansmo, H., Lagesen, V., & Sørensen, K. (2003). Out if the boy’s room? A critical analysis of the understanding of gender and ICT in Norway. NORA, 11, 130-139.

Facer, K. (2002, February 19). What do we mean by the digital divide? Exploring the roles of access, relevance and resource networks. A collection of papers from the Toshiba/Becta seminar . Retrieved June 29, 2005, from http://www.becta.org.uk/ research/research.cfm?section=1&id=529 Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong, R., & Sutherland, R. (2003). ScreenPlay: Children and Computing in the Home. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Facer, K., Sutherland, R., Furlong, R., & Furlong, J. (2001). What’s the point of using computers? The development of computer expertise in the home. New media & society, 3, 199–219. European Commission (1998). Employment in the Information Society. In W. Cortada (Ed.) Rise of the knowledge worker (pp. 189–198 ). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Eurydice (2005). Key data on education in Europe. The information network on education in Europe, EU Commission. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from http://www.eurydice.org/ressources/ eurydice/pdf/052EN/008_chapD_052EN.pdf Facer, K. (2002 February 19). What do we mean by the digital divide? Exploring the roles of access, relevance and resource networks. A collection of papers from the Toshiba/Becta seminar. Retrieved June, 29, 2005 from http://www.becta.org.uk/ research/research.cfm?section=1&id=529 Ganesh, T. G. & Berliner, D. C. (2005). Practices of computer use in elementary education: Perceived and missed opportunities. In D. Wray (Chair), ICT in education. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learn-

114

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Gibson, S. & Oberg, D. (2004). Visions and reality of Internet use in schools: Canadian perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 569-585. Hakkarainen, K., Ilomäki, L., Lipponen, L., Muukkonen, H., Rahikainen, M., Tuominen, T., et al. (2000). Students’ skills and practices of using ICT: Results of a national assessment in Finland. Computers and Education, 34, 103–117. Hakkarainen, K., Järvelä, S., Lipponen, L., & Lehtinen, E. (1998). Culture of collaboration in computer-supported learning: Finnish perspectives. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9, 271–288. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the age of insecurity. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Ilomäki, L., & Lakkala, M. (Eds.) (2003). Computers in school’s daily life: A final report of the Educational Technology Project of City of Helsinki 1996-2000, (City of Helsinki Publication Series A3:2003). Available from http://www. hel.fi/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebd08a4c2d77570/ Loppuraportti_eng.pdf Ilomäki, L. & Rantanen, P. (2007). Intensive use of information and communication technology (ICT) in lower secondary school: Development of student expertise. Computers and Education, 48, 119–136. ImpaCT2 (2001). The impact of information and communications technology on pupil learning

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

and attainment. NGfL research and Evaluation Series. Available from http://www.becta.org.uk/ impact2 ISTE (= International Society for Technology in Education) (2007). Profines for Technology (ICT) Literate Students. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/ NETS-S_2007_Student_Profiles.pdf Jenkins, H. (2006). Threshold. New Media Literacies. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from http:// www.projectnml.org/node/306/ Jensen, J., de Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (2003). ”Girl talk”: gender, equity, and identity discourses in a school-based computer culture. Women’s Studies International Forum, 26, 561-573. Kankaanranta, M. (2007). Digital games and new literacies. In P. Linnakylä & I. Arffman (Eds.) Finnish Reading Literacy: When equality and equity meet (281-307). University of Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research.. Kankaanranta, M., Kirjavainen, A., Nousiainen, T., & Ukkonen, M. (2006). Digitaaliset pelit nuorten arkipäivässä – Tapaus VisioCafe [Digital games in the everyday life of the young – The case of VisioCafe]. In M. Kylmäkoski, K. Lind, T. Hintikka T. & Aittola (Eds.), Nuorten tilat [Spaces of the young] (Humanistisen ammattikorkeakoulun sarja C. Oppimateriaaleja 9, pp. 125–148). Helsinki, Finland: Humanistinen ammattikorkeakoulu. Kankaanranta, M. & Puhakka, E. (2008). Kohti innovatiivista tietotekniikan opetuskäyttöä. Kansainvälisen SITES 2006 -tutkimuksen tuloksia. [Towards innovative use of ICT at teaching. Results of the international SITES 2006 study]. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research. Kennewell, S. & Morgan, A. (2006). Factors influencing learning through play in ICT settings. Computer & Education, 46, 265–279.

Kiili, C., Laurinen, L. & Marttunen, M. (20082009). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of the Educational Computing Research, 39, 75-95. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of New Technologies on Teachers and Students. Education and Information Technologies, 7, 369–376. Korte, W. & Hüsing, T. (2007). Benchmarking access and use of ICT in european schools 2006: Results from head teacher and a classroom teacher surveys in 27 European countries. E-Learning Papers2(1). Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/ media11563.pdf Kozma, R. B. (2005). National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development. Human Technology Journal, 1, 117–156. Kubiatko, M. (2007). Information and computer literacy of high school students. Problems of education in the 21th century, 2, 31–36. Lallimo, J., Lakkala, M., & Paavola, S. (2004). How to Promote Students’ Information Seeking. European Schoolnet. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from http://insight.eun.org/ww/en/pub/ insight/school_innovation/teaching_models/ ernist_answers.htm Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J. & Plomp, T. Eds. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings for the IEA SITE 2006 study. The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre. Lewin, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Harrison, C., Hawe, K., Lunzer, E., et al. (2004). The UK ImpaCT2 Project. Education, Communication & Information, 4(2/3), 336-340. Marsh, J. (2002). Popular culture, computer games and the primary literacy curriculum. In M. Mon-

115

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

teith (Ed.), Teaching primary literacy with ICT. Buckingham: Open University Press, 127-143. Meelissen, M. & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 969–985. Melkas, T. (2004). Leisure uses of ICTs among persons aged 15–34. In J. Nurmela, T. Melkas, T. Sirkiä, M. Ylitalo, & L. Mustonen (Eds.), Finnish people’s communication capabilities in interactive society of the 2000s. Reviews 2004/7. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Mieg, H. A. (2001). The social psychology of expertise: case studies in research, professional domains, and expert roles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Nardi, B. A. & O´Day, V. (1999). Information ecologies. Using technology with heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nivala, M. (in press). Simple answers for complex problems: Education and ICT in Finnish information society strategies. Media, Culture and Society. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty & the Internet in Democratic Societies. New York: Cambridge Press. Nurmela, J. (1997). Suomalaiset ja uusi tietotekniikka [Finns and the new information technology]. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. Nurmela, J., Heinonen, R., Ollila, P., & Virtanen, V. (2000). Matkapuhelin ja tietokone suomalaisen arjessa. Suomalaiset ja tuleva tietoyhteiskunta -tutkimushanke, vaihe II raportti I [Mobile phone and computer in a Finn’s daily life. Finns and the future information society - research project, phase II report I]. Katsauksia 2000/2. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)( 2004). Educational Policy 116

Analysis. Retrieved January 21, 2007, from http:// www.oecd.org/document/34/0,2340,en_2649_37 455_34989090_1_1_1_37455,00.html OECD. (2005). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris: Author. Oosterwegel, A., Littleton, K., & Light, P. (2004). Understanding computer-related attitudes through an idiographic analysis of gender- and self-representations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 215–233. Papastergiou, M. & Solomonidou, C. (2005). Gender issues in Internet access and favourite Internet activities among Greek high school pupils inside and outside school. Computers & Education, 4, 377–393. Pedersen, S., Malmberg, P., Christensen, A. J., Pedersen, M., Nipper, S., Graem, C. D., & Norrgård, J. (Eds.). (2006). E-learning Nordic 2006: Impact of ICT on education. Copenhagen: Ramboll Management. Pelgrum, W. (2008). School practices and conditions for pedagogy and ICT. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.) Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 67–120). Hong Kong: Springer. Pelgrum, W. & Law, N. (2008). Introduction to SITES 2006. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.) Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 2–11).Hong Kong: Springer. Prime Minister’s Office. (2006). A renewing, human-centric and competitive Finland. The National Knowledge Society Strategy 2007–2015. Helsinki: Author. Punie, Y. & Cabrera, M. (Eds.) (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the Knowledge Society. Luxembourg: European Commission.

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Roe, K., & Muijs, D. (1998). Children and computer games: A Profile of the heavy user. European Journal of Communication, 13, 181. Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating Internet resources into classroom practice: pedagogical perspectives and strategies of secondary-school subject teachers. Computers and Education, 44, 1–34. Salokoski, T. (2005). Tietokonepelit ja niiden pelaaminen [Playing computer games]. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 277. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Sanford, K., & Madill, L. (2006). Resistance through video game play: It’s a boy thing. Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 287-306. Selwyn, N. (2002). Learning to love the micro: the discursive construction of ‘educational’ computing in the UK, 1979–89. British Journal of Sociology in Education, 23, 427–443. Stepulevage, L. (2001). Gender / technology relations: complicating the gender binary. Gender and Education, 13, 325–338. Ståhle, P. (Ed.). (2007). Five Steps for Finland’s Future. Technology Review 202. Helsinki: Tekes. The OECD Program Definition and Selection of Competencies (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies. Executive summary. 30th June, 2005. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367. pdf Vekiri, I. & Chronaki, A. (in press). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education. Venetzky, R. & Davis, C. (2001)’Que Vademus? The Transformation of Schooling in a Networked World. Unpublished research report, OECD/CERI. Available http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/48/20/2073054.pdf

Voogt, J. & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology, 1, 157–175. Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the Web: Students Online in a Sixth-Grade Classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 75–115. Waters, M. (1998). Daniel Bell and the postindustrial Society. In W. Cortada (Ed.) Rise of the Knowledge Worker (pp. 167–181). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Weller, M. (2007). The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning. Computers and Education, 40, 148–159. Wexler, D. (2000). Integrating Computer Technology: Blurring the Roles of teachers, Students, and Experts. Educational Studies, 31, 33–43.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Digital Competence: A wider concept of ICT competence. Consist of basic ICT skill but also understanding and knowledge how to use digital device and applications in novel and complex contexts demands in a particular context. Digital Divide: Describes different social groups’ access to digital services, abilities to make use of various digital possibilities. Digital Game: Popular form of entertainment and media use, which also offer possibilities for learning. Digital games are designed for play with e.g. a computer, videogame console, mobile device or interactive televisio. ICT: An abbreviation of information and communication technology ICT Competence: Competence to use ICT tools and applications in particular domains.

117

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Information and Communication Technology: New digital technology which consists of various computer-based and Internet-based applications. It is used for creating and sharing information as well as creating new forms of communication. Information Society: The society in which information is regarded as essential means for new organizations of practices, increasing especially economic productivity. A large group of people work in information-related occupations. Policy-oriented concept with various national characteristics. Knowledge Society: A wider concept of information society; entails commitment of persons as knowers.

118

endnotes 1

2

3

4

The concept ‘information society’ has lately been replaced by ‘knowledge society’. In this chapter, we use 1) the concept the authors of the article referred to has used, or 2) ICT skills / competence when referring mostly to technical skills and digital skills / competence when referring more broadly to working and learning skills with ICT. The reviews were evidence-based “answers” to authentic questions of practitioners. This reviewing process was part of ERNISTproject of the European SchoolNet. There are also results of gender and age entanglement in ICT usage and competence; age, too, is a significant factor in ICT skills and usage, more significant than education, income level or geographical location (van Dijk and Hacker, 2003).

119

Chapter VIII

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century Wei-Ying Lim Nanyang Technological University, Singapore David Hung Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Horn-Mun Cheah Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract We are entering into a milieu which makes the global world look much smaller because of digital communications and technologies. More recently, there has also been a coming together of participants from the media world such as those in cinema and animation with those from the technology sectors. This partnership forms what we now know as interactive and digital media (or IDM). In this chapter, the authors aim to articulate the importance of IDM literacies in relation to the 21st century. They attempt to clarify the distinctions between ICT (information and communications technology) and IDM, and from their analysis, they propose a matrix integrating both.

BACKGROUND Today, with the amelioration of technology, in particular the Internet, information becomes increasingly accessible to people in our society. Apart from information search, people now use

the Internet as a platform for social activities such as online chat not counting the conduct of commercial activities such as online banking or online shopping. With the Internet, the means of communication amongst people have substantially expanded. Beyond the traditional modes of com-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

munication through surface mails and telephone calls, people now can stay connected via the sharing of their lives (and photos) in blogs, instant messaging, online forums or by calling someone on the mobile phone using a computer, just to name a few. This shift in the way our everyday activities are conducted constitute one distinct characteristic of the 21st century— a connected world (Carr, 2001) where geographic distance poses less of a barrier than before. In what follows, we expound the nature of the 21st century literacies and explicate how the Singapore Education Ministry, drawing upon these literacies, conceived a set of digital-age literacies for the local Singaporean context. This is followed by our attempt to outline the backdrop of Information Communication and Technologies (ICT), and Interactive Digital Media (IDM) in terms of teaching and learning interactions from which we argue that the relationship between ICT and IDM can be better understood in a matrix in terms of realism and connectivity. We conclude this chapter by articulating the productivity of this matrix and how it is useful for both research and practice.

nAture oF lIterAcIes In the 21st century Set against this backdrop of the 21st century world, there is now a demand for a knowledge workforce―people who are innovative, resourceful and efficient in order to increase the per capita output in order to grow the economy. Thus, a premium is given to employees who demonstrate 21st century skills such as critical thinking, risk-taking, social and collaborative skills (http://www.metiri.com/ features.html; http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/ index.php). To develop such employees, Jenkins (2006) stresses that learning must now occur in multi-cultural and multi-lingual contexts, and our technologies, media forms, and practices have to sustain communication among geographically

120

dispersed and culturally distinct communities. In this new learning landscape, we can no longer afford to focus on learners as autonomous and independent agents. Rather, they need to be understood as part of a larger learning community which actively collaborates. Literacy has traditionally been regarded as the acquisition of skills and knowledge for reading and writing. Partly influenced by social cultural theories, the notion of literacy has evolved to recognize the multiplicity of literacies, varying across time and space, as well as to view literacies as community-based social practices as opposed to universal autonomous cognitive skills (Street, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel 2007). This ontological position of literacies as practices offers an alternative perspective on understanding how people learn to read and write in a more situational sensitive way. Just as we subscribe to ideas of situated cognition, where knowledge, agency and context are tightly intertwined, we argue that literacy practices and contexts are an inseparable coupling. Literacies, when viewed as sociocultural practices, would enable us to examine the relationships between the social cultural contexts and literacy practices. In today’s modern society, the influence of technology, particularly the pervasiveness of the Internet, has changed the way our everyday lifeworld is done. Learning within and outside of schools is no exception. The Internet has given us the unprecedented power as knowledge consumers (& producers with Web 2.0 technologies) such that the challenge is no longer in the accessibility and creation of information but the ability to discern information and information sources. In fact, the concern to instill media literacy in people has given rise to a “New Literacies Perspective” (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004), one that rightfully addresses the complex interrelationship between literacy practices, ways of technology use and learning. Although the new literacies movement has yet to produce rigorous, comprehensive theories,

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

given that it is a growing phenomenon, its potential in furthering our current understanding of literacy practices, including variations in technology use, and learning is elevating. At this point, it is worthwhile to mention that the “mindset 2” notions advocated by Lankshear and Knobel (2007, p. 11) encapsulate the post-industrialization ways of thinking of the world and social relations shape our attempts to develop a set of digital-age literacies for the local Singaporean context. Such digitalage literacies would be founded on principles that leverage on the diverse expertise that are brought together via technological means into a collective that cuts across time and physical space.

InterActIve dIgItAl MedIA (IdM) lIterAcIes – the sIngApore conteXt In Singapore, attempts have been made to understand IDM literacies, in particular by the Ministry of Education (MOE). In this chapter, we use IDM literacies, digital-age literacies interchangeably with media literacies (http://www.medialit.org/; http://www.mediathink.org/aboutml.php; http:// www.aml.ca/whatis/). In order to prepare students for this future where people are both consumers and creators of media, the MOE has begun to study the implications of digital-age literacies on local K-12 schools. The sources of information analyzed include: 21st Century Skills (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, NCREL) at http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm, and Becoming Media Literate at http://www.sfsu. edu/~holistic/document/Down/Media_Society/ medialiterate.htm. In a nutshell, there are four kinds of IDM literacies as conceived by MOE: (i) media literacy, (ii) technological literacy, (iii) social and civic responsibility, and (iv) imagination and creativity. In media literacy, the emphasis is for the student to be able to interpret messages behind media forms and representations. There should be critical

thought and evaluation of the nature of the mass media, the representational techniques employed and the subtle and explicit effects it has on the learner. Not only is the learner to be a consumer of media, he or she should also have some degree of competency in working or producing artifacts and messages with media. Under technological literacy, the learner is to demonstrate a sound understanding of how technology works, both as consumers and producers. In social and civic responsibility, learners need to use technology and media in an ethical way, maintaining good cyber ethics and avoiding plagiarism. For imagination and creativity, learners need to draw on artistic expressions to be imaginative and creative in articulating their intended messages across the media. If the aforementioned are some of the competencies needed in the 21st century and we predict that such a focus is imminent, are our schools and universities adequately preparing students and professors/faculty for these challenges? And are the institutions doing this preparatory work at a pace suitable to the changing times? These are the questions motivating us to first outline the backdrop of Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) and Interactive Digital Media (IDM) and to propose a matrix integrating both ICT and IDM to help us transit into “mindset 2” (Lankshear and Knobel, 2007, p. 11) as we chart our educational plans for the times ahead.

bAcKdrop For Ict And IdM We found that it is necessary to outline the nature of Information, Communication and Technologies (ICT), technologies which we are familiar with for teaching and learning, with the more recently Interactive Digital Media (IDM) in order for us to articulate how we understand the two classes of technology forms to be similar or different. To outline this backdrop for ICT and IDM, we attempt to first explicate learning vis-à-vis teaching and learning interactions. 121

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

Technology can both afford and constrain teaching and learning interactions that take place. Depending on the state of technological advancement, the form and function of interactions can either serve to improve teacher-to-student efficiency or to transform teaching and learning interactions for learning to take place along the lines of constructivism in authentic learning contexts. Set against our proposed RC matrix, distinctions of such teaching and learning interactions will be further explained in Table 1. At the early introduction of ICT in education, contexts for learning remained fairly traditional due to technological limitation, and were often teacher-directed. Technology often served only to enhance the learning process by means of well-chunked text and graphics. An example of such learning is computer-based instruction. In contrast, brought about by today’s (and future) sophisticated technologies, learning is now more seamlessly embedded in everyday being and occurring in highly realistic contexts brought about by complex technological connectivity. Examples include the Classroom of the Future or 3-D immersive environments such as 2nd Life, where learners experience ‘living’ in particular ecosystems and learning, in this case, is seamlessly embedded in the process of being in such virtual spaces, not as a separate process. Such transformed teaching and learning interactions bring about a whole new meaning to embodiment in the sense that we now have a “sense” of the real world context not through our physical five senses but rather mediated through electronic devices. We argue that after prolonged interactivity within such environments, learners can be possibly enculturated with the IDM literacies we outlined earlier as espoused by social cultural studies.

proposed MAtrIX For both Ict And IdM With the earlier discussion in mind, in our attempt to clarify ICT and IDM, we propose to do 122

so in terms of the realism of contexts and level of connectivity (see our proposed matrix in figure 1). Realism of contexts is cast in terms of multi-modalmedia representations such as pictures, videos, animations, texts, audio, and others. Degree of fidelity & first person agency embodiment will vary according to modes of representation from 2-D simulations, e.g. SimLife, to 3-D immersive environment such as Tomb Raider, WarCraft, City Life and so on. Whereas heterogeneous connectivity is in terms of distributed expertise and diverse views affording social dialogues and again, they range from high human computer interactions in the case of real time communications and information via personal digital gadgets to dynamic social interactions in an online gaming environment such as 2nd Life. Our proposed matrix is as follows (see Figure 1). It is important to note that essentially we are concerned with the kinds of teaching and learning interactions and goals RC 1 to RC 4 can provide. It is not a necessary assumption that where there is pervasive connectivity and high realism that learning gains are superior. In Table 2 we have depicted the potential of transforming traditional pedagogical practices to social constructivist orientations along the axis of RC 1 to RC 4. Levels 1 to 3 in “teaching and learning interactions” describe the degree of pedagogical transformation, where level 1 connotes a mere adoption of ICT in “automating” traditional pedagogy; level 2 is where pedagogy differs from the traditional because either rich contexts are afforded to the learner or connectivity allows learners to be connected across time and physical space and with potential experts beyond the classroom. Because of the affordances of technology, increased learner-centric activities become possible, and in level 3 the goals of both RC 2 and RC 3 are combined and enriched to provide learners with a sense of embodiment and interactions. Essentially, we conjecture that whole person development may be possible as a learning goal in RC 4, although more research is needed to substantiate this claim.

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

Figure 1. 2-dimensional axis of: degree of realism of context and degree of heterogeneous connectivity Degree of Realism of Context (R axis)

High Realism High Connectivity (RC 4)

High Realism Low Connectivity (RC 3)

Low Realism High Connectivity (RC 2)

Low Realism Low Connectivity (RC 1)

Degree of heterogeneous connectivity (facilitated by communications) (C axis)

Table 1. Characteristics of RC1 to RC4 and the corresponding teaching and learning interactions RC Matrix

Characteristics

Teaching and Learning Interactions

RC 1 (Low Realism, Low Connectivity)

•

Level 1: Improved efficiency for learning

•

Characteristic feature – efficiency or automation of existing practice, in particular traditional didactic pedagogies; Simply use powerpoint to present concepts, quizzes to test for understanding etc.

Teacher-centered interactions, structure and sequence defined by the teacher-author of environment; learner has little or no autonomy. Goal: efficiency-driven learning of content material

RC 2 (Low Realism, High Connectivity)

• • •

RC 3 (High Realism, Low Connectivity)

• • •

RC 4 (High Realism, High Connectivity)

•

•

Characteristic feature – communications, in particular through text and multi-media Use of emails, video conferencing, skype, discussion boards; and Interactions are unpredictable because social participants may be different each time Characteristic feature – videos, single player in 2-D or 3-D gaming environment Including MicroLessons, SimLife and hypertext systems Along the continuum of interactions from low to high, somewhere along the mid point are virtual simulations-experiments Interactions are nevertheless well-structured and predictable Characteristic feature: immersive virtual environments; social participation in multi-player environments where level of interaction is high and ill-structured. 2nd Life: Interactions are unpredictable because social participants may be different each time.

Level 2: Transformed teaching and learning interactions Transformed teaching and learning interaction in having varying forms of student-centered learning by removing physical classroom barriers. Through the anytime-anywhere notion, learning is made more student-centered by linking up to real world experts (in the case of RC 2) or by anchoring real-world situations in simulated forms (in the case of RC 3). Teaching and learning interactions have transformed such that interactions manifest themselves as myriad complex social exchanges. Goal: focus on student-centered learning by providing highly realistic contexts or experience in the learning of content material. Level 3: Whole-person development Whole-person development, i.e. knowledge, skills, and values in a virtual real world (pun intended). Being in high realism entails behaving appropriately according to contexts. Thus teaching and learning interactions no longer just focused on thinking but also on an integrated way of being, involving actions and behavior. Goal: enculturate appropriate ways of thinking and behaving against the background of heterogeneous, complex and often unpredictable information and perspectives.

123

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

productIvIty oF MAtrIX - neW ApproAches to leArnIng to leArn The matrix found in Table 1 is useful to us for several reasons. We have received a recent funding endorsement in IDM at the Learning Sciences Lab (LSL) at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore. Using the matrix, we determined that the last 2 to 3 years of research efforts focused on projects (see Figure 2) in RC 2 and RC 3, but for these new IDM funds to have an impact, we should design projects that will fit in RC 4, supplemented with some projects on the border between RC 3 and RC 4 which take advantage of the affordances of interactive media. Second, the matrix enables clarity of focus when we engage in dialogue and negotiations with our stakeholders and funding agencies. Third, using the matrix also brings clarity to the researchers’ expectations, when we claim that we should focus on RC 4. A brief synopsis of the projects listed in Figure 2 are as follows: •

•

•

•

Knowledge Building Project - Ideas First: Developing a Model for Creating Knowledge Building Classrooms in Primary school

•

This study aims to understand the shift of classroom norms and practices towards a Knowledge Building Community. Knowledge Forum capitalizes on media such as static graphics and videos. Classroom of the Future (COTF) COTF is a showcase setup to display the possibilities of using technology to empower learning in a technology-empowered global community by removing the constraints of place and time. Technology Enhanced Learning in Science project (TELS) The research is to help students master complex scientific concepts via computer visualizations of scientific phenomena that teachers can customize. TELS is currently rather structured and the degree of heterogeneous interactions are not high. Scratch project Scratch is a programmable toolkit that enables students to create games, animated stories, and interactive art -- and to share their creations with one another over the internet. Mixed Reality Research is focused on the development and application of mixed reality to visualization, learning, leisure and cooperative work.

Figure 2. Examples of projects situated in the matrix Degree of Realism of Context (R axis)

Mixed Reality Electromagnetism

High Realism CoTF Low Connectivity (RC 3) Single-player gaming

Ideal force Interactive TV

Scratch project

NE game

High Realism2ND Life High Connectivity (RC 4)Quest Atlantis

Multiple-player gaming

Sing City

TELS project KB project

Low Realism Low Connectivity (RC 1)

Low Realism High Connectivity (RC 2)

Degree of heterogeneous connectivity (facilitated by communications) (C axis)

124

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

•

•

•

•

•

Students’ learning of Singapore National Education (NE) through game playing (NE Game) This research project seeks to research processes related to students’ problem solving, situated understandings, social practices, identity formation, and the development of shared community values through game play in highly interactive and rich game environment. 2nd Life project - Enhancing Junior College (K11 & 12) students’ critical thinking and writing skills through argumentation, enacted role play in immersive affinity spaces, and reflection This research seeks to enhance JC students’ critical thinking and writing skills through argumentation, enacted role play in immersive affinity spaces (2nd Life virtual environment), and reflection. Electromagnetism project- Developing students’ process learning skills and deep understanding of electromagnetism through the medium of a 3D simulation game This research intends to design and introduce a 3D multiplayer game as a medium of learning for a Sec. 3 Advanced Module on electromagnetism with the goal to develop desired learning traits. Ideal Force - Projectile physics in a gamelike VR learning environment The project developed a demonstration of virtual reality based learning with strong game elements that supports a strong sense of co-presence between students and allows them to participate in authentic situated practice. Singapore River City project - Virtual worlds and intelligent agents for learning science: Innovative technology and pedagogy for Singaporean schools

•

This project is to conduct research into how multi-user, agent-enabled virtual environments may be used to engage and motivate students at the lower secondary level in Singapore as they learn scientific knowledge and skills. Quest Atlantis (QA) Quest Atlantis uses a 3D multi-user environment to immerse children in educational tasks.

In essence, what may not appear very obvious is the pedagogical flavor of the matrix . While any claim that learning between RC 3 and RC 4 will lead to better learning outcomes is anecdotal, we argue that whole-person development types of teaching and learning interactions will develop a new way of being; in this case, it is learning to be the modern 21st century student. The rationale for our argument is that the meaning-making process in RC 4 types of activities such as online gaming environments - depending on when it was conducted, how it was conducted, with whom it was conducted, and where it was conducted - is often different and complex. This is largely due to the multiple perspectives held by different players, affording multiple roleplaying positions. Negotiating in such complex environments would thus encompass reflection, critique, and evaluation of meanings in relation to the social others. In other words, through this process, learning to learn would take on a different form compared to traditional notions of learning. The educational function that students acquire as game players, such as critical evaluation of information, new ways of collaboration, and active pursuit of knowledge, will serve them well in academic learning. In order to simulate the authentic construction of meanings in any practice is to be as close to the professional practice as possible such as simulating the discipline-specific genre and talk in science (O’Neill, 2001). In this case, students are engaged in active collaboration, fostering some

125

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

sort of dialogue about game play. Through the non-linear processing of media messages vis-à-vis multi-tasking and actively seeking dispositions, facilitated by heterogeneous connectivity and realistic context, students also acquire a way of learning. Thus, in order to enable this learning to learn and fostering whole-person development, we should, from an educational and learning point of view, encourage the following processes (see Figure 3). We conjecture that if learners engage in the learning processes as depicted in Figure 3, digital-age literacies would be facilitated - driven by social constructivist pedagogy to experience social interactions brought about by connectivity in realistic contexts. We further conjecture that the ability to perform these literacies may result through such a process. Performance or doing comes with the view that students can enact learning-to-learn strategies seamlessly with minimal ‘transfer’ issues.

conclusIon This leads us to the conclusion of this paper, which is to emphasize that for IDM literacy to be developed for learners in the 21st century, there

is a need to grow the culture. We recommend that there is an urgency for 21st century literacy awareness and there is a need for policy makers to recognize that the culture for IDM and the growth of such an industry would have to emerge over time. Policy makers can put in place mechanisms and rewards to encourage creative expression and diversity of ideas. Schools and universities need to create opportunities in learning situations and challenges which enable learners to practice their creative talents and develop them further. In the meantime, schools could infuse IDM into the existing curriculum where possible. In unique situations where it may be tough to infuse IDM into the curriculum, experiences such as of immersive environments and games should be made available outside of schools. In Singapore, for example, we are proposing a Media Experiential Lab where learners can come and experience media which would otherwise be impossible in real life (e.g. it would be too dangerous or too expensive). This is important because Within the spaces of virtual worlds, we can begin to see a new way of learning emerge, focused on the ideas of agency and disposition, facilitated by modes of transfer that are no longer about fidelity between worlds, but are about the power of imagination to explore the differences

Figure 3. Learning processes that cultivate digital-age literacies realism of context

connectivity Action Effects Consequences

Simulating Communicating Collaborating

performativity

Constructing Deconstructing Reconstructing

social constructivist pedagogy

126

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

and similarities between them and to use experience to translate those differences and similarities from the virtual to the physical world (Thomas & Brown, 2006).

reFerences Carr, N. G. (2001). Digital enterprise: How to reshape your business for a connected world.. Literacy for the 21st Century: An overview & orientation guide to media literacy education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved Nov 2006 from http://www.medialit. org/reading_room/article540.html Davila T., M. J & Shelton, R. (2006). Making innovation work: How to manage it, measure it, and profit from it. Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing Leu, Jr. D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Camack D. W. (2004). Towards a Theory of New Literacies Emerging from the Internet and Other Information and Communication Technologies. In R. B. Ruddell,and N. Unrau, (Eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading . Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the New” in New Literacies. In Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (Eds), A New Literacies Sampler (pp. 1-24). New York: Peter Lang

Street, B. (2003) What’s new in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77-91 The Association for Media Literacy. What is media literacy? Retrieved Nov 2006 from http:// www.aml.ca/whatis/ Thomas, D. & Brown, J. S. The play of imagination: Beyond the literary mind. http://www. johnseelybrown.com/playimagination.pdf [working paper]

Key terMs And deFInItIons Heterogeneous Connectivity: Refers to the distributed and diverse ways of connecting people both in face-to-face and online settings. Interactive Digital Media: Forms of digital media including the internet and other social media network tools. New Literacies: Ways of learning that encompass the use of technology. Realism of Context: Refers to the multi-modal ways of presenting media to bring about a sense of realism. Whole-Person Development: Refers to the wholistic development of a person’s actions and behavior in situations as compared to just acquisition of specific content knowledge.

Northwest Media Literacy Center. What is media literacy? Retrieved Nov 2006 from http://www. mediathink.org/

127

128

Chapter IX

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings: Sociotechnical Prescriptions for and Challenges to Curricular Reform Michael A. Evans Virginia Tech, USA

AbstrAct Mediated collaborative inquiry within communities of practice is proposed as a critical educational goal for the 21st century. Mediated collaborative inquiry promotes the process of participation in search of understanding via mobile, wireless devices and social software. Communities of practice provide sociotechnical scaffolding to define and legitimate inquiry. In this chapter we present a collaborative, collective perspective of learning and practice to demonstrate how we design to support communities of practice for scientific inquiry. The first project, the Mobile Malawi Project, was an exploratory proof-of-concept attempt to facilitate learning and communication among geographically and socially distributed participants in Malawi, Africa using mobile smart phones and social software. The second project, Kids for Change, is a rigorous design-based research project building from the former that encourages middle school students in after school settings to use 3D digital modeling software (Google SketchUp) in socially relevant and civically engaging activities. Both endeavors are designed to provide primary and secondary students opportunities to learn and apply important scientific processes and mathematical ideas to real world situations while interacting with key constituents, including teachers, parents, teacher educators, and community experts. The authors conclude by noting cautions toward an approach of promoting collaboration and community with ICTs. Traditional institutions, pedagogies, and ways of knowing might preclude or hamper smooth transitions to a participatory, network-based educational system built on a Web 2.0 infrastructure and services.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

IntroductIon Collaboration is driven by discourse where knowledge is seen as the objective of a process of inquiry. Mediated collaborative inquiry is a sociotechnical phenomenon that cannot occur without intent, or without result. The social concept of inquiry is further refined by Etienne Wenger (1998), who states, “learning is, in its essence, a fundamentally social phenomenon” (p. 3). A learning environment that focuses on developing the greater collective intelligence and not merely individual knowledge is characteristic of a participatory learning environment. By its very nature this type of learning involves a social group, or community (Wenger, 1998). This social group’s relationship to itself, its situational context and the learning activities it engages in is how knowledge and knowing is defined. A defining aspect of this relationship is how the group relates to each other. Lave & Wenger (1991) call this a community of practice (CoP) in which a common interest is the catalyst for participation in learning where the novice works to become an expert, or insider, through interaction with community partners. This socially negotiated aspect of learning is what gives the individual and the community an identity. Negotiation as a form of discourse is collaboration, and it is in collaboration that the group becomes defined and individuals find identity within the group (Schneider & Evans, 2008). The goal of this chapter is to briefly review current literature on mediated collaborative inquiry and communities of practice. The two constructs maintain mutually constitutive relationships as collaborative inquiry provides activities for group members while the community of practice defines, values, and legitimates proper forms of inquiry. Next, we review the devices and software that comprise our definition of Web 2.0. The term Web 2.0 is overused and thus elusive if not properly contextualized. Moreover, the type collaboration and interaction we envision is primarily mediated

via advanced ICTs. Afterward, we introduce a series of design evolutions of development on two projects (one international, one domestic) that demonstrate how collaborative inquiry and communities of practice guide instructional development and instructional technology in our stated view (Evans & Johri, 2008). We conclude by highlighting the challenges to using mediated collaborative inquiry and communities of practice as metaphors for design. One the one hand, collaboration is not the default in most instructionistbased (Sawyer, 2006) classroom settings creating tension among teachers, students, and designers. On the other hand, the communities-of-practice metaphor is still under-specified as a reference for design and thus demands thoughtful application. As several cases have demonstrated (see Schwen & Hara, 2001), members of organizations often resist explicit efforts to instill features that promote more communal learning atmospheres.

MedIAted collAborAtIve InquIry And coMMunItIes oF prActIce The concept of learning has shifted from recitation and recall from short-term memory, to a process of constructively using information in project-based settings to create new knowledge. Many current reform plans call for embedding the learning of basic skills in projects that engage students in critical thinking and problem solving in-group settings (Sawyer, 2006). Thus, the collaborative inquiry classroom provides a means to incorporate group settings into instructional strategies. According to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning (1986), these social settings are pivotal to the participation process. One of the key components of this new emphasis on social learning is collaborative inquiry (Roschelle, 1996). First, what exactly is collaboration? Collaboration is an effort of students to work together in a social context to create a knowledge artifact, a

129

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

publicly displayed product that externalizes cognition. The goal of collaborative inquiry strategies is to help students of different skills and abilities learn to build knowledge in groups. The premise is that when students work in groups, they have access to a much richer knowledge base than is available to any of the individuals working alone. Collaborative efforts challenge students to see problems or issues from more than one perspective. As one can imagine, there are potential academic and social gains to be made from such an environment. According to Kagan (1986, as cited in Riel, 1994), “research on [collaborative] learning with well-designed group goals and individual accountability has demonstrated increased academic skills, improved social skills, reduction of ethnic tension, and increased self-esteem.” The goal of collaborative inquiry is to participate in a community of practice in which this type of gain can occur. Without collaboration, this type of community is unlikely to be sustained. Fostering community building in a learning environment potentially benefits all involved. Learners gain from sharing experiences with other learners. They contribute information and agree or disagree with what each other says. Collaborating with a group of peers allows learners to tap into higher order learning skills. Relying on individual work alone may not give learners the opportunity to develop higher order thinking skills (Vygotsky, 1986). In the next section we present a subset of information and communication technologies and social software that we propose better facilitate collaborative inquiry. This suite of technologies and software is often referred to as Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005).

Web 2.0: leverAgIng the MobIle And the socIAl WIth Icts And soFtWAre Given emphasis on collaborative inquiry, our learning environment designs incorporate mul-

130

timedia production and networking technologies as integral to proposed activities (Evans & Johri, 2008; Evans, Ahuja, Wu, 2008). As a sociotechnical unit, social software provides a platform to conduct the proposed activities identified by our values, goals, and objectives. Social software refers to software that allows people to connect or collaborate through computer-mediated tools (Boyd, 2007). This type software has existed for several years in the form of listservs, forums, newsgroups, and other online systems. Recently, however, blogs, RSS feeds, tagging systems, and collaborative filters have made social software popular (Tepper 2003), particularly among young computer users. For example, a recent Pew Internet & American Life Project report (Lenhart, Madden, Macgill, & Smith, 2007) found that 55% of all American youth (ages 12-17) use some form of social networking site. Some of the most popular websites today provide excellent examples of social software systems, including: multimedia content-sharing systems like YouTube (www. youtube.com) and Flickr (www.flickr.com); and product recommendation systems like reviews on Amazon (www.amazon.com), and Netflix (www. netfix.com). Key to our instructional development model is that many social software systems provide some form of syndication. Most of the sites permit users to “subscribe” to a particular stream of information. This allows users to see information, in which they are interested, in one place by aggregating multiple sources of information. They read a brief portion of the information and decide to visit the site of the source of the information only when appropriate. Social software systems, in addition, contribute to creating systems that provide many new benefits to users, such as the idea of a “mashup.” A mashup is a website that provides some service making use of data from two or more sites together, in an integrated fashion. One of the first mashups created showed an online map (e.g., Google map) showing real estate prices. The data for the mashup came from two different and

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

independent sites (real estate prices and online maps). The result was a new service that mixed related information to provide new functionality or information. Today, mashups are an integral part of Web 2.0 systems. In our efforts, participants’ multimedia productions are shared through online social networks. These systems invite and support tagging and exchange of information to develop, collaborate, and comment on each other’s work. Participants learn how to create RSS feeds promoting their work and asking for advice and opinions, and they will aggregate feeds from the work produced by their peers to create mashups of topics and productions related to their topics of interest. These technologies and software create online collaborative environment to complement on-site activities of community participants. In the following sections, we present two design-based research narratives of projects designed to exploit mediated collaborative inquiry via Web 2.0 technologies. The first case is the Mobile Malawi Project, divided into two sections. The first section details the initial development process with emphasis on a proof-of-concept. In this phase, what we refer to as Mobile Malawi Project v1.0, focus was placed more on converting existing curriculum to a mobile platform. One unanticipated outcome of this phase was an over-emphasis on teacher and community elder. In phase two of the project, what we call Mobile Malawi Project v2.0, we took as an explicit goal a focus on learner-centeredness, that is, we challenged our team “to bring the student back to the center” of the curriculum. In light of the more traditional ways of the Malawi educational system, this was indeed an impressive challenge. We conclude this section of the chapter by detailing a domestic evolution of the Mobile Malawi Project. Given similar needs and constraints in southwest Virginia among community constituents (though not nearly as striking, obviously), we have re-configured our design into Kids for Change. The goal of Kids for Change adds an additional component, which is to engage second-

ary students in socially responsible and civically engaging projects that exploit Web 2.0 ICTs., in this case designing energy-efficient building and investigating renewable energy resources.

MobIle MAlAWI project v1.0: locAl KnoWledge, globAl technologIes The Mobile Malawi Project (http://www.mmp.soe. vt.edu/) facilitates connections among community experts, primary school teachers, and science teacher educators using mobile smartphones, instructional multimedia delivered via the web, and a blog software engine. The goal was to improve curriculum on sustainable agriculture in primary classrooms in Malawi, Africa. A stated goal of the science curriculum in Malawi is for children to learn from community members; thus, we explored how mobile phones, instructional multimedia, and Web 2.0 technologies could be used to establish and nurture connections among interested constituents for mediated collaborative inquiry in a community of practice.

purpose In the project, we investigated the facilitation of connections among community elders, primary school teachers, and science teacher educators using mobile phones and Web 2.0 technologies to learn about sustainable agriculture in Africa. In Malawi, the host country for the current project, past research has shown that elders are a valuable source of knowledge for schools and villages (Glasson, Frykholm, Mhango, Phiri, 2007). However, this knowledge has not been systematically connected to the school science curriculum, due to social and technical barriers. As an important goal of the primary school curriculum in Malawi is for children to learn from elders in the community, we were interested in how mobile phones and Web 2.0 technologies

131

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

(blogs and wikis, instant and text messaging, cf., O’Reilly, 2005) are used to establish and nurture connections. Establishing technological connections between indigenous knowledge and school curriculum was particularly important when posed within the context of developing nations that are struggling to modernize and improve the educational experiences of their citizens in the midst of widespread challenges such as poverty, hunger, disease, lack of infrastructure, and environmental degradation (Evans & Johri, 2008). As most primary schools in Malawi have limited access to electricity and wired telecommunications, the potential for using mobile devices for educational purposes to access and create information is immense. For example, in the year 2000, Malawi had 49,000 cell phones in use and by 2004 the number increased to 222,100. Mobile phones are being explored as a platform for delivery of instructional multimedia and are critical for addressing not only the digital divide, but also digital progress in developing countries (Jones & Marsden, 2006).

theoretical perspectives Teaching science to all students requires understanding the scientific worldviews and epistemologies of diverse cultures as well as the conflicts and problems that students may experience when crossing cultural borders to learn western science. Although science is potentially a driving force for economic solutions to poverty, little attention is given to the cultural context in which science is taught, particularly in reference to indigenous science and technology of which villagers in Malawi are most familiar. Indigenous science represents descriptive and explanatory knowledge about nature acquired across generations from cultures with strong oral traditions. Indigenous knowledge has transformed modern science in many areas, most notably taxonomy, medicine, agriculture, natural resource management and conservation (Evans, Ahuja, & Wu, 2008).

132

Research in developing countries requires a perspective of understanding emerging technologies as not simply external tools, but integral parts of socio-cultural practices within a community (Rogoff, 1991). Further, information and communication technology (ICT) can be “used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors [or elders]; between a learning community and its learning resources.” (Jones, 2004, p.1). Although the current network infrastructure in many African nations is underdeveloped, mobile phones are prevalent in developing countries and are inherently democratic as many poor people make sacrifices to pool resources within a community to purchase airtime for purposes such as conducting business in the market (Jones & Marsden, 2006). As mobile smart phones can now be used for maintaining communications, accessing computer networks, and capturing and delivering multimedia, there is vast potential for connecting African schools to the internet for the first time and for using mobile devices as a data gathering device to share and communicate ideas within the context of their local culture (Rogoff, 1991; Schneider & Evans, 2008).

Instructional systems development considerations We iteratively designed, implemented, and evaluated mobile and Web 2.0 technologies in a participatory manner with local constituents from August 2007 – February 2008. An activitycentered design approach created a living archive of traditional and scientific knowledge related to sustainable agriculture and hosted on the Mobile Malawi Project Data Center (http://bashful.cs.vt. edu/mmp/). The approach takes the position that “to understand development, it is essential not to impose assumptions about the goals of development of one group on individuals from another. Interpreting the activity of people without regard for their goals renders the observations meaning-

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

less” (Rogoff, 1991, p. 117, emphases in original). The pedagogical goal was to provide technologies for unfettered knowledge building and communication within real-world constraints found in large cities, where teacher educators work, and poor, rural areas, where primary schools are found. For this project, the nodes of the network to connect knowledge cultures within Africa and in the United States included the following: (1) A community elder, Daniel Chinkhuntha, in Lilongew (the capital) is a farmer providing knowledge of sustainable agriculture practices, including channel irrigation, composting, and organic pest control; (2) A science and agriculture educator, Dr. Wotchiwe M. Kalande, is conducting field testing of mobile devices and sustainable agriculture curriculum with pre-service teachers; and (3) Timothy Banda, the primary school teacher at Mchengawedi Primary School is implementing the curriculum and evaluating technologies. His class was involved in planning, building, and tending a sustainable garden based on Mr. Chinkhuntha’s expertise. In an effort to establish a culturally diverse virtual team connected by mobile phone technology, a living archive website was developed to share information and document the communication patterns and progress of the project. To support the project and explore alternative viable solutions blogs and wikis, using opensource software, WordPress (http://wordpress. org/) and MediaWiki (http://www.mediawiki. org/) were tested and implemented as distributed knowledge and communication platforms. Moreover, taking the lead from projects such as MobilED (http://mobiled.uiah.fi/), we are currently exploring text-, voice-, and multimedia messaging, and the potential of solar-powered devices, including battery chargers (Solio, http:// www.solio.com/) and wireless outdoor routers (Meraki, http://meraki.com/). The rationale for using mobile phones and handheld devices is that they consume less power than other hardware (e.g., laptops and tablet PCs) and can access the

Internet via a cellular network, much needed in a country such as that found in Africa. As of February 2008, the Mobile Malawi Project v1.0 was deemed a successful proof-ofconcept. The primary evaluation metric was that community elders, teacher educators, and primary school teachers could communicate via voice and web-based services provided by the Virginia Tech development team. This success led to a second iteration of development where a team of graduate students in instructional design and technology were presented with a mandate to apply learnercentered principles to the development process (Evans, Ahuha, & Wu, 2008). Based on expert review of Mobile Malawi Project v1.0, it was determined that although a proof-of-concept of technologies and software had been achieved, a collaborative inquiry pedagogy had not been fully realized. This second iteration is referred to as Mobile Malawi Project v2.0.

MobIle MAlAWI project v2.0: brIngIng the leArner to the center The second iteration of the Mobile Malawi Project v1.0 was developed during a semester-long graduate-level course titled Principles of Media Product Design in Spring 2008 conducted by the author. The course goal was to streamline the visual and information design aspects of curriculum resources while clearly advocating through design a mediated collaborative inquiry pedagogy.

Instructional and visual considerations Based on the system developed and knowledge garnered from MMP v1.0, the team of six graduate students entrusted with the task of developing for the Mobile Malawi Project 2.0 focused on the following objectives: (1) A unified visual design that scales from a mobile browser to a

133

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

full-sized computer screen and (2) An increase in learner-centered content and activities. In the initial design, the MMP v1.0 used two separate websites for its content: (1) the Mobile Curriculum Connection (MMC) site, an HTML site, and (2) the Mobile Malawi Project Data Center (MMPDC), a WordPress blog. The original MMC was hand-coded for the mobile interface and the MMPDC defaulted to a browser window for a desktop or laptop. The existing Mobile Malawi Project (v1.0) consisted of two separate web pages (see Figure 1). The mobile curriculum pages were static pages formatted for the mobile phone (Nokia e61i), while the discussion page was powered by a standard installation of the WordPress software, formatted for a 12” or above computer screen. While this arrangement succeeded from a technical standpoint, it had the following significant flaws: •

The WordPress site did not render consistently on the Nokia phone browser (OperaMini).

•

•

•

This inhibited the primary requirement to serve as the center for data sharing and communication. The Mobile Curriculum Connection mobile site had an awkward layout on a computer screen, taking up less than one-third of the screen and not centered. Although the target device was a handheld, that may not always be the case. Products like the XO Laptop from the One Laptop Per Child project and the Eee PC from Asus provide increasingly affordable computers for the developing world. On the other end of the spectrum Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch demonstrate how the mobile form factor will be less of a limitation in the future. The MCC site consisted of static pages created by hand with an HTML editor. Should users need to revise or add content it would require the aid of someone with the skills to work with the HTML files directly.

Figure 1. Mobile Malawi Project v1.0 – Parallel development for phone and laptop led to inconsistent interface

a. Formatted for mobile phone

134

b. Formatted for laptop

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

•

The visual design and functionality of the two sites were very different. While some functional differences are necessary for the two sites’ respective tasks, a unified look-and-feel would reduce the cognitive overhead of having to learn and navigate two entirely different systems.

We addressed the third and fourth flaws by migrating the mobile curriculum content entirely over to WordPress, taking advantage of the software’s ability to host static pages of content as well as dynamic weblogs (Figure 2). With both sections of the site in the same system they share the same visual design by default. WordPress uses a system of “themes” to dynamically generate HTML pages from a database of text and media content. In other words, the text content and the site’s visual design were stored in separate files, and one can be changed without altering the other. If the design needs to be updated, then modify the

theme file or change to a new one and the entire site changes. If new content needs to be added then it can be typed in through an interface in the web site itself, and it will automatically take on the site’s style and formatting. Migrating the curriculum content to WordPress also addresses the second flaw of displaying improperly on a laptop or desktop screen. It also inherits the first flaw: original formatting was wholly unsuited to a mobile device. Given that a mobile, wireless device was our primary platform, addressing this flaw was critical to the success of the project. Fortunately WordPress has a system of plugins that enable new features and functions. By adding a plugin to detect whether the page is accessed on a computer screen or a handheld device, WordPress can re-format the content for the appropriate screen size. To promote mediated collaborative inquiry, we revised content and design for increased readability for the learner. Content activity questions

Figure 2. Mobile Malawi Project v2.0 – Unified development for phone and laptop lead to consistent interface

135

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

were restructured using the jigsaw method to promote interdependent learning (see Figure 3). As of publication, the graduate team continues to revise MMP v2.0 and has turned to a domestic environment for further implementation and testing. A significant barrier to continued international work are the long iteration cycles of feedback from Malawi, creating hindrance to rapid reviews and revisions. That being the case, we have turned our sights to a local setting, the Boys and Girls Club of the New River Valley, an after school program where members likewise lack sufficient access to community expertise and experience with more sophisticated ICTs. The new project is titled, Kids for Change, which builds from lessons learned in the design and development of both versions of the Mobile Malawi Project.

KIds For chAnge: collAborAtIve InquIry on socIAlly-relevAnt Issues In Kids for Change (http://k4c.soe.vt.edu/), secondary students create multimedia animations, stories, simulations, and games around energy security and sustainability topics requiring design

and development using writing and composition, storyboarding, video editing, and web presentation software. K4C members use web-based collaboration technologies to broadcast and share narratives creating a social network of collaborators and peers. Digital artifact development and technology, using open-source software such as Google SketchUp further exposes participants to concepts and practices in computer science, human-computer interaction, and instructional design. Our latest approach additionally reflects the values of participatory culture, “…a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices” (Jenkins et al., 2006, p. 3). Participatory culture is a forward-looking principle for how scientists, engineers, citizens, and public officials will engage. Consequently, the after-school program staff participate in professional development workshops to introduce concepts of computer-supported collaborative learning, intellectual property, and copyright. Parents are invited to Family Fun Nights to learn about Internet privacy, safety, and monitoring online usage. Kids for Change

Figure 3. Mobile Malawi Project v2.0 – redesigning to promote learner-centered instruction

a. Original, teacher-centered instruction.

136

b. Revised learner-centered, collaborative instruction.

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

is a response to the constraints and limitations of the Mobile Malawi Project. Our goal was to take lessons learned from the previous initiative to further refine and develop our sociotechnical model to address the following: •

•

• •

Identify a more broadly relevant area of inquiry that engages schools and communities, e.g., energy security and sustainability; Focus more rigorously on individual and community competencies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; Embrace diversity in gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status; Prepare a participatory, engaged citizenry.

energy security & sustainability – socially relevant, civically engaging In broad terms, the US workforce of the 21st century will reflect an increasing need to train and hire managers, engineers, scientists, and technologists. Consequently, Kids for Change focuses directly on engineering, science, and technology related to energy security and sustainability. The next generation will be driven not only by workforce demands, but also demands for national security and innovation to release the US from over-dependency on foreign non-renewable fuel sources and changes to lifestyle that will reduce environmentally harmful emissions. As Dr. John Randolph, Professor of Environmental Planning at Virginia Tech and senior personnel on our team notes (Randolph & Masters, 2008), the area of energy security and sustainability presents an ideal scenario to consider existing and potential workforce needs of the US. By introducing students to the scientific method and algebraic concepts inherent in areas of energy security and sustainability, Kids for Change engages middle school students in fundamental knowledge and skills that can be applied a broad range of science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) disciplines, with a particular focus in energy, transportation, and information technology – all identified as high-growth sectors (U.S. Department of Labor, 2007, p. 8). More importantly, with the increasing attention to “green collar workers,” a category of careers that contribute to smart growth, sustainable architecture, and reuse, we will prepare students for STEM domains and disciplines yet to be defined.

Individual and community competencies At the individual level, we anticipate that the proposed activities will increase students’ value of STEM by engaging them in socially relevant and civically important issues at the local and national level. We are defining “value” as part of the expectancy-value model of motivation (Eccles, 2005) in which a student who values a topic will: 1) be more interested in it and enjoy it, 2) believe that the topic is important, 3) believe that the topic is useful, and 4) believe that it is worth the time and effort to learn about the topic. Our research hypotheses related to value are based on the fact that value can be increased by interesting students in the learning topic and showing students the importance and usefulness of the topic (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). We predict that participating in Kids for Change will increase students’ interests in STEM topics. In addition, the real-world problems they are addressing will allow them to see the importance and usefulness of the topics to their everyday lives. Students will become engaged in scientific thinking, processes, and analyses by relating what they experience in their own lives and communities and writing about it in online multimedia narratives. Furthermore, aspects of value have been found to predict students’ enrollment in future courses and occupational choices (Eccles, 2005). Therefore, as a result of students’ increased value in STEM/ICT-related activities, we predict that students will be less likely to drop out of school

137

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

and more likely to: a) enroll in STEM courses in the future, b) choose a STEM major in college, and c) choose a career in STEM. At the community level, we anticipate potential changes in civic awareness and engagement, collective efficacy, and knowledge sharing among diverse students. Internal political efficacy (Brady, 1999) refers to a person’s belief that s/he is personally capable of comprehending and participating in various aspects of political life. A person’s belief that government is trustworthy and competent is external political efficacy. In earlier work, we further developed these concepts of efficacy to encompass a community-wide sense of “collective efficacy” (Carroll & Reese, 2003), that is, a belief that one’s community can overcome obstacles to solve problems. A person’s social status and ethnicity, or prior experience over time can affect their political efficacy and community collective efficacy (Carroll & Reese, 2003). While broadly interested in political and collective efficacy of diverse citizens, we are especially interested in underrepresented groups: girls, physically disadvantaged, ethnic minorities, and low income.

diversity in gender, ethnicity, and Income: students in need According to Virginia Testing and 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, 8th grade Blacks, Hispanic, and Low Income students scored up to 20% lower on state proficiency, and up to 30% lower on NAEP basic, than White students. Basic is defined as partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient is defined as solid academic performance for each grade assessed (NAEP, 2006). Although achievement levels have increased from 1990, the gap between Whites and other groups still remains (see Table 1). The Area Director and Director of Club Services of the Boys and Girls Club of the New River Valley (BGCNRV) in Virginia have confirmed, in

138

Table 1. Math achievement in Virginia, 2006-2007. (USDOE, 2008) Virginia 8th Graders State Data – % Proficient

NAEP Data – % Basic

NAEP Data – % Proficient

All

77

77

37

White

84

86

47

Black

64

56

15

Hispanic

65

64

24

Low Income

64

57

15

several interviews that the middle school populations served are in need of more opportunities to be engaged with science, mathematics, and ICTs, particularly involving engaging activities around meaningful topics. The notion of constructing multimedia narratives, games, and simulations around energy security and sustainability is not only a socially responsible topic, but also one that personally and diversely affects students, parents, and staff. On a national level, recent reports (e.g., Banks et al., 2007) have identified after-school programs, communities, and homes as critical sites and resources for learning. Consequently, Kids for Change coordinates efforts and resources from these areas to provide students, staff, and parents opportunities to learn and participate by getting them involved in activities, workshops, and events that demonstrate why science and mathematics are important and exciting subjects, what disciplines and careers use these subjects in socially responsible ways, and how these knowledge and skills can be put to use to become civically engaged and have a positive impact on existing and future critical issues within the scope of energy security and sustainability.

preparing a participatory, engaged citizenry The program includes activities that are attractive to a middle school audience. In the program,

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

kids design and develop online content around this theme that will informally teach them the scientific method and algebraic concepts. While other programs such as The JASON Project (Bienkowski et al., 2005) uses similar techniques to promote science alone in the classroom, Kids for Change extends the opportunities to outside of the classroom in a way that it involves parents, and directly targets students at-risk, disadvantaged, or under-represented. Our approach is to model experiments that require materials and procedures less readily available or too large in scope, such as using algebraic models to predict outcomes of an economic impact from a town development project. To illustrate how the Kids for Change is implemented, we use the scenario of middle school students being challenged to propose a green solution to public land use. In this scenario the town council, in an effort to promote civic engagement, is sponsoring a competition seeking proposals that demonstrate the best use of an open plot of land in the town limits. The winning proposal must provide cost-benefit and environmental analyses and demonstrate clear and appropriate STEM knowledge and skills. Two techniques will help to frame the STEM analysis related to energy security and sustainability: scenario development and solution wedges to achieve a desired future condition (Randolph & Masters, 2008). The former uses a method developed and marketed by Global Business Network (GBN, Inc.: http://www.gbn.com/) and applied to many problems including energy, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scenarios of global development, the Electric Power Research Institute’s scenarios on the future of electricity, and two recent reports “Energy Strategy for the Road Ahead” and “Acting on Climate Change.” These are emerging methods for envisioning the future that are being embraced by government and business leaders. Yet, they are simple enough to engage young students to think about their own future and how the procedures might relate to

the rest of the world, and at the same time allow them to apply algebraic analysis, creative writing, and visualization to real-world issues. Ongoing results of K4C can be found at our website: http:// k4c.soe.vt.edu/

chAllenges to supportIng MedIAted collAborAtIve InquIry In coMMunItIes oF prActIce The Mobile Malawi Project (v1.0 & v2.0) and Kids for Change give us greater confidence that designing for mediated collaborative inquiry is a real possibility. Nevertheless, we would be remiss not to recognize the challenges to imposing such a radical change to existing STEM curriculum. In the rest of this section we touch upon a few of the issues that are most pertinent in light of our recent experience. As stated initially, though we remain skeptical of the ability of instructional designers to design communities of practice, we see value in continuing to understand existing CoPs for more successful interventions. Moreover, we are deeply committed to the values and behaviors promoted by the CoP metaphor, particularly the commitments to collaborative inquiry, participation, and the social activism. Thus, based on our experiences in the design-based research (Sawyer, 2006), we offer recommendations for those wishing to further understand and support mediated collaborative inquiry in communities of practice (Evans & Powell, 2007). Building on insights gained from Schwen and Hara (2003), we deem it critical to consider carefully the existing social fabric of a community targeted for change, in this case CoPs that exist around sustainable agriculture and green design and technologies. From our experience, inherent tensions exist between values espoused by national standards and administrators, and the actual behaviors reinforced in the primary and

139

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

secondary science classroom. One conclusion is that current curriculum is insufficiently attending to the existing social fabric of the school and community. If the CoP metaphor is to be upheld by instructional designers, then critical analysis of this apparent contradiction must be investigated. As it currently stands, science classrooms are not creating a nurturing environment in which newcomers can participate, share knowledge publicly, and learn the practice of science as prescribed by experts and teachers. Our recommendation to fellow instructional desginers working in this area to up front understand and appreciate the existing social fabric saving time-consuming effort to recuperate from lack of participation in, neglect of, or resistance to socio-technical structures designed to support and sustain inquiry in a CoP. Our analysis also supports a recommendation to follow methods and techniques similar to useror learner-centered design and rapid prototyping (Evans, Ahuja, & Wu, 2008). In a definitive way this approach has countered the tendencies toward “analysis paralysis.” That is, while our first recommendation advocates more critical analysis of the COP metaphor, our second states that this posture must be balanced with design techniques that prevent stagnation, promoting development that closely tracks changes in the community and its members. A closing recommendation is that intended and, more importantly, unintended consequences of intervention informed by the CoP metaphor must be tracked and reported more thoroughly. Our analysis of the Mobile Malawi Project and Kids for Change should not convey an unproblematic process. As we have indicated, the work n Malawi was tedious and hindered by social and cultural differences between the US investigators, and ministry officials, university administrators, teacher educators, and primary school teachers. Even when working in a domestic setting, there are differences in the values, norms, and beliefs of members from varying institutions, in the

140

Kids for Change project these included content area supervisors, non-profit directors, and university faculty and graduate students. Striving to induce curricular reform with collaborative inquiry strategies and tools, and a community of practice metaphor is far from mainstream and fraught with unanticipated challenges. Thus, our prescription is to propose that instructional designers conducting empirical and practical work on collaborative inquiry not down play unintended consequences as these experiences may well reveal errors in design conceptualization and shortcomings in development specifications. A corollary to our recommendation is that researchers and practitioners must conduct design work with, not on communities of practice (Schwen & Hara, 2003).

conclusIon This chapter presented metaphors of learning using collaborative inquiry and communities of practice as dual foci. At the classroom level, collaborative inquiry as an instructional strategy of choice provides teachers and students the power to engage in thoughtful, active engagement that goes beyond mere transmission of inert knowledge. The community of practice emphasizes the norms, values, and beliefs of the larger discipline while emphasizing the commitment of members of the group outside the classroom, including parents, teacher educators, and community experts. Our work has turned to mobile technologies and Web 2.0 technologies to facilitate and support inquiry and legitimacy. Projects such as the Mobile Malawi Project and Kids for Change demonstrate both the power of these strategies and technologies and the many challenges faced for design, development, implementation, and evaluation. It will be an interesting century where we experience the increasing ubiquity of these tools and media in our professional and personal lives.

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

reFerences Banks, J.A., Au, K.H., Ball, A.F., Bell, P., Gordon, E.W., Gutierrez, K.D., et al. (2008). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Lifelong, life-wide, life-deep. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://life-slc.org/wp-content/up/2007/05/ Banks-et-al-LIFE-Diversity-Report.pdf Bienkowski, M., Penuel, W., Toyama, Y., Molina, A., Hurst, K., Peck-Theis, L. (2005). JASON Academy Summative Program Evaluation, Final Report, Arlington, VA: SRI International. Boyd, D. (2007). The Significance of Social Software. In T. N. Burg and J. Schmidt (Eds.), BlogTalks Reloaded: Social Software Research & Cases (pp. 15-30). Norderstedt, Gemany.. Brady, H. (1999). Political Participation. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver & L. Wrightsman (Eds.) Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Carroll, J. M. & D. Reese, D. (2003). Community collective efficacy: Structure and consequences of perceived capacities in the Blacksburg Electronic Village. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kona, Hawaii. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation, (pp. 105-121). New York: The Guilford Press. Evans, M.A., & Johri, A. (in press). Facilitating guided participation through mobile technologies: Designing creative learning environments for self and others. Journal of Computing for Higher Education. Evans, M.A., Ahuja, S., & Wu, D. (2008, November 4-8). Mobile Malawi Project: Local Knowledge, Global Technologies. Paper to be presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology International Conference, Orlando, FL.

Evans, M.A., & Powell, A. (2007). Conceptual and practical issues related to the design for and sustainability of Communities of Practice: The case of e-portfolio use in preservice teacher training. Technology, Pedagogy, & Education, 16(2), 199-214. Glasson, G.E., Frykholm, J., Mhango, N., & Phiri, A. (2006). Understanding the earth systems of Malawi: Ecological sustainability, culture, and place-based education. Science Education, 90 (4), 660-680. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A.J., & Weigel, M. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF Jones, C. (2004). Network theory and description– The Lancaster ALT masters programme. In L. Dirckinck–Holmfeld, B. Lindstro¨m, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Jones, M. & Marsden, G. (2006). Mobile interaction design. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A.R., & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media: The use of social media gains a greater foothold in teen life as the embrace the conversational nature of interactive online media. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf National Assessment of Educational Progress (2006). The NAEP mathematics achievement

141

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

levels. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://nces. ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/achieve. asp

Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.). Building online communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation software. Retrieved July 27, 2007 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/ news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Tepper, M. (2003). The rise of social software. netWorker, 7(3), 18-23.

Randolph, J., & Gilbert M. Masters (2008). Energy for Sustainability: Technology, Planning, Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press. Riel, M. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computers in Education, 26, (4), 452-474. Rogoff, B. (1991). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In D. L. Day & D. K. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, Communication & Mental Models (pp. 13-25). London: Taylor & Francis. Sawyer, R.K (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, S.B., & Evans, M.A. (2008, October/November). Transforming e-learning into ee-learning: The centrality of sociocultural participation. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1). Retrieved October 30, 2008 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index. php?view=article&id=511. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Schwen, T.M. & Hara, N. (2003). Community of practice: A metaphor for online design? In S.

142

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Mapping Virginia’s educational progress 2008. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/results/progress/virginia.pdf U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: the role of the public workforce system in a national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://www.doleta.gov/youth_services/pdf/STEM_Report_4%2007.pdf Vygotsky, L.V. (1986). Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Collaborative Inquiry: A default organizational form for learning strategies developed form a social-constructivist framework; inquiry is what drives learning, and inquiry is always a collaborative effort. Communities of Practice: A term associated with the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) that denotes what Gee (2007) refers to as an affinity group or “semiotic domain”; individuals congregate in non-canonical, informal ways around norms, values, and beliefs associate with “how things are done.” Instructional Design: The systematic methods and methodology of developing materials for use by teachers and learners; a theoretically- and

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

pedagogically-based based educational discipline. Design-Based Research: An engineering approach to educational intervention; the goal is primarily to prescribe iterations of requirements for implementation, results of prototypes possibility generating insights for theory. Mediate Collaborative Inquiry: A complex term that intends to invoke a non-individualistic, non-reductionist perspective of learning; learning is always driven by inquiry, mediated by semiotics, and conducted in a social setting.

Participatory: Modifier used in conjunction with culture, design, learning, which denotes the collaborative, communal, decentralized nature of a given activity, endeavor, or undertaking. Sociotechnical: A term used to remind analysts that learning and work are always conducted with tools and instruments, and in a social setting; technology is not deterministic. Web 2.0: A term accredited to Tim O’Reilly that depicts the decentralized structure of organization built on information and communication technologies; wikis, blogs, and file sharing networks are a few examples of the technology that contributes to this new organizational form.

143

144

Chapter X

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology: Enriched Classrooms Tamar Levin Tel Aviv University, Israel

AbstrAct Drawing on the empirical data from two longitudinal studies, the chapter describes the evolution of teachers’ educational beliefs and their actual classroom practices when using ICT in the schools. It also identifies three different classroom cultures with differing assumptions and practices concerning teaching, learning, and technology use. Highlighting the fact that teachers’ beliefs are shaped by everyday classroom and school experiences, and using teachers’ statements, metaphors and observations, the chapter shows changes occurring in the beliefs and classroom practices of several teachers. It shows that following several years of ICT use teachers changed their educational lenses, demonstrating multiple views rather than pure beliefs. Finally it demonstrates that the enculturation of teachers into ICTenriched classrooms is influenced not just by the technology used, but also by the richness of the overall learning environment with its emphasis on non-structured tasks and rich technology-based resources, and by their exposure to new educational vistas.

IntroductIon This chapter recognizes the powerful role of teachers in changing school practices when they overcome the constraints of habits developed as a result of their established educational beliefs, and challenges traditional school cultures in the context of using information and communication

technologies (ICT). It demonstrates the complex process that occurs when teachers learn to teach with ICT, and shows that in order to enhance teaching and learning in a technology-enriched environment, teachers’ beliefs on the meanings and roles of learning, teaching and technology have to change. Drawing on the empirical data from two longitudinal studies, the chapter describes teach-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

ers’ beliefs regarding classroom life when using ICT in the schools, and identifies three different classroom cultures with differing assumptions of teaching, learning, and technology use. The development and spread of new digital technologies has led to major changes in the way we do many things in our daily lives and our schools, and even affects our identities. ICT have become a natural part of people’s lives in western information societies, where for example, the internet is used for reading newspapers, keeping in touch with friends, paying bills, and searching for information for both private and professional purposes. In the educational context as well, digital technologies offer new resources for learning and support new modes of teaching and learning. They also challenge processes of knowledge interpretation, increase opportunities for educational research, and create new demands and expectations of teacher and student development as individuals, groups, and communities. For example, teachers and students are expected to develop the awareness and skills for accessing technology and media-based resources, which require the use of both print and non-print material, images, texts, language, sound, and motion. This all has to be done to produce, convey, analyze, and evaluate informational communications and messages, and selected subject matter or interdisciplinary knowledge. And, as for the schools, they are also expected to transform their goals, enrich their repertoire of classroom practices, and add ICT to their available teaching and learning tools and resources. Given that schools must respond to the demands of multi-media technology, the integration of learning and communication technologies into schools and schooling has been well supported by educators and greatly speeded up. Underlying this support is the belief that the successful incorporation of ICT empowers both teachers and students to produce better teaching and learning processes as well as outcomes. ICT has also been hailed as the catalyst for restructuring and re-culturing

school and classroom practices, for fostering environments that elicit constructivist-based learning and collaborative educational practices, and for encouraging the development of higher-order and multi-literal learning and inquiry skills. Through all these factors ICT can help to nurture mindful and self-regulated teachers and students. This approach to ICT use presents a challenge to the traditional use of information technology in the classroom, as viewed by Cuban and Tyack (1995), who despite their criticism of the implementation quality of ICT in schools, believe that computers are far the most powerful teaching and learning machines to enter the classroom and that students and teachers can interact with computers in ways impossible with film, radio, and television. However, researchers, techno-reformers, and teachers all admit that despite the research accumulated over the past three decades, the educational system has largely remained unchanged (Albion, 2003), and many questions regarding the effective use of ICT still remain unanswered. There is a gap between ambitious visions of ICT in new educational reform and its quality of use in school, and teachers only superficially accept technology into their work, even when it is available to their students (Cuban, et al., 2001). Typically, teachers use linear, authoritative, teacher-centered methods, they disregard computers and resist efforts to move the dominant paradigm away from teacher-centered teaching to a more student-centered classroom (Semple; 2000). While this gap is partly due to obstacles that impede the successful implementation of ICT, such as lack of infrastructure / access to educational software / and teachers’ ICT pedagogical skills, a major cause is attributed to teachers’ educational beliefs and their personal theories about teaching and learning, since these beliefs strongly influence classroom practices (Ertmer 2005; Lim & Khine, 2006). Fullan (2001) has emphasized the importance of teachers’ educational beliefs noting that educators’ visions of the potential for educational change

145

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

through the use of new educational technologies underestimate how difficult it is for teachers to implement reforms that require not only changes in their practices and skills but also in their educational beliefs. Ertmer also claimed that without a clear understanding of the relationship between teacher beliefs and technology “practitioners and researchers may continue to advocate for specific uses of technology that they are unable to facilitate or support” (Ertmer 2005 p. 35). We therefore need to confront and reappraise teachers’ beliefs in terms of the principles underpinning an innovation. Otherwise, changes will only be “cosmetic” or else be a “parody” of the original innovation, a fate, which has befallen a large number of large-scale innovations in the past (Burkhardt et al, 1990). Indeed, according to McKenzie (2004), teachers who were professionally trained in a particular technology and mindset (industrial age thinking) find it difficult to adjust to new technologies requiring an information age mindset. Often such teachers retain the same ideas about teaching and learning in their ICT-enhanced classroom as they had in their traditional classrooms. Such teachers can be compared to ‘digital immigrants’ (Prensky, 2001) in a new culture who experience major difficulties in accommodating to it and find themselves locked into old and familiar patterns of habits and beliefs. When this happens, teachers tend to use powerful technologies in a limited way, sustaining rather than transforming both their educational beliefs and educational practices. In other words, instead of using ICT to do different things, teachers do the same old things—but slightly differently. This is because a change in mindset requires not only a new set of skills or experience, but most importantly it calls for an entirely new approach to teaching and learning. Understanding how important teacher beliefs are to the successful application of ICT in schools, this chapter describes how teachers’ beliefs evolve in the technology-enriched classroom. Furthermore, understanding that the effects

146

of ICT depend not only on the tools, whether technological or cognitive, the chapter describes how different educational beliefs are reflected in different educational cultures that characterize schools and classroom environments.

theoretIcAl bAcKground teacher educational beliefs and Ict use: A two-Way relationships Teachers’ beliefs have been conceptualized as a set of assumptions that teachers hold on various educational processes such as schooling, students, teaching and learning, curriculum, and knowledge. Beliefs and personal theories are regarded as filters that influence teachers during instructional and curricular decision-making (Fang, 1996). These beliefs and theories form an “intuitive screen” through which teachers interpret teaching reforms. They can either further or impede change (Prawat, 1992). Thus, beliefs affect how teachers implement innovations and largely determine how and why they adopt new teaching methods (Golombek, 1998) or adapt to new classroom environments, processes, and goals. Moreover, since beliefs can be inferred from what people say, intend and do (Pajares, 1992), they offer us insights into why teachers do what they do. Undeniably, in the context of ICT in schools, studies have shown that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes influence their use of computers in the classroom (Tearle, 2004). They also show the existence of a relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional decisions (Mumtaz, 2000). Moreover, research suggests that there is a parallel between a teacher’s student-centered beliefs about instruction and the nature of the teacher’s experiences in technology-integrated teaching (Judson, 2006). Teachers with a traditional teaching philosophy who see their role as transmitting a rigid curriculum through highly controlled pedagogy

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

are teachers who avoid computers. Conversely, teachers with constructivist learning principles tend to use computers more frequently. Also, teachers with a student-oriented constructivist teaching style are more likely to use new technology in their classroom, and equally, teachers who readily integrate technology into their teaching are more likely to show constructivist’ teaching styles (Becker & Ravitz, 2001). This connection between technology application and constructivist pedagogy implies that constructivist-minded teachers provide dynamic student-centered classrooms where technology is used and conceived as a powerful learning tool. Of the various teachers’ belief dimensions, those regarding the nature of technology and its role in teaching and learning can present a major barrier to incorporating technology into the classroom. For example, Slough and Chamblee (2000) found that seeing technology as unstable and always changing creates a major barrier to its use in the classroom. Although most research on the relationship between teachers’ educational beliefs and the use of technology in the classroom focuses on how teachers’ beliefs shape their implementation of school reform, some studies explore how the use of educational technology affects teachers’ educational beliefs. Here, the results show that when technology-based educational reforms are introduced, some teachers find that technology encourages greater student-centeredness, openness toward multiple perspectives on problems, and willingness to experiment in their teaching (Knapp & Glenn, 1996). The Apple ACOT project also found that technology use shifts classrooms toward student-centered teaching and away from curriculum-centered teaching, towards collaborative tasks rather than individual tasks, and towards active rather than passive learning (Sandholtz et al., 1997). The shift away from emphasizing textbooks and teachers towards integrating technology and teachers in the role of facilitators is not just about

new tools, but represents a transformation in pedagogy and epistemology (Bruenjes, 2002). Burton (2003) shows, for example, that even professional development experiences involving technology can facilitate change in teacher beliefs on teaching and learning, and foster a more student-centered focus. This suggests that it is important to explore whether and how teacher beliefs develop as a consequence of their classroom experiences with ICT, which is indeed the focus of this chapter. Furthermore, according to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the strength of a belief is affected by a person’s subjective feeling that he or she will perform a particular behavior. This suggests that it is worthwhile not only to investigate teachers’ beliefs, but to also explore the implicit link between their views on learning, teaching, and technology and their actual classroom practices. Surprisingly, despite the large number of studies examining the relationships between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional practices, relatively few have examined the aforementioned effects in the context of a longitudinal study of a technology-enhanced school learning environment. Moreover, not many studies have used classroom observations to explore teachers’ actual classroom practices or identified the personal and school-related conditions that affect teachers’ change. This chapter addresses these questions in the context of technology-enhanced learning environments in two independent longitudinal studies: one in an elementary school, the other in a high school. Using observational studies and teachers’ questionnaires and interviews, the chapter describes changes in teachers’ practices and beliefs regarding teaching and learning in technology-enriched classrooms over a period of 3 to 4 years. These changes are presented and interpreted with reference to existing educational paradigms and to epistemological and pedagogical views. The implications from the evolution of teachers’ beliefs and behaviors onto the characteristics of three classroom cultures are then conceptualized and discussed.

147

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

Methodology the context of the two studies The two longitudinal studies summarized here were part of a national project to change the structure of the school curriculum and adapt it to everyday reality. In each study, the school and its teachers decided how to integrate technology into its curriculum. The first study was held in an elementary school and focused on 6 teachers, who for three years experienced an approach to teaching and learning with information-rich tasks (IRT) in an information-rich environment (Levin & Wadmany, 2005, 2006, 2008). The second study was conducted in a secondary school and focused on exploring a group of 8 teachers, who for 4 years were provided with professional experiences focusing on changing the school curricula in order to adapt it to the needs of the knowledge era, by integrating information and communication technology (ICT) in the school (Levin & BenAmarBaranga, 2005, 2007). Most teachers in the two studies are highly experienced teachers. Their teaching experience range: from 3 years through 6, 8 and 10-15 years to 23, 25 and 29 years. Their age --varies from 26, through 33-35 to 45 and 52. They all teach the various subject areas taught in the school including: science, history, mathematics, earth science, biology, English as a second language, bible, and three of the teachers served also as computer coordinators in the school. In the two studies, the newly introduced school curricula and classroom activities comprised information-rich tasks, characterized as ill structured, authentic, cognitively challenging, and requiring complex mental processes and creativity. The tasks required exploration of information and cooperative inquiry-based learning processes for negotiating understanding and modes of knowledge presentation, leaving considerable freedom for personal and group interpretation. Most of the learning tasks that were developed both for the

148

teachers’ professional development experiences or for the school curricula were interdisciplinary and project based, requiring a stimulating technologyrich environment that often required engagement beyond the classroom setting and school hours. Learning processes mainly occurred in cooperative teams and included discussion and reflection on classroom experiences, focusing on difficulties and problems, solutions and accomplishments, as well as on epistemological and disciplinary and interdisciplinary issues. Throughout the learning process, teachers in their own learning experiences and the students in their classrooms were encouraged to draw their own conclusions by thinking and analyzing databases, engaging in group or classroom discourse, and were often required to reach a collective decision or understanding. Since each one of the studies sought to investigate processes affecting teachers’ beliefs as well as those affecting classroom practices in a technology-based learning environment (studies 1 and 2) as well as school practices (study 2), a combination of an exploratory case study with a collective case study was used (Yin, 1992). The teachers were treated both as individual case studies and as a group. Therefore we could address each of the six teachers who participated in one study and the eight teachers in the second study separately, while at the same time relating to the teachers in each of the two studies, holistically, as a group.

the desIgn Prior to the beginning of each one of the studies, the school infrastructure prepared itself to cater for a technology-based teaching and learning environment, and the requisite instruments for the implementation phase were developed and tested. The preparatory phase took about six months, during which (1) technological equipment including computers, multimedia, and a variety of software were placed in classrooms to

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

form a communication network; (2) professional development strategies, contents, and workshops were tentatively planned and a plan for mentoring teachers’ classroom practices developed; (3) learning activities for both students and teachers, demonstrations, and research tools were developed and tested on samples of teachers; and (4) advisory teams of mentors who were both experts in educational technology and subject specialists were trained to assist teachers with their school and classroom work. The teams included school personnel and experts from Tel Aviv University and software development companies. At the elementary school, a group of students was also trained to function as “computer assistants” in their classrooms. During the years, as the research proceeded, the major challenge of each study was to implement an action research design (Glanz, 1998), an emergent research design, with a cycle of activities including: questioning, acting, reflecting, raising new questions and planning future actions, aiming to explore the evolving classroom processes and teachers’ beliefs in the process of integrating information and communication technologies in the school. In this cyclic research process some alterations were made in the questionnaires, the observations and the professional development experiences, based on renewed needs of the teachers and the school. Thus for example: towards the end of the study, more metaphor-eliciting questions were used rather than questions requiring explicit statements in the form of open questions or reflection questions. This was to ensure that teachers’ answers would reflect their beliefs and not simply express what they had heard or interpreted in their discussions with the advisory team. In the second study, with an aim to restructure the whole school curriculum and to transform the school into a technology-enriched learning environment, rather than to focus on a selected group of classrooms, the school had to change the basic principles that had guided its rationale and practices. This included its: physical infrastructure

(the availability of computers and peripherals, such as scanners, printers, multimedia devices and connection to the Internet, as well as the design of the school buildings), organizational structure (referring to school leadership and management structure, procedures and policies); and pedagogical worldview (reflecting the educational orientation, educational goals, and curriculum planning, and policies concerning teaching and evaluation processes). In the two studies, during each school year, teachers introduced new ideas relating to new ways of facilitating student learning. They also received ongoing assistance on request and attended weekly, in-school workshops (learning sessions that the teachers held with the external consultants while discussing issues that came out in their classroom experiences). They also worked together on problems they were facing either conceptually or practically, on their own, as a group. These workshops addressed two kinds of activities (1) activities initiated by the teachers based on their own experiences with students, and (2) activities planned by project leaders on the subjects of the basic concepts and structure of information-rich tasks, the uses of ICT, general software capabilities and ICT-based curricular issues. The teachers were also exposed to problem-based learning situations, simulating learning by the teachers as a group.

InstruMents And AnAlysIs Conducted as two longitudinal case studies of two schools (elementary and high school), during three and four years, respectively, the studies utilized mainly the principles of qualitative methodology. Acknowledging that the fulfillment of a collective school vision is highly dependent on individual teachers’ educational beliefs and personal visions (Fullan, 1999), the studies displays 6 and 8 case studies of teachers, respectively. This enabled us to relate to each of the teachers as a separate

149

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

case study, and simultaneously to relate to all of them holistically, as a group. A set of open-ended research tools was developed specifically for the purposes of each one of the two studies, in order to obtain a rich and comprehensive description of the change processes at the school and the teacher level. The research tools used include: Personal, partially structured interviews with the teachers, the principal and the technology coordinators; Open questionnaires for teachers; and Classroom observations. In addition, documents were used to study the rationale and processes characterizing the school’s change process. The questionnaires and interviews were mainly used to study explicit educational beliefs; the classroom observations and once weekly meetings with teachers were used to study teachers’ actual practices in the classroom. Yet, closed questionnaires were also used to explore the profile of change of each teacher through personal reflection. The open-ended questionnaires used to explore teachers’ beliefs contained several questions and metaphors on the meaning of the following concepts: teaching, learning, student roles, teacher roles, curriculum, knowledge and technology. The questionnaires were administered annually for 3 and 4 years respectively in each study. Teachers were interviewed following observations of the teachers at work in their classrooms or during in-service training. A constructivist paradigm and an interpretive research approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Schwandt, 1994) were used to interpret the teachers’ construction of their views on learning and teaching, which were then critically analysed. It applied the phenomenographic (Marton, 1986) approach to data analysis, which groups subjects’ expressions according to similarities, differences, and complementaries. Teachers’ responses and statements gathered at the beginning and at the end of each year were thus continuously and cumulatively analysed for commonalities. The data were organized and interpreted on the basis of categories: some established

150

from the raw data (emic categories), and some were formed and interpreted with reference to educational orientations concerning learning, teaching, and knowledge (etic categories). These categories distinguish between objectivist and constructivist educational orientations, and are based on Kember and Kwan’s (2000) categories on teaching and teaching modes; Doolittle (1999) and von Glasersfeld (1998) categories on learning; Habermas’ (1987) three knowledge constitutive interests, which were applied to teachers’ views on technology’s role in the classroom; approaches to educational change (Hargreaves, 1997) and models of technology integration (ACOT, 2001). The characteristics of each category are described in Levin and Wadmany (2006), and Levin and BenAmarbaranga (2007). Thus, category interpretation was also theory-based. A 90% agreement was found between three evaluators for data interpretation, database categories, and theory-based categories. After discussing minor differences, a consensus was reached between the evaluators.

results changes in teachers’ beliefs The results of the two studies on changes in the teachers’ views on teaching, learning, and technology show that whereas at the beginning of the study most teachers expressed behaviorist and transmissionist views on learning and teaching, respectively, after the study, their views were more varied. For example, before ICT was introduced into their classrooms, teachers’ statements and metaphors reflected behaviorist notions of learning. They thought of learning as “a process in which teachers transmit concepts and values to their students“ or “a formal process of knowledge accumulation”. Learning, according to these views, is sparked by external stimuli: “drinking

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

from a fountain, and teachers thought that there was a right way and a wrong way to internalize and remember information from outside sources. The learning process was also conceived as a routine, formal, passive process, which can be explicitly demonstrated, and which is influenced by a well-planned knowledge authority: “learning is a routine process at school and it takes place as always, when students absorb and can remember ideas they get from their teachers“. At the start of the study, only one teacher, Hadassa, in the elementary school, expressed a different view of learning—she described learning as “an infinite renewal—the wind that blows from young, lively and healthy fountains”. Embedded in most of the teachers’ views of learning at the beginning of the study was a conception of the student as a passive recipient of information with no power, role, or opinion. Metaphorically, they described the student as: ‘A sponge soaking everything up and then producing things that are relevant’; ‘A head or an antenna which receives information from the environment via all five senses’, or “a plant which receives all the conditions needed for growth, and dies if it is neglected and does not receive the appropriate treatment”. After three years (in study 1) or four years (in study 2) teachers’ views have noticeably changed following classroom and school experiences in technology-enhanced environments. They were less monolithic and more constructivist. For example, at the beginning of the study, Orli (high school history teacher) saw learning as “routine work that focuses on reading writing and testing”, but four years later thought that: “learning is an open and thorough process of observing and interpreting knowledge resources, the entire classroom environment, and the world around us, which requires and develops great openness from students and teachers”. Applying this concept to her own learning, Orli noted that “a teacher’s learning not only involves the acquisition of new skills (for example internet search skills) and

knowledge (for example a new interpretation of historical events), but mainly new perspectives on the students, their intellectual capabilities, and value systems, and their role in the learningteaching process”. In Orli’s case, four years of exposure to ICT had changed her view from seeing the student as a “receiver of knowledge” to seeing her as “a curious, capable and responsible human being”. Teaching accordingly has similarly changed from “Knowledge transmission” to “a mentoring process and in some of its aspects, a learning process”: Her views on ICT had also changed from conceiving “ICT as a search tool for looking up references and pictures or as a word processor“, to viewing ICT as “a meaningful partner for communication that enhances learning”. Similarly, Zipora’s (elementary-school math teacher) views had also changed. At the outset of the study, she associated learning with conditioning and “Pavlov’s dog”, and described teaching metaphorically as “a train, pulling wagons that can’t go forward without it”, indicating an objectivist-determinist view. She noted that: “Learning is experimental–you are mindful of what you are doing. You try to discover what is right and what is wrong”. However, at the end of the study, Zipora said “Learning is an experiential process that takes time and is powered by internal motives and interests” She also noted that “learning is a process of knowledge change occurring in cooperative groups as a result of being actively engaged in real-life situations”. However, Zipora only slightly changed her view of teaching from “knowledge telling” to “a meaningful support system, guiding student thinking and facilitating their self-efficacy”. From viewing students as her “audience or clients” Zipora came to appreciate students as “mindful partners in planning the teaching”. At the end of the study, she also saw technology “as a partner for empowering student and teacher capabilities” and not, as at the beginning of the study, as a “tool”. Interestingly however, Zipora’s view

151

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

of the curriculum had not changed as a result of her experiences and showed a highly determinist orientation and belief that only academic experts could devise curricula because teachers lack the authority to make curricular decisions. (For further details on each teacher’s beliefs profile see: Levin & Wadmany, 2006, 2008; Levin & Ben AmarBaranga, 2005, 2007; Levin, 2008). Characteristics of Change Patterns in Teachers’ Beliefs: As a group, the teachers in the two studies displayed three patterns of change in their beliefs: The first pattern entailed a ‘superficial process’ showing a slight change or no change at all in some or all of the educational beliefs, holding mainly positivist and behaviorist-based pedagogical ideology and a regular use of direct instruction (Levin & Wadmany, 2006; Levin& BenAmarBaranga, 2005, 2007). This pattern was marked by: a low level of reflective behavior, a low tolerance for ambiguous situations, and a high tolerance for dissonance between expected and actual classroom processes. For an effective change, in this pattern, teachers valued the support of the principal, the university expert, or their school superintendent. This pattern is backed up by the teacher’s own voice:

Every teacher has to learn about computers and use them in teaching, if we want to stay in touch with our students. But the technology is not reliable… too many technical problems; it’s a waste of time

I have always been a good teacher- now I am better, because I have learned to look differently at things, to understand the students- the ways they learn and what do they like to do. ……I became more open-minded towards students’ needs.

In the past I delivered knowledge and I thought I am doing a good job”…Now it is more important for me how the students deal with texts, and I would like them to develop into more independent learners (more independent learning skills); I learn to listen to the students; and as a result I can explain better, make better links among ideas and concepts and I can grant students much more responsibility. The topic was not totally defined and I needed to change the course of my teaching…the goals of the project were only generally, defined were not clear enough…although it was difficult - I managed. Learning is an experiential process. My work on the interdisciplinary project had changed my view: it is not enough to learn

I like balanced situations: so I use new methods along with old ones and the students obtain and absorb information from a richer set of outside resources. The teacher must transmit knowledge; or at least be responsible for this aspect; She also has to take care of learning materials and make it available to students …

152

The second pattern of change pointed to a profound change away from a positivist ideology and towards a more relativistic one. The process was not radical, however. It involves ‘significant change’ in the teacher’s educational beliefs (holding combined epistemological views or more relativistic one), viewing technology as a tool capable of transforming learning; implementing a collaborative learning environment; appreciating learning from students and colleagues, and being strongly aware of the need for conceptual change regarding school learning. This pattern was characterized by a relatively high level of reflective behavior accompanied by low tolerance for ambiguous situations and low tolerance for dissonance, or by high tolerance for ambiguous situations and high tolerance for dissonance. These teachers support their change on the basis of interactions with other teachers. An example of such a profile is reflected in the teacher’s voice:

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

from experts, one can learn important things from fellow teachers and even from students. The third change pattern was a ‘radical process of change’ in which the teachers’ views shifted towards social or radical constructivist educational orientation, a realization that technology is a partner in teaching and learning, and using classroom practices that promote discovery learning, enhancing self-regulatory capabilities of both students and the teacher. This pattern was characterized: by a high level of reflective behavior, high tolerance for ambiguous situations, and low tolerance for dissonance. Such teachers felt empowered by their interactions with students and colleagues and are highly reflective professionals. The teacher’s voice makes this profile explicit: In the past I viewed teaching as “knowledge transmission”, whereas now I see teaching as a collaborative process of learning for both teachers and students. The teacher should be a learner: a teacher who reads (content and pedagogy), checks what is new, evaluates herself and is capable to learn by herself or with a colleague. Learning is as an active, meaning making, authentic process concerned with real-life issues like an’ infinite renewal’. It is important to be open, willing to learn and [able] to use the computer at home as well. I learned also to value students, as human beings, not only as learners or equal partners in some aspects. The new classroom practices established a new reality for me: I ask a question and the students don’t answer. There is [complete] silence. I used to see this silence as my personal failure - and became scared…until I realized it’s a new role now for me to play and so I did, realizing they need the time to think. It is similar to thinking when interacting with the computer. We are all partners in the learning process: the students, I and the computer.

Generally, the group findings show that after 3 years (study 1) or 4 years (in study 2) of working in technology-enhanced classrooms, the teachers exhibited considerably fewer positivist beliefs. The teachers all exhibited different individual patterns of change showing that technology means different things to different teachers, and the practices that their individual views generated led to quite different classroom practices.

changes in technology use Based on the categories suggested by ACOT research (Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997), three levels of change in technology use were noted: 1) change at the personal level includes the entry and adoption stages; 2) change at the teaching level is formed by the adaptation and appropriation stages; and 3) change at the leadership level contains the invention stage. Among the teachers in the two studies about similar numbers reached each of the three stages. The level of change in technology integration as reflected by the teachers’ patterns of using information technology generally matched their epistemological beliefs: teachers who hold constructivist orientation adopted technology for a learner-centered learning and teaching style, while those with more positivist epistemological and educational beliefs used technology mostly in a teacher-centered information delivery-transmission style. However, the results show diversity in the patterns of change among the teachers indicating that significant changes in the use of technology are not always preceded by changes in beliefs.

changes in classroom practices The results show that most teachers significantly changed their classroom practices, discarding direct instruction and adopting practices focusing on facilitating collaborative learning processes with greater emphasis on coaching, modeling,

153

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

reflection, and exploration. Nevertheless, out of the 14 teachers participating in the studies, inquiry learning was only used quite regularly in 3 cases— Hadasa’s elementary class (Levin & Wadmany, 2006) and Orli and Leah’s high school classes (Levin & BenAmarBaranga, 2005). These teachers’ students were encouraged to draw on personal experiences and prior knowledge and to discover relationships, discuss conflicting perspectives on knowledge, assess the social value of knowledge, and produce collaborative work. Three patterns of change in teacher classroom practice were noted in the two studies: The first pattern of chance involved ‘partial or no change’ and showed a strong emphasis on centralized, rigid lesson management, in which the teacher inflexibly followed a preplanned route and goals, emphasized specific contents rather than skills and mental processes, used low level questions to elicit specific responses, and used technology as a technical-instructional tool for accomplishing well-defined tasks. The second pattern of change demonstrated ‘significant change’. Here, although teachers played a central role in the classroom (pre-planned lessons and activities), they also encouraged students to assume active roles in classroom discourse, mainly class discussions, thus allowing students greater freedom to choose their mode of learning and task engagement. Teachers seemed to accept students’ computer expertise and encouraged them to use ICT as a supplementary learning tool: at elementary school level to search for information and at high school level to communicate knowledge in order to negotiate meaning and achieve a shared meaning of learned phenomena. The third pattern of change involved a ‘remarkable level of change’ and a high degree of flexibility in classroom practices, both in designing learning tasks and coordinating learning processes. At this level of change, teachers acted as learning facilitators rather than instructors, learning was mainly collaborative, and learning activities were authentic, creative, and varied.

154

The learning environment was also found to extend beyond the classroom walls. Students became involved in curriculum planning and were given enough freedom to develop and selfregulate their own learning capabilities. Both teachers and students used ICT in a variety of ways as a communicative exploration tool, and learning partner. Epistemological questions were only posed in two classrooms; however, in these classrooms the social value of knowledge was also discussed.

dIscussIon The results of the two studies showed that teachers’ educational beliefs change after three or four years in a technology-enhanced environment in which open-ended, rich information tasks and resources, most of which are inter-disciplinary, constantly challenge students and teachers. The results support Ertmer’s (2005) views that teachers’ beliefs can be changed even though educational beliefs are often considered permanent and difficult to alter despite the teachers’ own teaching related education and experiences (Pajares, 1992). It also confirms that belief systems can be dynamic, changing and restructured when individuals become open and interested in evaluating their beliefs against a new set of experiences (Thompson, 1992), and have consensual, shared goals. The findings therefore highlight the fact that teachers’ beliefs are shaped by everyday classroom and school experiences and support Argyris and Schon’s theory of action (1974) and Engestrom’s (1999) activity theory, which maintains that humans learn from their actions, and use what they learn to plan and carry out future actions, which all ultimately affect their beliefs and behaviors. The results also suggest that teachers’ beliefs and practices were ultimately influenced not just by the technology used, but also by the richness of the overall learning environment with its emphasis on non-structured tasks and rich technology-

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

based resources, and by their exposure to new educational vistas. The two studies also showed that educational change achieved through the use of information technology is individual and unique to every teacher. Despite working with groups of teachers in a supportive, dynamic learning community with a guiding culture, each teacher responded differently to the educationally innovative ideas presented through information technology in a technology-rich school environment. The results support findings in other studies, which attest to the diversified experiences of teachers and the difficulty in meaningfully changing beliefs about teaching and learning processes and classroom skills, even when teachers firmly believed change is necessary and positively seek to change their professional performance (Clandinin & Connely, 1996). This implies that the constructivist orientation to learning, which conceives learning as complex, interactive, changing, active, and situated, and which allows learners to individually construct their knowledge in a unique and meaningful way while confronting challenges and dilemmas, fears and excitement, is not only applicable to students, but to teachers as well (Levin, 1999). It is important, however, to emphasize that the changes in teachers’ beliefs did not occur simultaneously across all dimensions relevant to the change, even though a belief system is built on interconnections between specific beliefs. There are indications in the studies that some beliefs are easier to change than others: For example, the results demonstrate that it is easier for teachers to change their views of students and students’ roles in the learning process than to change their view to seeing learning as “knowledge transformation” rather than “knowledge accumulation” or to see technology as “a challenging learning partner” or “dialogical tool that empowers students and teachers” as opposed to a technical instrument that supports practices and enhances students’

knowledge: “a tool that serves as a master tutor”. These results concur with Rokeach (1968) who argued that beliefs differ in intensity and power and vary along a central-peripheral dimension: The more central the dimension, the greater its resistance to change. The studies also showed that while at the outset of the studies we could identify each teacher’s views quite clearly, during and at the end of the studies, most teachers could not be classified as holding any particular, consistent orientation. Instead, they seemed to change educational lenses, demonstrating multiple views rather than pure beliefs (Levin & Wadmany, 2006). The coexistence of contrasting views on learning and teaching held by individual teachers and a group of teachers may indicate differences in the dimensions of beliefs, which teachers simultaneously discern and focus upon. This supports Gunstones’ (1994) idea of “multiple conceptions” which argues that educational beliefs gradually change and that multiple conceptions co-exist during the transition. Rather than regard this as an inconsistency in their views we should see these views as complementary. This interpretation of the multiple-conception perspective confirms that learning and teaching are complex, multifaceted phenomena just like the environment with which learning individuals and communities interact. Finally, the studies show that we cannot and should not simply rely on teachers’ explicit statements regarding their beliefs or practices. In a period of transition, with teachers facing new educational ideologies and goals, they may not be aware of their own emergent beliefs. Alternatively, they may nurture multiple conceptions caused by feelings of insecurity at the prospect of relinquishing long-held beliefs, even if these are irrelevant in an era when information technology assumes its place as a well-respected part of our educational repertoire. It is therefore highly recommended that, in order to learn about teachers’ beliefs, a variety of tools should be

155

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

used besides teachers’ statements. Particularly spontaneous and planned metaphors, since these are rich instruments, which if recognized and used mindfully and in a multidimensional way, will help augment our understanding of teachers thoughts and feelings (Blair & Banaji, 1996). Metaphors of learning, teaching, and technology not only help one to explain processes involved in classroom learning, but they can also serve as tools to understand and transform the quality of classroom and school practices to cope with the cognitive, social, and motivational challenges in ICT-enhanced classrooms.

Implications Based on the results showing that the power to change does not rest with the technology itself but with the restructured individual and collective vision and experiences of teachers in technologyenhanced environment classrooms, I have characterized three different learning and teaching cultures observed in the classrooms of the two studies. These three cultures are described by their philosophical paradigms, teaching and learning orientations (views), and uses of technologies. Each culture shows where teachers and students are positioned in the epistemological and learning and teaching theoretical universe of a classroom. It also shows how technology reorganizes interactions between human and technological agencies, and how it affects the ways knowledge is transferred, produced, shared, and assessed. Such a classification can help teachers and educators to explore patterns of technology use in classrooms, and make conscious pedagogical decisions based on present and future expectations and ICT practices in schools. The proposed classification does not pretend to be exhaustive, but rather illustrates the three classrooms cultures observed during the two studies, and describes their underlying educational orientations and practices in more generalized terms.

156

Educational Orientations in ICT Enhanced Classrooms: Three Learning Cultures In the classification of the different learning and teaching cultures I use three well known philosophical paradigms: positivism, interpretivism, and critical pluralism, along with a typology of knowledge interests, offered by Habermas (1978): instrumental-technical, interpretive, and critical-emancipatory. Based on Kuhn (1970) I conceive paradigms as ideological frameworks that are founded on congruent and logical thinking patterns supporting common assumptions and influenced and gradually changing by historical, sociological, psychological and educational forces. Thus, in the classification, theories on the meanings and processes of teaching, learning and information technology are interpreted within each of the (different) paradigms, pointing to their metaphoric expressions and underlying theories. I asked teachers to describe their beliefs using metaphors because metaphors serve as a filter of people’s perceptions, have a powerful influence upon people beliefs, shape their perspectives and actions, and provide concrete and unique insights, which are often not visible in other representations of meaning (Knowles, 1994; Hamilton, 2000). The following three classroom cultures were identified: A.

B.

Positivist-based culture: This culture strengthens the teacher’s power and improves student skills with additional instructional tools by emphasizing performance relating to pre-determined traditional educational goals using interactive multimedia resources. In this culture, ICT’s role is to teach and learn “from ICT.” Interpretive culture: This culture empowers classroom discourse and teacher and student competencies, focusing mainly on collaboration and multiple perspectives in an attempt to develop personal knowledge

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

C.

and skills. In terms of ICT roles, this culture reflects teaching and learning “about and with ICT.” Critical-pluralist culture: This culture challenges knowledge and teacher and student capabilities and identities by creating knowledge communities and stimulating personal and social insights, competencies, expectations and social norms. In terms of ICT usages it reflects learning “with and beyond ICT.”

A. Positivist-Based Culture This culture can be characterized as a resourceenriched, traditional classroom environment. Teaching and learning differ only slightly from traditional classrooms by the addition of ICT to their instructional resources, mainly for the ICT’s multimedia tools. Emphasis is thus on the expert, either teacher or technology, controlling the teaching and learning process, and directing student or teacher behavior to achieve predetermined ends. Technology is perceived as a tool for practicing knowledge, skills, or capabilities, but disregards specific contextual conditions, while focusing instead on the efficiency and effectiveness with which predefined objectives can be achieved. The positivist-based culture is aligned with Habermas’ technical knowledge interest (Habermas, 1978) and reflects a belief in the positivist paradigm, which views reality as objective, fragmented, and compartmentalized, and whose goal in terms of teaching is to predict and control. This culture is a product of the “scientific” method, which assumes that educational sciences are governed by a set of universal laws that recognizes positive facts and observable “objective” phenomena. Thus, knowledge is given and absolute, value free and objective, and is acquired by adopting an objective distance from the world. In such a dualistic culture, subjectivity and practice are invisible, and the social construction of the world is hidden in the background.

This culture is characterized by three major principles of teaching and learning: 1) The nature of the relationship between student and teacher and/or technology is monologic, where a set of predetermined goals dictate students’ expectations and experiences; 2) Reflection by teachers and students is limited to technical decision making, 3) Beyond the predefined ends, this culture’s educational impact on the students and teachers is minimal, leading to no collaborative inquiry into their learning and teaching experiences. Where this culture is present, teaching is described metaphorically as “telling” (Bullough, 1992); “knowledge transmission” (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992), and “banking” (Freire, 1970). Metaphors of “transfer” (filling empty vessels and minds), and “shaping” metaphors (raw material and minds) are also used (Fox, 1983). Such metaphors imply that the teaching-learning process is a one-way exchange in which teachers possessing power, authority, and expertise exert control over students. Knowledge is believed to exist in the head of the teacher who is trained to deposit information into students’ heads. This culture’s proponents see students as passive learners and tend to overlook opportunities for students to become actively, creatively and critically engaged with the material they are learning. This fits in well with the acquisition metaphor that is based on the cognitive approach to learning, and which characterizes the learning process as something that happens inside the individual’s mind, and stresses the role of mental models or schemata in learning (Sfard, 1998), often without recognizing the importance of the learning context. In terms of the social aspects of this classroom culture, each student performs his or her own role and actions, which are scripted or predetermined. It is therefore not surprising that a student is viewed here as ‘a product’ (Sirvanci, 1996), ‘a consumer’ of information, ‘a customer’ (Tovote, 2001); or ‘an ‘employee’ (Helms & Key, 1994).

157

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

In the positivist-based classroom culture, technology is perceived as a means of practicing knowledge, skills, understanding, and competency, and the context is not considered particularly relevant. The emphasis is on technology controlling and predicting student or teacher behavior and learning so that they conform to a predetermined end. Thus ICT is viewed as an external “operator” or cultural tool to learn from (Maddux et al 1997). Metaphorically, in the positivist-based classroom culture, ICT can be viewed as either a master or a servant (Galbraith et al, 2001), or an interactive magazine (Wiske et al., 1998). In this culture, technology is seen as a supplementary tool that amplifies cognitive processes but is not used in creative ways to change the nature of classroom activities. It is also viewed as a learning tool that serves a finite, well-defined, authoritative, informational-base, helps with a given task, or upgrades a less dynamic instructional tool. It often helps to manage and direct learning and learners by showing the “right” way to do things. It also frequently enables repetitive practices and supports preferred and traditional teaching methods, aiming to teach expert domain knowledge (Koedinger & Anderson, 1997). In this context, both students and teachers are subservient to the technology.

B. Interpretive Culture The interpretive culture is a manifestation of teachers’ and students’ needs to understand themselves and others. It seeks to improve teaching and learning practices by applying the personal wisdom of the participants. It is aligned with Habermas’ practical knowledge interest (Habermas, 1978) and draws from the historical-hermeneutic sciences. Its focus is not on discovering universal laws but on gaining a holistic understanding of classroom experiences. It examines individual and group interpretations of reality within specific contexts, and is sensitive to historical, societal, and cultural factors. The use of technology in the

158

teaching and learning processes is thus perceived as a means for allowing students and teachers to develop personal meaning by cooperatively discussing knowledge and the relationship between learning task components. Reality in this culture is seen as constructed, multiple, and holistic (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), and learners as controlling their own meaning. Therefore, both teachers and students are viewed as having different realities, and their opportunities to reflect on their life experiences are seen essential to facilitating their development. Knowledge is conceived as interpretive understanding constructed in a process of mutual negotiation and communication, which affects the development of each individual: students and teachers alike. Experts can facilitate knowledge but are not prerequisite authorities for learners to learn from, given students’ own reflections and negotiations with information technologies and equal others. The interpretive culture is characterized by three major principles of teaching and learning: 1) The relationship is “dialogic”: students, teachers and technologies enter into dialogue to gain an understanding of the goals, processes, strategies, and competencies established for them and other related learning issues; 2) The teaching-learning experiences encourage students to question the processes that they pursue in their efforts to improve their learning experiences and accomplishments, 3) Teachers’ and students’ reflections are based on their personal perspectives, which also affect their voice and personal growth. Viewed from the interpretative culture perspective, teaching is often metaphorically conceived as gardening (McKenzie. 2004), implying a natural view of the teaching-learning process. Although the teacher must nourish the soil, eliminate the weeds, and do all the hard work that creates a nurturing learning environment, this metaphor recognizes students as living beings with realities of their own. Another metaphor representing this culture is teaching as a guided journey of learn-

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

ing (Block, 1992). This perspective recognizes the superior knowledge and experience of the teacher, but also acknowledges the mutuality of the learning process. The teacher and his/her students experience the adventure of the journey together. The teacher may have been down the same path more often and may know more, but he or she is also a potential learner. Learning is viewed as a participatory activity (Sfard, 1998) in which students search for meaning in a collaborative interactive process with a view to constructing and maintaining a shared understanding. Learning is thus a process in which students and teachers focus on a shared problem and try to find a mutually acceptable ways to conceptualize it, either through resolving cognitive conflict in the individuals’ minds by constructing new conceptual structures and understanding (Piaget, 1972), or by engaging in collaborative activities, which facilitate development that could not have happened without such collaboration (Vygotsky, 1978). In other words, students develop by becoming members of a community and by acquiring the skills to communicate, and act according to that community’s socially negotiated norms (Lave & Wenger 1991). These aspects of the participation metaphor focus on shared learning activities and personal outcomes. In this culture, technology helps teachers and students to understand the environment through interaction based on a consensual interpretation of meaning, in other words, based on negotiation and communication. Technology is thus viewed as a partner (Galbraith et al, 2001) or a cultural tool to “learn from” and “learn with” (Jonassen, 1999; Boethel & Dimock, 1999). Students and teachers interact directly with the technology, treating it almost as a human partner that responds to their commands, and a learning partner capable of challenging teaching, thinking and learning. Being involved mainly with ill-structured problems, ICT is viewed as a medium through which students and teachers can and must negotiate meaning and achieve a shared knowledge conceptualiza-

tion based on interaction, collaboration, and interpretation. Metaphorically, technology can be associated with the “journey over the rainbow bridge”; a journey into higher awareness and understanding (Seale, 2006) that fosters an understanding of the value of different viewpoints regarding rationales and solutions. As long as the goal (building the bridge) is agreed, students will work together to resolve conflicts out of which new practices and shared understandings will emerge. Here, technology is creatively used to increase students and teachers’ power over their learning (Templer et al, 1998) by providing access to new kinds of tasks or new ways of approaching existing tasks. This cognitive reorganization effect may involve using technology to facilitate understanding or to explore different perspectives, finally arriving at a shared understanding between students and students and between students and teachers.

C. Critical-Pluralist Culture While sharing most of the assumptions of the interpretative paradigm, this culture considers unequal power positions detrimental to critical analysis and the development of individuals and groups, and to the development of insight into oppressive forces. This culture describes how societal structures and emerging knowledge, attitudes, assumptions and myths of individual students groups influence views of individuals and groups. Aligned with the Habermasian notion of emancipatory knowledge (Habermas, 1978), the critical-pluralist culture challenges both knowledge and social structures. It reflects a fundamental interest in the individual’s emancipation and their empowerment to engage in autonomous action as a result of gaining authentic and critical insights into the social construction of human society. Therefore, within the critical-pluralist culture, learning situations are structured so that power relations between learners, teachers, and technologies are more equal.

159

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

With their foundations in pluralist and evaluative epistemology, teaching and learning move away from causal linear processes. This culture holds a broader view of knowledge and society and of the interconnections between humans and their reality. It acknowledges the process of discovery, which draws not only on knowledge and skills but also on insight and intuition. Knowledge is thus viewed from multiple perspectives and its value assessed in terms of its contribution to social fairness and equality. This knowledge grows through collaboration with other people and technologies both “inside” and “outside” the classroom. Concerned as it is with the moral and ethical dimensions of human action, experiences are sought that help to lead people towards lives of equity, caring, and compassion (Gore & Zeichner, 1991). Teaching and learning processes in a criticalpluralist culture share three main characteristics: 1) The nature of the relationship is trialogic, in other words, students, teachers and technologybased activities not only engage in dialogue aimed at questioning, understanding, challenging, and creating new collaborative knowledge, but also seek to alter the traditional power hierarchy dividing authoritative resources, teachers, and students; 2) Students think critically about their learning goals, processes, competencies, strategies, and social relationships, and they observe and judge the social and political contexts of their classroom and the context implied values; 3) Learning processes are structured to challenge the institutional structures of school life. According to the critical-plural paradigm teaching is a process that promotes knowledge creation (Paavola et al, 2004) and facilitates student and teacher development, while focusing on personal, group, and knowledge growth in order to help students develop as intellectual, critical, and autonomous lifelong learners. Teaching is metaphorically described as a collaborative coaching process emphasizing a collaborative mentoring approach. Team members work in-group settings

160

to achieve learning outcomes that allow them to perform competently in the world outside the classroom. Teachers are conceived metaphorically as coaches, mediators, or resources to be consulted in building up students’ individual understanding (Reeves, 2001). They are also partners in creating and assessing emergent new knowledge. Their roles are to motivate, encourage, challenge, learn, and inspire students to achieve their potential as learners and a community, inside and beyond the school, with and without the use of ICT. However, since sometimes coaching might assume that the facilitator takes a superior position, which does not fit in with the equal partner view of the pluralistic paradigm, an alternative teaching metaphor might be “learning”, in which the teacher is a wholehearted learning partner. Learning in this culture is conceived as a process of participating in cultural practices, creating new knowledge and ideas of value to a community, and at the same time challenging social values. As such it adds something to the interpretist culture’s conception of learning. Learning in the critical-pluralist culture is based on activity theory. Therefore, metaphorically, learning is viewed as knowledge creation (Paavola et al, 2004), reflecting a process of dynamic and innovative collaborative inquiry where the individual’s initiative is embedded in fruitful social and institutional practices for developing shared objects of activity (like texts, conceptual artifacts, or practices) and where both objects and scripts are co-conceptualized. In other words, the mutual engagement with knowledge is a process of reflective communication within a framework of knowledge communities. Learning is thus a re-culturative process (Brufee, 1993) that helps students become members of knowledge communities or knowledge interaction networks, whose common property differs from the common property of the knowledge communities to which they already belong. In a critical-pluralist culture, discussion and collaboration are valued for building a climate of

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

intellectual challenge, which means that teaching and learning processes focus on advancing knowledge, transforming social practices, and developing expertise. The student is expected to develop into a self-directed learner who is sensitive to the task, the group, the learning process, and the social dimensions of this emerging process. Thus for the individual student or teacher, learning is a process of mutual engagement and co-construction of knowledge, which takes place through one’s increasing ability and sensitivity to take account of other peoples’ perspectives. Learning is also a matter of participation in a social process of knowledge construction in which knowledge emerges through a network of interactions and is distributed and mediated between all interacting humans and tools (Cole and Wertsch, 1996). Consistent with the pluralist, socio-cultural, and critical perspectives, technology is used not only to help students and teachers construct meaning for them, but also to reach a critical understanding of how this is done. Technology thus engages students in judging their own learning or their teachers’ work and fosters critical analysis aimed at transforming the educational practices, understandings, and values of those involved in the learning process. More specifically, in this culture, ICT is used to amplify, communicate, re-organize, reconstruct, and evaluate cognitive as well as social and emotional processes through their integration in the discursive practices of the knowledge community. Technology therefore serves as a cultural tool that challenges the knowledge, capabilities, attitudes, and identities of individuals and groups, so that the epistemological values and discourse conventions of the wider learning community are enacted and challenged. Metaphorically, technology is conceived as the most sophisticated mode of working/functioning, in which students and teachers incorporate technological expertise as an integral part of their own competencies and knowledge. ICT is considered a

cultural tool that expands students and teachers’ minds. The partnership between students and technology also seems to merge into a single identity, so that technology is used to support student learning and intellectual challenges as naturally as their own intellectual resources, rather than exist as a third entity. Therefore, metaphorically it is also viewed as an extension of the learner self (Galbraith et al, 2001). This view links technology use with autonomy and creativity and blurs the boundaries between mind and technology. In this critical-pluralist-culture the potential uses of technology are only limited by the human mind. ICT is therefore conceived as a transforming agent with a role in the interaction between all cultural tools, the general-social environment, the school environment and the people involved. Finally, these three classroom cultures demonstrate that the enculturation of teachers into ICTenriched classrooms involves a rich and complex dialogue between “old” and “new”, “internal” and “external”, “me” and “others”, “individual and collective”, “insiders” and “outsiders, “cognitive” and “social”, “sharing” and “inventing, “analyzing” and “making sense”, “simple” and “complex” and “clear” and “fuzzy”. This dialogue describes a transformation zone (Bresler, 2003)—a space where teachers’ knowledge, experience, beliefs and emotions interact to create new meaning and understandings through the process of their own inquiry. I believe that in this era of pluralistic societies and information technology rich as it is in expectations, demands, dreams, literacies, and realities, the dialogical skills involved in transforming teachers’ beliefs, competencies, and behaviors characterize their most important professional literacy skills.

reFerences ACOT, Apple Class of Tomorrow, (2001). Teacher-centered staff development. Available at http://www.apple.com/education/k12/staffdev/ tchrcenterstaff..html 161

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

Argyris, C., & Schon, D., (1978). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Albion, P.R., (2003). Graduating teachers’ dispositions for integrating information and communications technologies into their teaching. Retrieved July 2004, from http://www.usq.edu.au/users/ albion/papers/site03/3756.pdf Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions correct? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Block, D. (1992). Metaphors we teach and learn by. Prospect, 7(3), 42-55. Boethel, M & Dimock,, K. V.(1999). Constructing knowledge with technology. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. http:// www.sedl.org/pubs/tec27/10.html Bresler, L. (2003) The role of musicianship and music education in the twenty-first century. In S. Leong (Ed.), Musicianship in the 21st Century: Issues, Trends and Possibilities. Sydney, Austalia: Australian Music Centre. Bruenjes, L.S. (2002). A multi-case study investigating the disposition of faculty use of technology as a teaching and learning tool in the higher education classroom. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Lowell. UMI 3041377. Brufee, K, A.. (1993). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press Bullough, R. V., (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision-making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 239-252. Burkhardt, H, Fraser, R., & Ridgeway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Development in school math-

162

ematics education around the world (vol. 2, pp. 3-29). Reston, VA: NCTM. Burton, D. B. (2003). Technology Professional Development: A Case Study. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(2), 2378-2381. Caravita, S. and O. Hallden (1994). ”Re-framing the Problem of Conceptual Change.” Learning and Instruction, 4, 89-111. Clandinin, D .J, & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ Professional Knowledge Landscapes: Teachers Stories - Stories of Teachers - School Stories - Stories of Schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30. Cole, M. & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussion of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250-256. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. & Peck, C. (2001) High access and low use of technologies in High School classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813-834. Cuban L. & Tyack, D.B. (1995) Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. Doolittle, P E (1999) Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education. 16(1), 23–46. Engestrom, E., Y. Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press Ertmer, P.E.A. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (1), 54-72. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. Fang, 1996). Fang, Z. (1996). A Review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47-65. Fishbein, M, A. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Fox, D. (1983). Personal Theories Of Teaching. Studies in Higher Education. 8 (2), 151–163. Knowles, J. G. (1994). Metaphors as windows on a personal history: A beginning teacher’s experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(1), 37-66. Lakoff, G, & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Gore, J.M. & Zeichner, K.M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119-136. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of Metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, Gunstone, R.F., White, R.T., The Content of Science: A Constructivist Approach to its Teaching and Learning. London: Falmer Press. Habermas, J. (1987). Knowledge and Human Interests. Shapiro, J. (Trans.). London: Polity Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing.

Hamilton, A. (2000). Metaphor in Theory and Practice: the Influence of Metaphors on Expectations. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24(4), 237-253.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Helms, S., & Key, C. H. (1994). Are students more than customers in the classroom? Quality Progress, 27(9), 97–99.

Fullan, M, (1999). Change Forces: the Sequel. London: Falmer Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1997). Going deeper and wider in the quest for success. In Hargreaves, A. (Ed). Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., Goos, M. & Geiger, V. (2001). Integrating technology in mathematics learning: What some students say. In J. Bobis, B. Perry & M. Michael Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond: Proceedings of the 24nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 223-230). Sydney, Australia: MERGA. Glanz, J. (1998). Action research: An educational leader’s guide to action research. Norwood MA: Christopher-Gordon. Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers‘ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447-464.

Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40-73. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., Wilson, B. G., & Pfeiffer, W. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Judson, E. (2006). How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About Learning: Is

163

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

There a Connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597 Kember, D. & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5– 6), 469–490. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Illustrating principled design: The early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 161-179. Knapp, L. R., & Glenn, A. D. (1996). Restructuring schools with technology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structures of scientific revolutions (2nd Ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press Levin, T. (2008, March 23-28). A Dialogical Perspective on ICT and School Change: Interpreting Relations between the Individual, Social, and Cultural Dimensions. Paper presented at the AERA conference, New York. Levin T. (1999). The Non linear Curriculum. In Sharan, S., Shachar, H. and Levin, T. The Innovative School: Organization and Instruction. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc. Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of teachers and students in rich-technology-based classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 281-307. Levin, T., & BenAmarBaranga. (2005, March 1-5). Patterns of Change in a School and among its Teachers. SITE 2005--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference held in Phoenix, AZ.

164

Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ Views on Learning Teaching and Technology use in Rich technology-based Classrooms: A Developmental Perspective. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39 (2), 159-183. 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), 233-263 Levin, T. & BenAmarBaranga, C. (2007, July 1214). ICT and school change: A Dialogue between Changes at the School and the Individual Teacher Level. Paper presented at ICICTE conference, Crete, Greece. Lim, C. P. & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97–125. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.), pp. 163-188. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press Maddux, C.D., Johnson, D.L., & Willis, J.W. (1997). Educational Computing: Learning With Tomorrow’s Technology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Marton F. (1986) Phenomenography–A research approach to investigating different understanding of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–49 McKenzie, J. (2004). Stuffing technology into the curriculum. The Educational Technology Journal, 13(8), 1-6. Retrieved November 4, 2004, from http://www.fno.org/jun04/stuffit.html

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319-341. Pajares, M. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of Innovative knowledge Communities and Three metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research 74(4), 557-576. Prawat, R.S. (1992). Teacher’s Beliefs about Teaching and Learning: A Constructivist Perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-394. Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Available from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J,D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-325. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student– centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Semple, A. (2000). Learning Theories and their influence of the development and use of educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46 (3), 21-28. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4-13.

Sirvanci, 1996 Sirvanci, M. (1996). Are students the true customers of higher education? Quality Progress, 29(10), 99–102. Slough, S. W., Chamblee, G. E. (2000). Implementing technology in secondary science and mathematics classrooms: A perspective on change. Proceeding of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego, 1-3, 1021-1026. Schwandt, T. A. (1994) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,. Tearle, P. (2004) Implementation of ICT in UK secondary schools. Presented at Becta Research Conference, Coventry, UK. Thompson, A. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 127-146) New York: MacMillan. Tovote, C. (2001, August). Customer or refined student? Reflections on the “customer” metaphor in the academic environment and the new pedagogical challenge to the libraries and librarians. Paper presented at the 67th International Federation of Library Associations General Conference, Boston, MA. Templer, R., Klug,, D., & Gould, I. (1998). Mathematics laboratories for Science Graduates. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the Mathematics Curriculum (pp. 140-154). London: Falmer Press. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Why constructivism must be radical. In M. Larochelle, Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 23–28). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

165

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Metaphors: Comparisons between two things that are not alike in most ways, based on resemblance or similarity

Wiske, S. Booth Sweeney, L & Moore, J. (1998). Education with New Technologies: Rationale for the Design of an Online Learning Environment. Retrieved from: http://learnweb. harvard.edu/ent/library/avdreport_feb.html

Teachers’ Educational Beliefs: A tacit set of assumptions or generalizations that teachers hold on various educational processes

Key terMs And deFInItIons Classroom Culture: Critical features of classroom life that characterize its educational “personality” and reflect both tacit and explicit educational values, beliefs and processes concerning the meaning of learning, teaching, knowledge, technology, student and teacher roles, power and responsibilities.

166

Technology-Enriched Environments: Classrooms, in which open-ended, rich information tasks and resources, most of which use a range of technologies or digital tools in interactive, multi-media and inter-disciplinary formats, which constantly challenge students and teachers Technology Integration: Effective and meaningful uses of diversified kinds of technologies in the cirriculum and in classroom experiences that are practiced by both teachers and students to support learning and instruction.

167

Chapter XI

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia Piret Luik University of Tartu, Estonia

AbstrAct Developing effective educational software requires an understanding of the complexity of multimedia components. The relationship between the characteristics of learning multimedia and learning outcomes of students is explored in two studies carried out in Estonia with multimedia textbooks and multimedia drills. Included are those characteristics likely to be effective for all students, boys, girls, high-achieving students, and low achieving students. Concluding recommendations based on the results of these studies should be useful for teachers and for developers of multimedia software.

IntroductIon Educational software is used extensively in many schools all over the world. Comparisons of data supporting the effectiveness of educational software indicate that learning is enhanced by some but not all programs. Every teacher wants to use the best educational software but deciding which one is the best is challenging. Experimenting with educational software of unknown quality runs the risk of being useless or even detrimental to student learning. Prognostication based on correlations between the characteristics of edu-

cational software in concrete learning conditions and results in terms of student learning would be valuable in the selection and use of programs in the classroom. Knowledge of these relationships would also be useful for software designers who are interested in guaranteeing high product quality. If they know that specific characteristics of educational software influence learning, they can strategically design programs that incorporate the effective characteristics. The relationship between the characteristics of learning multimedia and learning outcomes of students are considered in this chapter.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

The aims of the chapter are as follows: 1.

2.

3.

To describe the characteristics of educational software that are effective in terms of student learning; To analyse the characteristics of effective educational software to determine gender differences; To analyse the characteristics of effective educational software to determine differences in terms of high-achieving students versus low-achieving students.

The chapter is organized into three parts. The structure of the chapter is as follows: Part one provides definitions and descriptions of multimedia and describes its components – text, static graphics, animations, sounds and video. Part two presents the results of prior research on the effectiveness of some characteristics of learning multimedia. Part three includes a discussion of the effective characteristics of learning multimedia, according to two investigations carried out by the author in Estonia with multimedia textbooks and drills. The effective characteristics of learning multimedia for all students, for boys, for girls, for high- and for low-achieving students are compared in this part. Recommendations based on findings are included.

MultIMedIA And Its coMponents As computers became available to schools and as various media for the computer were developed, educational software programs for students in the classroom came to the mainstream as a way to enhance student learning. Various elements of media (text, sound, static graphics, animation, video) were incorporated in educational software. Multimedia could be defined in different ways. Laurentiis (1993) defines multimedia as a means to display text, graphics, animation and video

168

with sound. Brett (1998) states that multimedia is a computer-delivered combination of communication elements (text, sound, pictures, photos, animations and video). Different elements of communication are combined and linked and therefore the multimedia message may be greater than the sum of the individual parts. Dubois and Vial (2000) note that a multimedia presentation uses different media in conjunction with each other. Gyselink et al. (2000) assert that multimedia usually consists of connections of various types of information: verbal (words, sentences or short text), presented in either visual or auditory formats; pictorial (illustrations, photos, graphics), presented visually in either a statica or animated way, and sound. Uden and Campion (2000) maintain that despite the typical conception of multimedia as interactive learning, it is also associated with traditional learning principles. Many aspects of multimedia are different from sequential, computer-based learning and hypertext. Goyne et al. (2000) recommend that learning multimedia should capitalize on aspects that support learning but are not available in traditional learning materials; for example, computer software programs can accommodate both visual and auditory learners. Boyle (1997) declares that text could be one of the most effective components of learning multimedia. Text has a great influence and it does not matter if it is presented on the paper or on the computer screen. According to some researchers, text in multimedia materials is not so easily processed as printed text. This point of view is based on some evidence of disorientation, non-tangibility, lack of resolution, and lack of experience (Cassie, 2003). On the other hand, Matthew (1997) states that electronically presented text enables multisensory learning that allows mutual influence of both text and illustration. The comprehensibility of electronic text might therefore be better than in the case of the printed text. Electronic text could be hypertext as well. Hyperlinks enable one to choose the content and

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

sequence of learning materials, change original documents, and involve students in the creation of activities (Barab et al., 1999; Lawless et al., 2003). A learner may decide which material is essential for him/her and which sequence and manner is most suitable to construct his/her own text (Rouet, 2000; Lawless et al., 2003). Students are promoted from reader to reader/author and thereby take responsibility for the implementation of learning goals (Reinking, 1997; Barab et al., 1999; Lawless et al., 2003). It requires not only understanding of the information presented, but also an understanding of which information is needed and in what sequence (Lawless et al., 2003). Besides text, graphics are another important multimedia component (Boyle, 1997). Graphics promote learning because the rate of retrieval of dually coded information is greater than either stand-alone text or visuals. According to Pavio’s theory (Szabo & Poohkay, 1996; Mayer, 2003), verbal and pictorial information is treated separately in the memory. Textual and visual (illustrations, diagrams, drawings etc.) materials are processed through different reception channels (Dubois & Vial, 2000; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Graphical presentation is more effective than presentation with text only, because textual information is retained mostly in the form of sentences while images are stored both visually and in the form of sentences. Because graphical presentation enables dual coding (Dubois & Vial, 2000), information portrayed is more efficiently stored in memory (Szabo & Poohkay, 1996; Mayer, 2003; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). The computer enables the presentation of information through movement and graphical change – animation. With animation, a series of graphics rotate quickly, thus creating the effect of movement (Szabo & Poohkay, 1996). Weiss et al. (2002) recommend the use of animation to describe complex procedures and concepts or to illustrate moving systems that are not possible to see in reality (for example, modelling movement of electrons). A behaviourist point of view is that

animation clues the construction of associations between verbal and nonverbal multimedia components (Szabo & Poohkay, 1996). Several authors (e.g. Boyle, 1997; Baxter & Preece, 1999; Lawless et al., 2003) claim that learning multimedia is effective because it uses sound and video, which is not possible for printed media. Goyne et al. (2000) states that video and sound make imagination real to the learner and provide more opportunity for learning when compared to printed media. Interactive video and sound is especially effective (Boyle, 1997). Riding and Grimley (1999) single out flexibility as an effective feature of learning multimedia. An example of flexibility would be the incorporation of choice as to the form of a presentation (text, graphic, sound, video). Learning multimedia therefore recommends itself as possibly more suitable than printed media for students with different learning styles. The question is how to combine these media elements in ways that are instructive and coherent (Laurentiis, 1993; Najjar, 1996).

hoW to study WhIch chArActerIstIcs oF leArnIng MultIMedIA Are eFFIcIent Since the late 1960s, researchers have been investigating the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), including the use of educational software and multimedia, in comparison with traditional methods of instruction. The findings of most of these studies suggest that CAI is sometimes effective in achieving study aims, but not all results have been positive. In some circumstances, traditional instruction resulted in greater learning outcomes than CAI (e.g. Liao, 1992; Najjar, 1996; Weller, 1996; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 1998). Teh and Fraser (1995) note that results are contradictory when circumstances of the studies are not the same. Among other factors, design of the educational software does

169

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

make a difference (McCoy, 1996; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 1998). As computers began to be used in schools throughout the United States in the early 1980s, there have been questions about the quality of educational software (Buckleitner, 1999; Higgins, 2000). Over the years, guidelines for developing and evaluating educational software have been devised and publicized. Singer’s publication “How do teacher and student evaluations of CAI software compare?” in The Computing Teacher was published in 1983. In this paper the author suggests publishing results of the use of educational software in schools to inform selection and use of programs (Higgins, 2000). According to ERIC, the greatest number of studies from 1982 to 1986 regarding the effectiveness of educational software came from such studies (Buckleitner, 1999) and such studies continue. There were 704 studies in the ERIC database using keywords ‘multimedia and education and evaluation’ and there has been rapid growth of studies in this category since 1999 (Luik, 2004). In education, researchers target particular characteristics of educational software including learning multimedia. Most investigations compare learning outcomes in a context that includes two or more forms of each characteristic studied. Various approaches abound; for example some researchers use student evaluations. Overall however, a large number studies tend to fall into one of two groups: gender differences and ability levels. The research of Hood and Togo (1993/94) studied gender differences in the use of tables and graphic format. That of McGrath (1992) focused on learner control and spatial ability. Research results and multimedia designer recommendations are sometimes in conflict when considering the concrete characteristics of multimedia. For example Lai (1998) and Nicholls & Merkel (1996) compare the efficiency of static and animated graphics. Lai found that students who learned with static graphics received significantly higher scores, but Nicholls and Merkel found a

170

significant advantage for subjects in the animated condition. One reason for the contradictory results could be the complexity of learning multimedia characteristics. Uden and Campion (2000) assert that different combinations of different characteristics make a difference. Characteristics interact and influence each other, suggesting that whole sets of the characteristics need to be investigated. The aim of the research conducted in Estonia was to examine all the known characteristics of learning multimedia that contribute to the learning outcome of students. For this purpose, 35 units from 6 different multimedia textbooks and 34 units from 27 drills were analysed from many aspects. The aim of the analysis was to determine the value of each characteristic of learning multimedia related to student learning. The basis for selecting characteristics for the study were derived from previous studies (e.g. Mayer & Gallini, 1990; Liao, 1992; Caftori, 1994; McCoy, 1996; Higgins, 2000), from handbooks on educational software (Boyle, 1997; Phillips, 1997; Alessi & Trollip, 2001), and from textbook research (Mikk, 2000). 136 different characteristics of multimedia textbooks (48 about the manipulation, 40 about the layout, 21 about the text, 24 about the self-control and 3 about the possibilities of the electronic textbook) and 145 characteristics of drills (42 about the manipulation, 11 about the possibilities of the drill, 30 about the presentation of information, 21 about the questions, 8 about the responding and 33 about the feedback) were analyzed. Effective characteristics of multimedia textbooks were found for 10th grade students (age 16-17) while effective characteristics of drills were found for 3rd grade students (age 9-10). The procedure of the investigation follows: First, students’ prior knowledge was measured through pre-tests before instruction through computer software programs. Next students were given the opportunity to learn content and concepts included in a multimedia textbook unit or to practice a skill in a drill. All the students

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

worked with the same units. Time on task was not limited for student use of the software programs, but only 15 minutes were provided for practice with the drills. After completion of the computer time or the drills, students were given post-tests, the results of which provided evidence of learning. Learning outcomes were determined for all students, for boys and girls and for high-achieving and low-achieving students. The tests used in these investigations were written by the expert (teacher) of the particular subject. A second teacher reviewed the tests and made corrections where needed. The second teacher and a student checked to see whether or not answers to the test questions could be answered based on information in the educational software. Reliability of the tests was determined by Cronbach’s alpha (.72 or higher), and the validity of the tests was checked by experts in the subject matter. SPSS 11.5 for Windows and Statistica 6.1 were used for the data analysis. The Pearson correlation analysis revealed a significant relationship between students' pre-test and post-test scores. Due to the significant correlation, pre-test scores were used as a covariate to adjust post-test means. The adjusted post-test scores were used as the learning outcomes in these investigations. The main aim of the research was to find the characteristics of educational software, which are related to the learning outcomes of different student groups (all students, boys, girls, high-and low-achieving students). To reach this goal, Spearman rank correlations between the values of the characteristics and mean adjusted post-test scores of these student groups were calculated. Also ANOVA was used for data analysis. Both studies lasted one academic year. Because it is possible that students in the study were not initially comfortable with learning multimedia; the relationship between the number of sequences of learning multimedia and the mean adjusted post-test score was determined. There was no evidence that the number of sequences of learn-

ing multimedia was related to the mean adjusted post-test score (linear correlation coefficient with sequences of multimedia textbooks r = -.12, p > .05 and the sequences of drill r = .01; p > .05).

eFFectIve chArActerIstIcs oF leArnIng MultIMedIA Summary conclusions of the two investigations carried out in Estonia together with those from previous studies provide recommendations that can be useful for teachers who are designing their own multimedia learning experiences, PowerPoint presentations, web pages, etc. and for the selection and use of programs available through different vendors. These recommendations are divided into five subgroups: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Characteristics of motivating the learner, such as competition, main character, playfulness; Characteristics of learner control, such as number, type, familiarity, placement of menus, buttons, icons; Characteristics of the presentation of information, such as number and types of media, number and type of graphics together with their connection to learning, colors (of graphics, background and text, number of colors), and text (style, font, size), placement of information; Characteristics of the questions-responses, such as type of questions, number and grouping of questions, modes of response (mouse, keyboard, or both), time given for response, economy of response (how many operations are needed for entering the answer); Characteristics of the feedback, such as types of feedback (corrective or affirmative, with text or sound) and hints.

The subgroups were selected according to previous studies and were grouped in a way that

171

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

172

.35* -.38* .05 .06 .09 .62 Attractiveness of the drill (median of expert opinions on 5-point scale)

1.04

.49** -.42** .09 .12 .16 .76 Utilisation of computer capabilities (median of expert opinions on 5-point scale)

.97 .71 Interesting realisation of the drill (median of expert opinions on 5-point scale)

.85

.36* -.39* .09 -.05

-.44* -.30 -.35* Multimedia drills

-.39* .15 Competition against oneself

Characteristic’s Name

.07

.07

Correlation with low-achieved students post-test score Correlation with high-achieved students posttest score Correlation with girls’ post-test score Correlation with boys’ post-test score Correlation with all students post-test score

It is often assumed that learning multimedia should be engaging to students. There are many ways to interest students through the unique features of learning multimedia (McCoy 1996, Goyne et al. 2000; Alessi & Trollip 2001). For example, Najjar (2001) suggests that according to his studies, learners are engaged through the use of metaphors, analogies, personal style, and connecting the content with the interests and needs of learners. The author (Najjar, 2001) declares that multimedia is motivating by itself because of its novelty, but that the motivating effect expires over time. On the other hand, Caftori (1994) warns that novelty can sometimes distract the student from learning goals. In the Estonian studies, motivational characteristics of multimedia textbooks do not correlate significantly for older students (age 16-17). For younger students, drills competition, attractiveness, interesting design and use of the computer capabilities show some promise (see Table 1). These results may suggest that older students do not let novelty distract them from learning

Standard deviation ***

characteristics of Motivating the learner

Table 1. Significantly correlated characteristics of motivating the learner

Mean value

teachers and designers of the learning multimedia could use them for different types of educational software. Learning includes some form of presentation along with motivation; the first and the third subgroups of the characteristics are therefore essential for all learning multimedia materials. Learning multimedia materials for use by students include worksheets, web pages, tests, and drills. The design of multimedia needs to address effective characteristics of learner control (the second subgroup). Multimedia drills, interactive worksheets and tests need to contain questions for learners that will in turn elicit feedback from the computer. Interactive worksheets or tests are sometimes used with web pages. Multimedia designers therefore need to consider the effective characteristics of the last two subgroups.

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level ***Standard deviation is not given for the characteristics in binary scale. In these characteristics, the positive answer was coded 1 and the negative answer 0.

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

goals. Results may also be due to differences in the aims of the software programs. Perhaps attractiveness is redundant in the case of drills, tests and worksheets, but is effective in learning multimedia formats that provide instruction. Of interest are data that support an effectiveness of characteristics for low-achieving students but which decrease the learning outcomes of highachieving students. Therefore drills, tests and worksheets with the questions should be composed differently for students of different abilities. For students at low achievement levels, attractive feedback appears to be motivating. For students who are generally successful, feedback meant to be attractive for every answer is apparently unnecessary, distracting, and annoying. Competition against oneself is not an effective characteristic of multimedia drills for all students. It does not improve scores for boys or for high-achieving students. Perhaps in such cases, the desire to achieve a better score attracted the learners more than obtaining the knowledge. Alessi and Trollip (2001) find that competition against oneself is less motivating than competition against a partner or against the computer. A possibility for the motivation of young learners is to identify with a character in the learning multimedia. An engaging character might be a boy, girl, pet or alien. Students differ and so do their favorite characters. Offering one type of character in learning multimedia may not be as effective as providing choices of character. For high-achieving students, characters may lead attention away from learning goals (with ANOVA F=12.21, p<.01).

characteristics of learner control Alessi and Trollip (2001) define learner control as the opportunity and the ability to influence, direct, and determine decisions related to the education process - for example, path, pace, etc. Results of different studies on learner control are contradictory. Some researchers conclude that learning

outcomes are higher with learner control, others find some beneficial outcomes, and still others find no difference in learning outcomes using learner or program control (Barab et al., 1999; Eom & Reiser, 2000). It is further found that in learner control, students spend less time learning (Weller, 1996) and prefer learning multimedia that features learner control (Barab et al., 1999). Eom and Reiser (2000) conclude that possibilities and amount of learner control depend on learner characteristics. Learner control of learning multimedia corresponds to users and it is likely that teacher designed learning multimedia materials that offer different levels of learner control for different students will be most effective. Data on the effectiveness of the characteristics of learner control provided statistically significant correlation coefficients with mean adjusted post-test scores and are presented in Table 2. Older high-achieving students need more possibilities for learner control. These students know how to direct their learning and which possibilities are beneficial for them. But it is more efficient if the buttons and icons used in the learning multimedia are familiar to the older students, especially girls, low-achieving students and high-achieving younger users. Low-achieving older students need familiar titles in pull-down menus, too. MS Office programs, Internet Explorer and Netscape are taught and used in Estonian schools and homes. Thus it makes sense to adopt standards of this software; users are accustomed to these buttons, icons and titles of the pull-down menus. New or unique navigation interfaces should be avoided. Berry (2000) writes about cognitive overload. In this context, mental processing includes not only concepts, but also icons, objects, access, screen elements and so on. For this purpose, the symbols and icons on the screen should be standard and familiar to readers and learners should not be presented with too many different and/or new screen elements. Rollovers are effective to inform the younger users about the implication of the buttons and icons. Key-combinations are not ef-

173

174 -.29

.51

7.14 2.89 5.14 .49 .51 44% 6.17 .62 .34

Number of menus

Number of menus visible during the particular unit

Number of pull-down menus

Number of frame menus

Number of levels in the hierarchical menus

Percentage of terms in menus needed in the particular unit

Number of key-combinations

Bookmarks and back-button available

69% .62 .66 .51

Percentage of hyperlinks, which pointer of mouse changed from arrow to hand

Scrolling available

Besides scrolling available keys PgUp PgDn

Possibilities to move with the mouse and with the keyboard

44%

Percentage of familiar buttons

16.90

56%

Percentage of familiar learner control methods (buttons, icons, menus totally)

Number of hyperlinks

4.83

Number of buttons

64%

.49

Table of contents is visible

Percentage of familiar icons

22.29

Total number of different learner control methods (buttons, icons, menus totally)

Search possibilities

.41**

.51

.38

Directions how to continue the drill are available on the title page

47%

19.42

39%

34%

37%

3.88

12.82

3.19

27%

2.44

3.81

2.37

.76

.27

.29

.41**

.41**

-.35*

.36*

.35*

.29

.28

.27

-.14

-.27

-.24

-.14

.27

.31

.28

.26

.21

.31

.24

.12

.29

.29

-.16

.16

.02

.12

.07

-.01

.10

-.12

.29

-.01

-.36*

-.01

-.01

.22

.04

.17

.00

.15

Correlation with boys’ posttest score

Multimedia textbooks -.31

Correlation with all students posttest score

Using the Internet (the electronic text-book is based on the Internet (1), uses the Internet (0), or is not related to net (-1)

Standard deviation ***

Mean value

characteristic’s Name

.18

.24

.39*

.39*

-.35*

.30

.36*

.24

.36*

.37*

.29

-.24

.39*

-.27

-.25

-.08

.37*

.34*

.39*

.33*

.18

.39*

Correlation with girls’ posttest score

.04

-.15

.29

.29

.03

.03

-.03

.24

.11

.37*

.15

.29

.16

-.18

.20

.11

.38*

.23

.38*

-.20

.40*

Correlation with high-achieved students post-test score

.51**

.67**

.27

.27

.39*

.46**

.41**

.20

.07

-.12

-.67**

.27

-.36*

-.20

-.42**

.07

-.04

-.05

-.04

.54**

.05

Correlation with low-achieved students post-test score

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

Table 2. Significantly correlated characteristics of learner control

continued on following page

.26

.35 .09

Number of a circumstance(s) when getting new question is not permitted and user should wait for new question (for example video for feedback if it is not permitted to quit)

Number of situations during the particular drill session when quitting the drill is not permitted (for example animations in some drills)

Final message

.52

2.3%

4.0%

Percentage of directions in menus

Possibilities to move in menus with the keyboard

Percentage of buttons and icons with rollovers (a text box with a brief description of the purpose of the button or icon)

1.15

Number of computer operations needed for reaching to the main menu

29.5%

7.6%

2.27

Number of pull-down menus

Percentage of familiar icons

1.52

.81

Number of full-screen menus

.60

.45

39.0%

37.0%

2.31

1.10

2.38

Number of menus available during the drill session 1.97

.68

Automatically ongoing title page

.27

-.15

-.12

.28

.16

.20

.36

-.24

.27

-.36

.22

.64**

Multimedia drills

-.03

-.10

-.04

.16

.08

-.06

.05

-.02

.04

-.14

-.05

.43*

.35*

-.16

-.13

.26

.13

.42*

.47*

-.41*

.40*

-.42*

.46*

.47**

.01

-.57**

-.64**

.49**

.72**

.00

-.10

-.29

.50**

-.41*

.26

.24

.31

.27

.38*

-.14

-.37

.02

.17

.11

-.22

.13

-.08

.09

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

Table 2. Significantly correlated characteristics of learner control

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level ***Standard deviation is not given for the characteristics in binary scale. In these characteristics, the positive answer was coded 1 and the negative answer 0.

175

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

fective characteristics for low-achieving students because they are more difficult to remember than buttons and icons. The point that icons are better remembered than buttons is questionable. Older girls needed more buttons. Also Boling et al. (1998) found out that buttons displayed only in a pictorial way was perceived as less effective than buttons that were displayed using picture and text or text only. Recognition of buttons and icons depends on both their familiarity and abstractness (Boling et al., 1998). Nielsen (1995) suggested usage of animated icons for younger learners. Menus are useful for learners, but the number of levels in the hierarchical menus should be low, otherwise low-achieving students do not find what they need. It is more efficient when choices in menus are plain and simple, without any terms that may not be understandable. If a student does not understand the choice in the menu he/she will not choose it. Pull-down menus are more efficient for both older and younger girls and for highachieving students. Frame-menus are beneficial for older girls as well. Through this type of menu, tables of contents can be transmitted; display of content is beneficial for girls. On the other hand, full-screen menus are disadvantageous for younger students, especially for girls. Full-screen menus can be disorienting. For younger girls it is beneficial if the number of necessary activities (for example number of different key pressures) for accessing the main menu is small, if there are directions in the menus, and if there are possibilities to move in menus with the keyboard (in all cases there was possibility to move in menus with the mouse). Search capabilities and bookmarks are for the re-reading of study material. If the reason for use of the learning multimedia is acquisition of content rather than reference seeking, search capabilities may disorient low-achieving students. At the same time, bookmarks and back-buttons are beneficial characteristics of learning multimedia. Bookmarks help to find material quickly, but the

176

difference from search capabilities is that the material was previously examined and therefore is familiar to the students. The Internet is an inexhaustible source of information. Additional materials from the Internet offer opportunities for older students to supplement their knowledge. Older girls and high-achieving students who studied the material from different aspects performed better on post-tests. Learning multimedia that uses the same design as the Internet browsers like scrolling, is also familiar for students to manipulate. But the number of hyperlinks should be in accordance with learning objectives. If the learning objective is to acquire the content, it is important to keep the number of hyperlinks in learning multimedia small. The learner’s experience, ability, interest in topic and confidence with computers should be taken into consideration. Cursor change is helpful when the educational software uses hyperlinks. The results of investigations conducted in Estonia with multimedia drills indicated that an automatically ongoing title page is helpful for all learners. The title page was considered as automatically ongoing when it disappeared by itself without any action of the user after a few seconds. Nevertheless the results of Alessi and Trollip (2001) are contradictory as they recommend that a title page should not disappear after a few seconds. Perhaps information on a title page directing students to go forward is not completely understandable for young learners and therefore it is not necessary for them. A final message in a computer learning program experience should make it clear when the user is about to leave the program. Such message types appear to help young girls, who are not confident with computers. All the multimedia drills used in the study utilize a one screen format while multimedia textbooks are more sizeable, requiring learners to navigate the learning material. It became obvious that scrolling is more useful for the older students, especially girls. However, learners are different and for the low-achieving students it is

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

helpful to afford navigation with Page Up and Page Down keys and the keyboard in addition to the mouse. Students who like to work and learn with the computers as well as those who generally experience frustration using computers are able to use learning multimedia. As learners differ in their abilities, directions for use of specific educational software should always be included. Directions may be incorporated into the title page or into menus to prevent cognitive overload. Dynamic presentations (videos, animations, sound) should provide learner control (pause, continue, repeat, skip, etc). It is especially important if the dynamic presentation is used for motivating or engaging students. Designers of learning multimedia should ensure that dynamic presentations do not block the moving forward or exiting of a program.

characteristics of the presentation of the Information Multimedia presentation uses different media in conjunction with each other, therefore the presentation of the information is crucial for designing learning multimedia (Dubois & Vial, 2000). Uden and Campion (2000) have stated that different combinations of media elements have specific possibilities and limitations in presenting information. Therefore it is important to choose the right combinations. The characteristics of the presentation of the information, which gave statistically significant correlation coefficients with mean adjusted post-test score, are given in Table 3. The results of the multimedia drills indicate that it is effective for young learners, especially girls, to always provide the title page first. Information about a corporation or advertisement is unlikely to assist learning. Furthermore, these pages do not provide guidelines for continuing and learners cannot see what they need to do next. For low-achieving young learners, an engaging title page is effective; for example, engagement

may be achieved through animation. For highability young students, there is a need to skip the animation and proceed. Older low-achieving students need more information about the particular learning multimedia on the title page. For them, information on the title page helps to organize the learning material. Sound was investigated only in the case of young learners. It became evident that sound effects on the title page are not beneficial for the young learners. Melody as the background for the learning could be distracting for some learners as well. Again, students are different and it is not possible to find one sound or melody that is motivating for everyone. If the window with the essential information (in multimedia textbooks, text and graphics; in drills, question and answer) does not fill the whole screen space, students’ attention could be led away by information in the rest of the screen. When information is in a frame, eye movements may be prevented. Even though the learning should be more playful for younger learners, it is not beneficial to give questions in a multimedia drill inside illustrations. Clearly visible questions and placement for answers lead students’ attention to the learning material. Illustrations as the background could distract young learners, especially boys. If the learning multimedia is designed for acquiring the textual material, comprehensibility of the text should be taken into consideration. The text is less understandable for students if there is a great number and percentage of terms, symbols and formulas in the text. Analogies help to foster deeper understanding of the studying material and examples are beneficial for the low-achieving older students. Students with low domain knowledge prefer less information and more explanations, but students with high domain knowledge prefer more information (Berry, 2000). Examples constitute one type of explanation helping low-achieving students. Dark text on a light background is more effective than light text on a dark background (with 177

178 2.00

62% 14% 3% 5%

Number of modes of presentation (text, different types of graphics, animations, video, audio)

Percentage of graphics and videos presented simultaneously with the text

Percentage of graphics and videos presented simultaneously with the redundant text

Percentage of symbols in the text

Percentage of formulas in the text

.94

7.94

Number of three-dimensional graphics

Examples in the unit (five stage scale from –2 (no analogies) to +2 (many analogies))

11.17

Number of graphics in the unit

-0.66

3.06

Number of types of graphics (illustrations, drawings, charts, schemas etc.)

Analogies in the unit (five stage scale from –2 (no analogies) to +2 (many analogies))

19%

Percentage of text in italic

1.78

1.07

Spacing of the text

Mean terminological index

.36

Information in a frame

22%

67%

Percentage of the screen area for the information

173.51

52%

Percentage of the screen area for the text

Percentage of terms in the text

4.14

Number of different items (title, author, corporation name, menus etc) on the title page

Number of terms in the text

Mean value

characteristic’s Name

.94

1.04

.26

14%

164.20

12%

6%

24%

44%

.77

11.40

14.11

1.81

33%

.10

22%

25%

1.16

Standard deviation ***

.20

.34*

-.47**

-.43**

-.14

-.15

-.29

-.61**

-.48**

-.11

-.27

-.24

-.10

-.35*

-.37*

.35*

.35*

.27

.25

.15

-.39*

-.37*

-.09

-.31

-.35*

-.35*

-.32

.10

-.14

-.17

-.04

-.18

.13

-.20

.25

.23

-.01

Correlation with boys’ post-test score

Multimedia textbooks

Correlation with all students post-test score

.09

.42*

-.50**

-.40*

-.09

-.04

-.22

-.59**

-.49**

.08

-.18

-.14

-.01

-.37*

.35*

-.42**

.29

.30

.24

Correlation with girls’ post-test score

-.05

.38*

-.32

-.41**

.10

-.35*

-.35*

-.27

-.39*

-.25

.11

.02

.16

-.25

.31

-.38*

.10

.16

-.19

Correlation with high-achieved students post-test score

.41**

.03

-.28

-.21

-.34*

.02

.08

-.58**

-.44*

-.40*

-.48**

-.38*

-.33*

-.32

-.05

-.11

.47**

.32

.63**

Correlation with low-achieved students post-test score

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

Table 3. Significantly correlated characteristics of the presentation of the information

continued on following page

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

.19 -.55** -.23 -.26 -.30

.15 -.47** -.35* -.13 -.28 9.32

.21

Maximal number of different colours on the screen during the drill session

Background melody

3.45

-.25 .36* .16 .10 .16 1.65 Number of simple illustrations in drill session

3.58

.02

-.04 .22

-.31 -.38*

.37* .26

-.09 -.26

.44** 7.6

.85 Questions and/or answers in the drill are within the illustrations

17

25% Percentage of the screen space for the question and answer(s)

1.21

.43 Title page with audio

Number of illustrations in drill session

.32 Title page with animation

Dominating size of the text in the drill

.32 Page before the title page

2.73

.07 -.44** -.30 -.35* -.39*

-.12 .48** .23 .35* 25%

.38*

.28

.41* -.39*

-.43* .01

.06 -.12

.01 .04

-.01

-.39*

Multimedia drills

-.25

-.35*

-.16

-.05

Table 3. continued

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level ***Standard deviation is not given for the characteristics in binary scale. In these characteristics, the positive answer was coded 1 and the negative answer 0.

ANOVA in the case of all older students F=3.81, p<.05; in the case of older girls F=4.05, p<.05; and in the case of low achieving older students F=3.88, p<.05). Advantages of a light background can be explained from different perspectives. 1.) Phillips (1997) claims that the eye starts to move from the strongest (darkest) color. He has suggested designing educational software so that the user starts from the most important information. Consequently, the text must be dark. When the background is dark, it attracts the attention more than the light text on it. 2.) Boyle (1997) suggests using the light background because text and graphics are more visible. 3.) Students are used to reading dark text on a light background. 4.) When the students use a traditional textbook or printed materials as they work with computer-based materials, their eyes would have to move repeatedly from dark text on a light background to light text on a dark background. A dark background is especially detrimental for girls and low-achieving students who have lower computer-skills and who are not used to reading materials on the Internet in which different backgrounds are available. Also, the more conventional fonts like Arial and Times New Roman are more useful for reading material on the screen for younger boys (with ANOVA F=5.35, p<.01). Designers should not use italics in the text, which is more difficult to read. Suitable spacing between the lines (1,2-1,4 points) contributes to better comprehension of text for girls. Younger students need larger texts. Graphics help to reduce abstractness, but a great number of different types of graphics, twoand three-dimensional graphics, and different modes of presentation could be disadvantageous for low-achieving older students. Also, designers of learning multimedia should take into consideration whether the goal of graphics use is presentation of information or just illustrative. For example, illustrations in the drills reduce the learning outcome of young girls. Previous studies suggest that pictorial presentation promotes quicker understanding, but textual presentation

179

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

promotes more correct understanding (Williams, 2001). Illustrations are more beneficial for students with higher visual ability (Gyselinck et al., 2000). Illustrations are important in the transmission of information: they contribute to dual coding and retrieval of information (Najjar, 2001). Illustrations are better than text in certain situations only – when text is incomprehensible, when illustrations are clear, and when illustrations are explanative (Mayer & Gallini, 1990; Najjar, 2001). Simple illustrations could be more effective for high-achieving young learners. Illustration is simple if it contains minimal unnecessary information and does not contain small redundant details (Mikk, 2000). Simplicity of illustrations may be gauged by the number of objects on it as well (Mikk, 2000). The number of colours on a screen should be kept small for younger students, especially for girls and high-achieving students. A rule of thumb is that the number of different colours that do not distract the learner from obtaining learning material is 6 to 11 (Livingston & Sandals, 1992). Graphics and video presented at the same time with redundant text decreases students’ learning outcomes. Text is redundant if the graphics are fully intelligible without the text. Several authors (for example Merlet, 2000; Mayer, 2003; Mayer & Moreno, 2003) note that pictorial information that is not correctly connected with other media, could hinder, rather than promote, comprehension. Graphics have a great impact on the learning process, but should not be used to present irrelevant information, to entertain, or to amuse learners (e.g. Laurentiis, 1993; Philips, 1997; Berry, 2000). Graphics and video presented at the same time without any text decreases students’ learning outcomes as well. This could be due to the split attention effect explained by the cognitive load theory. Paying attention alternately to text and to graphics overloads the students’ working memory and reduces knowledge acquisition. Gyselinck et al. (2000) claimed that the presentation which includes the excessively complex connections of

180

text and graphics could be disadvantageous for low-ability students. The designers of learning multimedia should also take into consideration the co-effect of different types of media and the redundant elements of media. For example, if the educational software uses video, it is not beneficial to give explanations in the written text. Learners are not able to read the text and watch the video at the same time (Mayer, 2003; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Research problems for studies to follow will investigate the effects of using text and graphics and of using text and video together and will determine the optimal space between graphics and associated text.

characteristics of the questions-responses Interactive learning multimedia provides questions for students to gauge their learning as they progress through a multimedia program. Student responses provide data regarding acquisition of the material presented. Characteristics of the questions-responses showed statistically significant correlation coefficients with mean adjusted post-test score, and are provided in Table 4. Studies provided evidence that it is not effective to allow learners to decide how many questions are to be presented. Learners, older students and younger boys, are not capable of making decisions that enhance their learning. Low-achieving students attain better results with relevant questions in self-assessments. Low-achieving students have difficulty in identifying relevant information; questions that assist finding the relevant information in self-assessments facilitate their learning. Questions may be grouped differently. The study revealed that when questions are grouped by difficulty, the mean adjusted post-test score of younger students is lower. In this study, the same questions were given to all students in the class or group, and it was perhaps not beneficial to group them by difficulty. However, grouping by difficulty could be useful if high-achieving students

.09 40% 54.4% 37% 41% 68% 25.20

3.29

Percentage of the questions in pictorial to text mode in drill session

Percentage of the questions in textual to text mode in drill session

Percentage of the multiple response questions

Percentage of questions where graphics is as the context of the question

Percentage of questions when replying in needed with the keyboard

Maximal replying time per second on one question

Maximal time in seconds needed for a new question appear after the confirmation or quitting the feedback

26.86

Average number of computer operations for the replying

User could determine the number of questions

.47

Instructions for replying

.62

32%

Percentage of questions when replying is needed with the keyboard

Questions are grouped by semantic similarity (for example English words are all foods in one drill session)

.76

Relevance of questions in self-assessment (five stage scale from –2 (not relevant at all) to +2 (very relevant))

.21

1.53

Number of questions about the unit

Questions are grouped by the difficulty

0.17

User could determine the number of questions

characteristic’s Name

Mean value

3.20

23.85

47%

50%

47%

49.8%

45%

43.61

47%

.43

15.02

Correlation with all students post-test score

-.02

.70

-.36*

.39*

.34*

-.28

.34*

-.11

-.31

-.34*

Multimedia drills

.32

.07

-.07

.26

-.26

-.52**

.07

.90*

-.26

.49*

.30

-.43*

.35*

-.35*

-.35*

-.12

.12

.01

-.19

.15

-.10

-.19

Correlation with boys’ post-test score

Multimedia textbooks

Standard deviation ***

-.10

.30

-.30

.13

.13

-.08

.19

.11

-.17

-.28

.35

.00

-.09

-.15

-.22

-.62**

Correlation with girls’ post-test score

-.49**

.10

-.01

.18

.10

-.07

.02

.13

-.37*

-.06

-.08

-.29

-.40*

-.24

-.39*

-.13

Correlation with high-achieved students posttest score

.35*

.00

-.32

-.03

.29

-.04

-.07

-.17

.03

-.03

.63**

.39*

.35*

.39*

.09

-.50**

Correlation with low-achieved students post-test score

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

Table 4. Significantly correlated characteristics of the questions-responses

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level ***Standard deviation is not given for the characteristics in binary scale. In these characteristics, the positive answer was coded 1 and the negative answer 0.

181

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

get more complex questions and low-achieving students get simpler questions. For younger boys and high-achieving students, it was not beneficial if the questions were grouped by semantic similarity. Perhaps boys and high-achieving students need more variety. A more effective mode of questioning is pictorial rather than text for younger students, especially boys. Adding graphics to the context of the question is also beneficial for 3rd grade students, but text to text questions are disadvantageous to boys. Dubois and Vial (2000) and Szabo and Poohkay (1996) assert that if the text is presented with graphics, it is more beneficial because it fosters dual coding and text-picture information is more effectively stored in memory. Alessi and Trollip (2001) suggest using graphics as a stimulus for the young learner and for users with reading difficulties. Participants in this study were 9-10 year old students and for them the questions with associated graphics were more comprehensible. Multiple response questions are advantageous for the young learners. Multiple-choice questions include correct and retrievable information in the possible answer choices, and any entry, including a wrong one, will advance the student to the next question. This is unlike open-ended questions, where the learner may feel compelled to enter a response he or she knows to be wrong because some answer must be given in order to proceed to the next question. High-achieving young students want to accomplish drills quickly to achieve high scores. It is possible to accomplish a drill quickly if new questions are provided immediately following student response and feedback. Low-achieving young students need time to memorize the answers. For them, a new question should appear after a good number of seconds after the feedback. An explanation of the results may be that high-achieving students usually provide correct responses while low-achieving students provide fewer responses. When a response is incorrect, time is needed to consider an answer more likely to be correct. In

182

the case of older students it became evident that high-achieving students need fewer questions embedded in the program. Answering with the keyboard is more difficult for young learners because it requires typing skills and the learner needs to maintain his/her attention to the screen. Questions in a self-assessment of learning multimedia should be composed for the older students in a way that different modes of responses are possible. For high-achieving students clicking with the mouse is desirable though low-achieving students benefit by typing from the keyboard. In the case of low-achieving older students, the higher the maximum number of keystrokes for responding in the self-assessment, the higher the acquisition of knowledge. This also indicates that entering responses with the keyboard is more effective for such students when compared to responding with the mouse. When responding with the mouse, students remember the position or the serial number of the answer rather than the substance of the answer. The answers typed by letters are recorded in memory better than the answers pointed with the mouse. The mouse as mode of response is also helpful to younger students. Instructions for responding are useful for low-achieving older students, and younger boys need a longer response time.

characteristics of the Feedback One of the advantages of interactive learning multimedia is immediate feedback of the correctness or incorrectness of the answer. In other words, immediate, simple feedback is very effective as a way to promote learning as the results of the investigations in Estonia demonstrated (see Table 5). Repeated opportunities to answer a question do not improve the performance of older students, especially in the case of girls. With a second or third attempt on a multiple choice question, students respond at random. It might be better to provide extra information or hints. Younger

Mean value

0.27 0.35 .57

1.32

2.5 .35 .45 .76 .44 .46 .62 .09 .12 .24

.53

.18

characteristic’s Name

Possibility for the new replying to correct the wrong answer

Praise after the right answer

Percentage of the right answers is announced

Maximal time in seconds needed for feedback to appear after choosing or entering the answer

Levels of the feedback on the 5-point Roper’s scale

Feedback with animation

The same animation is used for the feedback after the right answer

Feedback as audio

Audio feedback as digital voice

The same audio is used for the feedback

Running score is visible during the drill session

Running time is visible during the drill session

Marking or erasing of wrong answer is used as the hint

The percentage of the right answers is announced

Feedback of following format errors (an error of form rather than content, such as using letters instead of numbers) prompt the learner to correct the format

Feedback after the wrong answer is not more attractive than the feedback after the right answer

.50

.91

Standard deviation ***

-.29

.01

-.07

.42**

-.34*

-.39*

.03

.15

.06

-.69*

-.10

-.36*

-.23

Multimedia drills

.18

-.37*

-.40*

-.19

.05

-.01

.34*

-.18

-.19

.08

-.03

.01

-.63*

-.04

-.35*

-.18

.07

-.03

-.03

Correlation with boys’ post-test score

Multimedia textbooks

Correlation with all students post-test score

-.26

-.06

-.15

.34*

-.35*

-.45**

-.06

.20

.06

-.43

-.13

-.25

-.26

.11

-.57**

-.57**

Correlation with girls’ post-test score

-.38*

-.30

.25

.06

-.30

-.15

.42*

-.36*

.35*

-.34

-.48*

-.16

-.43**

-.26

-.29

-.28

Correlation with high-achieved students post-test score

.12

.38*

-.37*

.11

.11

-.16

-.22

.26

.18

.10

.24

.01

.22

.55**

-.13

-.12

Correlation with low-achieved students post-test score

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

Table 5. Significantly correlated characteristics of the feedback

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level ***Standard deviation is not given for the characteristics in binary scale. In these characteristics, the positive answer was coded 1 and the negative answer 0.

183

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

high-achieving students need that kind of feedback when the answer appears quickly. Too much ongoing feedback about performance on a drill during responding may distract attention and cause cognitive overload in the case of younger students, especially girls. Learners strove for a high score or fast performance, but their skills or knowledge did not improve. More appropriate is the announcement of the correctness of the response. Praise following the right answer also is not useful, at least in the case of older students. Minimal feedback is effective for younger learners. Perhaps young learners do not read complex feedback. The other explanation for that result might be the effectiveness of minimal feedback, which has also been found in previous studies (Gordijin & Wim, 2002). The summary of feedback (number or percentage of right answers, time for passing the questions etc.) should be given at the end of the drill session or at the end of self-assessment. Engaging feedback after correct responses (for example, animation or video) should be random. Otherwise, the attractive award becomes boring for high-achieving students, who usually supply correct responses, and the effectiveness of such feedback decreases. Weiss et al. (2002) stated that careful use of animation as feedback is effective. Younger students do get better results if the animation after the right answer is not the same each time. Varied animation or video as feedback motivates younger students, especially boys. Alessi and Trollip (2001) claim that feedback variety in drills could increase the motivation of students, but it could also lead students’ attention away from the learning goal and thus reduce the speed of performance. Variety of learning multimedia ensures that the drill is not boring for the learners. Feedback with sound is helpful for highachieving students. In the case of sound feedback, it is useful to use only two different sounds: one for the right answer and another for the wrong answer. Through sounds, high-achieving stu-

184

dents get the most rapid feedback. Digital voice as feedback is not beneficial for high-achieving young students. Answering with the format error (for example using letters instead of numbers) should not count as wrong answer in the case of young lowachieving students. Feedback should prompt the learner to correct the format and try again. In the case of multiple-choice questions, it is beneficial for young students, both boys and girls, to mark or erase the chosen wrong answers as a hint. Perhaps in this way the right answer would be more pronounced for the learner and the chosen wrong answers does not become established in memory. If the feedback that follows wrong answers is more attractive than the one following the right answers, the high-achieving young student may give intentionally wrong answers. Alessi and Trollip (2001) and Weiss et al. (2002) have stated that the attractive feedback after wrong answer could influence students to enter the wrong answers. The only difference between the results of the two studies was in the case of the summary feedback. In the case of the older learners, lowachieving students benefit from the announcement of the percentage of right answers, but in the case of the younger learners, it was disadvantageous for low-achieving students. The reason for this result may be the fact that students of the 3rd grade have not acquired the concept of percentages.

conclusIon Learning outcomes of the students are related to the characteristics of learner control, presentation of information, questions-responses, and feedback. According to the goal of the learning multimedia, designers should pay attention to the different characteristics. Presentation of information includes essential layout on the screen, integration of text, graphics, and design of the material; however, questions and feedback are most

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

important for practising. Learning multimedia is meant to support learning, and too many attractive design elements are likely to be detrimental. Learning multimedia could be designed in ways that are effective for both boys and girls. Girls’ results demonstrate more associations with the characteristics of complexity of learner control than do results for boys. Therefore learning multimedia should be with simple learner control. The question arises whether or not such simple software is too boring and uninteresting for boys. Results of the two investigations in Estonia indicate that learning multimedia with simple learner control did not hinder learning outcomes of boys. It makes sense, therefore, to incorporate characteristics of learner control according to the needs of girls. Boys’ learning outcomes are related to competition against oneself, modes of questions, and time for responding. Girls’ learning outcomes are not correlated with these characteristics. It makes sense to capitalize on these characteristics of learning multimedia that are beneficial to boys. To reconcile the needs of high- and lowachieving students, learning multimedia that provide opportunity for practice should be designed differentially. Attractive characteristics motivate low-achieving students, but the same characteristics could hinder the learning of high-achieving students. High-achieving students need varied practice at a quick pace. In these investigations, the essential characteristics that may inform the design of multimedia were pursued. However, knowing that some characteristics are related to learning outcomes does not give us a full answer to explain the value of these characteristics in improving student achievement. Further studies should provide more answers concerning the optimal values of the effective characteristics of the learning multimedia for different learners and different learning goals. The goal of this research was to identify as many characteristics of educational software as possible that are related to understanding the effective features of learning multimedia.

reFerences Alessi, S. M., Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for Learning. Methods and Development. 3rd ed. Boston: Ally and Bacon. Barab, S. A., Young, M. F., Wang, J. (1999). The effects of navigational and generative activities in hypertext learning on problem solving and comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26 (3), 283-309. Baxter, J. H., Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Interactive multimedia and concrete three-dimensional modelling. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 323-331. Berry, L. (2000). Cognitive Effects of Web Page Design. In B. Abbey (Ed.) Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education (41-55). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Boling, E., Beriswill, J. E., Xavier, R., Hebb, C., Kaufman, D., Frick, T. (1998). Text labels for hypertext navigation buttons. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(4), 407-421. Boyle, T. (1997). Design for Multimedia Learning.. Essex UK:Pearson Education Limited. . Brett, P. (1998). An Intuitive, Theoretical and Empirical Perspective on the Effectiveness Question for Multimedia. In K. Cameron (Ed.) Multimedia CALL: Theory and Practice (pp. 81-93). Exeter, UK: ElmBank Publications. Buckleitner, W. (1999). The State Of Children’s Software Evaluation – Yesterday, Today And In The 21st Century. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 211-220. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://childrenssoftware.com/ evaluation.html Caftori, N. (1994). Educational effectiveness of computer software. THE Journal, 22 (1), 62-65. Cassie, T. (2003). Reading and Navigating of documents: digital versus paper. Class Web pages

185

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

for U Maryland, Computer Science. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://www.cs.umd.edu/ class/spring2003/cmsc838g-0101/StudentPapers/ ReadingStudy.pdf

Liao, Y.-K. (1992). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on cognitive outcomes: A metaanalysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(3), 367-379.

Dubois, M., Vial I. (2000). Multimedia design: the effects of relating multimodal information. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 157-165.

Livingston, L. A., Sandals, L. H. (1992). Monitoring the effect of color on performance in an instructional gaming environment through an analysis of eye movement behaviors. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 233-241.

Eom, W., Reiser, R. A. (2000). The effects of self-regulation and instructional control on performance and motivation in computer-based instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(3), 247-260. Goyne, J. S., McDonough, S. K., Padgett, D. D. (2000). Practical Guidelines for Evaluating Educational Software. The Clearing House 73 (6), 345-348. Gordijin, J., Wim, J. N. (2002). Effects of complex feedback on computer-assisted modular instruction. Computers & Education, 39(2), 183-200. Gyselinck V., Ehrlich, M.-F., Cornoldi, C., de Beni, R., Dubois, V. (2000). Visuspatial working memory in learning from multimedia. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 166-176. Higgins, K. (2000). Evaluating educational software for special education. Intervention in School & Clinic, 36(2), 109-115. Lai, S.-L. (1998). The effects of visual display on analogies using Computer-based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(2), 151-160. Laurentiis, E. C. (1993). How to Recognize Excellent Educational Software. Retrieved July 20, 2004 from http://www.educ.sfu.ca/fp/tlite/pte/ applunits/ed355932.pdf Lawless, K. A., Mills, R., Brown, S. W. (2003). Children’s Hypertext Navigation Strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education Spring, 34(3) 274-284.

186

Luik, P. (2004) Õpitarkvara efektiivsed karakteristikud elektrooniliste õpikute ja drillprogrammide korral [Effective characteristics of educational software in the case of electronic textbooks and drills]. Tartu, Estonia: Tartu Ülikooli kirjastus. McCoy, L. P. (1996). Computer-based mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 438-460. McGrath, D. (1992). Hypertext, CAI, paper, or program control: Do learners benefit from choices? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(4), 513-531. Matthew, K. (1997). A comparison of the influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks and traditional print storybooks on reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(3), 263-275. Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13 (2), 125-139. Mayer, R., Gallini, J. (1990). When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 715-726. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. Mikk, J. (2000). Texbook: Research and Writing. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, Europäiser Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

Merlet, S. (2000). Understanding multimedia dialogues in a foreign language. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 148-156. Najjar L. J. (1996). Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 129-150. Najjar, L. J. (2001). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. In R. W. Swezey & D. H. Andrews (Eds.), Reading in training and simulation: A 30-year perspective (pp. 146-158). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Nicholls, C., Merkel, S. (1996). The effect of computer animation on students’ understanding of microbiology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 359-371. Nielsen, J. (1995). Guidelines for Multimedia on the Web. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http:// useit.com/alertbox/9512.html Phillips, R. (1997). The Developer’s handbook to Interactive Multimedia. A Practical Guide for Educational Applications. London: Kogan Page. Reinking D. (1997, May). Me and my hypertext:) A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy (sic). The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626-643. Riding, R., Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style, gender and learning from multi-media materials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 43-56. Rouet, J.-F. (2000). Guest editorial: hypermedia and learning – cognitive perspectives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 97-101. Sivin-Kachala, J., Bialo, E. (1998). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 19901997. Washington, DC: Software Publisher’s Association.

Szabo, M., Poohkay, B. (1996). An experimental study of animation, mathematics achievement, and attitude toward computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 390-412. Teh, G. P. L., Fraser, B. J. (1995). Gender differences in achievement and attitudes among students using computer-assisted instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22(2), 111-115. Uden, L., Campion, R. (2000, December 11-14). Integrating Modality Theory in Educational Multimedia Design. ASCILITE 2000, learning to choose and choosing to learn, Coff’s Harbour, Australia. Retrieved January 12, 2008 from http:// www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/ lorna_uden.pdf Weller, H. G. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based learning in science. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 461-485. Weiss, R., Knowlton, D. S., Morrison, G. R. (2002). Principles for using animation in computer-based instruction: theoretical heuristics for effective design. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(4), 465-477. Williams, C. J., Brown S. W. (1990). A review of the research issues in the use of computer-related technologies for instruction: An agenda for research. International Journal of Instructional Media, 17(2), 95-108.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Educational Software: Computer software or internet web-page, the primary purpose of which is teaching or learning, including self-learning. Effective Characteristic: Characteristic of learning multimedia, which is significantly correlated with the learning outcome.

187

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

Feedback: Information given to learners on their progress. Learner Control: Learner’s possibilities to choose type of presentation of information, sequence of information and/or pace. Learning Multimedia: Presenting information in more than one medium, such as text, static graphics, animations, video, and sound for the purpose of education.

188

Multimedia Drill: Type of learning multimedia used for practice, which repeats the material to be learned until it is mastered. Multimedia Textbook: Type of learning multimedia, which has electronic text, is presented to the reader visually, has a focus or organizing theme and adopts the metaphor of a book in some significant way.

189

Chapter XII

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy Nancy J. Hadley Angelo State University, USA

AbstrAct This chapter defines empowerment, describes an empowerment rationale for new media literacy, and articulates a schema for empowering curriculum design. Empowerment is all about control, and an empowered person has mastered the arena in which he/she is operating. Using an empowerment rationale as a basis for designing curricula ensures a focus on mastering critical concepts and developing confidence in the student’s ability to create solutions. An empowering curriculum design centers on essential skills, plans small steps, ensures success in mastery experiences, and requires reflection to make connections. The author argues that an increasing level of new media literacy is required for citizens in a global community to contribute to the growing online participatory cultures such as MySpace and YouTube, and there is too much to learn in times of exponential change. These factors are driving the need for educators to focus on empowerment as the underlying principle for curriculum design.

IntroductIon There is no question that new media literacy, commonly known as communication and computer technologies, plays an important role in current educational environments and will play an essential role in the future (Brunner, 1999; Gunter, 2004; Hobbs, 1997; Tally & Brunner,

n.d.; Thoman & Jolls, 2005). Today, information is delivered to the consumer not only in text, but through an array of powerful images and sounds in a media-rich culture. In order to exercise full citizenship, residents in a world community must be able to not only understand and evaluate media messages, but also to converse in multiple media and create their own content to contribute.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

The danger is that those possessing new media skills will emerge as digital elite, leaving behind those lacking digital savvy floundering with technology. In addition, new media literacy is a moving target with an increasing level of literacy required for individuals to contribute to the current, emergent, online participatory culture. Talk of the digital divide is shifting to discussions of participation gaps within digital cultures where students have unequal opportunity to participate in interactive, creative, media-rich environments (Jenkins, 2006; Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robison, 2006; Perkel, 2007). Some of those environments assume the ability to create and post digital content on websites such as MySpace and YouTube. Blogging is being transformed into video blogging, sometimes shortened to vlogging, requiring increasing production skills and equipment. The inequalities in opportunities, resources, and experiences shape a person’s ability to fully participate in various contexts. As Jenkins notes in a white paper produced for the MacArthur Foundation: What a person can accomplish with an outdated machine in a public library with mandatory filtering software and no opportunity for storage or transmission pales in comparison to what a person can accomplish with a home computer with unfettered Internet access, high bandwidth, and continuous connectivity. (Jenkins et al, 2006, p. 13) While equity is a complex issue that includes assets, economics, and access, to name a few, this discussion will focus on the increasing breadth of skills that afford one the ability to fully participate. Because we live in The Age of InfoWhelm where technology changes at an exponential rate (Jukes, 2007a), there is no way to teach all of the new media skills necessary for citizens to function in a future society. A new methodology must be developed to ensure that individuals are not only literate with the new media, mastering critical

190

concepts, but empowered with the confidence in their own ability to problem solve and learn new technologies that will most surely be employed in future times. Those with effective command of media will dominate world communities, and those who can quickly adapt to new technologies will shape the landscape of global societies. Empowerment with new media cannot be underestimated, and educators must find ways to cultivate empowerment. Educators themselves struggle to keep up with technology while futurists, those who speculate to provide analysis of the future, implore them to change the whole educational paradigm to accommodate digital natives (Prensky, 2006). According to the futurists, the traditional curriculum must be trimmed to make way for 21st century subject matter (Jukes, 2007b). In addition, teachers are called on to be flexible with teaching methods and allow students to identify their own educational goals. Furthermore, the futurists suggest that students be allowed to follow their passions in group inquiries, utilizing tools of their choice (Prensky, 2007). Educational reformers call for educators to make the educational experience more relevant to the preferred, connected, media-rich environment using convenient, accessible, pocket tools. Incorporating this kind of flexibility along with utilizing exponentially changing mediums overwhelm educators and make the learning outcomes varied at best. In the midst of educator efforts to infuse technology and reform curriculum to adjust to the nature of digital natives, there is an alarming trend on college campuses of providing remedial courses. Somehow many of the digital natives entering higher education are not exiting high school with mastery of essential skills despite their pervasive use of technology (Asera, 2006). They may be equipped to traverse the Internet and access each other quickly with all of the latest gadgets, but their prowess with communication technology is not ensuring their success in higher education. They seem to be lacking in core essentials. Ac-

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

cording to one recent report, between 30 to 60 percent of students in the United States require some form of remedial education upon entry to college (Conley, 2006). An ACT National Curriculum Survey documents a gap between what high schools are teaching students and what colleges want incoming students to know in their core curriculum (ACT®, 2007). Arguably, the basis for this gap is complicated, and it is not the point of this discussion to delve into the many facets of the alignment problem. The pertinent point here is that mastery of essential skills in a crowded high school curriculum requires a skillful, focused plan even if technology is employed. Job market analysts confirm the call for focused, relevant curriculum. An evaluative report on competencies required for the 21st Century workforce gauges traditional education as “key in understanding the broad career landscape,” but “not able to follow trend shifts” and unable to “provide critical information in a timely way” (Gayeski, Golden, Andrade, & Mason, 2007, p. 10). Because the job marketplace changes dynamically, these authors from Ithaca College, Cornell University, and Johnson and Wales University call for career based competency analysis to ensure key knowledge and skills are included in training curricula along with assessments requiring students to demonstrate capabilities. Although the article focuses on entities that teach careeroriented material, the authors call for educators at all levels to reexamine curricula to target essential skills. With the focus in conventional education on grades that sort students into categories such as, A, B, C, D, and F, both students and teachers generally have expectations that only a few students who do well at learning will receive the top grade. The expectations are that more students will fall into the middle categories, or that they will fail and fall into the lowest categories. The focus is on categorizing the level of performance instead of demonstrating acceptable knowledge and skill on the objective. Tests are designed with nuances to

help with the categorization. Mastery of learning outcomes differs from this focus in the expectation that all students can learn the objective if they are provided with the appropriate learning conditions (Bloom, 1968). As Gagne notes, “Thus, the mastery learning concept abandons the idea that students merely learn more or less well” (Gagne, 1974, p. 261). In mastery learning, students don’t progress to an advanced objective until they have demonstrated proficiency with the current one. It seems that colleges and universities are expecting mastery of essential skills whereas high schools are busy determining grades. Remedial courses are designed to bring students to an acceptable level of skill before they progress to the regular curriculum. What is needed is a reversal of roles with mastery of essential skills determined at the high school level and sorting achieved later. Adept instruction that ensures mastery has never been so important in light of the multi-faceted challenges facing educators from equity, to exponentially changing technology, to a new breed of digital learners in need of basics to progress in their education. Communications and computer technologies can provide solutions in delivering adept instruction, but may create other problems. For example, online learning presents a vehicle for distributing instruction to the multitudes, but because students in e-learning environments are largely dependent on technology as a delivery system, they must be able to traverse the technology before they can begin to learn the specific curriculum through that delivery system. There is an immediate need to ensure these learners have mastered and are empowered in a standard set of digital fundamentals for functioning in a common, digital environment, because there may not be a teacher readily available to problem solve for them. It seems that new media literacy qualifies students to partake in the offerings provided through the new media, and there is no standard for what new media literacy represents. The converse would also be true that those lacking new media skills are disqualified from partaking, widening the gap and perpetuating a digital elite. 191

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

It is evident that a universal new media literacy standard may become a prerequisite to learning in the 21st century, but going back to the problem existing in higher education, it may not be the stand alone answer. Infusing technology alone does not necessarily produce success in higher education. Students must have a working knowledge or mastery of a standard set of core curricula as well. Because there is too much to learn in times of exponential change in all subject areas, educators must focus on essential skills, promote critical thinking, and deliver this core content utilizing 21st century tools in an efficient, engaging manner to a digital generation. This is a tall order in need of a schema. Effectively designing coursework that empowers students as well as ensuring student control over digital information should be of utmost concern to all educators. Many educators and theorists have delineated procedures for designing curricula from a variety of perspectives with steps, questions, and elements defined as decision-making guidelines. Discussions of analyzing both “what” to teach (curriculum) and “how” to teach (pedagogy) are relevant, along with debates on the best methodology for teaching specific subject matter with reference to learner characteristics. Overarching beliefs about what is teachable and what is learnable are also pertinent. An overall rationale for design establishes a starting point for creating empowering curricula in light of the plethora of considerations required for planning. As Posner (1988) notes in his examination of models for curriculum planning, Ralph Tyler’s rationale has been a major influence in establishing the steps to follow in planning curricula. According to Posner, “The Tyler Rationale and, in particular, his four questions regarding the selection of educational purposes, the determination of experiences, the organization of experiences, and the provision for evaluation have dominated

192

thought on curriculum planning for nearly 40 years” (p. 79). In his critical review, Posner also notes that Tyler’s rationale is not predicated on a particular purpose or ideology. Tyler leaves the educational purpose up to the school, but once the goal is established, he provides guidelines for systematically accomplishing the objectives. If the intent is empowerment in an efficient manner, what is the process for methodically hitting this target? The Empowerment Rationale (ER) for curriculum design presented here was developed from “An Empowering Pedagogy Sequence for Teaching Technology” (Hadley, 2002). This pedagogy sequence proved to promote self-actualization and delineated specific steps to develop confidence “for weaning the learner from direct instruction and for encouraging individual experimentation” (p. 21). Although the primary focus was to promote control over technology, the rationale derived from the teaching sequence can be used to create other empowering curricula. Congruent with a number of established theories of learning, the ER presents a backdrop for curricular decision-making. Whereas the Tyler rationale provides direction for developing intended learning outcomes from the teacher’s perspective, the ER emphasizes a constructivist approach (Sprague & Dede, 1999) whereby students construct their own understandings through experience and reflecting on those experiences. Although in the ER non-negotiable skills are targeted by the designer, the methodology is student oriented, focusing on building student ownership in the learning. Empowerment is built through success experiences so it is closely related to the “learning by doing” proposed in situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1990). The remainder of this discussion will define empowerment, describe an empowering curriculum created for new media literacy, and then articulate a rationale for design.

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

eMpoWerMent deFIned The popular Chinese proverb aptly defines empowerment in the following way: “Give a person a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a person to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” This proverb touts the wisdom of giving an individual the power to provide for himself instead of supplying a temporary solution for the individual. Empowerment is defined in the dictionary as promoting self-actualization or realizing one’s potential. According to the cultural critic Henry Giroux (1993), “It [empowerment] is the ability to think and act critically” (p. 11). Giroux proposes a teaching approach that encourages students to challenge domination and practices that dominate. Empowerment is all about control. An empowered person has mastered and is in command of the arena in which he/she is operating. When discussing empowerment as an ongoing process of gaining access and control over resources, Williams-Boyd (2004) defines real control and perceived control with the former as “the actual transfer of power and resources to the individual” and the latter as “the individual’s self-efficacious belief that he has the ability to control important aspects of his life” (p. 207). Closely related to empowerment is self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) describes self-efficacy as a person’s belief about his/her capability to produce effects. According to Bandura (1995), the most effective way to promote a robust sense of self-efficacy is through mastery experiences. Successes contribute to one’s belief in his/her capability. The converse is true that failure undermines self-efficacy. Thus empowerment combines the concepts of power, control, self-efficacy, and success. Educators strive to create empowering methodologies so students will go beyond what is learned in school to confidently participate in solving societal problems. Although empowerment is at the heart of educational environments, it is often not achieved. Many students are stuck

in dependence, lacking the ability to think for themselves in a variety of settings. Measures must be systematically taken in all subject areas to ensure students not only develop their potential but also confidence in their ability to create solutions as well.

eMpoWerMent rAtIonAle For neW MedIA lIterAcy The elements and relationships for an ER are derived from a curriculum that was developed and refined over fifteen years in a basic computer skills class at the university level; therefore it was first applied to new media literacy. The arrangement of the instruction has evolved from a schema for a face-to-face classroom setting utilizing cooperative learning to an individualized, self-paced environment. In either milieu the goal of empowerment remained the same in the rationale. As noted in an article discussing the evolution of the Empowering Pedagogy Sequence, empowerment as an attitude proved to be more important in learning technology than learning specific skills (Hadley, Eisenwine, Hakes, & Hines, 2002). If students are empowered, they have the confidence to problem solve with the technology. Problem solving and confidence are integrally linked, as the authors further discuss: The biggest hurdle in empowering students with an approach to learning technology is the defeatist attitude developed by previous exasperating experiences. To some students, the computer has mystical qualities, making it beyond their capabilities. Research indicates that affective elements, such as attitudes and beliefs about the learner’s ability to solve problems, affect the problem solver’s abilities significantly (Jonassen, 2000; Tennyson & Nielsen, 1998). Because many students have experienced failure and frustration when dealing with technology, the educator must address the fatalistic attitude before learning can begin. (Hadley et al, 2002, p. 7) 193

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

Although not all students have a negative attitude towards technology in general, many students have gaps in their understanding. Without a foundational understanding of the way digital information works, many aspects of technology elude control of the student. Once again, empowerment is all about control, so whether the student has a defeatist attitude, or just cannot control an output, both are in need of empowerment. The empowerment curriculum for new media literacy that has evolved creates a basis for understanding how digital information works and verifies a standard level of proficiency with technology. It is consistent with the definition Rogow (2005) presents for media literacy, “Above all else, media literacy is about teaching students to think critically. It is a skill set encompassing the abilities to analyze, access, and produce media” (p. 285). The curriculum is dubbed a Digital Information Driver’s License (DIDL). Just as a vehicle driver’s license provides proof of a standard set of experiences and competence pertaining to the operation of a motor vehicle, the DIDL incorporates both written tests and timed performance tasks to validate mastery of new media skills. The written tests are multiple choice tests on terminology and critical concepts, while the performance tasks are a random selection of the required skills administered in a timed setting. Students often rely on others to accomplish technology tasks for them, so the performance element is essential. Because the tasks are timed, they ensure that the student is proficient. The DIDL tests proficiency on scanners, digital cameras, and microphones to record sound, as well as basic computer skills. It is a streamlined curriculum focused on a coordinated goal of understanding digital information. After grasping the “Big Picture,” students emerge with the confidence and efficacy to learn new technologies. Research over 12 semesters surveying 630 students taking a required computer literacy course for a degree in a university setting produced encouraging results for the goal designated in the

194

ER. Students were asked to rate their attitude concerning experiences utilizing the computer before and after experiencing instruction designed with the ER. On a scale ranging from Frustrated to Competent, 83% recorded a positive attitude change. Most of the remaining students recording No Change rated themselves already at the Competent level. More importantly, 88% of the students rated themselves higher on their ability to figure out new technology applications on a scale ranging from Questionable to Confident. Once again, most of the remaining students recording No Change rated themselves already at the Confident level. When asked about their ability to utilize technology as a result of the course, 95% recorded a positive change. The anecdotal responses from students consistently confirmed the benefits of utilizing the ER as a basis for designing the curriculum. Nervous students were deliberately followed to determine how they progressed through the materials and the experiences. Although anxious at first, novice students repeatedly gained confidence and provided positive comments on the step-by-step design of the materials and instruction. Even the more skilled students remarked how the materials filled in the gaps in their understanding, propelling them further in their computer use. “I never knew that…” combined with “So that must be why….” became common conclusions reached in class by all. The DIDL starts the sequence of experiences by defining the nature of digital information and then builds in complexity in small steps. Because the goal is success and empowerment for all, students are allowed to retake both the multiple choice tests and performance tasks until ninety percent is achieved on the multiple choice tests and one hundred percent is achieved on the performance tasks. The students are given all of the multiple choice questions and correct answers and allowed to practice the questions in a random fashion. Practice exercises and practice tasks are provided for the performance tasks, and

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

all of the required skills are listed and covered in the training materials. Both the multiple choice tests and the tasks are a random selection of the required materials. There are multiple forms of the performance tasks, each selecting a slightly different group of skills from the list. The tasks are randomly distributed so students must be proficient in all of the skills listed. The tasks are simple, but proficiency is demanded so fluency is achieved. Fluency is an important aspect of the sequence. According to the Anderson Theory of Skill Acquisition (as cited in Zook, 2001), when learning a skill, students progress through three general stages: the cognitive, associative, and autonomous stage. In simple terms, during the cognitive stage students acquire a basic understanding of what they are to do and when to apply the skill. After practice, they progress to the associative stage where they perform the skill with increasing fluency, until they have fine-tuned it. Once they have practiced the skill sufficiently, they reach the autonomous stage, where they make increasingly complex judgments concerning the application of the skill. Because the DIDL requires a high degree of proficiency, students must devote ample time in practice on essential skills to successfully reach the autonomous stage. In this stage, they are able to begin to problem solve. Along with fluency, the student must reach automaticity. Automaticity is a term that is applied to intelligence. In that arena, it is the ability to think and problem solve so well that it requires no effort (Sternberg, 1990). As noted during the development of the empowerment in reference to automaticity: This step is critical, because technology changes so rapidly. Automaticity is required, but with a slightly different connotation. The student must be able to think and problem solve while utilizing technology so well that it provokes little, if any frustration. Automaticity is an important aspect of intelligence, as well as an important aspect of

empowerment. (Hadley, Eisenwine, Hakes, & Hines, 2002, p. 10) An unexpected outcome of proficiency in the empowerment process is the development of the student’s ability to read and follow instructions. Students must retake any performance task until they have demonstrated their ability to generate the products in the manner they are instructed. This process requires them to read the directions carefully and proof their work accordingly. It has become an important outcome of the empowerment process and one that may become increasingly more important in light of the generation of digital natives who do not process text alone easily and who operate at twitch speed (Jukes, 2007). Almost wearing it as a badge, many digital natives readily admit their inability to follow written instructions and gloat in their ability to “figure it out” by rapid fire trial and error without a manual. Trial and error may work with software or in a video game with unlimited feedback opportunities, but in the workplace, the boss is not quite as patient. On the job, there are times when accuracy is expected the first time without supervision, so the ability to read and follow instructions is a valuable lesson for students who lack the drive or the skill to self correct. The DIDL provides a fundamental understanding of digital information; therefore it is foundational to new media literacy. Of course there are multiple aspects of new media literacy that extend beyond the DIDL, but because empowerment is essential, the DIDL becomes the starting point for new media literacy. The DIDL contains eight sections: File Management, Internet, Word Processing, Graphics, Spreadsheets, Presentations, Database, and Desktop Publishing. Specific skills in each section prepare the student to operate particular software programs, and throughout each section, overarching concepts about manipulating electronic information are stressed. Each section contains:

195

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

• • • • • •

A proficiency list of all the required skills for the section An introduction Tutorials for each skill listed in the proficiency list Practice exercises Multiple choice questions with answers Reflections and connections.

Before challenging the multiple choice tests and performance tasks, students are instructed to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Review the proficiency list of skills. Examine the introduction for key terminology and critical concepts. Engage the tutorial for each skill. Complete the practice exercises. Study the multiple choice questions. Ponder the reflections and connections.

Students must master each section before the next can be challenged. Once all of the steps are mastered, both a final multiple choice test and a performance task are administered. The final multiple choice test is a random selection of all of the questions, and the final proficiency task is a random selection of tasks chosen from Word Processing/Graphics (combined into one task), Spreadsheets, Presentations, Database, and Desktop Publishing. All of the final tasks include some File Management skills. Each task is approximately equal in difficulty to the others, and there are no new skills or nuances required on the final task. Students must master both the final multiple choice test and the final proficiency task, encouraging long term retention of knowledge and skills. So far, how empowerment is built for the DIDL has been presented and now a sample of what is contained in the curriculum follows. The specific terminology and skills included in the DIDL curriculum are derived from the standards for computer literacy for all beginning teachers in the Texas Technology Application Standards

196

as found at http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/standtest/standards/techapps_allbegtch.pdf. However, the emphasis in the curriculum is on connecting key concepts to provide a clear understanding of the nature of digital information. Each section in the DIDL contains a discussion of digital information along with production tasks in specific software. At the end of each section, the student is asked to reflect and connect the learning. The following is a brief overview of some critical concepts and skills to illustrate the connections: 1.

2.

The File Management Section describes computer or machine language as consisting of the binary numbers, zero and one. Because the computer only understands this language, input devices must turn information such as text, pictures, movies, and sounds into zeros and ones. This is called digitizing and the result is digital information. Output devices such as the monitor or printer return the zeros and ones back into information we can understand. Students investigate schemes for storing zeros and ones on storage devices and discover the large size of sound and graphic files. Software programs such as word processors or spreadsheets create different types of files and name the files with specific file extensions. It is helpful to know the file extensions created by specific software programs. The skills required for the File Management Section target housekeeping tasks in the Operating System (Windows) such as the organization of files on storage devices into folders and recognition of file extensions and file sizes. The Internet Section further explores digital information, outlining the difference between analog (wave) and digital (numbers) information. This section delves into methods for moving digital information through the airwaves and describes digital

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

3.

4.

5.

broadcasting for television. Students learn about sharing and evaluating information on the Internet along with capturing graphic files from the Internet. Additionally, students understand that attachments in email may contain harmful viruses, and the file extension holds the key to knowing which files may be infected. In the Word Processing Section, the focus switches to program controls. Students explore option settings, noting common features in most programs such as headers, footers, zoom, and toolbars. Students investigate print options and “save as” locations. This section introduces functions by utilizing the date function. Tasks require students to note the position of files in particular folders on storage devices, stimulating a further awareness of the placement of digital information. The Graphics Section continues to discuss file sizes and formats. Students scan both text and graphics, turning both into zeros and ones. Compressing graphic files and comparing the file sizes reemphasizes knowledge gained in the file management section. Students integrate pictures from digital cameras into word processing documents and learn to control placement of graphics. They begin to understand email constraints by inspecting file sizes of their scanned pictures. They learn to manipulate digital information by choosing a different file extension in a “save as” option. The Spreadsheet Section reviews and expands the use of functions, and students learn about the power of automatic calculation to explore options with “What if” questions. In a spreadsheet, students can manipulate digital information with speed and accuracy along with predicting outcomes. They create charts and graphs in addition to manipulating the placement of them, continuing skills developed in the graphics

6.

7.

8.

section. The Spreadsheet Section revisits control over printing options. The Presentations Section introduces fun elements, such as animations, movies, recording sounds, and action buttons. Students learn about what movie file types are compatible in a program. Additionally, they learn to control the timing and sequence of events. This section requires the student to recall methods for controlling placement of graphics. Because the size of a presentation grows with incorporated graphics, students recognize the importance of keeping the file sizes of the graphics down. In this section, digital information becomes a medium for expression. The Database Section expands functions with sorting, merging, and reporting. Students learn how to organize and reorganize their digital information. This section again emphasizes control over printing. Finally, in the Desktop Publishing Section, students learn to combine different kinds of digital information, text, and graphics, into a single product. Emphasis is on manipulating the layout of the material.

There are other critical concepts developed in the curriculum, but the point here is to illustrate threads that run through the curriculum such as file sizes and file extensions. The DIDL is one curriculum that creates a firm foundation for new media literacy. It is the first step and often the step that is overlooked. Basic computer skills are assumed in high tech cultures where there is a preponderance of computer/technology use. Students may have basic computer skills by virtue of consistent use, but there is a difference between use of and empowerment with digital information. Just because a person can drive a car, does not mean he/she can fix it if it breaks. More importantly, just because a proficient race car driver can maneuver with prowess doesn’t mean he/she can design a new type of engine.

197

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

There is a basic grasp of the underlying principles that must be understood before creativity is released. The DIDL is a system for achieving the empowerment goal. In the final analysis, the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. Indeed, students have learned about zeros and ones, file extensions, file placement, file sizes, and graphic placement, but in the process, digital information has become demystified. They have learned about specific program controls, but they have also learned to control programs. Instead of teaching unrelated skills about various software products, students have learned about common types of things can be done in a variety of software such as print controls and graphics placement. Fluency and automaticity are reached and more importantly, confidence is built with each mastery point. Both the mastery methodology and the coordinated DIDL curriculum work together to give the student the skills and confidence to exert control over digital information.

from the curriculum and devising ways to build students’ confidence in their own abilities. The challenge is to find a way to lead unenlightened students through the steps to empowerment quickly and economically, conserving effort and time for all. Digital natives are highly interested in conserving effort and time. They are interested in getting to the point quickly and prefer instant gratification and instant rewards (Jukes, 2007b). In discussing social cognitive theory, McBrien (2005) describes people as forced to become “cognitive misers” (p. 23) relying on shortcuts called heuristics to process large amounts of information on a daily basis. The ER combines a sleek curriculum with success assessments and creates a synergy in which the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. According to the Tyler rationale (Posner, 1988) after the educational purpose is determined, the experiences are delineated, then organized, and finally evaluated. To some degree, these aspects are present in the ER.

eMpoWerMent rAtIonAle For currIculuM desIgn

Four steps For eMployIng An eMpoWerIng rAtIonAle

Regarding the Tyler rationale for curriculum planning, Posner (1988) quotes Tyler’s description of “his Rationale as one ‘conception of the elements and relationships involved in an effective curriculum’” (p. 87). The ER is another notion of factors and dynamics used to create an effective curriculum. Tyler identified four elements with determining the educational purpose first. Of course, empowerment is the purpose for the ER. Empowered users have not only mastered critical concepts, but they also have the confidence in their own ability to problem solve. Common threads developed through the curriculum coupled with confidence building experiences provide the basic structural components of the ER. The difficulty in applying the ER in any subject area is eliminating the non-critical information

The ER includes the following four steps for building empowerment into a curriculum area:

198

1.

2.

3.

4.

Determine the critical mass. Educators must determine the critical mass of indispensable information and necessary skills that are non-negotiable for success. Design small steps. The requisite knowledge and related skills must be broken down into small steps that build in complexity. Ensure success. Students must successfully step through successive experiences, demonstrating mastery at each step. Require reflection. Students must be required to reflect on connections between small steps and successes in each step.

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

Determining the critical mass of indispensable information and necessary skills is the hardest part of creating an empowering curriculum. It takes time to derive a sleek curriculum that strikes a balance between too much information and not enough information. Educators are typically immersed in their subject matter and find it hard to eliminate non-essential terminology and experiences. Often, they have difficulty imagining students not enthusiastically soaking up all there is to know about their area of interest. It is equally hard to trim assignments to the bare essentials, though this is essential to maximize student participation. Often it is necessary to devise abridged materials with accompanying targeted assignments. Designers must keep the empowerment goal in mind to isolate what “turns the lights on” for the slowest students, and identify what gaps the best students seem to have in their understanding. Isolating indispensable experiences truly makes a difference to the empowerment outcome. An equal challenge to trimming the curriculum is breaking down the essential skills into small steps or prerequisite learning experiences. Activity theory examines the hierarchical nature of activities and notes the way operations which compose activities become unconscious with practice (Leont’ev, 1974). It is sometimes hard for the designer to remember what it is like to be a newbie in the field, but success is dependent on the ability to do so. Each experience must be simple in itself, but the experiences as a whole must gradually increase in complexity. By keeping assignments straightforward, each student can master each task and feel successful with each experience. The focus is to empower all students instead of differentiating between students. Students should be graded on their ability perform basic tasks, not their ability to figure out nuances. This simple but fundamental distinction may be the reason educational environments of today are producing students who are confused about what it is they must be able to do well to

succeed in the subject area. There is not enough success on the fundamentals to achieve a confident attitude, much less achieve a level of fluency to problem solve. Success is at the heart of the ER because a defeatist attitude is softened by small successes, and the student becomes open to the development of positive inner speech. Inner speech is defined as the internal dialogue that takes the place of the teacher’s questions and prompts, guiding the learner through similar problems (Vygotsky, 1962). Each success builds confident inner speech as well as ownership of learning, both of which are prerequisites for empowerment. Assignments and projects designed to ensure student success pave the way for attitude changes. In addition, it is important to design hands-on performance tests when possible so that students prove mastery. These tests should be designed to be simple in order to gradually strengthened the “I can” spirit. Repeated successes on assignments, projects and tests, build empowerment. The last element of the ER is reflection on both the connections between small steps and successes in each step as well. Because the subject matter is so familiar to teachers, they often forget to celebrate the milestones in conquering critical concepts. Students need time for and direction in “connecting the dots.” For this aspect, students must be led from an attitude expressing, “I can’t” by a response such as “At least you can do this part.” After convincing them to follow, the teacher can step them through problem solving logic for a portion of the problem. After soliciting agreement for the small portion of the problem, teachers encourage further progress. At each juncture the teacher should not only pause to process the steps taken so far, modeling the reflection process, but commemorate student progress. At the end of the session, students must be required to take time reviewing the steps taken. Generally, they are surprised to find they can, in fact, complete the task successfully. Reflection completes the process and the “I can” attitude is developed.

199

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

The goal of the ER is not only to equip the learner with knowledge and skills, but to build the confidence in the learner, by moving beyond the acquired curriculum, and being able to problem solve in the subject area. An empowering methodology begins with a purposefully sleek curriculum that is presented in small, interconnected steps in which the learner can be incrementally successful, and then culminates in reflection on both accomplishment and connections. Paramount to achieving the goal is the instructional design of both the curriculum and the assessments. The curriculum must be built on essential elements and the assessments must set the learner up to demonstrate mastery of the essential elements. One cannot be expected to create solutions to problems if he/she does not feel accomplished in the area. A positive inner speech is essential to addressing a problem. Even if the tools are present to create a solution, the problem solver must have confidence in his/her ability to pick up and utilize the tools to accomplish the task.

conclusIon With the proliferation of multiple forms of mediarich communications such as the Internet, personal web pages, blogs, vlogs, podcasts, to name a few, there is no question there is a demand for new media literacy. Moreover, full citizenship in a world community will require individuals to go beyond literacy to be producers of media content. One must not only be able to process and evaluate media, but must be able to create and post media to convey intent. Technology changes rapidly and information multiplies exponentially, so it is difficult to create curriculum to educate the populace effectively. Global cultures need empowered citizens who adapt to and skillfully apply emergent technology in addressing societal problems. Education must empower. It must ensure competency, confidence, and proficiency. To do so, it must be cleverly devised. As new media

200

literacy skills evolve, the latest non-negotiable skills can be targeted, but the small steps, success in mastery experiences, and the requirement for reflection do not change. The ER can be applied as a schema for crafting empowering curriculum for new media literacy and could be used as a basis for planning other curricula as well.

reFerences ACT ®. (2007). ACT National Curriculum Survey[R], 2005-2006. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED496669) Asera, R. (2006). Pipeline or pipedream: Another way to think about basic skills. Carnegie Perspectives. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED498968) Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery, instruction and curriculum, regional education laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, topical papers and reprints, number 1. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-5. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED053419) Brunner, C. (1999). The new media literacy handbook : an educator’s guide to bringing new media into the classroom. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday. Conley, D. (2006). What we must do to create a system that prepares students for college success. San Francisco, CA: WestED. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED493061) Gagne, R., Briggs, L, & Wager, W. (1974). Principles of Instructional Design (4th ed.). Fort

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Gayeski, D., Golden, T., Andrade, S., & Mason, H. (2007). Bringing competency anaylsis into the 21st century. Performance Improvement, 46(7), 9-16. Giroux, H. (1993). Border crossings: culture and the politics of education. New York: Routledge. Gunter, G. & Kenny, R. (2004). Video in the classroom: Learning objects or objects of learning. Chicago: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED485139) Hadley, N. (2002). An empowering pedagogy sequence for teaching technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(1), 18-22. Hadley, N., Eisenwine, M., Hakes, J., & Hines, C. (2002). Technology infusion in the curriculum: Thinking outside the box. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 4(1), 5-13. Hobbs, R. (1997). Expanding the concept of literacy. Media Literacy in the Information Age (pp.163-183). New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher. Jenkins, H. (2006). MySpace and the participation gap. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http:// www.henryjenkins.org/2006/06/myspace_and_ the_participation.html Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http://www.projectnml.org/files/working/NMLWhitePaper.pdf Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.

Jukes, I. (2007a). Living on the future’s edge. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http://web.mac. com/iajukes/thecommittedsardine/Handouts. html Jukes, I. (2007b). Understanding digital kids. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://web.mac. com/iajukes/thecommittedsardine/Handouts. html Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leont’ev, A. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4-33. McBrien, J. (2005). Understanding media literacy. In G. Swartz & P. U. Brown (Eds.), Media literacy: transforming curriculum and teaching (pp. 18-34). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Perkel, D. (2007). Creativity and gaps in participation: Stories from the field. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley. edu/node/71 Posner, G. (1988). Models of curriculum planning. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), Curriculum: problems, politics, and possibilities (pp. 77-97). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Prensky, M. (2006). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13. Prensky, M. (2007). Changing paradigms. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www. marcprensky.com/writing/ Rogow, F. (2005). Terrain in transition: reflections on the pedagogy of media literacy education. In G. Swartz & P. U. Brown (Eds.), Media literacy: transforming curriculum and teaching (pp. 282288). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Sprague, D. & Dede, C. (1999). If I teach this way, am I doing my job: Constructivism in the classroom. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(1), 6-9.

201

Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy

Sternberg, R. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Talley, B. & Brunner, C. (n.d.). New Media Literacy. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http:// main.edc.org/mosaic/Mosaic2/media.asp Tennyson, R. D. & Nielsen, M. (November/ December, 1998). Complexity theory: Inclusion of the affective domain in an interactive learning model for instructional design. Educational Technology, 38(6), 7-12. Thoman, E. & Jolls, T. (2005). Literacy for the 21st century: An overview & orientation guide to media literacy education. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from the Center for Media Literacy: http:// www.medialit.org Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Williams-Boyd, P. (2004). Empowerment: a transformative process. In J. Kincheloe & D. Weil (Eds.), Critical thinking and learning (p. 207-211). Westport, Co: Greenwood Press. Zook, K. (2001). Instructional design for classroom teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

202

Key terMs And deFInItIons Digital Information: Machine language; data stored in zeros and ones. Digital Information Driver’s License: A curriculum that verifies a standard level of proficiency with technology and digital information utilizing mastery methodology and testing. Empowerment: The authorization or ability to control, think, or act critically. Empowering Methodology: A systematic approach that enables and promotes the ability to control, think, and act critically. Empowerment Rationale: An underlying principle used as a foundation that focuses on promoting the ability to control, think, and act critically. Mastery: Proficient grasp or command of a subject. Methodology: An approach, technique, or procedure.

203

Chapter XIII

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners Lisa Kervin University of Wollongong, Australia Jessica Mantei University of Wollongong, Australia Jan Herrington Murdoch University, Australia

AbstrAct In this chapter the authors discuss two central themes: the changing nature of literate activity brought about by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), and suggestions for how educators could respond to this guided by principles of authentic learning. The access many young people have to ICT has resulted in new forms of literacy as they manipulate technology, using this new knowledge to assist the process of meaning making. Each new technology brings with it navigational concepts, space to negotiate, new genres and a range of modalities, all of which need to be interpreted. ICTs have the potential to reshape literate practices in classrooms as students create, collect, store and use knowledge as they connect and collaborate with people and resources across the world. What is crucial though, is that the nexus between technology and literacy within classrooms is conceptualised through meaningful, relevant and authentic connections with curricula.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

the chAngIng nAture oF lIterAte ActIvIty brought About by neW lIterAcIes The modern workplace demands effective interpersonal skills for collaboration, critical evaluation and identification of problems with creative approaches to designing socially responsible solutions (Oblinger, 2005; Leu, 2001). Leisure activities, too, have changed; Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) afford swift, cheap and convenient connection with a vast range of people from various cultures and with various interests. Combes argues that successful interaction and participation within this environment depends on being able to ‘navigate in a global knowledge economy’ (2007, p. 17). Essential to this process is engaging with New Literacies and adopting the literate practices afforded by ICT, challenging educators to rethink and reconceptualise their pedagogical practices for providing learning experiences that empower learners through literacy. While there is no unanimously agreed definition for “New Literacies”, they have been described as new social practices which contribute to online reading comprehension, learning and communication and the presentation of new discourses as users work across a range of semiotic contexts (Leu, Zawilinski, Castek, Banerjee, Housand, Liu & O’Neil, 2007). There is an undisputed relationship between New Literacies and ICT as the role of non-verbal modes and multimodal interaction in literacy practices are challenged through the flexible, collaborative and participatory nature of these practices (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Sutherland-Smith, 2002; Labbo, 2006). The literature often describes children and young people in ways that imply competence with ICT, for example, ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001), ‘clickerati kids’ (Hill, 2004) and the ‘Net Generation’ (Oblinger, 2005). This group is reported to access in excess of eight hours of ‘media mes-

204

sages’ each day; much of the time participating in multiple simultaneous activities such as Internet surfing, listening to music and participating in online chat (Roberts, Foehr & Ride-Out, 2005, in Oblinger, 2005, p. 69). Technology is described as integral to their social, economic and educational environment (Combes, 2007), while their education in these New Literacies created by ICT is evidently self-taught (Sefton-Green & Nixon, 2003). The literature advocates that literacy in multiple medias, the ability to multitask, a preference for visual over print-based materials and a collaborative culture are characteristics of the contemporary learner (e.g., Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2005). It would be inappropriate, however, to assume that children and young people already possess the skills and strategies required for successful engagement with new and emerging literacies. Walsh, Asha and Sprainger (2007) observe that learners will not necessarily transfer their skills and knowledge from one setting to another, while Comber and Reid (2006) argue that teaching about literate practices throughout upper primary and secondary school requires the same close attention as is given to early literacy development. If this is the case, then, in an already overcrowded curriculum, educators need to make discerning choices with clear articulation of a rationale and strong connection to theoretical underpinnings. The traditional learning environment of educational institutions is consistently identified in the literature as insufficient in meeting the needs of the modern student (Jonassen, 2003; Oblinger, 2005; Anstey & Bull, 2006; Herrington & Herrington, 2006; Leu, Mallette, Karcher, & Kara-Soteriou, 2005; Harste, 2003). If learners are to develop lifelong learning competencies, they must be freed of restrictive environments where teachers prescribe activities in isolation from other subject areas and the community, allowing little collaboration with peers and experts and culminating in teacher directed summative assessment (Voogt &

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

Pelgrum, 2005). Instead, classroom experiences must allow students to adopt an active role in determining their learning needs and the ways to achieve new learning as ‘literacy events’ (Heath, 1983) and ‘literacy practices’ (Street, 1995) are carefully considered. Literacy practices have undergone rapid changes with the influence of ICT, as connections to the ‘real world’, the rationale for text construction, text genres and the nature of audience and author are altered (Warschauer, 2007). Digital and multimodal texts place a range of demands on the reader (Walsh, 2006) and, as new kinds of texts emerge they are accompanied by learning opportunities that could be introduced into the classroom (Jewitt, 2003). Herrington and Kervin (2007) assert that it is the responsibility of the classroom teacher to ensure their programmed learning experiences provide children time to examine, create and evaluate new ICT genres within carefully framed authentic tasks. Teachers need to work within children’s experiences to provide opportunities for engagement with these new texts that ‘…integrate visual and auditory modalities’ (Hill & Broadhurst, 2002, p. 269). It is timely that we consider the nature of classroom literacy experiences where students negotiate virtual spaces, new genres and multiple modalities in the meaning making process. Computers and other digital technologies are available for use in most classrooms to varying extents, with room to capitalise on ICT potential in most curricula. This is a positive position to be in. However, it appears that there is often considerable gap between rhetoric and reality; the perceptions held by policy makers are often different from the conceptualisation by teachers and schools (Voogt & Pelgrum, 2005). We need to carefully examine how teachers can adapt to the literacy paradigm that recognises and integrates ICT within classroom literacy experiences.

the chAllenge to use technology In AuthentIc WAys For too long, educational technologies have been seen as merely add-ons to classroom practice rather than important tools for learning. Technologies are often seen as merely ‘promising’ rather than critical, and ‘integrated’ rather than fundamental. As long as educational technologies are seen as disconnected elements in need of special efforts to integrate them, their use as powerful cognitive tools will be denied to learners in K-12 classrooms. When computers and other educational technologies are used in schools, too often they are seen as disseminators of knowledge, that is where students learn from the technologies rather than with them (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Lajoie, 1993). Learning with technologies as intellectual partners is hard work according to Jonassen (1993), who stated that: ‘Students cannot use these tools without thinking deeply about the content that they are learning, and second, if they choose to use these tools to help them learn, the tools will facilitate the learning process’ (para 7). Powerful learning opportunities can be created by students using programs such as spreadsheets, presentation software, movie editing software, word processing, and webpage creation software to solve realistic and complex problems. However, all too often, as pointed out by Kim and Reeves (2007), the focus is placed on teachers helping students to learn about the tools themselves, such as learning to use a specific software application, rather than using these tools creatively and dynamically to build knowledge. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the use of cognitive tools in school should resemble the use of such tools in real world activities (cf. Kim & Reeves, 2007). Arguably, there is no field where this is more readily achievable than in literacy learning. Literacy is complex, changing and a sometimes elusive phenomenon. As noted by Cassell (2004):

205

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

‘Literacy, after all, is about participating in a community of meaning-makers’ (p. 102). Technology has advanced the practice of most fields of endeavour, (such as medicine, travel, architecture, information dissemination) and the tools that enable such developments are, in the main, widely recognisable and available. Most K–12 students would have awareness of the uses of technology in the real world, such as computers, mobile phones, digital cameras, portable audio players, video cameras, and they would be at least partially aware of how these technologies are used to construct artefacts. It is insufficient to teach students how to use these tools, even if examples of use are also given. It is essential that the technologies are in the hands of students, and that they use them to address complex problems and issues. One way to achieve this is through authentic learning environments and tasks. Design elements of authentic learning have been developed based on characteristics derived from situated learning that can be used to guide the development of authentic learning environments (cf. Herrington & Oliver, 2000; Herrington & Herrington, 2006; Herrington & Kervin, 2007). Of these critical elements, arguably it is the task that students complete that is the most important. Based on an in-depth literature review of situated and authentic learning, ten design principles for developing and evaluating authentic learning tasks or activities have been proposed (see Herrington, Oliver & Reeves, 2003; Herrington, Reeves, Oliver & Woo, 2004 for full description and references). Authentic tasks: • •

•

•

206

Have real-world relevance Are ill-defined, requiring students to define the tasks and sub-tasks needed to complete the activity Comprise complex activities to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time Provide the opportunity for students to examine the task from different perspectives, using a variety of resources

• • •

• •

•

Provide the opportunity to collaborate Provide the opportunity to reflect Can be integrated and applied across different subject areas and lead beyond domainspecific outcomes Are seamlessly integrated with assessment Create polished products valuable in their own right rather than as preparation for something else Allow competing solutions and diversity of outcome.

Educational technologies are strong enablers of these elements, when placed in the hands of students, and many create powerful platforms for the production of authentic artefacts and products. Such activity confirms the role of technology as an intellectual partner for students rather than the means to convey information, technology that encourages ‘construction rather than consumption’ (Cassell, 2004, p. 75).

leArnIng And teAchIng WIth technology In order to illustrate the use of authentic tasks in a range of contexts for literacy learning, we present four examples where technology may be employed as powerful cognitive tools that can be used by students to solve complex and authentic literacy problems. These have been devised as a series of classroom-based vignettes, each depicting a pedagogical challenge facing a teacher, together with the literacy learning context and the technologies available to the teacher in designing a solution. Each vignette was written to provide an opportunity for teachers to think about ways technology could support literacy learning in a range of learning environments. Rather than showcasing a particular teacher or event, the vignettes depict teachers working in regularly occurring teaching contexts and with the types

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

of technologies commonly available in schools, and in the process allow us to present examples that draw upon our own research findings. The activities within the vignettes are designed for teachers to consider within the frame of their own classroom context. In planning classroom tasks in different contexts, it is important to consider how the knowledge or skill would be used in a real-world context by professionals, and tailor the learning experience to enable students to function cognitively at that level. For each vignette, we examine: • • •

What can such experiences look like in the classroom? What makes each experience authentic? What New Literacies emerge from each experience?

vignette 1: Making Meaning from Multimodal texts A teacher considers the critical reading skills students need to be able to make meaning from multimodal texts, specifically Web pages. Working with an upper primary grade, the teacher is keenly aware of the need for students to be able to locate information, but more importantly discriminate between sources as they interpret meaning from text, images and audio materials. Such skills are critical both within and outside the classroom context. In response to this, the teacher proposes a task requiring groups of students to research, design and create a website on ‘the state of the art’ or ‘trends and issues’ on a subject of their choice. The teacher plans learning experiences that will extend over several weeks, where students will engage in processes of research, analysis and synthesis. The students have access to a bank of laptops, with each one being able to connect to the Internet. Further, there is a number of digital still and video cameras within the school. The teacher envisions opportunities for the students to conduct a themed search using a search

engine, select a range of multimodal texts to critically engage with and use these understandings to facilitate the creation of a new multimodal text. In the creation of their text, students are encouraged to incorporate their own text, images (still and video footage) and voices. The teacher believes this type of activity provides an opportunity for students to engage with and make meaning from a range of multimodal web-based texts.

Connections to Principles of Authentic Learning The task has strong connections to authentic learning, as it requires students to not only be consumers of knowledge, but to also be producers of knowledge through their analysis and synthesis of their research findings that culminate in the creation of a website. It is this genuine product that not only provides the context of their learning, but also illustrates their learning, and it does so in a way that matches real-world tasks rather than decontextualised or classroom-based tasks. The task is complex and open to multiple methods and interpretations rather than being easily solved by the application of existing algorithms or procedures. It requires an extended period of time to complete the task, thereby providing significant opportunities for collaboration and reflection, and intellectual effort. The use of a variety of resources and texts, rather than a limited number of pre-selected references, enables students to detect relevant from irrelevant information, and to examine the issue from a variety of perspectives.

Discussion of New Literacies Web pages from the Internet present examples of ‘multimodal’ texts that many educators incorporate within learning experiences. Awareness of how and when to use these texts in the classroom, coupled with an awareness of the literacy skills needed for meaning to be made, result in

207

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

powerful use of multimodal resources. However, incorporating these texts with little guidance, focus and support often results in students feeling overwhelmed as they make hasty and random decisions with little comprehension or discernment. Using these texts within the context of a carefully framed task encourages skills of critical reading as the literacy user takes time to consider the text and make decisions about it in relation to the expectations of the learning experience. These texts encapsulate unique semiotic systems. Multimodal texts generated through technology have the potential to challenge genre, increase the range of topics and information sources and encourage interaction between the physical and virtual environments. To read a webpage the reader needs to move beyond the traditional combination of print and two-dimensional graphics. They need to be able to listen, interpret images, download a range of items and move between navigational windows as they engage in critical examination of the text. For meaning to be made, the reader needs to be able to identify important detail, manipulate a range of tools, interpret visual and audio messages and make sense of the range of information available. These are complex literacy processes. This example highlights the need to consider how and when to incorporate multimodal texts within classroom experiences, but also emphasises the need to support the literacy practices of students as they interact with the range of texts afforded by computer technologies.

vignette 2: technology to capture and Reflect upon Oral Language A teacher brainstorms ideas, strategies and techniques to engage students in oral language. Teaching in multi-cultural school, the teacher is keenly aware of the need for clear language goals and careful scaffolding to respond to the literacy needs of the students within this community. The teacher and students have access to 12 video

208

iPods, 12 splitters (to enable multiple users), 24 sets of headphones and 8 microphones (that can be attached to the iPod). Further, the teacher can access a bank of 20 laptops and 2 digital cameras housed within the school. The teacher envisions experiences that incorporate technology with authentic experiences and uses the technology resources to expose students to purposeful ‘talk’ and oral text structures, as well as social concepts. One experience, lasting five weeks, will involve the students collecting a series of photographs of their school and creating an accompanying oral recording (a podcast) to share with their parents at the upcoming parent/teacher evening. The teacher feels this type of activity provides opportunity for students to discuss their unique experiences within the school for a clear audience and purpose. The teacher believes the experience will lead to significant literacy learning as principles of context, purpose and use of oral language are examined and reflected upon.

Connections to Principles of Authentic Learning The task of creating a podcast for parents has multiple connections to authentic learning, as it illustrates a genuine product that has many equivalents in the real world (such as audio tour guides, annotated walks and gallery guides) as well as the more personal sharing of students’ every day environment with their families. The task is open-ended and ‘ill-defined’ in the sense that students must make many decisions and articulate their ideas as they choose the photographs they will shoot, and prepare the oral commentary on the significance of each location in the school. A range of contributing activities culminates in the creation of a whole product, valuable in its own right, rather than an exercise or sub-step in preparation for something else. Such activities are inherently reflective, and require collaboration to achieve the end product.

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

Discussion of New Literacies It is argued that the most powerful literacy activities are those that are embedded within the practices of everyday life (Warschauer, 2007). Identifying a literacy learning experience with close connections to the school community and the experiences of the students provides a meaningful and engaging task. The students have a clear audience for their text, which works to shape their literate response as they use language, assisted by the technology, to respond to the task. Heath’s (1983) concept of a ‘literacy event’ is evident within the learning experience. The students construct text as they consider their interpretations, extensions and meanings attached to a familiar situation. The process of capturing key moments and personal experiences through both oral recording and digital images provides avenue for the students to document a sequence of events. The identification and selection of these, coupled with the personal nature of the audience, promotes ownership of the experience. Street’s (1995) concept of ‘literacy practices’ is also evident. This example has potential for the students to build upon the ‘literacy event’ as they explicate the social and cultural conceptualisations that underpin the experience. The merge of image and oral text provides greater depth than either text alone would hold. Further, the process of editing the captured sound and image files requires the students to carefully consider their audience and intended meanings as they make selections about appropriate text to include. Technology has the potential to bring together the ‘literacy event’ and ‘literacy practice’ into a whole cohesive work product. The depth within the experience comes from the focus on a significant topic with many layers of interaction as text is created. Further, the flexibility of the genre allows for increased engagement with the texts as the students make connections between and among them for the clear purpose of communicating to a defined and known audience.

vignette 3: Authorship and nonlinear text Arrangement An upper primary teacher aims to support students as developing authors in the class by asking them to respond to a sophisticated and multi layered picture book. Over a number of weeks the students plan and create non linear texts to demonstrate evidence of critical thinking to their teacher and peers. Clarifying the purpose of the planned text and identifying the intended audience provides the teacher and students with opportunities to explore appropriate structure and language choices in different settings. The teacher plans to spend time modelling, demonstrating and deconstructing a range of linear and non linear texts with the students. The teacher believes the time spent in deconstruction supports the developing author in understanding the purpose of different texts, the structure of non linear texts and the range of possibilities available to authors. Alongside planning paper, reference materials and art supplies, a range of digital technologies is available to support the learning: a bank of 10 computers with presentation software, 2 digital cameras and a scanner. The students will take a simple approach with the technology, using action buttons, hyperlinks and sound recording applications within the presentation software to construct non linear text, allowing the learning focus to remain on the construction of the message. The teacher believes that providing opportunities for students to make informed authoring choices empowers them as both creators and consumers of text.

Connections to Principles of Authentic Learning The students in this classroom have the opportunity to engage in an authentic task by creating a non-linear text for other students in the class. This requires extended thinking about the problem of constructing a response to the picture book as they

209

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

plan, review and created their texts to demonstrate critical engagement with the text. By allowing students to make choices about the nature of the text they create (and therefore their audience), the teacher empowers the students to reflect on the task, and to take on a range of perspectives rather than follow a single perspective that learners must imitate to be successful. The teacher is able to guide text structure, layout and conventions throughout class time, providing modelling of the ways that authors work and scaffolding for the students’ learning. Opportunities for independent writing following these explicit teaching times then allow the students to reflect on their own texts in light of their new understandings. Finally, the benefits of sharing the newly created texts with the intended audience are twofold: first, it enables the teacher to make informed decisions when assessing learning gains achieved, that is, the task and the assessment are integrated; and second, the richness and diversity of the texts enrich the collective knowledge of the group.

Discussion of New Literacies Non-linear text design is complex. Creating a text where readers navigate their own paths through the provided text requires a sophisticated skill base as critical thinking becomes paramount. Students need to understand the various pathways that can be created, include appropriate navigational features to guide their readers, combine print and visual information, and ultimately pass meaning-making control to the reader. Issues of font size and colour, images and graphics, audio and video clips and slide sequencing are all critical in conveying meaning, explaining procedures and supporting the interactive engagement with the text. This example highlights the importance of planning for interactivity from the early stages of text construction. Using a complex, twodimensional text as a springboard, the experience provides the students with opportunity to

210

construct a text that responds to key concepts within the original text, while at the same time providing them with occasion to guide their reader through a complex pathway where multiple options and modalities are available. The nonlinear design affords the students opportunity to reconceptualise the notions of genre organisation and design as written text, images and voice are embedded within the work product for the reader to engage with. The opportunity to revisit and revise these initial plans supports the creation and construction of the non-linear text. In this experience, students have the opportunity to share their own critical interpretation of the text. Storyboarding the content and layout of the non-linear text helps to identify the different navigational pathways through the text, opportunities for the inclusion of multiple modalities and the ‘best’ way to construct the message. The focus of the experience is not on learning the technology. Rather, technology is the mechanism for the students to communicate their understandings through complex non-linear text design. Non-linear texts such as websites are complex and can be challenging to navigate. Using presentation software to mimic the way that such texts work through the use of action buttons, hyperlinks and sound recording applications is a simpler way for students to learn about and interact with this genre. The focus for the learning can remain on the creation of a message rather than on mastering the functions of more sophisticated website software.

vignette 4: critical Analysis of Media texts A teacher of Year 10 English is concerned that while students are able to critically analyse persuasive techniques effectively in written texts, their skills in this area are diminished when reviewing visual texts, particularly television advertisements. Aware that the student cohort is

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

the target group for much television advertising, the teacher plans a unit of work that will extend over several weeks, where students will analyse televised advertisements and create their own parodies of advertisements. The teacher and students have access to five digital video cameras with external microphones, together with a bank of computers including basic video editing software and DVD production software. The teacher envisages that students will collect and categorise advertisements in video form, and then in groups, analyse the persuasive techniques used. Then students will create their own advertisements to explicitly parody a range of persuasive techniques. They will script and record the advertisements using the digital video cameras, import footage into the video editing software, and export to DVD production software to produce a joint class DVD. Parodies can be uploaded to YouTube for sharing beyond the school.

Connections to Principles of Authentic Learning This task has connections to authentic practice by requiring students, not only to investigate persuasive techniques, but also to create an authentic product that can illustrate their understanding and be shared with others. Learners must identify their own unique tasks and sub-tasks in order to create the parody, using a variety of technology tools in each stage. The task is completed over days and weeks, requiring significant investment of time and intellectual resources, and it is completed both in school and out of school. Such separation of the skill from the physical location of the classroom means that students reflect critically on television advertising in the most typical setting in their own lives, that is, while watching television at home. Collaboration is necessary because of the complexity of the end product, and this affords students the opportunity to reflect socially as well as individually on their learning as the parody is created. Assessment

of the activities is seamlessly integrated with the major task, rather than as separate artificial assessment, such as a multiple-choice test. The learning environment culminates in the creation of a polished and professional whole product that is appropriate to the interests and preferred media of the target students.

Discussion of New Literacies The difference between what literacy practices are valued in school contexts and what students engage with out of school has been the focus of many researchers (e.g., Comber, 2002 & Nixon, 2001). This experience bridges the contexts as explicit connection to television advertisements, a popular out-of-school text, and uses these as stimulus for critical analysis and reflection in the classroom context. Examining the persuasive techniques within the advertisements pays specific attention to visual elements (Anstey & Bull, 2006) as the semiotic systems within the genre are examined through explicit and focussed learning episodes. Such understandings of visual semiotics are critical in making meaning from and with the grammatical and contextual features of these texts. Understanding of the genre of television advertising leads to skills of discernment as students’ make decisions about powerful techniques and the ways they are being positioned by the creators of the text. Providing opportunity to deconstruct and recreate televisions advertisements provides opportunity for students to interact with language that describes the ‘grammar’ of the structural elements of the text. Further, examining the relationships between the types of text within the genre, provide scope to explore the functions or meaning making roles of these. This results in a metalanguage where meaning making in social contexts is fundamental to students’ knowledge as they create, collect, organise and share their generated text.

211

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

closIng reFlectIons Each example of classroom practice describes technology in pedagogically responsive ways to support literacy learners. While we have identified age groups within each example, the possibilities for literacy learning with technology across the K-12 learning and teaching continuum are enormous. The enthusiasm many young people display towards technology (e.g. Combes, 2007; Oblinger, 2005; Hill, 2004) can be used as a way to motivate and engage students across the grades as they participate in learning experiences. The experiences we report show how clear identification of the scope of a task, while still providing room for individual response, can provide powerful literacy experiences. When teachers support tasks with careful planning, preparation, and resource allocation with ongoing monitoring and reflection, a supportive learning environment that fosters meaningful activities transpires. This enables teachers to teach about literate practices in a collaborative culture where ongoing, purposeful learning is valued (Comber & Reid, 2006; Leu et al, 2005). Further, students need to understand the task and its requirements to enable them to develop appropriate responses. Opportunities to collaborate and connect with others support the contemporary learner (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2005). What is imperative though, is that access to, and use of, the technology for teachers and students are shared throughout learning experiences. Each example actively engages students in manipulating the technology for the intended purpose of the task. The focus is not on learning the technology, rather using the technology to support their response to complex tasks (Kim & Reeves, 2007). In each example, the technology is used in ways that support the task, with clear connection to the rationale, authenticity and awareness of literacy demands encapsulated within the experience.

212

The students within our examples were engaged in opportunities to ‘consume’ and ‘produce’ knowledge within an authentic framework. We argue that such opportunities empower students as they strive to respond to a task with real world connections. Further, the tasks promote extended thinking as they are investigated over sustained periods of time (Herrington, et al., 2003). The construction and presentation of a ‘final product’ builds accountability for learning into the experience, as the students are acutely aware of the learning goals and final assessment. The discussion of New Literacies within the experiences reveals the complexity of literate practices in the construction and deconstruction of technology-based texts. An increased understanding of what constitutes text poses significant considerations for digital genre, semiotic systems, modality and use of space. The emergence of new genres, and the acceptance of these within learning experiences, is a consistent theme within the experiences we share. Awareness of the learning opportunities (Jewitt, 2003) and literacy demands (Walsh, Asha & Sprainger, 2007) they present is critical to learning experiences. We believe technology has the potential to support classroom experiences, and subsequent literacy practices, if it is used in ways that are theoretically sound. In this chapter, we suggest that developing learning experiences in connection with the principles of authentic learning is one way to do this. Further, we argue it is imperative that this is done with awareness of the literate activity afforded by the technology. For this to happen, it is necessary for teachers to carefully plan for and facilitate learning tasks that promote the nexus between literacy, technology use and learning. Engaging students in opportunities to create, collect, store and use knowledge as they connect and collaborate with people and resources across the world results in powerful learning.

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

reFerences Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Kensington Gardens: International Reading Association and Australian Literacy Educators’ Association. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Cassell, J. (2004). Towards a model of technology and literacy development: Story listening systems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 75-105. Coiro, J. & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2006). What is an authentic learning environment? In A. Herrington & J. Herrington (Eds.), Authentic learning environments in higher education (pp. 1-13). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48. Herrington, J., Oliver, R. & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in webbased courses. Journal of Computing and Higher Education, 16(1), 3-29 Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: 10 suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236. Hill, S. (2004). Hot diggity! Findings from the Children of the new millennium project. Paper presented at Early Childhood Organisation Conference EDC.

Comber, B., & Reid, J. (2006). Literacy education: What’s new and what needs to be new? In B. Doecke, M. Howie & W. Sawyer (Eds.), Only connect: English teaching, schooling and community (pp. 335-348). South Australia: Wakefield Press.

Hill, S. & Broadhurst, D. (2002). Technoliteracy and the early years. In L. Makin & C. Jones Diaz (Eds.), Literacies in Early Childhood: Changing Views Challenging Practices (pp. 269–88). Sydney: McLennan & Petty.

Combes, B. (2007). Techno-savvy or just technooriented? ACCESS, 17(2), 17-20.

Jewitt, C. (2003). Multimodality, literacy and computer-mediated learning. Assessment in Education, 10(1), 83-102.

Harste, J. (2003). What do we mean by literacy now? Voices from the Middle, 10(3), 8-12. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research in Technology in Education, 35(3), 362-379. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. ITForum. Retrieved

213

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

5 March 2008 from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/ itforum/paper1/paper1.html. Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan. Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35, 207-256. Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leu, D. (2001). Internet project: Preparing students for new literacies in a global village. The Reading Teacher, 54(6), 568-572. Leu, D., Mallette, M., Karcher, R., & Kara-Soteriou, J. (2005). Contextualising new literacies if information and communication technologies in theory, research and practice. In R. A. Karchmer, D. J. Leu, M. M. Mallette & J. Kara-Soteriou (Eds.), Innovative approaches to literacy education: Using the Internet to support new literacies (pp. 1-12). Newark: International Reading Association. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y. & O’Neil. M. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In A. Berger, L. Rush & J. Eakle (Ed.), Secondary school reading and writing: What research reveals for classroom practices. Chicago, IL: National Council of Teachers of English/National Conference of Research on Language and Literacy.

214

Oblinger, D. G. (2005). Learners, learning and technology. EDUCAUSE review, September/ October, 66-75. Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps towards understanding the net generation. EDUCAUSE, 2.1-2.20 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 61-64. Sefton-Green, J., & Nixon, H. (2003). The challenge of popular culture, digital technologies and curriculum change. In B. Doecke, D. Homer & H. Nixon (Eds.), English teachers at work: narratives, counter narratives and arguments (pp. 242-254). Kent Town, Australia: Wakefield press/Australian association for the teaching of English. Street, B. (1995). Social Literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. London: Longman. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the Literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 662 – 669. Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology, 1(2), 157-175. Walsh, M. (2006). The ‘textual sift’: Examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 24-37. Walsh, M., Asha, J., & Sprainger, N. (2007). Reading digital texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(1), 40-53. Warschauer, M. (2007). Technology and writing. In C. Davison & J. Cummins (Eds.), The International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 907-912). Norwell, MA: Springer.

Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners

Key terMs And deFInItIons Authentic Tasks: Complex and collaborative activities that mirror real-world, professional tasks and are investigated by students over a sustained period of time. Learning Experiences: The activities planned by teachers and enacted by students in classroom environments. These are carefully designed to meet a specific rationale, learning objective or outcome. Literate Practices: The knowledge, skills and strategies needed to respond to print, paper, digital, visual and oral communications. Multimodal Text: Text that blends print with visual, audio, spoken and nonverbal information.

Non Linear Text: Traditionally the pathway in a text is from left to right and top to bottom with information organised sequentially. In many digital texts, multiple pathways for interaction become possible through hyperlinking, making it a non linear text. These allow a reader to access information as needed and a writer to create opportunities for a reader to make these choices. Oral Language: The skills of speaking and listening and being able to interpret this. Pedagogical Practices: The strategies that teachers use to teach students. Strategies are selected according to the beliefs of the teacher, the needs of the learner and the demands of the task. Visual Texts: Text that is mediated through film, video, advertising, gaming and the Internet. The ability to interpret and make meaning from colour, line, format, light, texture and shape is important.

215

216

Chapter XIV

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry: From Instructional Design to a “Bridge Model” Zvia Fund Bar-Ilan University, Israel

AbstrAct The study examines cognitive support for science learning in a computerized environment. The research was carried out with junior high school students, who used a problem-solving computerized environment in science. For this purpose, four support components were identified - structural, reflection, subjectmatter, and enrichment components. These components were used to construct four computerized cognitive support models based on human teaching. The effects of these support models on achievement, on cognitive and meta-cognitive skills, and on reflective behavior are compared to one another and to a control group. The results led to the construction of a theoretical-functional “Bridge Model”. The model elucidates the functions of the structural, reflective and subject-matter components upon the cognitive system, and offers an explanation of the research findings. The study and its main results are presented, as well as a theoretical description of the Bridge Model.

IntroductIon Instructional design is the technology of creating learning experiences and learning environments, which in turn, promote instructional activities such as directing students to appropriate learning activ-

ities, guiding students to appropriate knowledge, or helping students to process information (Merril, 2006). The recent widespread use of open-ended computerized environments such as simulation, discovery learning and problem-solving learning environments has raised several theoretical and

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

educational issues that should be answered to fully exploit their potential (Azevedo, 2005; Mayer, 2004). Due to their open character--which places a great emphasis on learners’ activities and the high cognitive and meta-cognitive demands they pose upon the learners--such environments do not elicit productive learning by and of themselves (De Corte, 2000). Guidance is crucial. Consequently, pedagogical approaches have to be incorporated into the learning and teaching environments (Webb, 2005), appropriately embedded with sufficient support and scaffolding (instructional support) (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998). Quintana et al. (2004) argue that “advances in the field [of scaffolding] require an empirically grounded consensus about successful scaffolding methods” (p. 339). At the same time, there is a need for further research concerning which “pedagogical approaches are effective in supporting learners” (ibid., p.376) as also are tailored to the demands of the learning task. Similarly, De Corte (2000) calls for further elaboration and testing of principles for the design of powerful computer-supported learning environments as a challenging joint task for researchers and practitioners. Sweller et al. (2007) encourage a deeper consideration and explication of the required amount and type of instructional “guidance” through the careful design of systemic instructional experiments. Careful attention and research investigation is needed to implement effective open-ended computerized activities as well as to find appropriate and effective scaffolding approaches (Azevedo, 2005; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). In the current study, we engaged these challenges. Our design was followed by large-scale school implementation and empirically grounded examination of the learning outcomes. Some design approaches are presented as follows.

desIgn ApproAches A number of scaffolding studies have adopted a strategies-oriented support approach (Hmelo-

Silver et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2004). Some of these, support learners in accomplishing specific tasks--such as generating hypotheses--in simulation-based discovery learning (Njoo & de Jong, 1993), or developing causal or evidence-based explanations (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007); others focus on the impact of specific support strategies (de Jong, 2006; de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998). Quintana et al. (2004) organize their scaffolding design framework around three constituent processes of inquiry: sense making (the basic operations of testing hypotheses and interpreting data); process management (the strategic decisions involved in controlling the inquiry process); and articulation and reflection (the process of constructing, evaluating, and articulating what has been learned). De Jong (2006) reviews scaffolding of inquiry learning, organized around each of the learning processes involved – orientation, hypothesis generation, experimentation, drawing conclusions and making evaluations. Although in the study we used a teacher oriented approach for scaffolding (see the following), we included some detailed categorization of computerized science problem-solving skills (Fund, 2003; Method, the COSPROS Scheme, experiment B, and Table 2). The current on-going research project approaches the challenge of the scaffolding’s design from a teacher oriented perspective. It is based on the three “idealized teacher models” described by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1991). The scaffolding programs of the current research are constructed on these platforms. The models were implemented appropriately by the following support programs – Operative, Integrated and Strategic (see Method section). We used four support components previously found effective in computerized learning environments – structure, reflection, subject-matter, and enrichment – in different configurations. The programs were implemented by appropriate worksheets (for each student, for each problem). These were found to be suitable for scaffolding students in both overall structure and in specific reasoning steps (Njoo & De Jong 1993; Vreman-de 217

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Olde & De Jong, 2004), and enabled regulation of the problems to be solved at each lesson. It is assumed that problem-solving, simulations and inquiry learning environments increase the

students’ disciplinary knowledge, and equip them with appropriate inquiry strategies and cognitive and meta-cognitive skills. Thus, Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) state that in problem-based-learning,

Figure 1. An exemplary problem from Inquire and Solve B

A First episode and the "problem"

magnifying glass on the current meter

Collecting information using magnifying glass, first episode

One of the coils is made of copper, the other is made of iron. What is coil no.2 (the blue coil) made of?

The coil is made of a thin wrapped metal wire. The wires of the two coils have the same length and width.

The current meter indicates 0 ampere

C

Collecting information using magnifying glass, second episode; coil 1 is connected to the circuit

E List of metals, including copper and iron, and their electric conductivity scales

218

“Magnifying glass” tool

D Collecting information using magnifying glass, second episode

The current meter indicates 0.3 ampere

The switch is on (breaker is closed)

Collecting missing information using “Data pages” tool

Electric conductivity

F Collecting information using magnifying glass, fourth episode; coil 2 is connected to the circuit

The current meter indicates 0.2 ampere

33

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

by solving problems and reflecting on their experience, students learn content, strategy and self-directed learning skills. Hence, in the current study the content knowledge acquired (in terms of achievement outcomes) as well as the working patterns, cognitive and meta-cognitive skills, and reflective behavior employed while solving computerized problems are expected to depend on the scaffolding programs (Fund, 2002, 2003, 2007a). Furthermore, since scaffolds should be delicately attuned to the level of the students (de Jong, 2006; Shute & Glaser, 1990; Zhang et al., 2004), we examined the scaffolding effects as a function of the students’ academic level. Design and implementation were followed by extensive efforts to find the most effective program in all these aspects. This enabled us to construct and offer a theoretical-functional model that would elucidate the functions of the support components, and demonstrate the way these components interact in knowledge building when using computerized science problem-solving. We attempt to reach the following goals: (a) a brief presentation of four scaffolding programs based on human teaching, (b) an overview of the outcomes for different academic levels, from three orientations - achievement, cognitive and meta-cognitive, and (c) the presentation of a theoretical-functional “Bridge Model” resulting from the research findings.

research population (seventh grade). All problems enable application to familiar subject matter. Each problem presents a question represented by textual and graphical components as exemplified in Figure 1a-f. In each problem, the student is required to “perform” the simulated experiment, identify and “collect” missing data--using computerized tools (e.g. see Figure 1e )--and then apply appropriate reasoning processes to deduce the answer. In the problem portrayed, the student should use the “magnifying glass” (Figures 1a-1d, 1f) to identify the components of the electrical circuit and measure the current in each coil (second and fourth episodes, Figures 1d, 1f). Using the “data pages” tool, the student should find the conductivity scale of copper and iron (Figure 1e). Finally, matching the best/poorest conductor coil (as measured in the simulation) and the best/poorest conductor metal (conductivity scales) would lead to the appropriate answer.

support components Four support components, described later, were found to be effective in computerized learning environments and served for constructing the scaffolding programs described next (prompts are referenced to Appendix A): 1.

Method A computerized learning environment The computerized environment called Inquire and Solve (Educational Technology Center, Israel) is a micro-world that combines a problem-solving environment with a simulation of laboratory experiments. It consists of 60 qualitative science problems, 42 of which are mapped to the science curriculum and textbook of the present

2.

A structural component - providing a general framework that guides the student with the cognitive skills (see De Corte, 2000; de Jong, 2006; Guzdial, 1994; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Merril, 2006; and the “experimental support” of Zhang et al., 2004) necessary to effect cognitive and work patterns (prompts a, c [without specific instruction], f, g). A reflection component - providing a general framework to stimulate and activate metacognitive skills such as monitoring and control, self-assessment and self-regulation (Merril, 2006; Quintana, Zhang & Krajcik, 2005; Zhang et al., 2004). Such skills are

219

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

3.

4.

necessary for acquiring conceptually rich domains (such as science) in computerized environments (Azevedo, 2005). In the current research, the reflection component is provided to prompt appropriate prediction and assessment of possible solutions, as well as for explaining subject difficulties and mistakes (prompts d, e, and h, respectively). A subject-matter component – clarifying ideas and concepts relevant to each problem, and addressing general domain-specific guidance (prompt b). It also provides short guiding questions (specific instructions prompt c) for the solving process (similar to the “interpretative support” of Zhang et al., 2004), and is expected to affect knowledge acquisition and improve understanding (see De Corte, 2000; de Jong, 2006; Swaak et al., 1998). This component was provided in two modes: a hierarchical mode (textual explanation and specific instructions, prompts b+c), and a linear mode (specific instructions only – prompt c), implementing the Teacher B and A models, respectively (see Table 1). An enrichment component – introduced in accordance with the “infusion approach” of Swartz and Parks (1992), including three to seven specific assignment questions (different for each problem) that relate the current problem to other relevant subjects or conditions hence is assumed to improve understanding.

The structure and reflection components, when provided, were the same for all problems, while the other two components were, by definition, problem specific.

the scaffolding programs The support components described earlier were used as building blocks to construct four scaffolding programs, based on styles of human teaching (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991), as outlined in Table 1. To implement the scaffolding programs, specific worksheets were prepared for each problem, based on the human teaching models of Scardamalia & Bereiter (1991, pp. 39-41). The “knowledge based” Teacher B model was implemented by an Integrated (INTEG) full support approach (see Appendix A) which used all four components. The Integrated support included hierarchical subjectmatter component - general guidance (to activate prior knowledge and appropriate cognitive goals), and specific instructions to serve as “stimulating and leading questions to direct inquiry”. In addition, the structural component serves to provide main steps towards the solution of the problem while the reflection component reminds the student to “monitor comprehension” and reflect upon the solving process. The Teacher C model was implemented by a Strategic (STRAT) support program (see Appendix B). This program included structural and reflection components (without specific instructions). Therefore, it requires the

Table 1. Components of four support programs according to teacher models Teacher C Model

Teacher B Model

Teacher A Model

“Turns control to students”

“Knowledge-based”

“Task model”

“Strategic”

“Integrated”

“Operative”

Structure

Structure

Structure

Reflection

Reflection

Enrichment questions

220

Subject-matter (hierarchical)

Subject-matter (linear)

Enrichment questions

Enrichment questions

“Enrichment”

Enrichment questions

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

students to regulate their learning while they are involved in searching the simulated experiment and solving the problem, thus enables “a higher level of agency in the knowledge-building processes.” Such treatment, according to Scardamalia & Bereiter, makes the “difference [between Teacher B and C] in the control structure of activities in the zone of proximal development1” Scardamalia & Bereiter perceive Teacher B as the prevailing model of good teaching, and warn that the Teacher C model could easily lead to overly romantic ideas. Successful learning, according to them and others (e.g. Sweller et al., 2007), seems to depend on more rather than less intense involvement of the teacher. The “task model”-- Teacher A -- places the emphasis on doing the assigned work, assuming that such activities result in learning (even without reflection). In our model it was implemented by Operative (OPER) support (see Appendix C), including the structural component, with specific instructions (the linear subject-matter component) to direct the inquiry. All three of these structural programs were enriched by assignment questions (the enrichment component). A low support program -- Enrichment support (ENR) as well as a control condition (CONTROL) -- were added for methodological purposes. The control condition gave no cognitive support at all. Instead, the students were directed to keep full notes and solve all problems for each specific subject, thus spending an equivalent amount of time on the program. The various treatments were conducted during regular class sessions, approximately for a six-month period.

participants All participants were seventh grade students, studying from the same science textbook. The classes were randomly divided into five groups (four experimental “scaffolding programs” and one control) and worked in the computerized environment once every 2 weeks. A “mathemat-

ics and reading comprehension” questionnaire was used to divide the participants into three ability levels. Four experiments are described in the current paper, with resultant scores generated from two sampling procedures. The experiments were designed to examine the effects of the three orientations referred to earlier – achievement (Experiment A), cognitive and meta-cognitive skills (Experiment B) and reflective behavior (Experiments C and D). Scores from experiments A and D were based on the “large sample” (473 students from 16 classes in three Israeli high schools), while the others were based on scores from the “small sample” (187 students from 11 classes in two Israeli high schools). Academic level, as measured by the Mathematics and Reading Comprehension (MRC) test, showed no significant differences to exist between any of the sample conditions in mathematics : F(4,441)=1.20, P>.05, and F(4,181)=.33, P>.05 (for large and small samples, respectively) or reading comprehension: F(4,441)=1.12, P>.05 and F(4,181)=1.98, P>.05 (for large and small samples, respectively).

An overvIeW oF the Four eXperIMents experiment A – Achievement orientation Participants: N=473 Instruments: Three open-ended subject-matter questionnaires, tapping surface knowledge and deep understanding, were distributed after 2 and 4 months and at the end of the research period. Schemes for analysis were derived by formulation and external evaluation of criteria, and by construction of appropriate scoring keys (for details see Fund, 2007a). Main results: Based on a 5 X 3 (treatment X academic level) MANOVA and subsequent

221

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

ANOVA analysis, significant differences among the three academic levels were found (as expected), as also among the five treatment groups on the two achievement measures at all three post-learning intervals, with significant interaction effects at the first interval. Based on theoretical considerations and anticipated differences, the achievement measures were subjected to contrast analyses to find the source of differences among groups. The order of results for surface knowledge at each of the time intervals was identical, with some difference in grouping, as follows: • • •

INTEG, STRAT, OPER > ENR, CONTROL after 2 months, INTEG, STRAT > OPER > ENR, CONTROL after 4 months, and INTEG, STRAT, OPER > ENR, CONTROL after 6 months;

For the more ‘stringent’ measure (deep understanding), the order of the results was identical, with some differences in grouping, as follows: • • •

INTEG, STRAT, OPER > ENR, CONTROL after 2 months, INTEG > STRAT > OPER > ENR, CONTROL after 4 months, and INTEG, STRAT > OPER > ENR > CONTROL after 6 months

Main conclusions: The main findings with regard to grouping, therefore, may be summarized as follows: A1: Students in INTEG and STRAT did better than those in OPER, who in turn outperformed ENR and CONTROL. Although INTEG and STRAT differed with regard to the subject-matter component--which by definition, should have affected achievement--they attained quite similar achievement outcomes. Similarly, OPER, which also included the subject-matter component,

222

had lower achievement. Thus, while the subject-matter component provided a limited contribution to achievement, the combination of structure and reflection components had a uniquely strong effect. A2: Examination of differential achievement outcomes as a function of time reveals that the structure component seems to have an early and dominant influence, while the influence of the other two components is still latent. A3: An incremental effect for the subject-matter component is evident at the second interval (INTEG vs. STRAT), while the incremental effect of the reflection component manifests itself at both the second and third intervals (INTEG and STRAT vs. OPER).

experiment b – cognitive and Meta-cognitive skills orientation Participants: N=187. Instruments: Participants were interviewed and observed while solving (at least) three science problems within the computerized environment. The observed problem-solving activities, including spontaneous remarks, questions, and explanations by the student, were carefully transcribed to derive problem-solving protocols. A two-level scoring system – large-scale and detailed–scheme – was constructed to analyze and evaluate the protocols, as follows: The ‘computerized science problem solving’ scheme: The construction of the ‘computerized science problem solving’ (COSPROS) scheme (see Fund, 2000, 2003 for more details) was based on three major steps involved in effective science problem solving: initial problem analysis (or problem description/representation); tentative construction of a solution; and self-monitoring of the solution allowing for appropriate revision--as necessary (Reif, 1995). The scheme, presented in Table 2, consists of eleven main skills (categories).

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Table 2. COSPROS Scheme for Analysis of Computerized Problem Solving Skills Stages

Main Categories of Cognitive/Meta-cognitive Skills

Initial problem analysis

Initial analysis: 1. Finding the goals of the problem 2. Collecting data for problem description Translation into scientific language: 3. Global: identifying the subject 4. Specific: mapping the subject to natural language

Construction of a solution

5. Collecting missing data 6. Using the collected data in the problem (reasoning is required) 7. Reaching a solution

Checking the solution

8. Self-assessing the problem-solving process * 9. Assessing the final answer * 10. Explaining the method of solution 11. For incorrect solution: finding the error and its causes *

* Meta-cognitive categories

Eight of these involve cognitive skills while three incorporate meta-cognitive skills during the selfmonitoring of the solution. For the detailed-level scheme, the main skills were subdivided into specific sub-categories or codes after a content validity process. Additionally, judges assigned an effectiveness score on a 5-point scale (0-4) to each sub-category. Each action or verbal statement (‘unit of analysis’) in the student protocols was ascribed and coded to a corresponding sub-category. Two external judges analyzed and coded the protocols independently to evaluate in a precise and quantified manner, the effectiveness of the main skills--or the whole solving process--of each student or each treatment group, allowing for further statistical analyses (Fund, 2002, 2003).

Effective Performance of Computerized Science Problem Solving - An Exemplary Analysis The COSPROS scheme described earlier, served to derive several measures of effectiveness. Maximal and Minimal effectiveness scores (the score of the most effective and least effective sub-category, respectively, performed at least once over the three observed problems) were

derived for each category, for each student. The effectiveness scores of all the 187 participants were subjected to a 5x3 MANOVA analysis (treatments x academic levels). The results for the “whole solution” indicated significant differences across these measures between treatments groups and between academic levels. Subsequent 5x3 ANOVA analyses of the Maximal effectiveness scores showed highly significant differences between the groups for all categories, as shown in Table 3. Significant differences between academic levels were found for some categories (5th, 7th, 10th, and 11th categories), and an interaction effect of treatment and academic level was found for one meta-cognitive category (9th category). As can be seen in Table 3, highly significant differences were found between the treatment groups for all the categories. Based on the F values, the most significant differences between groups were found in the translation categories (third + fourth) and the sixth category (“using the collected data in the problem”). Additional salient differences were found in the seventh (“concluding the solution”), eighth (“self-assessing the solving process”) and ninth (“assessing the final answer”) categories. The effectiveness measures were subjected to contrast analyses and Scheffe’s post hoc analyses. Main conclusions are summarized next.

223

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Table 3. Mean Scores and ANOVA analysis of Maximal effectiveness score for each category by experimental group Support program

Control group

F(4,172)

n=33

n=37

n=35

n=48

n=34

83.78

73.57

59.90

66.18

12.47 ***

75.00

74.32

69.11

61.08

57.04

3.85**

th

3 +4

80.30

47.30

32.86

9.90

11.76

25.34 ***

5th

96.97

100.00

84.29

73.96

71.32

6.73 **

th

77.27

53.38

17.86

6.25

13.23

32.24 ***

th

7

88.64

87.16

61.43

47.92

52.21

22.70 ***

8th (m)

71.97

68.24

24.29

14.58

19.85

18.57 ***

6

th

9

71.21

77.70

36.43

32.29

47.79

20.48 ***

10th

(m)

83.33

85.13

67.86

53.65

47.06

11.76 ***

th

53.57

82.00

38.23

26.67

23.61

9.56 ***

11 (m)

m = meta-cognitive skill

P<.001 ***

p<.01 **

The third and fourth categories were joined since both concern translation of the problem into scientific language, and only few students used the fourth category. The results for the eleventh category refer only to those students who made a mistake at least in one problem (21, 25, 17, 30 and 18 students from INTEG, STRAT, OPER, ENR and CONTROL, respectively), with F(4,96)=9.56, p<.001.

Main conclusions: The aforedescribed analysis and analyses of additional measures (for details see Fund 2000, 2003, 2007b) implies two general conclusions -- referred to as B1 and B2--one implied from the interaction of treatment and ability level, and the second from the dependence of cognitive and meta-cognitive skill acquisition on the three support components, as summarized later. Although our conclusions are based on cross verification by different analyses, still, replication studies are needed to affirm the validity of the theoretical formulation. B1: Dependence of effectiveness scores on treatment and ability level: some cognitive skills (1st, 2nd, 3rd + 4th, 6th, 8th categories) seem to depend on treatment alone, and not on ability level; other skills (5th, 7th, 10th, 11th categories) depend on both treatment and ability level. One meta-cognitive skill (9th category) shows an interaction of treatment and ability level. We interpret this to mean

224

Enrichment support

90.91

rd

2.

Operative support

1st 2

1.

Strategic support

Categories •

nd

• see Table 2

Integrated support

that the students’ performance on certain skills results from the acquired strategies provided by the scaffolding, no matter what his/her ability level. Other skills, however, depend on the “cognitive architecture” (e.g. Anderson et al., 2004) --the learner’s cognitive resources and his/her disposition to incorporate these resources during the problem-solving process. B2: The acquisition of cognitive and metacognitive skills depends on the three support components in different ways, mostly as a function of the complexity of the skill itself. This conclusion is based on ANOVA analysis (see Table 3) and on significant contrasts for the maximal effectiveness scores of each category (not described in this paper), as follows: i.

The fifth category (“collecting missing data”) is performed satisfactorily even without scaffolding, but is performed very effectively with structural support.

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii

The second (“collecting data”) category, and the quality of explanations in the tenth (“explaining the solution”) depend mostly on structural support. The first (“finding the problem’s goals”) and seventh (“concluding the solution”) categories are performed quite well with structural support, but improve significantly when reflection is added (INTEG and STRAT). The translation categories (third + fourth) and sixth category (“using the collected data in the problem”) depend on the three support components in different ways: The translation skill is (a) improved with structural support, (b) additionally improved when reflection is added, and (c) dramatically improved when the subject-matter component is added. The transplanting (sixth) category, in turn, is quite a complicated cognitive process, and usually requires an implicit thinking process. To bring about such explicit, conscious performance of this skill, at least structure and reflection are needed. Additional subject-matter support brings about the highest effective performance. Students’ performance of the meta-cognitive skills (8th, 9th and 11th) depends mostly on reflection. Structural support is not enough. Yet, students of the strategic program (STRAT) outperform even the integrated program (INTEG) in the 9th and 11th categories. This implies that the subject-matter component actually decreases effectiveness of these skills. Thus, STRAT brings all three ability level students to similar and highest effectiveness scores in all meta-cognitive categories. Careful examination of the frequencies of the detailed sub-categories of each main category leads to:

1.

2.

Differentiation between “simple” skills performed with or without scaffolding. Skills such as “collecting given/missing data” (the second and fifth categories, respectively) require “technical” manipulation of the computerized tools (“the environment’s resources”), hence are performed quite satisfactorily with no support. Nonetheless, in other research, we (Fund, 2002) have found significantly richer external representation (self-explanations, remarks or recorded data measured both quantitatively and qualitatively) and a significantly more hierarchical search mode in reflection, than in other groups, while “collecting given/ missing data”. The search modes in these reflection groups were mostly linear and hierarchical, whereas those of the other groups were mostly linear and random, as also: Differentiation between simple and more complicated skills, such as “translating the problem into scientific language” (third + fourth categories) and “using the collected data” (sixth category), which are actually performed only if support is given. Hence, cognitive support in the computerized environment seems to resemble “mind-tools”, and results in what Salomon, Perkins and Globerson (1991) have labeled an intellectual partnership between the tool and the learner.

The dependence of the cognitive and metacognitive skills on the support components as well as the distinction between and partnership among the learner’s and environment’s resources, propel us towards the construction of what we have called, the “Bridge Model,” (see Section 5). The construct is additionally supported by additional results and conclusions from Experiments C and D.

225

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

experiment c – direct Measurement of Reflective Behavior Orientation Participants: N=187 Instruments: Coded solution protocols, described in experiment B, were analyzed for ‘reflection in science problem-solving’ according to the conceptual framework (REFSPROS) described later. This analysis served to measure effects of the different scaffolding programs on reflective behavior (reflection). Ref lection in Science Problem-Solving (REFSPROS)—The Concept: This construct is based on literature in meta-cognition, reflection, self-regulation, and science problem solving. The scheme is two-dimensional, following the categorization of teacher reflection by Louden (1992) and our evaluative tool for student-teacher written reflections (Fund et al., 2002). The first dimension deals with the “context of reflection” (i.e., the stage of problem solving at which reflection occurs) and comprises three items: introspection, methodical inquiry, and spontaneous mindfulness. The second dimension refers to “the goal of reflection”, and similarly consists of three components: solving a specific problem, gaining a better understanding of the domain, and critically approaching the problem solving strategies. The validation process included external judgment, and was carried out in five distinct stages. The definition of selfregulated learners within computerized science problem solving, as cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in the learning process (e.g. Azevedo, 2005; Pintrich, 2000;

Zimmerman 2000) directs us to define specific reflective behaviors for each of the nine ‘cells’ in the resultant framework. This framework (Table 4) allows for the definition of six types of reflection, three of which were evaluated in the current experiment (and two more in experiment D). Two types are formulated by summing the “context” values for each of two goals, while a third - by summing the “goal” values of “methodical inquiry”, yielding: a. b. c.

“connecting reflection” (Connecting) (summing cells 2, 5, and 8), “strategy-related reflection” (Strategy) (summing cells 3, 6, and 9). “reflection upon methodical inquiry” (Inquiry) (summing cells 4, 5, 6).

Main results: High reliability coefficients were found (Cronbach α of .72, .83, .82 for Connecting, Strategy, and Inquiry measures, respectively) and high correlation values for the three reflection measures. The measures were subjected to a 5x3 (treatments x academic levels) MANOVA analysis, which showed significant differences across the measures between the treatments groups, between the academic levels, as well as an interaction effect of treatment and ability level. Subsequent 5x3 ANOVA analyses of the three measures showed these differences to be highly significant for each of the reflection measures. Contrast analyses indicate that the reflection groups (INTEG and STRAT) significantly outperform the other groups.

Table 4. The two-dimensional framework of reflection in science problem solving (REFSPROS) Goals

Solving a specific problem

Gaining a better understanding of the domain

Analyzing critically the problem-solving strategies

Introspection

(1)

(2)

(3)

Methodical inquiry

(4)

(5)

(6)

Spontaneous mindfulness

(7)

(8)

(9)

Context

226

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

_ _ _ _ _ 1, 3 > 2 > 4, 5 √ √

1, 2 > 3 > 4, 5 _ √

Low Debugging

√ Low Strategy

Interaction Academic levels Treatment groups Reflection measures

√

1, 2 > 3, 4 > 5 √ √ √ Higher

Treatment groups

Academic levels

Interaction

Contrast analyses Second interval questionnaire

Contrast analyses First interval questionnaire

Values

Instruments: Two specifically designed paperand-pencil questionnaires, distributed after two and four months of exposure to the treatments, were used for indirect measurement of the effects of the scaffolding programs on reflective behavior. The “Strategy related” (Strategy) measure used both questionnaires, while the “reflection upon error identification” (Debugging) summed the values of cells 1 and 4 as coded from the first questionnaire. Main results: At the first time interval, the two reflection measures were subjected to a 5x3 MANOVA analysis (treatments x academic levels) which showed significant differences across the measures between treatments groups, between academic levels, as well as an interaction effect of treatment and ability level. The subsequent 5x3 ANOVA analyses for these two measures, as well as for the “strategy related” (Strategy) measure in the second interval are summarized in Table 5. It should be mentioned that the Debugging measure of the operative group was found to be significantly higher than that of the strategic

Values

Participants: N=473

ANOVA 5x3: Significant differences between:

experiment d – Indirect Measurement of Reflective behavior orientation

Table 5. A summary of the ANOVA 5X3 analyses and Contrast analyses of “strategy-related reflection” (Strategy) and “reflection upon error identification” (Debugging) measures for the first and second intervals questionnaires

ANOVA 5x3: Significant differences between:

Main conclusions: Reflective behavior depends, as expected, mostly on reflection support. Structural support is not enough. The same differentiation pattern found in experiment B for the three meta-cognitive skills appeared for the reflective behavior in experiment C. This supplies additional construct validity for the two schemes, while implying the complexity of reflective support effects on meta-cognitive performance. Furthermore, even by the end of the study, when the reflective processes had become internalized, an interaction effect of treatment and ability level still exists. As will be seen, the “Bridge Model” has been found useful in explaining these findings.

Note: Numbers indicate the treatment groups as follows: 1- Integrated; 2 – Strategic; 3 – Operative; 4 – Enrichment; 5 – Control

227

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

group. This is the only measurement in the study in which the operative group outperformed a reflection group. We suggest that this is so because Debugging reflects the lowest level of reflection, and is measured after only a two month exposure to the treatments. At this interval, we suggest, the reflection effect is still weak as compared to the subject-matter effect. The Strategy measure across two time intervals was subjected to additional ANCOVA 5x3 analyses, to examine changes along time for each of the treatment groups. Results showed highly significant differences between the groups, with significant increase for the reflection groups (INTEG and STRAT), no significant change for the OPER and ENR groups, and a significant decrease for the CONTROL group. Additional significant differences were found between academic levels as well as an interaction effect of treatment and academic level, not here described. Main conclusions: The increase in reflective behavior of the reflection groups (but not of the OPER group) emphasizes the unique combination of reflection and structural scaffolding on the one hand, and the incremental effect of the reflection component (but not the structural effect) on the other. Furthermore, after only a short exposure to the treatment (first interval), the reflection’s effect is still weak; hence it is not yet sufficiently evident (low values) and is “local” (explaining the variant “differentiation patterns” of Strategy and Debugging, and the superiority of the operative group in Debugging). Reflective behavior continues to improve (see experiment D and C, during the second and third intervals), until it becomes sufficiently internalized (high values) to direct “global” behavior (leading to similar differentiation patterns and high correlations among the three reflective measures – Strategy, Connecting and Inquiry). The “Bridge Model” presented next would supply further explanations for these findings.

228

the brIdge Model We now present our Bridge Model—based on the learning model of Pirolli & Recker (1994), in the domain of LISP programming—as an attempt to place the research findings into an improved theoretical-functional framework. The model might contribute to the ongoing attempts to understand learning—especially in a computerized science environment. It should be noted, however, that such a complicated formulation of a “new” theory involves some speculation, as additional research is necessary to further elaborate, develop and revise this model. Based on the cognitive and meta-cognitive skills orientation (Experiment B), work within a computerized environment was described as an interaction between two resources: the knowledge and thinking of the learner (the “learner’s resources”) and the resources and tools available in the computerized environment (the “environment’s resources”). We suggest that cognitive support results in an intellectual partnership between these resources (Salomon et al., 1991). This partnership notion is extended further, leading to the claim that cognitive support bridges, negotiates and communicates among these resources, enabling a more effective interaction and better operation of both, as presented in Figure 2. Cognitive support, somehow, activates the learner’s resources, thus turns computerized problem-solving into more mindful, conscious, thoughtful, responsible and motivated—and consequently more efficient—problem-solving. The quality of the interaction depends on the cognitive support given, and sometimes on the “composition” of the cognitive learner’s resources as well. Experiment B actually confirms this claim, as seen from the dependence of some skill effectiveness on the support programs, alone, while other skills depend on the “cognitive architecture” of the learner as well (see B1, main conclusion). Our “Bridge Model” helps us uncover and understand the bridging processes

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Figure 2. A general description of the bridge model

THE LEARNER’S RESOURCES

THE COGNITIVE SUPPORT

induced by the cognitive support, with respect to all of these findings. It suggests the processes involved in how cognitive support bridges the learner and the environmental resources. It also elucidates the functions of the support components and the ways that these components interact in skill acquisition and knowledge construction through computerized science problem-solving. Furthermore, the model allows predicting what happens in the absence of one of the components. Finally, it offers a way of explaining the research findings. Still, of course, additional studies are needed to test specifically the various cumulative steps suggested by the theory, and to affirm the validity of the theoretical model. The bridge analogy allows us to describe the “engineering architecture” based on three conclusions drawn from our achievement results. These structural components are further confirmed by findings on the cognitive and meta-cognitive skills and reflection aspects: 1.

2.

3.

The structural support component has a consistent and powerful influence, from the beginning of exposure to it. It is a sine qua non for success. Reflective support has an important effect on all three aspects – achievement, skills and reflection. It works cumulatively over time, probably as the reflective processes become internalized. Even though subject matter support improves achievement, as also some cognitive and meta-cognitive skills and reflective measures, it is mainly a condition for excel-

THE ENVIRONMENT’S RESOURCES

lence. Reasonable success can be achieved, however, without it--providing the cognitive support includes structural and reflective components. Thus, we may describe the “bridge” as composed of a “structural” skeleton (the aforementioned first conclusion). This skeleton is supported by a scaffolding of “reflection” (the second conclusion), and covered by the “concrete” of “subject-matter” (the third conclusion). A theoretical examination of these support components and how they work, is presented next.

three support components — the theory Structural Support The structural support component serves as a platform to organize information flow between the environment and the learner’s resources. This is achieved through the creation of work patterns, such as writing down the question or its main keywords, producing external representations while collecting given or missing data, and writing the full answer as well as explaining how it was obtained (all sub-components of the structural component, see Appendices A, B and C). Such effective work patterns are required to improve knowledge construction, understanding and the cognitive skills of all three structural groups (see conclusions A2, B2, i, ii, and iii). Without such information flow, neither knowledge construction, nor specific or general problem-solving skills

229

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

(such as effective data collection) would have developed. Such information flow seems likely to result from the structural sub-components, as suggested in the following: Transcribing the question to be answered: Since correct initial analysis of a problem can make the problem much easier to solve, activities such as writing down or copying the question might aid comprehension and initiate its data processing (Cox & Brna, 1995). Citations from our student interviews confirm the assumption that even the simple activity of transcribing the relevant question can promote initial processing, and the information flow between resources. Examples of such citations are “Copying the question helps me understand what the goals are and what should be found in the question”, or “Sometimes, when I copy the question, I begin to think about the question, that it might be this or that”. Producing external representations while collecting given or missing data (“Important data”): This sub-component endows students with efficient learning strategies, causing them to produce external representations (ERs), thus enabling better information flow between resources by easing the cognitive burden. This eased burden facilitates problem solving as well as helps students comprehend all the relevant data needed to solve the problem. Without operative guiding questions, this sub-component poses certain difficulties such as a need to decide which data should be recorded, as also a need to distinguish between important and irrelevant data. Consequently, students from the STRAT group, who get no operative guiding questions, are more successful, as they devote more effort to solving the problems. Merril (2006) makes a similar claim in his list of principles. The interviews revealed that with time, these students developed personal strategies that helped them decide what needed to be recorded (for details see Fund, 2002). This improved their work pattern as well as information flow between the learning environment and student’s previous knowledge.

230

Explaining how the answer was obtained: This sub-component is an essential part of the structural component. According to explanation-based learning theory and studies on self-explanation effects, “explaining the solution” creates links between previous and newly acquired knowledge (Chi, et al., 1994; Bielaczyc et al., 1995; Pirolli & Recker, 1994). Transcribing the explanation supports construction of a coherent model of the domain. This, in turn facilitates the acquisition of cognitive skills. Furthermore, during the writing process an internal dialogue takes place, improving knowledge construction and understanding (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991). Some students said that it assisted them in gaining a deeper understanding of the problem (e.g., “When you write down the explanation it makes every thing clear to you”; “If I can explain, it means I understand it.”). Both of these sub-components, thus, serve to organize the information flow between the two resources. Yet, when comparing the structural groups to the non-structural groups, the structural component was found to be necessary but insufficient for most measures. The reflection component was needed as well. This component is elaborated upon next.

Reflection Support The effectiveness of bridging the two resources and the information flow between them is a function of communication. It is the role of the reflection component to improve this communication by improving “coupling” the two types of resources. Since reflection couples and adjusts the learner’s and environment’s resources, its quality depends on both: work patterns with regard to the information flow (which depend on the support program), and the learner’s personal resources (measured in this study by ability level). This complex functioning of reflection explains, in our opinion, the interaction effect which we found in

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

all reflection measures (see main results of experiments C and D) and in one meta-cognitive skill (9th category, see experiment B, main conclusion B1), between type of support and student ability level. The interaction persisted even at the end of the study, by which time reflection had become fully internalized. Structural support serves as a platform for information flow between the resources, including new knowledge acquired due to the structural and reflection supports, which in turn, is coupled by the reflection component. Such cyclic and interconnected interactions supply insight into the unique contribution of the combination of the structure and reflection supports. While structural support is necessary, it is not sufficient, as found in all the four experiments described. The theory behind this unique combination is discussed later (see section “Declarative and procedural knowledge constructed through computerized problem solving”). For better understanding of the coupling processes, we should refer first to the learner’s resources. These consist of procedural and declarative knowledge2 (Anderson et al, 1995). Such procedural knowledge includes general and specific aspects-- referred to as general aptitude

and to skills for specific problems. Declarative knowledge consists of the learner’s previous knowledge and the newly acquired, preferably integrated, knowledge. The process of resource coupling takes place in two directions, as portrayed and described in Figure 3: 1. Through learning generated from the problem solving process, i.e., improvement of the learner’s resources, by assimilating and connecting new knowledge--derived from the process of solution--into the previous declarative and procedural knowledge (see the follwing for further elaboration). Such coupling concurs with Pirolli & Recker’s (1994, p. 271) claim that “reflection on one’s problem solution is an additional way to improve a declarative understanding of the domain and… improve subsequent skill acquisition”, elaborated upon mainly by “good problem solvers”. Connecting Reflection (a in Figure 3; see experiment C), serves this function in the current study. Other researchers termed it “cross-problem reflection” (ibid., p. 270) or “reflection integration” (Merril, 2006, p. 278) and suggested it increases the level of effort hence promotes learning and problemsolving efficiency.

Figure 3. The "coupling" processes of the reflection component, and the interactions with declarative and procedural knowledge THE ENVIRONMENT’S RESOURCES

THE LEARNER’S RESOURCES

Old Declarative Knowledge

New declarative knowledge

(a) Connecting

(d) Inquiry

Science Problem-Solving in a Computerized Learning Environment

(c) Strategy Specific procedural knowledge

General procedural knowledge

(b) Debugging

231

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Reflection Upon Error Identification in the current study (Debugging; b in Figure 3), functions to derive procedural knowledge in specific subject-matter areas. This was found to depend mostly on structural and subject-matter components (see experiment D, Table 5, first interval). Similarly, other researchers identify “detecting failures in comprehension or problem solving” as a characteristic of good problem solvers (Chi et al., 1994; Pirolli & Recker, 1994). Strategy-Related Reflection (Strategy, measured in experiments C and D; c in Figure 3) in the current study, functions to improve general procedural knowledge and skill acquisition (see Ohlsson, 1993), by formulating general strategies for problem solving. 2. Another direction taken by resource coupling is that of information extraction from the learner’s resources, for problem solving improvement (i.e. for better problem solving in the computerized environment). Such reflection was termed in the study “reflection upon methodical inquiry” (Inquiry) (experiment C; d in Figure 3). These theoretical considerations suggest that explaining the answer (sub-component of structure) and the connecting reflection are both involved in connecting new and previous knowledge. We will attempt to explain the significance of these findings, theoretically, (in section “Declarative and Procedural Knowledge Constructed Through Computerized Problem Solving”) further.

Subject-Matter Support The two elements that make up the subject-matter component – general guidance and operative specific instruction, are reflected in two types of knowledge - declarative and procedural knowledge, respectively. We suggest an explanation for the interrelationship of these types as follows: General Guidance General guidance (see Appendix A, prompt b) constitutes part of the declarative knowledge, and serves as most accessible already known declara232

tive knowledge since it is supplied just before solving a specific problem. Although such guidance is perceived as “information-only” instruction, and is unlikely to promote performance or lead to adequate schema representations (Merril, 2006), it focuses attention on the main principles of the problem and eases its solution (Pirolli & Recker, 1994). This guidance is then interpreted, elaborated upon and utilized for the current and other new problems, as also at problem solving impasses (Pirolli & Recker, 1994). General guidance also serves as an anchor for newly acquired knowledge. This then helps connect the new knowledge to previous knowledge. The quality of knowledge depends on the quality of such integration and connecting (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). In this way we might suggest that general guidance improves the quality of knowledge. Operative Specific Instruction Operative specific instruction (the “small” questions in Appendix A, prompt c) assists in problem solving by making it easier to form “production rules” (ACT-R3, Anderson et al., 1995, Anderson et al., 2004) by means of translation of declarative knowledge into procedural. Each production rule is essentially a condition-action rule that generates specified action if specified conditions are satisfied. An example of a production rule in our research context follows: IF, I am asked an operative question, such as – ‘What is coil 1 made of?’ or, ‘What is coil 2 made of?’ and, subsequently, I am asked to find missing data concerning a specific property (e.g. conductivity scale), THEN, the materials’ names are important for further data collection regarding specific properties. Thus, in such problems, I have to check the materials’ names and specific properties relevant to the problem. The “Adaptive Character of Thought - Rational” cognitive architecture (ACT-R, Anderson et

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

al., 1995; Anderson et al., 2004) is simultaneously a rigorous theory of human cognition and a working framework in which to build computational models of human behavior. The ACT-R is a hybrid architecture based on chunks of declarative knowledge and condition-action production rules that operate on these chunks. Declarative chunks (small logical units) can encode any fact, information or current goal. Procedural knowledge is made up of production rules representing procedural skills that manipulate declarative knowledge as well as the environment. When the rule “fires,” rule actions can add to or alter declarative knowledge as well as procedural. ACT-R states that cognitive skill acquisition involves the formulation of many production rules, and depends on converting goal-independent declarative knowledge into production rules. The theory assumes that production rules can only be learned by employing declarative knowledge in the context of a problem-solving activity. Required declarative knowledge, in our context, is readily translated into operative specific instructions; hence, the student can use this pre-formed translation to formulate production rules. Such facilitation helps the student apply production rules to error identification in new problems (Anderson et al., 1995; Ohlsson, 1993; Pirolli & Recker, 1994). “Reflection upon error identification” (Debugging) in our research was, accordingly, significantly higher for the OPER and INTEG groups (the two subject-matter groups, see experiment D, first interval) than for the other groups, mainly among medium and high ability level students, who more readily and easily benefit from specific instructions to produce production rules. This explains their superiority at the first interval. This benefit, however, diminishes with time, as the reflection effect increases--causing superiority among the reflection groups--and thus disappears at the later time intervals. Production rules as well as declarative and procedural knowledge, from the moment of their creation, acquire strength with practice. Thus,

every additional utility of the already prepared instruction causes its “compilation” into a production rule, with incremental strength. This might explain the incremental effect of the subject-matter component, which was found to work cumulatively over time (e.g. conclusion A3, experiment A). The low values of Debugging for all groups in the first interval may also be explained as due to the short time of practice in the computerized environment, when production rules have not yet been sufficiently strengthened. The high values of all the reflection measures at the end of the study are thus explained, by the incremental strength of the reflection effect. Still, specific instructions were found to develop some dependency on the support; its absence in the strategic support induces more effort and demanding problem-solving process, increasing learning efficiency as well as challenge and motivation (Fund, 2002; Merril, 2006; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). The Hierarchical Subject-Matter Components Our findings (the superiority of INTEG over STRAT) suggest that hierarchical subject-matter effects only a limited contribution. In achievement orientation, it improves only the more ‘stringent’—deep understanding measure— but not the ‘lenient’-surface knowledge measure, and then, only for a limited time, i.e., at the second time interval, before the reflection effect has had its full impact (see experiment A). Referring to ability level, the subject-matter component supports students who benefit most from such subjectmatter instruction, i.e., students of average and above-average ability. This we assume to be due to their flexibly and organized and easily retrievable knowledge (Sternberg, 1998). The interaction effect of treatment and academic level found, for example, for surface knowledge (see experiment A) primarily for medium- and high-level achievers further confirms this (Fund, 2007a). The skills orientation—pending further verification—seems, primarily, to facilitate the transla-

233

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

tion (3rd + 4th) and transplanting (6th) categories, (see conclusions B2, iv and v). The meta-cognitive skills, although dependant mostly on reflection-as seen in the superiority of INTEG and STRAT (see conclusion B2, vi)--are still sensitive to the subject-matter component. It decreases final assessment (INTEG < STRAT in the 9th category) due to increased confidence in the answer. Also, based on the ACT-R, it decreases the likelihood of being mistaken, hence remains less practiced in finding the causes of a mistake (INTEG < STRAT in the 11th category). In most other skills, however, it is mainly a condition for excellent performance. Reasonable success can be achieved without it--if the cognitive support element includes structural and reflective components. We suggest that the limited contribution of the subject-matter component may be explained as follows: The utility of declarative knowledge (when presented as general guidance) and procedural knowledge (derived from operative specific instruction), as well as for the construction of new knowledge is based on growing experience in problem solving. Both of these are only accelerated by the two elements of the subject-matter component, as it facilitates formulation of production rules. When this component is absent (i.e. in the strategic support) these processes will take place, probably at a reduced pace, and possibly more easily among high ability students. Yet, this limited contribution of the subject-matter component might be typical for “behaving environments”, i.e., environments in which the subject-matter is built into the system and operates according to specific rules, as in the present computerized learning environment or other computerized simulations (Fund, 2002).

declarative and procedural Knowledge constructed through computerized problem solving According to the human intelligence model of Sternberg (1990, 1998), acquisition of new declarative and procedural knowledge in all domains occurs in three main stages: 234

1.

2.

3.

Selective encoding: This involves determining what information in a large stream of information is relevant for the learner’s purposes. Selective combination: This involves interrelating selectively encoded pieces of information so that they fit together and are combined into integrated knowledge. Selective comparison: This involves relating newly acquired knowledge to knowledge acquired in the past, without which, new knowledge is useless. The encoding and combination of such new knowledge is guided by the retrieval of old information. This enables the integration of new knowledge into the cognitive schema.

We now suggest the determination of the stages of problem solving--in a computerized learning environment with cognitive support--serving as engines to drive Sternberg’s stages. The structural component guides the student to explain the solution by articulating the main aspects of the problem. This serves the first of Sternberg’s stages - “selective encoding” of the new knowledge gained from solving the problem. This stage, though necessary, is insufficient, both according to Sternberg as according to our findings. To enable all three of Sternberg’s stages, the whole cycle of scientific inquiry “predict--observe--compare-explain” is required. In a computerized learning environment, this cycle should be modified into “observe (examine the problem and its computerized simulated experiment), predict (the answer), compare (the prediction with the correct answer), and explain (the correct or wrong answer).” This formulation implies a need for the three main sub-components of reflection, namely: predicting and assessing the answer, and explaining errors when the answer is wrong. Predicting makes it possible to selectively combine new pieces of information (second stage), while comparing the prediction with the correct answer and trying to explain the causes of error, if present, corresponds to Sternberg’s “selective comparison”.

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

We believe that the aforementioned, suggests a process for the construction of (declarative) knowledge from procedural knowledge during science problem solving. While problem solving, the reflection component, thus, encourages meta-cognitive processes. These processes play a crucial part in knowledge construction, and in turn, affect understanding (Pirolli & Recker, 1994; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006; Sternberg, 1998) as well as other cognitive and affective measures. Procedural knowledge construction, however, is assumed to occur from observing possible problem solutions and then building upon familiar production rules or specific knowledge (ACT-R theory, Anderson et al, 1995).

In retrospect: the dynamic development of a Model - conclusions The functional-theoretical Bridge Model is an example of dynamic development of a model. At the beginning of our study, support components were identified, assumed to affect performance in certain directions and aspects. Possible interactions, in computerized problem solving, between these components were unknown, as well as the specific contribution of each component and their combinations. During the process of the study, an improved model was developed, leading to the Bridge Model. This model - although requiring further validation - elucidates the superiority of the reflection groups, on most measures. It describes the interactions of the three support components in knowledge construction, while at the same time pointing to the limited contribution of the subject-matter component. Hence, the practical claim resulting from the current experiment is that scaffolding computerized science problem solving, due to the unique combination of structure and reflection components, should include at least some sort of strategic support. Such support is quite easy to prepare and integrate into any computerized learn-

ing environment. Strategic support, implementing Teacher C model, induces “active learning” and turns over control of proximal development to the students, with the focus on activities that are generative of knowledge and skills (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991, 2006). It was found to stimulate motivation, benefit achievement and knowledge construction, cognitive and meta-cognitive skills and behavior, at all ability levels. Expanding this support by the additional inclusion of a subjectmatter component (integrated support) depends on the specific computerized environment (with or without built-in subject-matter), the specific goals, and on the learner’s experience in working with the environment. Additional subject-matter support (e.g., an integrated support) might be most helpful in the first stages of the work; when the learner becomes accustomed to the environment, the subject-matter support could be gradually withdrawn.

AcKnoWledgMent I would like to express my thanks to Prof. Zecharia Dor-Shav, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel, for his helpful contribution and remarks to this paper. I would like also to express my thanks to Prof. Bat-Sheva Eylon, Science Teaching Department, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, for her helpful contribution to this study and to the theoretical aspects of the Bridge Model. I would like also to thank Prof. Jossef Menis, Bar-Ilan University, for years of helpful friendship and professional support.

reFerences Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207.

235

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199-209. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221 - 252. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477. Cox, R. & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 239-302. De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249-266. de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Ellen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107-128). Oxford: Elsevier. de Jong T. & van Joolingen W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202. Fund, Z. (2000). Cognitive support for science problem solving in computerized environment: effects on cognitive and meta-cognitive skills. In P. Nasser, N. Hativa, & Z. Scherz (Eds.), Pro-

236

ceedings of the Twelfth Convention of the Israel Educational Research Association (pp. 259- 264). Tel-Aviv: Reches (Hebrew). Fund, Z. (2002). Cognitive support in computerized science problem solving: Eliciting external representation and improving search strategies. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The Role of Communication in Learning to Model (pp. 127-154). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fund, Z. (2003). How to evaluate science problem solving in a computerized learning environment? Construction of an analyzing scheme. In C. P. Constantinou & Z. C. Zacharia (Eds.). Computer Based Learning in Science, conference proceedings 2003, Vol 1 (pp. 737-745). Nicosia: University of Cyprus. Fund, Z. (2007a). The effects of scaffolded computerized science problem-solving on achievement outcomes: a comparative study of support programs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 410–424. Fund, Z. (2007b). The effects of different scaffolding programs on meta-cognitive skills within computerized science problem-solving. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary. Fund, Z., Court, D., Kramarski, B. (2002). Construction and application of an evaluative tool to assess reflection in teacher-training courses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 485-499. Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1-44. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. Golan Duncan, R. & Chinn, C.A (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Louden, W. (1992) Understanding reflection through collaborative research. In A. Hargreaves & M.G. Fullan (Eds.). Understanding Teacher Development (pp. 178 - 215). New York: Teachers College Press. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. Merril, M. D. (2006). Hypothesized performance on complex tasks as a function of scaled instructional strategies. In J. Ellen & R. E. Clark (Eds.). Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 265-281). Oxford: Elsevier. Njoo, M. & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory Learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 30, 821-844. Ohlsson, S. (1993). The interaction between knowledge and practice in the acquisition of cognitive skills. In S. Chipman & A.L. Meyrowitz (Eds.). Foundations of knowledge acquisition - cognitive models of complex learning (pp. 147 - 208). MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic. Pirolli, P. & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 235 - 275. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. Davis, E. Krajcik, J., Fretz, E. Dunca, R. et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects

of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244. Reif, F. (1995). Millikan lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal of Physics, 63(1), 17 - 32. Salomon, G. Perkins, D. & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2-9. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press. Shute, V. J. & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51-77. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Principles of teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 65-72. Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning: The effects of model regression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8(3), 235-252. Swartz, R. & Parks, S. (1992). Infusion critical and creative thinking into secondary instruction: A lesson design handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication.

237

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Sweller, J., Kirshner, P.A., & Clark, R.E. (2007). Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115-121.

Reflection: the process of constructing, evaluating, and articulating what has been learned; meta-cognitive skills such as monitoring and control, self-assessment and self-regulation.

Vreman-de Olde, C & de Jong, T. (2004). Studentgenerated assignments about electrical circuits in a computer simulation. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 859-873.

Reflection Support: Providing a general framework to stimulate and activate meta-cognitive skills.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implication for integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705-735. Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 269-282. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Cognitive / Meta-Cognitive Scaffolding: Support and guidance addressing cognitive/metacognitive skills and work pattern. Computerized Learning Environment: Computerized environment designed mainly for open-ended learning tasks. Computerized Problem Solving: Problem solving performed in a computerized learning environment. Science Problem Solving: Solving problems in the scientific domain. 238

Structural Support: Providing a general framework that guides the student with the cognitive skills necessary to effect cognitive and work patterns. Subject-Matter Support Component: Clarifying ideas and concepts relevant to each problem, and addressing general domain-specific guidance, as well as providing short guiding questions for the solving process. The Bridge Model: A theoretical-functional model constructed, based on the research findings, to elucidate the functions of the structural, reflective and subject-matter support components upon the cognitive system, and to offer explanations of the research findings. Cognitive / Meta-Cognitive Skills: Construction of the ‘computerized science problem solving’ (COSPROS) scheme, based on three major steps involved in effective science problem solving: initial problem analysis; tentative construction of a solution; and self-monitoring of the solution allowing for appropriate revision-as necessary (Reif, 1995). This scheme consists of eleven main skills (categories). Eight of these involve cognitive skills while three incorporate meta-cognitive skills during the self-monitoring of the solution.

endnotes 1

Zone of proximal development is defined by Vygotsky (1978) as the difference between solved tasks that can be performed better

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

2

with adult guidance and help, or with more able peers, and the level of independently solved tasks. Thus, zone of proximal development is an analytical tool necessary to plan instruction and to explain its results. Declarative knowledge is the knowledge about facts and concepts; procedural knowledge is the knowledge about how to perform actions.

3

ACT, an acronym for “adaptive control of thought”, represents a series of network models. These models attempt to account for all of cognition. They are designed to explain memory, learning, spatial cognition, language, reasoning, and decision making.

239

240

Notes: The symbols denote  Subject-matter component: ′′ Specific instructions (in prompt c) Hierarchical mode (prompts b + c); Linear mode (prompt c)

c) The important data ′′ What are the components of the electric circuit? ′′ What is the current intensity with coil no. 1? _____ With coil no. 2? ______ ′′ Which coil is the best conductor?_______ Which is the worst?______ ′′ Use “data pages” to complete the conductivity scale of: copper _________ ; iron _________ ′′ Which given metal is the best conductor?_____ Which is the worst?______ * d) Proposed answer: __________________________________ * e) Did you give a correct answer? (Use the flag) yes /no : f) The correct answer: __________________________________

b) General guidance: each of the two coils is connected to the contacts of an electrical circuit. You should find out what each coil is made of, by measuring the current. The higher the current, the better the coil will conduct electricity. Then you can relate the metals to the coils, using the "data pages" tool.

: a)The problem to be solved __________________________________________

Student name: ________________

*3. Consider the following statement; and decide if it is correct or incorrect: If the described coils in the problem have different length or width we can still compare them as we did in the computerized problem. correct / incorrect Explain: _______________________________________

2. In the above question, the current meter has shown the following results: when coil no, 1 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.3 Ampere; when coil no, 2 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.7 Ampere; when coil no, 3 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.5 Ampere. What is coil no. 1 made of? bronze / nickel / lead Explain: _______________________________________

1. Three other coils are connected to the contacts of the same electrical circuit. The coils are made of bronze, nickel, and aluminum. Which coil is connected to the circuit when the current meter shows the highest current intensity? bronze / nickel / aluminum Explain: _______________________________________

: g) Explain your answer and how you obtained it _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________ * h) If you proposed a wrong answer, how does it differ from the correct answer? Explain why you were wrong ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Enrichment questions

Worksheet of problem 17

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

AppendIX A

 Structural component (prompts a, c [without specific instruction], f, g)  Reflection component (prompts d, e, h)

__________________________________________________

a)The problem to be solved __________________________________________ b) The important data ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ c) Proposed answer: __________________________________ d) Did you give a correct answer? (Use the flag) yes /no e) The correct answer: __________________________________ f) Explain your answer and how you obtained it __________________________________________ __________________________________________ g) If you proposed a wrong answer, how does it differ from the correct answer? Explain why you were wrong __________________________________________

Student name: ________________

Enrichment questions

26

*3. Consider the following statement; and decide if it is correct or incorrect: If the described coils in the problem have different length or width we can still compare them as we did in the computerized problem. correct / incorrect Explain: _______________________________________

2. In the above question, the current meter has shown the following results: when coil no, 1 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.3 Ampere; when coil no, 2 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is 0.7 Ampere; when coil no, 3 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.5 Ampere. What is coil no. 1 made of? bronze / nickel / lead Explain: _______________________________________

1. Three other coils are connected to the contacts of the same electrical circuit. The coils are made of bronze, nickel, and aluminum. Which coil is connected to the circuit when the current meter shows the highest current intensity? bronze / nickel / aluminum Explain: _______________________________________

Worksheet of problem 17

APPENDIX B: The Strategic Support Model (STRAT)

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

AppendIX b: the strAtegIc support Model (strAt)

241

242

d) Explain your answer and how you obtained it ________________________________________ ________________________________________

c) The correct answer: __________________________________

a)The problem to be solved __________________________________________ b) The important data What are the components of the electric circuit? What is the current intensity with coil no. 1? _____ With coil no. 2? ______ Which coil is the best conductor?_______ Which is the worst?______ Use “data pages” to complete the conductivity scale of: copper _________ ; iron _________ Which given metal is the best conductor?_____ Which is the worst?______

Student name: ________________

Enrichment questions

27

*3. Consider the following statement; and decide if it is correct or incorrect: If the described coils in the problem have different length or width we can still compare them as we did in the computerized problem. correct / incorrect Explain: _______________________________________

2. In the above question, the current meter has shown the following results: when coil no, 1 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.3 Ampere; when coil no, 2 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.7 Ampere; when coil no, 3 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.5 Ampere. What is coil no. 1 made of? bronze / nickel / lead Explain: _______________________________________

1. Three other coils are connected to the contacts of the same electrical circuit. The coils are made of bronze, nickel, and aluminum. Which coil is connected to the circuit when the current meter shows the highest current intensity? bronze / nickel / aluminum Explain: _______________________________________

Worksheet of problem 17

APPENDIX C: The Operative Support Model (OPER)

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

AppendIX c: the operAtIve support Model (oper)

243

Chapter XV

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts Nicola Yelland The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Jennifer Masters La Trobe University, Australia

AbstrAct This chapter will discuss the ways in teachers can support their student’s learning in new media contexts with the use of effective scaffolding techniques. The authors present two learning scenarios of children to illustrate the ways in which scaffolding pedagogies are deployed in order to enhance learning opportunities that incorporate the use of new media. In Scenario One, the Year 2 children (approximately 7 years) use digital technologies to communicate their ideas and investigations through stop-motion animation. In Scenario Two, the Year 1 children (approximately 6 years) edit digital video to create an advertisement for a new sports drink. This work is important since the use of computers and other new technologies in schools remains peripheral and is frequently an afterthought to be aligned with specific curriculum objectives and mandated learning outcomes. An important question for educators is how can we ensure and describe the learning that takes place in contexts that incorporate new media. Implicit in this is that teachers and students will guide and support each other in order to complete tasks that exemplify specific learning outcomes. Our findings suggest that the main challenges and issues for teachers with regard to new media are centered on how they might incorporate them into their pedagogical repertoire and of finding effective ways to support student learning.

IntroductIon We are approaching the end of the first decade of the 21st century, and one thing that is glaringly

obvious is that there is a growing gap between what goes on in schools and outside of them (Yelland, 2007). New technologies have created new ways of working and we have evolved social practices

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

that have fundamentally changed how we do things. Yet many schools seem to be impervious to change and maintain a heritage curriculum that was founded in a different age. The rate of change in society has been tremendous. The children who attend our schools today were born on the eve of the 21st century and are called the “Millennial Generation” (Howe & Strauss, 2000). Their lives are digital and they communicate in a variety of modes with a myriad of materials that are made of bits and bytes. Their homes are full of media options that include; TVs, mobile phone, computers, mp3 players, DVD machines, digital cameras, interactive toys, video game consoles and mobile devices. Rideout, Vanderwater and Wartella (2003) reported that 99% of children up to the age of 6 years have a TV at home and 36% have one in their own bedroom. Nearly a half of their sample had a video game player and 63% lived in a home that had Internet access. Additionally, nearly half (48%) of the group under six years of age used a computer and 30% of them played video games. Parent reports of time spent with screen media indicate that this group spent approximately 2 hours a day using them and that this was about the same amount of time that they spent playing outdoors, and three times as much time as they spent reading (a book) or being read to. The report continues by suggesting that many of the toddlers and preschoolers that they surveyed are not passively consuming media that has been purchased by their family, but rather they paint a picture of these young people actively seeking out information or helping themselves to acquire it with the various electronic media at their disposal. Seventy seven per cent are turning on the TV by themselves, asking for particular shows (67%) using the remote control to change channels (62%) playing their favourite DVDs (71%) turning on the computer by themselves (33%) and loading CDRoms with games on (23%). The study revealed that listening to music (and dancing/ acting) is one of the most popular pastimes for young children in this age range with 79% listening to music daily

244

with just under half (42%) owning their own CD so they can listen when they want to. Children in the next age range (6 to 17 years) continue to diversify their practices with new media. Over two million American children in this cohort have created their own website (Grunwald, 2004) and there are similar trends in the UK (Livingstone & Bober, 2005). More recently the evolution of social media such as Myspace, Facebook, Club Penguin and the growing use of blogs, wikis and instant messaging enable young people to be in touch almost constantly with all their friends and families. These new lifeworlds require us to reconceptualise forms of communication and notions of identity that are so essential for effective learning in schools. These machines play different roles in the lives of children for different purposes at different junctures in time and in a variety of communities of practice (Lave, Smith & Butler, 1988). Yet, in many contexts, we still don’t have a clear idea about the ways in which students learn in such contexts. We need to be able to do this since when students use new technologies in the classroom we should be able to support their learning to acquire specific learning outcomes that are related to mandated curriculum as well as engage them in critical and creative thinking in new ways that were not possible prior to the use of the new media.

scAFFoldIng leArnIng In schools The influence of Vygotskian theory (Vygotsky, 1978) on educational practice is apparent in the popular use of the social constructive perspective to describe and rationalize exemplary learning contexts in schools. One of the main tenets of Vygotskian theory is the notion of a zone of proximal development (ZPD), which was conceptualized as “The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problemsolving and the level of potential development

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 86)”. Vygotsky (1978) believed that guided interactions, with an adult, or a more skilled peer, could facilitate a higher level of thinking within the zone and his ideas have been the subject of much research over the years (e.g. Newman, Griffin & Cole, 1989; Rogoff, 1990). There have been a number of ways of describing and representing the ways in which adults or more experiences others may assist novice learners within their ZPD. These have included “means of assisting” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991), Reciprocal Teaching, where the learner and the teacher take turns to lead the discussion (e.g. Brown, 1976, Palinscar & Brown, 1984) and the Cognitive Apprenticeship model of Collins, Brown, & Newman (1989) based on the traditional model where a master of a skill teaches a novice through active participation. Rogoff (1990) used the term Guided Participation to denote “that both guidance and participation in culturally valued activities are essential to children’s apprenticeship in thinking” (p 8). One of the key elements of Rogoff’s guided participation was the notion of intersubjectivity, which involved a shared focus and purpose between children and their tutor. As Rogoff noted, “From guided participation involving shared understanding and problem solving, children appropriate an increasingly advanced understanding of and skill in managing the intellectual problems of their community.” (p. 8). This notion is critical for the work reported here since the forms of scaffolding that we used were derived not only from our knowledge about effective ways of learning and knowing but also from observing children’s spontaneous problem solving in novel contexts and identifying aspects which were problematic for them in relation to solving a given task. Probably the most common way of describing the provision of assistance to learners has been related to the use of the building metaphor, scaffolding. The term “scaffolding” is generally

attributed to Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) who described it as a “process that enables a child or a novice to solve a problem, carry out a task, or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts (p.90)”. It was thought that if learning was scaffolded by adults, children could not only accomplish school tasks at a higher level but also would be able to internalize their thinking, strategies or mechanisms used to be able to approach other similar tasks. (Rogoff & Gardner, 1984). The metaphor of the ZPD as a construction zone promulgated by Newman, Griffin and Cole (1989) is an apt one, since scaffolding is used in the building profession during constructions, renovations and extensions, and removed once the building is complete. They also used Leont’ev’s notion of ‘appropriation’ to describe learning in the ZPD whereby children are guided to reach solutions to problems via the acquisition of skill in using tools, strategies and concepts. In this context learning is aligned with ‘relocation’ to a different zone. Research has shown that although the nature of the scaffolding is dynamic and must be modified according to the task and the learner, several key characteristics of scaffolding can be identified (Beed, Hawkins & Roller, 1991). First, the interaction must be collaborative, with the learner’s own intentions being the aim of the process (Searle, 1984). Second, the scaffolding must operate within the learner’s zone of proximal development. Rather than simply ensuring the task is completed, the scaffolder must access the learner’s level of comprehension and then work slightly beyond that level, drawing the learning into new areas of exploration (Rogoff, 1990). The third characteristic of scaffolding is that the scaffold is gradually withdrawn, as the learner becomes more competent. Palincsar (1986) suggests that this notion reinforces the metaphor of a scaffold as used when constructing buildings in that the means of support is both adjustable and temporary.

245

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

neW conteXts For scAFFoldIng There is a range of research that considered the use of various types of scaffolding in traditional subject areas of schooling, such as language, particularly reading (eg. Beed, Hawkins, & Roller, 1991; Graves, Graves & Braaten, 1996; WollmanBonilla & Werchadlo, 1999), mathematics (eg. Coltman, Petyaeva, & Anghileri, 2002) and science (eg. Flick, 1998). However, the study of scaffolding in which the computer or associated software is considered as a factor in scaffolding is less common. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1996) developed the Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE) to facilitate the interaction of experts, teachers, parents and students in a “knowledge building society” (p. 6). In this environment the computer software acted as a scaffold to support the creation and development of conceptual understandings. The online environment was also used by Oshima and Oshima (1999) who were interested in investigating the types of computer based environments that supported students and the interactions between the students, the computer and the teacher in such contexts. Cuthbert and Hoadley (1998) also used CSILE and employed it to allow students to work together on building design problems. Their research focused on the actual design problems presented to the students and how the structure of the problem could scaffold thinking and knowledge integration. These research examples provided rich descriptive case studies of the ways in which CSILE supported knowledge building via scaffolding by the computer, teachers and peers in a positive way and thus provided support and extended the notion of learning from the sociocultural perspective within the ZPD. A research project reported by Wood (2001) provided an example of the ways in which the computer can act as a scaffold via the use of a software program called the QUADRATIC tu-

246

tor. In this context the software provided cues that acted as a tutor and a guide for the learning of quadratic functions. Similar strategies were also engaged by Luckin (2001) using a program called EcoLab that required children to build food webs and by Revelle, Druin, Platner Bederson, Hourcade & Sherman (2002), who developed a computer-based search tool to search for information on animals in a hierarchical structure. Mercer and Wegerif (1999) also focused on the role that computer software could play in supporting children’s learning, with the use of TRAC (Talk, Reasoning, and Computers) software which was used to scaffold children’s use of language as a tool for reasoning and collaborative activity. In a different approach, Baron (1991) considered computer hardware itself to be a scaffold that could facilitate social interaction of young children. In this sense, she suggested that the computer served as a tool for the teacher to foster social interactions and subsequent cognitive skill building. In these studies the term “scaffolding” was viewed in a broad way to describe any aspect of interaction between a teacher, the computer and the student. Bull, Shuler, Overton, Kimbal, Boykin and Griffin (1999) discussed scaffolding within a computer-mediated environment by separating the computer-based supports from the teacher and peer support that was provided when children were working on the computer based tasks. They suggested that scaffolding could be provided online via techniques such as visual cueing, links to web-pages with directions, downloadable help pages and communication forms to contact the instructor or peers. They also considered and described scaffolding strategies in terms of the teacher’s role in supporting students using online tutorials. They claimed that “there are many kinds of scaffolding as many as there are techniques of teaching” (p. 243) and then went on to describe a broad range of teaching aspects such as explaining, resolving questions, inviting participation to those on the periphery, modeling problem-solving with think aloud strategies and providing evidence to support or refute statements.

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

One of the few studies that focused on the teacher’s role in scaffolding computer implementation was situated in a preschool setting (Schetz & Stremmel, 1994). The findings from this study indicated that the role of the teacher was critical regardless of the software used. It was also noted that the type and amount of scaffolding varied according to student needs and the objectives of the task. Barbuto, Swaminathan, Trawick-Smith, and Wright (2003) also examined the role of the teacher in supporting children using computers. They worked with novice computer-using early childhood teachers in the “Tech4PreK” program. Barbuto et al. found that teachers who demonstrated constructivist pedagogy and were enthusiastic about using computers, scaffolded the children effectively, even though they had no prior computing skills. Our previous work (Yelland & Masters, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 2007) has shown that not only does scaffolded instruction support learning and influence depth of understanding concerning a concept or use of strategic processes, but also that it can influence self efficacy and levels of interest that children display in novel problem solving tasks. We have worked in computer based contexts in which children have worked with partners of similar ability, based on either the decision of the teacher or their performance on a non verbal intelligence test (Colored Progressive Matrices) or both. The pairs were then scaffolded in computer based tasks, which always contained an off computer component, by a teacher/ researcher, and were also encouraged to work collaboratively and question and support each other during the task solution. Thus, our work has differed from previous work, since we incorporated: • •

Children working in pairs who were of similar ability Computer contexts characterized by tasks that enabled children to actively construct and play with ideas and concepts in an environment that supported a problem solving approach

Additionally, we have worked with teachers in authentic classroom setting in which students engaged in larger self selected groups. In these cases negotiating shared understandings about the task focus and working cooperatively to achieve the outcomes has required major shifts in behaviours by both learners and teachers and the use of new media in these creative contexts has been important to their success, especially in terms of engagement with ideas and representations of knowledge in multimodal formats. Thus, our work has illustrated the need to reconsider the types of scaffolding that we used with children. In our own research (e.g. Masters & Yelland, 2002; Yelland & Masters, 2007) we have identified that scaffolding with new media such as computers can also be classified into categories. We have used the term cognitive scaffolding to denote those activities that pertain to the development of conceptual and procedural understandings that involve either techniques or devices to assist the learner. These include the use of questions, modelling, assisting with making plans, drawing diagrams, and encouraging the children to collaborate with their partner. The nature of the collaborations has, in fact, proved to be an important dimension in the problem solving process. Children were more used to working individually in the classroom and in computer based work. One of the major factors that had promoted effective problem solving in our previous work was the ability to work collaboratively to plan and implement strategies and also to be able to listen to alternative viewpoints, reconcile them with your own and reach a consensus about what to do next (e.g. Yelland, 1998; Yelland & Masters, 1994). Thus cognitive scaffolding also included aspects of social cognitive behaviour that we had shown to be effective in the use of creative and critical thinking. Technical scaffolding related to the fact that we were working with computers. Features of the program meant that the tasks and the environment both had the potential to act as mediators for learning since their design incorporated the

247

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

use of inbuilt constructs to facilitate understandings and problem solution. As facilitators, we needed to highlight them and other features of the technological learning contexts that had the potential to effect learning outcomes. Finally, we found that the children we worked with needed affective scaffolding of varying amounts not only to keep them on task but also to encourage them to higher levels of thinking and operating when engaged with a variety of learning activities. Further, we did not take the view that as teachers or experts we knew the optimal way to achieve specific task goals. We generally observed the spontaneous problem solving of pairs and groups of students prior to intervening to support initial understandings and attempts to solve the problems. In the first instance this included scaffolding that was simultaneously cognitive, technical and affective but once the children became used to the particular computer context their confidence grew and the latter two forms were reduced and ultimately, of course, the need for cognitive scaffolding diminished.

scenario 1 – Minibeasts Animation In the animation the Year 2 children needed to illustrate the mini-beast’s home, the food source and its mechanism for movement. In order to conceptualise their animation, the children had examined a “Wallace and Grommit” movie, a popular children’s series that uses a modelling clay technique to produce animation. The activity was broken down into a number of tasks: 1. 2.

3.

4.

leArnIng scenArIos 5. The learning scenarios presented next, represent educational activities in classrooms. In the first scenario the Year 2 class (aged 7 years) was engaged in an integrated topic that extended across the traditional curriculum areas related to the lifestyle and habits of various small animals, such as insects, arachnids and small reptiles, eg. geckos. The culminating activity for the theme was for the children to work in groups of five or six and use the computer to produce a modelling clay animation (a quick-time movie) depicting a sequence in the life of a chosen mini-beast. In the second learning scenario the children (Year 1, aged 6 years of age) created a digital (movie) advertisement for a new product that improved performance in sport.

248

Decide on the minibeast and describe its home, food and how it moved Use a storyboard to plan the animation sequence. The sequence should include at least six stages. Design and produce the props to support the design of the set. This included the creation of a modelling clay mini-beast and the backdrop and foreground for the movie. Filming the sequence. The students had to assemble the set and set up the digital camera on a tripod. They were then required to take a series of still shots of the mini-beast on the set in order to create the animation Transfer of the files to a computer for processing with the i-movie/ quick-time software.

Figure 1. Animation stage showing a model bee, a beehive and a flower

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

6.

7.

Creating the movie. This required editing the still shots to make the animation sequence. It included sequencing the shots and removing any unwanted files. If the students wanted to add a music sound track – this was possible Sharing the movie with the class in order to reflect on the processes used and the decisions made.

The task was one of several on-going projects happening in the classroom at the time. The large class had two teachers who each worked with all groups within the class on a needs basis. In order to isolate the task in the milieu of classroom practice, we video-recorded the progress of two groups through the “mini-beast movie” production over several consecutive days. In these sessions, the more experienced teacher, Teacher 1, supported the “bee” group and the “spider” group in their work with the technology. Before the children began any work with the new media available, the technical processes of the task were explained to the class during a mat session in the activity room. A large monitor was used for this session and both teachers and all the children were present. While the children had had previous experience with both the digital camera and the editing software, Teacher 1 explained and demonstrated each step of the process in the context of the new task. In this situation, the other teacher adopted a secondary role that involved asking guiding questions and reinforcing the processes described by Teacher 1. After this briefing, the groups were allowed to move to the technical aspects of the task when they were ready for stage 4 or if it was their turn. It should be noted too, that this procedure was reinforced in a de-briefing session at the end of activities for the day. In a half-hour mat session, the groups were asked to briefly share their progress for the day, any problems they encountered and any strategies that they used to solve those problems. This

Figure 2. Children photographing the animation process

meant that children who had not yet attempted the animation task could benefit from the experiences and advice of others. In general the children appeared to be confident with the equipment (digital camera and editing software) and also the animation process. They also managed turn taking and the assignment of roles within the task, although this was one of the aspects that needing scaffolding from Teacher 1 (especially with the bee group). During this time Teacher 1 remained within range of the students, in order to help or contribute when necessary. The reflection stage consisted of a mat session with the large monitor for display. Each group nominated a spokesperson and another person to operate the computer. The presentation was not rehearsed; rather Teacher 1 choreographed the process through directed questioning. The structure tended to be a brief introduction on the content, a presentation of the product and then a reflection on decisions and problem-solving that occurred during the process. During the presentation the class members were prompted to ask questions and the spokesperson was encouraged to call on members of the team in order to respond thoroughly.

249

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

Scaffolding Strategies On first impressions it seemed that Teacher 1 had a passive role and during much of the activity monitored without comment, sometimes from the other side of the room. However when reviewing the process, it was obvious that she was actually providing scaffolding throughout the whole task. During the production of resource she implemented a number of scaffolding strategies. Theses included cognitive scaffolding as Teacher 1 systematically monitored the concept development in the group activity. This incorporated steering the children through decision making to reach their goal product. This included processes such as task reinforcement and planting ideas during group discussions, for example, in response to a spinning bee problem, “What about if you use two pieces of thread instead of one to suspend your bee?” She also helped the children by reviewing progress, identifying what had already been done and what was left to do. Cognitive scaffolding also included supporting the children with conceptualizing the problem and sometimes narrowing the choices the group had to make, such as “Well you could make the spider eat the fly now or you could wait until it gets back to the web. What do you think?” The groups that were engaged in the task during our observations were remarkably confident and supportive of each other. It is likely that for this reason we saw little in terms of affective scaffolding however the support we saw in this area, included reassurance, “You’re going really well. Just a few more shots and you will be finished.”, and granting permission when the group needed to make a choice. In terms of technical competence, the children obviously had experience using computers and were not afraid to try new options. It is probable too that the prior instruction session prepared the children effectively for their technical tasks. The technical scaffolding that we observed included giving technical instructions, such as how to use

250

the digital camera. If the children did make a technical mistake or something went wrong with the equipment, the teacher implemented a process of technical recovery, increasing the amount of intervention considerably. This incorporated prompts or guiding questions - “Lets look through the menu and see if we can find an option that will help” or even physical intervention - “Hang on, I’ll just get that back for you”. The support that Teacher 1 provided for the children might be regarded as typical teacher activity that takes place in any good primary classroom. However by analysing this activity we can begin to tease out strategies that can be suggested to other teachers for computer implementation in their classrooms. In particular we would like to identify whether this activity can be considered as scaffolding, in which the interaction is collaborative, with the learners’ intentions as a focus, where the learners are crossing their own zones of proximal development and the scaffolding is being progressively withdrawn. While the aspect of a teacher scaffolding a group of children simultaneously is somewhat complex, there is evidence to suggest that Teacher 1 was scaffolding during the task. The first aspect is to establish whether Teacher 1 worked in a collaborative mode with the children, with their intentions as the goal. The fact that the children were working in a group meant that individuals needed to negotiate in terms of their own intentions. However, the nature of the task did ensure that the goal was actually determined by the students. In this sense, the teacher’s intentions (that is, the objectives of the task) “faded” to groups’ intentions in that teacher direction did not dominate and the children had a great deal of control. Possibly the most difficult aspect of scaffolding to conceptualise is the notion of crossing the Zone of Proximal Development. Even with an individual child in a one to one scaffolding situation, it could be difficult to ascertain understanding levels and consequential shifts. The concept of promoting

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

equivalent learning with six children at once is quite unrealistic. This inequity in achievement was especially apparent with the bee group, which had several group members off-task and uninvolved, while two members dominated the activity. Nevertheless, it was also evident that with both groups, some participants seemed to be gaining key concepts and making significant shifts in understanding. This observation was reinforced when the children were able to reflect on their processes and achievements. An interesting observation was that Teacher 1 implemented quite different amounts of scaffolding for the two groups. While both groups were given the opportunity to experiment with both the technology and the task, Teacher 1 used far less intervention with the spider group. It is possible that the spider group was at a different stage of development to the bee group and that some early scaffolding had already been withdrawn. Our initial observation that Teacher 1 had a relatively passive role in the group work may also contribute to this notion. It is likely that much of the scaffolding that supported the children when they initially started using the digital camera and the computer had been withdrawn as the children became more comfortable with its use.

scenario 2 – Advertising speedo: A new sports drink In this activity the Year 1 children met as a whole class group in the first instance to preview advertisements and they discussed the ways in which they were composed for maximum effectiveness. The teacher advised the class that she wanted them to work in four groups of five children to think about a new product that would enhance sports performance since the Olympics was taking place at the time. The teacher had selected the group members in this instance because she wanted a balance in terms of ability so that some students could be supported while others extended. The children were used to working in both small and

large groups since they had started school and these were both self-selected and teacher determined. As she read out the names of the children in each group she asked them to sit together on the mat for the rest of this initial session. The teacher explained to the class that there were a number of sequences of activities that needed to be completed in order to produce the advertisement and she had written these on the white board. In this first session she went through each stage of the process with the whole class group and they remained on the board for the duration of the activities, which took place over a two week time period. 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

What type of product are you going to develop? (Think about what is its purpose and what will it do?) Draw a container for the product and design a label Plan how you are going to advertise your product by creating a story-board Become familiar with the video camera and how to use it Think about what props you will need. (Are they available? Do you have to make some? Do you have to bring some from home?) Film each of the sequences Download the movie to the computer and edit with Imovie. You will need your script for this. Present your advertisement to the class

At the same time the children were introduced to the video camera. Many of the children had a video camera at home but it became evident that few were allowed to use it. The teacher demonstrated the use of the camera to the children and then over the course of the next session worked with each of the four groups to show them the specific features that they would need to use it effectively for their presentation. In working with the groups over the next two weeks it was apparent that their ability to work in an independent and

251

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

successful way on this task had been established in the first two terms of their schooling. This was term three of a four-term year. This particular teacher had from day one, encouraged the children in her class to stop and think if they encountered a problem, ask a friend, ask the group and then come to the teacher if they were “really stuck!”

Scaffolding Strategies As the children embarked on the creation of their advertisement it was clearly evident that the teacher had already used specific scaffolding strategies outlined earlier. She was very specific in her instructions to the children, and explained that this was because this was a complex task that needed to be conducted as a series of events. Furthermore, it was the first time they had used the digital video camera and its functions. She noted that in other instances she might not be so detailed in her instructions and would let the children make decisions, but in this case she wanted to support them to make and follow a plan that required that the sequence be outlined and followed. In the two weeks that followed, it might have seemed that the teacher, like the one in Scenario 1 had quite a passive role during the activity. She monitored what the children were doing, both with supportive and questioning comments, and sometimes just watched them with no comment. Figure 3. Speedo makes you fast!

252

However, it was apparent that she was continually active and scaffolding their learning in diverse ways. In the first instance much of this seemed to be technical, since this was the first time that the groups had used the digital video camera in a school activity. The children needed to know the specific functions that would enable the production of the video but they also questioned her about whether they could incorporate additional features – such as being able to use still pictures as well as moving ones. At one point the teacher realized they needed to have a stand to hold the camera still so she went out and purchased a tripod. Then, when it was time to edit the video she demonstrated the basic editing features and made charts of the essential processes that were located just above the computer so that the children could easily refer to them. The editing work was completed in specifically organized sessions, which had to be adhered to in order for all four groups to complete the task. The teacher also made time for the groups to share the process with each other so that they could learn from each other about short cuts and things to be avoided. For example, timing sequences to the edited dialog were quite difficult and often had to be done several times before they were deemed to be satisfactory by the children. Based on their shared experiences the teacher identified that one of the most important features was to have your text clearly written, practiced and timed in order to match it to the timed frame that was being edited. This is where her cognitive scaffolding overlapped with the technical and in many instances it was difficult to differentiate them as they were so entwined. At the start of the project when the groups came to her with their development ideas the scaffolding was very much cognitive in terms of helping the groups to realize what was possible and what was not as well as to make suggestions about the scripts and how to make the advertisements more like the ones viewed at the start of the session. Similarly, there was a high degree of overlap between these forms of scaffolding with her

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

positive comments or affective scaffolding. Her encouragement in the form of comments such as, “That is a really good idea! I would like to have this product!” and “That was a well designed and filmed sequence!” were essential encouragement for the members of the groups. They were frequently linked to experiences where she had just showed them a new technique on the camera or in the editing process as well as being in the form of challenging questions to extend what they were doing to make it better. For example, if they had a sequence that was too long and needed shortening since there was not much action happening and advertisements by definition need to be short and to the point! This was a challenging task for these 6 year olds, both conceptually and in terms of the technical execution required for the advertisement to be shown. Even the most able children were challenged to do things that they had not done before and those who were struggling with ‘school mathematics’ such as that in basic number work worked effectively with coordinating time and motion in an applied context. The final advertisements were well designed, planned and constructed and the result of intensive work over a period of two weeks that was multidisciplinary in focus. The teacher did not organize the day with subject specific sessions such as English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, but rather had a literacy and numeracy hour and the topic work of which the Advertisement project was a part. In her planning she linked the various activities to the curriculum outcomes stated for Year 1 and in organizing her programme like this was able to incorporate authentic learning tasks as part of her planning for engagement with ideas. She was also concerned that she provided contexts for deep learning experiences that were captured in criteria referenced behaviours and outcomes that could be built on throughout their primary school years.

dIscussIon And conclusIon These learning scenarios demonstrate aspects of scaffolding that were also apparent in our previous work (e.g. Yelland and Masters, 1994, 1995b) about the social – cognitive strategies and interactions of children and the use of scaffolding that enhanced and extended their learning in computer based contexts. Scaffolding has often been viewed in terms of considering the expert way to complete a task and requiring children to model / mimic this by guiding them. We have considered scaffolding experiences that are responsive to the spontaneous actions that children used when independently solving the task. Effective scaffolding involves using a range of techniques and a variety of tasks that will provide opportunities for children to engage with concepts and creative thinking processes in new and dynamic ways. When these techniques are considered in terms of their cognitive, technical and affective qualities it has become apparent that their usefulness can be gauged more effectively in terms of learning outcomes. Our work has also indicated that the computer and the type of tasks used create a context that is a type of scaffold, that may be complemented with suitable cognitive and affective strategies. The environment in which we conducted our studies were ones that encouraged active exploration of ideas and afford the opportunity for children to work with mathematical concepts in new and dynamic ways. However, the role of the teacher is critical in this context. In working with teachers we have found that they are able to raise their level of confidence and incorporate scaffolding techniques while also planning for opportunities to encourage children to take risks. It is evident that a teacher who effectively scaffolds learning ensures that children are afforded the opportunity to maximize their potential and use creative thinking skills to solve problems. Teacher decisions about the level and type of scaffolding will depend on a number of factors which will include the nature of the task,

253

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

the needs and interests of the children and the concept / processes involved and opportunities to share ideas with peers or present them to an authentic audience. What is clearly evident is that teachers need to be cognisant of these features and incorporate them in all aspects of their teaching and learning environment. The description of the strategies used by experienced teachers in the learning scenarios provided some interesting insights into how teachers might scaffold when children are using technology. We have found that an experienced teacher constantly monitors children’s progress and contributes in a number of different ways during a task. The teacher must also know when to withdraw support in order to allow children to explore and construct new understandings. Further research in this area might investigate the role teacher scaffolding plays in an individual child’s learning while using new media and especially how the teacher can scaffold each class member while they use new media for specific and stated learning goals. Another aspect might examine strategies for how a novice teacher can acquire the scaffolding skills described here in order to establish scaffolding as a essential component of implementing new media in the classroom.

Baron, L. (1991). Peer tutoring, microcomputer learning and young children. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 2(4), 27-40.

reFerences

Coltman, P., Anghileri, J., & Petyaeva, D. (2002). Scaffolding learning through meaningful tasks and adult interaction. Early Years, 22(1), 39-49.

Barbuto, L., Swaminathan, S., Trawick-Smith, J., & Wright, J. (2003). The role of the teacher in scaffolding children’s interactions in a technological environment: How a technology project is transforming preschool teacher practices in urban schools. In J. Wright, A. McDougall, J. Murnane and J. Lowe (Eds.), Young children and learning technologies: Selected papers from the International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 3.5 open conference(Vol. 34). Melbourne, Australia: Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology. Retrieved: December 12, 2004, from http://crpit. com/confpapers/CRPITV34Barbuto.pdf 254

Beed, P., Hawkins, M., & Roller, C. (1991). Moving learners towards independence: The power of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher, 44 (9), 648-655. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser. (Ed.). Advances in Instructional Psychology Volume 1. (pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bull, K., Shuler, P., Overton, R., Kimball, S., Boykin, C., & Griffin, J. (1999). Processes for developing scaffolding in a computer mediated learning environment. In Rural Special Education for the New Millennium. Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Albuquerque, New Mexico: March. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429765) Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Mahwah: N J: Erlbaum.

Cuthbert, A., & Hoadley, C. M. (1998, April). Designing desert houses in the knowledge integration environment. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California. Davidson, J.E & Sternberg, R. (1985). Competence and performance in intellectual development. In E. Niemark, R Delisi and J.L. Newman (Eds.) Moderators of competence (pp 43-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

Flick, L. (1998, April). Integrating elements of inquiry into the flow of middle level teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego.

Oshima, J., & Oshima, R. (1999, April). Scaffolding for progressive discourse in CSILE: Case study of undergraduate programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Graves, M., Graves, M., & Braaten, S. (1996). Scaffolding reading experiences for inclusive classes. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 14-16.

Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73-98.

Grunwald, P. (2004). Children, families and the Internet. Bethesda, MD: Grunwals Association.

Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73 - 98.

Howe, N, and Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books. Lave, J., Smith, S., & Butler, M. (1988). Problem solving as everyday practice. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The Teaching and Assessing of Mathematical Problem Solving, (pp. 61-81). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Livingstone, S.& Bober, M. (2005) UK children go online: Final report of key project findings. Project Report. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Luckin, R. (2001). Designing children’s software to ensure productive interactivity through collaboration in the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 13, 57-85. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999) Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111. Masters, J. & Yelland, N. (2002) Teacher scaffolding: An exploration of exemplary practice. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 313-321. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rideout, V. J., Vandewater, E. A., & Wartella, E. A. (2003). Zero to six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Revelle, G., Druin, A., Platner, M., Bederson, B., Hourcade, J., & Sherman, L. (2002). A visual search tool for early elementary science students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(1), 49-57. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. & Gardener, W. P. (1984). Guidance in cognitive development: An examination of mother-child instruction. In B. Rogoff & J.Lave (Eds.). Everyday cognition: Its development in social contexts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 6-10. Schetz, K. & Stremmel, A. (1994). Teacherassisted computer implementation: A Vygotskian perspective. Early Education and Development, 5 (1), 18-26. Searle, D. (1984). Scaffolding: Who’s building who’s building? Language Arts, 61(5), 480-483.

255

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). A theory of teaching as assisted performance. In P. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (eds) Learning to Think (pp. 42-62). London & New York: The Open University. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wollman-Bonilla, J., & Werchadlo, B. (1999). Teacher and peer roles in scaffolding first graders’ responses to literature. The Reading Teacher, 52(6), 598-607. Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1978). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Wood, D. (2001). Scaffolding, contingent tutoring and computer-supported learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 280-292. Yelland, N.J.(1998). Empowerment and control with technology for young children. Educational Theory and Practie,20(2), 45-55. Yelland, N.J. & Masters, J.E. (1994, December). Innovation in practice: Learning in a technological environment. Paper presented at AARE, Newcastle.

256

Yelland, N.J. & Masters, J.E. (1995a). New ways with Logo: Powerful problem solving for young children. Quick, 54, 4-7. Yelland, N. & Masters, J. (1995b). Learning without limits: Empowerment for young children exploring with technology. Proceedings of Australian Computers in Education Conference (pp. 79-93), Perth, Australia. Yelland, N.J. & Masters, J.E. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding with technology. Computers in Education.48(3), 362-382. Yelland, N.J. (2007). Shift to the future: Rethinking learning with new technologies in education. New York: Routledge.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Millennial Learners: Children who were born post 1985. Scaffolding: Supporting children’s learning with prompts to encourage their thinking and reasoning.

257

Chapter XVI

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments Yufeng Qian St. Thomas University, USA

AbstrAct This chapter reviews the use of 3-D virtual learning environments in kindergarten through secondary education in the United States. This emerging new learning environment poses new challenges to learners and requires broader spectrum of media literacy skills. By examining exemplary 3-D virtual learning programs and current state of media literacy education, this chapter reconceptualizes media literacy as integrated learning skills required in the emerging learning environments and identifies new directions to media literacy education to better prepare students to be competent learners and citizens in the digital age.

IntroductIon Virtual worlds, evolving from virtual reality technology and expanding on the Internet, are growing at an exponential rate in recent years. Virtual worlds are visually immersive 3-Dimentional (3-D) online environments where individuals, represented by avatars, meet, socialize and interact with each other, computer-based agents, digital artifacts, and the environments in real time, just as they might in the real world (Clarke & Dede, 2005). Unlike in the real world, however, virtual worlds enable people to do things that are impossible or impractical in real life, such as fly-

ing, dressing wild, buying and building a land, teleporting from one place to another, and “physically” (via avatars) showing up in the same room with people from all around the world. Virtual worlds have been said to be a truly innovative medium of the 21st century that provides a brand new communication experience (Craver, 1994; The New Media Consortium, 2007). Over the last few years, there has been an increasing interest in virtual worlds in education. A variety of 3-D online learning environments has rapidly burst into the limelight in education, including Second Life, Active Worlds, There, River City, Quest Atlantis, and Whyville. Second

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

Life, in particular, has attracted over 12 million residents (Washington Post, 2008). A growing body of research suggests that virtual worlds are a powerful tool that may reshape teaching and learning in the 21st century (Cross, O’Driscoll, & Trondsen, 2006; Dede, 1995; Pantelidis, 1993; Watson, 2000). Some have argued that 3-D virtual world represents ideal online learning environments where spaces and artifacts, being as realistic and detailed as possible, may engage learners both perceptually and emotionally (Prensky, 2001; Selwood, Mikropoulos, & Whitelock, 2000). The social aspects inherent with virtual worlds may also have tremendous implication in education. Learners’ simulation, role-playing, reflection, and collaboration, enabled by the 3-D virtual technology, provide a more learner-centered knowledge building environment (Clarke & Dede, 2005) Parallel to the new possibilities and potential of 3-D virtual worlds to education, learning in virtual worlds demands a greater degree of participation, thinking, and learning, which poses new challenges to learners. Current curriculum at kindergarten through secondary (K-12) level in the United States has been slow in reacting to the emergence of 3-D learning environments, continuing to operate within a print-based cultural logic despite the technological changes that increasingly influence children’s lives (Squire & Jan, 2007), leaving children on their own to “swim or sink” in the pop media sea. This chapter examines and reconceptualizes media literacy skills in the context of emerging virtual world learning environments and discusses new directions for media literacy education that will better prepare this generation of learners for the new media landscape.

eXeMplAry 3-d vIrtuAl World leArnIng envIronMents To harness the power of 3-D virtual world technology and cater to the needs and preferences of

258

digital natives, a number of learning organizations and educational foundations have begun to explore the use of this emerging learning environment in K-12 education. While still at an exploratory stage, there exist a few 3-D virtual world learning programs that have shown great potential in engaging learners (Barab, Arici, & Jackson, 2005), fostering deep learning and thinking (Ketelhut, Nelson, Dede, & Clarke, 2006), and developing life-long learning skills (Gee, 2003). Three of such programs that have been widely cited in the literature are Global Kids Second Life, Quest Atlantis, and River City.

global Kids second life Among the most powerful and popular virtual worlds is probably Second Life. Linden Lab, the developer of Second Life, has dedicated Teen Second Life to youths of 13-17 years old. Global Kids, a New York-based nonprofit organization targeting teen youth, is one of the first to set up educational projects in Teen Second Life. Starting in the summer of 2006, Global Kids has launched Camp GK, Online Educational Leadership, GK Machinima Island, and GK Serious Gaming Island in Teen Second Life. Having received massive press attention from a number of media outlets (see for example, BusinessWeek, 2006; Education Week, 2007), GK Second Life has been regarded as an invaluable, pioneering effort in the use of 3-D virtual world technology in education. To make use of the vast virtual land available, kids are encouraged to build the facilities and material required for a program, such as meeting rooms, workshop materials, and t-shirts for the program (Second Life, 2007). A workshop in Second Life can start in the GK Clubhouse, move to the factory, transfer to the dance club, and then conclude at the campfire, which greatly enhance kids’ sense of ownership of their learning spaces and enjoyment of the learning experience. In this virtual world, multiple channels have been used to add social nuance, and to organize various

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

modes of communication. Local chatting (such as “talking,” “shouting,” and “whispering”) can be used between two or more avatars within 25 meters, whereas global “instant messaging” is distance-free allowing larger group of members’ communication instantly. In addition, teleporting allows “instantaneous travel” from one place to another at any time. To leverage the richness of Web 2.0 media, Global Kids also has integrated other types of Web 2.0 tools, scuh as blogs, wikis, in delivering meanignful end products to a broader audience possible (Arreguin, 2007). Another feature of Global Kids Second Life is its ability to engage kids in an active exploration and inquiry of real-life issues. On Global Kids Island, teenagers from around the world explored the global issues, commitment to civic participation, and leadership skills. In Camp GK, children participated in a four-week virtual workshop about child sex trafficking. As a result, campers built a maze to educate their online community to inspire them to take action on this issue. In its first eight weeks, the content-rich maze was visited by 2,500 teens (Global Kids Digital Media Initiative, 2007). Similarly, Ayiti: The Cost of Life is a role-playing game that requires the player to make life-and-death decisions for each member of an impoverished Haitian family of five in a farm town, which is a real-life problem that involves decision-making about schooling, medical care, work, and the family budget (Global Kids Digital Media Initiative, 2007). In addition, Global Kids Second Life aims to enhance kids’ social skills. Each location in Global Kids Second Life can be associated with different types of activities, norms and behaviors – meeting at the Clubhouse, working in the factory, and having fun at the dance club. Avatar “Lucky Figtree” wrote, “Since the first Camp GK in Teen Second Life, I can say with confidence that I have gained many social skills. I can hold out a meaningful debate, and I learned tons about important world causes” (Global Kids Digital Media Initiative, 2007). Global Kids Second Life

is also a unique virtual hangout created by teens who like to spend time there, playing games in GK Machinima Island and Serious Gaming Island. In this emerging, open-ended and somewhat anonymous social network, kids learn to develop their identities, form the ethos of the community, and adjust and fit into the community norm.

quest Atlantis Quest Atlantis (QA), funded by National Science Foundation and developed by the Center for Research on Learning & Technology at Indiana University, is a 3-D multi-user online learning community that is intended to engage children ages 9–12 in science and social studies tasks. Its legend is that the people of “Atlantis” face an impending disaster; their world is slowly being destroyed through environmental, moral, and social decay. The task of the project is to save Atlantis. QA consists of 11 worlds and each world features 3 villages that address different aspects of the world’s theme, such as urban ecology, water quality, astronomy, and weather. Each Quest is connected to local academic standards. Completing Quests involves children in real-world activities, such as conducting environmental studies, researching other cultures, calculating frequency distributions, analyzing newspaper articles, interviewing community members, and developing action plans (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux, & Tuzun, 2005). In QA, children can build virtual personae, virtually travel to places where they talk to other users and mentors, and conduct the Quests. Research has shown that QA has not only engaged children (both genders) in the 3-D fantasy setting and motivated them to complete the tasks (“Quests”) (Barab, Arici, Jackson, 2005), but it also has promoted deeper thinking and higher levels of learning in science, social studies, and language arts (Barab, Dodge, Tuzun, Job-Sluder, Jackson, Arici, et al, 2007). One of the core elements of QA is a storyline presented through a variety of media, including

259

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

videos, novellas, comic books, and movie-style posters. The storyline, spreading across various media, provides participants an integrated, memorable, and engaging game context. Like in other 3-D virtual worlds, children may develop online personae by way of avatar customization and their own personal homepages, which enhance children’s sense of identity, sense of belonging and ownership of their learning spaces. After children log into QA, they can interact with other children (in the form of avatars) around the world via avatar movements, text-chat, or email. As both consumers and producers of this digital environment, children need to acquire and develop skills of a variety of online tools (including productivity tools, modeling tools, visualization tools, communication tools, etc.) so as to interact, explore, and document their thinking process and learning products (Barab, Arici, Jackson, 2005). To echo the national call for inquiry-based math and science learning, QA has been designed to support children’s learning and thinking in the manner of scientific inquiry. As a core focus of this project, QA embeds a ‘socio-scientific inquiry’ process into its environment, “the process of using scientific methods to interrogate rich narratives about societal issues that have a scientific basis, yet whose solution requires balancing scientific claims with political, economic, and ethical concerns” (Barab, Sadler, Heiselt, Hickey, & Zuiker, 2006, p. 60). QA’s inquiry-based activities begin with a problem that is grounded in real-world issues. Leveraging 3-D technologies and game-based methodologies, the problems were presented in interactive narrative in which the ‘‘reader’’ has agency in co-determining how the story unfolds. The inquiry activities involve students in the process of refining questions, gathering data, evaluating information, developing plausible interpretations, and reflecting on their findings (Barab, Sadler, Heiselt, Hickey, & Zuiker, 2006). Similar to other multi-user virtual worlds, QA is a globally distributed community with over 4,500 participants from seven countries (Barab,

260

Arici, & Jackson, 2005). It provides a “context of participation” where children have the opportunity to interact with users from around the world in a protected virtual environment. Children communicate and collaborate through Co-Questing, Bulletin Boards, Blogs, and other group activities, in which they learn how to interact (socializing, discussing, negotiating, etc.) with other avatars. As one of the core elements of this virtual world, QA’ “value-sensitive community” supports not only collaborative activities for completing the tasks, but also promotes formation of identity, relationships and networks. In fact, each member of the QA community has formed his/her identity around participation related to the life commitments (Barab, Arici, & Jackson, 2005). Like most current virtual communities, QA is a self-organizing community where identity, relationships and networks would eventually emerge, evolve and transform. Participatory skills are critical in this online community where participants need to understand the complexity of the community and know how to cope with it.

river city River City, funded by the National Science Foundation and developed by Harvard University, is another widely cited 3-D virtual world targeting K-12 learners. Similar to Quest Atlantis, the objective of River City is to engage children in scientific inquiry-based learning. The virtual world is a simulated 19th-century city with a river running through it, and its citizens face chronic illness. The students’ task is to find out why the residents of River City are getting sick and what can be done to help them. Upon entering the city, students’ avatars can interact with each other, the avatars of instructors, and the digital artifacts of raw data and tacit clues as to possible causes of illness. Working in teams, students are engaged in solving multi-causal problems embedded within a complex environment. At the end of curriculum, students share and compare their hypothesis and

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

ways to solve the problem with that of other teams. The research results indicated that this 3-D virtual learning environment was highly motivating to all students, including lower ability students typically uninterested in classroom activities (Ketelhut, Dede, Clarke, Nelson, 2006); at the same time, it improved students’ content knowledge in biology and ecology and inquiry skills as compared to a similar paper-based curriculum (Ketelhut, Clarke, Dede, Nelson, & Bowman, 2005). The interface of River City consists of several key areas. The “Virtual Space” contains people, objects, and tools that carry information about the River City, which students can explore as well as meet avatars of all other visitors and chat with them. The “View and Action Space” allows students to change their viewpoint inside the virtual space and allows avatars to perform different actions (e.g., jumping, waving). The “Hints Machine” will flash periodically with hints and questions to help students better understand an issue. River City features a Global icon that shows the student’s current location within the city and that the student can teleport to another location by clicking the desired location (Ketelhut, Nelson, Dede, & Clarke, 2006). Enabled by 3-D virtual reality technologies, River City is a real compelling environment that draws on the strengths and interests of tech-savvy students (Abdul-Alim, 2006). Similar to Quest Atlantis, River City is centered on the scientific inquiry skills, as well as on the content in biology and ecology that are integrated with historical, social, and geographical content. The design of the River City environment consists of four scientific inquiry elements: connecting personal understandings with those of sound science, designing experiments, investigating phenomena, and constructing meaning from data and observations. Students are guided through the process of making observation, posing questions, developing hypothesis, investigating, proposing answers, explanations, and predictions, and communicating the results in the form of a

letter to the Mayor of River City. The problems are interdisciplinary that integrate content from science, history, and social studies, allowing students to experience real world inquiry skills required in disentangling multi-causal problems in a complex environment and start to develop scientific habits of mind (Ketelhut, Clarke, Dede, Nelson, & Bowman, 2005). Another focus of River City is the development of participation and collaboration skills, which is realized through teamwork (Clarke & Dede, 2005). Working in a small research team of two to four, students are engaged in a “participatory historical situation” in which they need to work closely to resolve an authentic problem. Students project to each other “snapshots” of their current individual thinking and also can “teleport” to join anyone on their team for joint investigation (Clarke, 2007). As one of the teachers who have adopted this project commented, “Value is placed on working together … They have to communicate, and they have to convey the results of what they did accurately and clearly” (Abdul-Alim, 2006). In the past few years, nearly 10,000 students in the United States and internationally have completed the River City curriculum as part of their middle school science classes (Nelson 2005).

rethInKIng MedIA lIterAcy sKIlls In 3-d vIrtuAl World leArnIng envIronMents Global Kids Second Life, Quest Atlantis, and River City represent an emerging new type of learning in the 21st century. Different from the traditional print-based learning in the classroom, learning in 3-D virtual worlds is demanding and requires learners’ sophisticated use of a variety of online technologies, greater levels of thinking and active participation and social skills. This new type of learning requires a new language for thinking about media literacy in the age of 3-D virtual worlds. The exemplary use of 3-D virtual worlds

261

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

in K-12 setting (as discussed earlier) has suggested the following emerging media literacy skills.

transmedia literacy skills Virtual world learning environments, bringing together the strength of so many different online technologies, require people to be sophisticated in using all the forms, not just reading and typing written words. Transmedia literacy, therefore, refers to the ability of sense-making, communication, and articulation across multiple media channels and modalities that requires a high degree of information processing. As demonstrated in Global Kids Second Life, Quest Atlantis, and River City, part of what makes working in these virtual worlds so engaging is the media-enriched environment and the process of exploring and manipulating different media and tools. The same piece of information could be presented in various media format - textual, aural, visual, or a combination of all, which conveys varied levels of meaning. Students thus need the skills to make sense of visualizations and sound, and to grasp what kinds of information are being conveyed by various systems of representations. Students should also understand that each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the use of transmedia allows each to augment the other to create a stronger whole. At the same time, students need the skills to express themselves, interact with others, and create final products (learning outcomes) across multiple media and understand how meaning will be shaped by each media.

Inquiry skills There has been a wide consensus in K-12 education that memorizing facts and information is not the most important skill in today’s world; instead students need to acquire the inquiry skill that is needed in real world. While there are varied definitions of inquiry focusing on different aspects, inquiry skill required in 3-D virtual

262

worlds consists of the desire of “I want to know” and the ability to question, analyze, and explore the many levels of meaning in the media-enriched and information-rich world. In virtual worlds, facts and information, stored and presented in multiple channels, are already abundant and easily assessable. Learning in the information-rich environment is not so much about memorizing factual knowledge and seeking the right answer, but rather about seeking contextual appropriate solutions to problems or issues. Just as in Global Kids, Quest Atlantis, and River City, children are exposed to real world issues and problems situated in complex contexts. Such issues have no right or wrong answers; instead, they require learners’ persistent exploration of solutions that are contextually appropriate. These educational virtual worlds have centered on the authentic inquiry process of making observations, posing questions, examining available resources, gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data, proposing answers/explanations/predictions, and communicating results (National Science Teachers Association, 2004). Therefore, for educators, inquiry skills and inquiring attitudes and habits of mind should be emphasized in daily teaching practice so as to well prepare the children for the real world.

participatory skills 3-D virtual worlds act like “affinity spaces” (Gee, 2003) where people who share common interests and endeavors, come together to share, learn, and contribute. Such worlds require students to have a participatory spirit and the skill to create, share, and sometimes mentor in a collective intelligence community. 3-D virtual worlds are also an emerging social network, in which individuals connect with each other and form networks of connections. Many tools are available in virtual worlds (for example Second Life) for social networking purposes, including creating and/or joining groups, instant messaging, or teleporting. Such

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

social networks are self-organizing, continually evolving, dynamically changing that is hard to predict and prescribe, which are challenging to participants, especially those who are new to this novel learning environment. Therefore, in addition to the transmedia and inquiry skills, the literacy for learning in the virtual worlds should include participatory skills. In the virtual world where students have the maximum freedom of being present, lurking, or totally invisible, students need to be equipped with the participatory spirit – a sense of belonging and desire of commitment to a community. Participatory spirit implies a willingness of “I want to be part of it.” With such desire, students will be able to actively participate, explore, and contribute, instead of passively receiving information. Students should also understand the ways of interacting within a larger community - how networks work, what the ethos of a community is, when to trust and when not to trust others, and how to work thing out. They need skills for working within social networks, for pooling knowledge within a collective intelligence, for negotiating differences and divergences within and across online communities, and making sense of a coherent picture from conflicting bits of data around them.

reconceptualizing Media literacy in the digital Age Defined generally as “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages in a wide variety of forms” (Aufderheide & Firestone, 1993, p. 7), the focus of traditional media literacy skills has centered on an individual’s critical analysis and creative expression of media messages in a variety of media formats. This view of media literacy was rooted in the print-based media and has expanded to include digital media messages in the multimedia format, such as MP3 music, films on DVDs, TV advertising, Web sites, digital story-telling, all of which are mainly in the one-way transmission mode.

Apparently, discrepancies exist between the dominant view of media literacy skills and the needed media literacy skills required in the new learning environment. As demonstrated in the exemplars of 3-D virtual world programs, the focus of the new learning environment has shifted from individual critical consumption to active involvement and contribution in a collective sense-making and knowledge-building community. Different from the traditional learning environment, 3-D learning environments are multi-dimensional that enable interaction at multiple levels (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many; local, distant, and global) and in different modes (synchronous vs. asynchronous; text-based vs. video-based). While an individual’s interpretation and analysis ability is still a very important skill in this environment, learners’ inquiry mind and participatory spirit and skills are even more critical to their success or failure in this environment. Therefore, the scope of media literacy skills in the new learning environments needs to expand to include inquiry and participatory skills as well.

rethInKIng MedIA lIterAcy educAtIon Pioneered by Marshall McLuhan and John Culkin (1964), explicit media literacy education in the United States began in the 1970s due to the pervasiveness of film, TV, and radio on the society, and focused on inoculation of children against the so-called “evil effects” of mass media (Starker, 1989). Beginning in the late 1980s, the focus of media education has shifted from “protection” to “empowerment,” aiming to equip children with the ability to identify the political, cultural, economic, and social implications of media messages (Thomas, 1986). With the advent of Internet technology and the emergence of 3-D virtual worlds, the focus and goals of media education may need to expand to adapt to the technology-rich and media-saturated learning environments.

263

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

current state of Media literacy education While still an underrepresented topic in the United States, media literacy education is gaining increasing visibility and status in K-12 schools (Heins & Cho, 2003; Hobbs, 2005). All 50 states have included some elements of media literacy education within state curriculum frameworks (Kubey & Baker, 1999). In Massachusetts, for example, the English language arts state curriculum framework recognizes media literacy as one of the ten guiding principles for teaching, learning, and assessing English language arts. “Media” has also been identified as one of the four main strands, in addition to “Language,” “Reading and Literature,” and “Composition” (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2001). In addition to English language arts, media literacy education has been incorporated into such curricular areas as communication arts, fine and performing arts, social studies, and health education (Hobbs, 2005). By April 2000, all 50 states (100%) have included at least one element of media literacy in English language arts and communication arts, 48 states (96%) in health, consumer skills, 38 states (76%) in social studies, history, and civics, and 7 states (14%) have listed media as a separate strand (content area) (Media Literacy Clearinghouse, n.d.). Prominent skills being emphasized among the state standards have centered on two strands: critical consumption and creative production of media messages. The critical strand emphasizes student’s ability to interpret, analyze, and evaluate media content within social, cultural, political, and economic contexts. The ultimate goal of this strand of media education is to empower students to be critical and wise consumers of media. One common classroom practice used, most likely in English language arts class, is to use critical questions to guide students’ interpretation and analysis of media “texts” – the “texts” in the forms of films, television programs, magazines,

264

newspapers, and popular music (Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999). Main topics include news, advertising, issues of representation and media violence, sexism, racism, stereotyping, and homophobia (Considine & Haley, 1999). As an effort to unify the field and guide schools and districts in organizing and structuring teaching activities using a media literacy lens, the Center for Media Literacy, a pioneering force in the development and practice of media literacy in the United States, has developed key concepts and questions to guide the instructional practice. The five key concepts are (1) All media messages are ‘constructed;’ (2) Media messages are constructed using a creative language with its own rules; (3) Different people experience the same media message differently; (4) Media have embedded values and points of view; (5) Most media messages are organized to gain profit and/or power. The five key questions are (1) Who created this message? (2) What creative techniques are used to attract my attention? (3) How might different people understand this message differently than me? (4) What values, lifestyles and points of view are represented in, or omitted from, this message? (5) Why is this message being sent? In contrast, the creative strand teaches students how to communicate effectively and creatively in a variety of media formats. Clearly, media literacy education in the creative strand has been used to empower the students to be creative media makers. Most media production courses are offered as elective courses, often as part of vocational education (Cuban, 2002). In these courses, students learn how to operate media production equipments (such as digital camcorders, switching and sound equipment) and multimedia editing software programs (such as PowerPoint, iMovie, Adobe Photoshop Elements). Common projects include writing for school newspapers and magazine articles; creating public service announcements, narrative films, and music yearbooks; writing film scripts, song lyrics; and designing class or project web sites and computer games. Lagging behind the

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

critical strand of media literacy education, there has not been a nationwide effort to develop a set of key principles to guide the teaching practice in the creative strand. There is also a tendency to confuse media literacy in the creative strand with technology skills, with media production strand focusing solely on technical operations and skills, thus losing the point of media literacy education.

Redefining Directions of Media literacy education As discussed earlier, building upon the research in the fields of humanities, current approaches to media education in U.S. schools are limited to the subject areas akin to humanities, such as English language arts, communication, fine, and performing arts, and social studies (history, cultural studies). With few states having connected media literacy to their math and science curricular standards, media literacy education appears to be neglected in the core curriculum of math and science. It is indisputable that math and science are two of the subject areas that are technology-driven and media-dependent. Much of the information about math and science is represented and conveyed via a variety of media. Current teaching and learning of math and science rely heavily on technology tools, such as spreadsheet, database, visual displaying, concept mapping, and 3-D modeling and simulation. It makes much sense that media literacy should be considered a critical element in math and science education and should be seamlessly integrated into the daily teaching activities. Educators could guide students to discover the different messages and potential bias from the same set of data that is represented in different media formats. Students should also be empowered with the ability to choose the appropriate tool or combination of tools and to manipulate the tool functions to share their scientific report in the most effective and appealing way.

Closely related to the aforementioned direction of expansion of media literacy education into the math and science curriculum, the current scope of media literacy skills should be expanded to encompass more competencies and skills that are required in the new media landscape where learning is a matter of inquiry and participation. New media literacy is comprised of a set of technical, thinking, and social skills that are essential for this generation of students to be competent learners in the digital age. Just as each new media brings with it a new form of expression, interaction, and power (McLuhan, 1964), 3-D virtual world learning environments provide a more dynamic platform for social interaction, communication, expression, and approaches to learning, all of which is enabled by a plethora of media and technology. Therefore, one of the major goals of new media literacy education in the digital age is to develop students’ transmedia skills. Students’ technical and literacy skills across multiple media channels and modalities become especially important in this technology-rich and media-saturated learning environment. For educators, transmedia literacy skill should be emphasized in the daily teaching to help students become skillful and thoughtful consumers and creators of messages in the crossmedia format. Equally important to the transmedia literacy skills are the spirit, habit, and skills of inquiry. The second goal of media literacy education should be to help students foster the questing mind and inquiry skills. Being immersed in the information and media rich environment where each and every participant has the tool and freedom to produce messages, some being valuable and some being misinformation, learners need the thinking skills to seek out the most relevant and most reliable messages and set aside the irrelevant and the misinformation. Students should be guided through the inquiry process of active exploration, critical analysis, intentional reflection, and meaningful construction (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003).

265

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

In parallel to the goals of developing transmedia and inquiry skills, the third goal of new media literacy education is to develop students’ participatory spirit and skills in an immersive technology-rich learning environment. 3-D virtual learning environments come with both benefits and challenges. Children and adolescents tend to become addicted to virtual worlds - “the immersive addiction syndrome.” Students need to understand the true meaning of “participation” and the extent and levels of participation in virtual learning environments. They should be educated to know how much energy and time they should put into the off-task activities (such as online games, chatting, dressing up their avatars, etc.). Similarly, children need to be aware of issues that come with virtual reality technology, such as “virtual identity” and “virtual conduct.” They should be educated to become competent participants and good citizens as well by following the appropriate virtual conduct as they would in the real world.

conclusIon Despite the increasing interest in and fast growth of 3-D virtual worlds in education, little research has been conducted to investigate the needed media literacy skills in this technology-rich and media-saturated learning environment. This chapter suggests that the focus of media literacy skills needs to expand to include transmedia, inquiry thinking, and participatory skills, all of which are required not only in this new learning environment but are also an essential life skill for the 21st century. If we are committed to educating and producing competent learners and citizens for the new global age, it is imperative to integrate the new media literacy education into all K-12 curriculums, including not only language arts and social studies but also math and science. Media literacy educators need to encourage not only critical analysis skills, but also sophisticated and

266

creative use of available technologies, persistent and strategic inquiry, and active and responsible participation in a collective intelligence online community. Working closely with educators, researchers need to conduct more formal research to better understand the effects of media literacy education on students’ motivation and course work, and investigate their impact on other realms of cognitive development, emotional intelligence, and life-long learning competence.

reFerences Abdul-Alim, J. (2006). Tech-savvy students find lifeline in virtual science: Bayside class acquires vital skills through Web-based ‘epidemic.’ Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.jsonline. com/story/index.aspx?id=429182 Alvermann, D.E., Moon, J.S., & Hagood, M.C. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Arreguin, C. (2007). Reports from the field: Second Life community convention 2007 education track summary. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http:// www.holymeatballs.org/pdfs/VirtualWorldsforLearningRoadmap_012008.pdf Aufderheide P., & Firestone, C. (1993) Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Queenstown, MD: Aspen Institute. Barab, S.A., Arici, A., & Jackson, C. (2005). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A designbased investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 65(1), 15-21. Barab, S., Dodge, T., Tuzun, H., Job-Sluder, K., Jackson, C., Arici, A., et al,(2007). The Quest Atlantis Project: A socially-responsive play space for learning. In B. E. Shelton & D. Wiley (Eds.), The educational design and use of simulation

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

computer games. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Barab, S.A., Sadler, T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., Zuiker, S. (2006). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: A framework for socio-scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59-82. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: QuestAtlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107. BusinessWeek. (2006, November 27). Second Life lessons. Business Week. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/ content/06_48/b4011413.htm Clarke, J. (2007). Trajectories of participation: A pilot study of students’ behaviors in a multiuser, virtual environment. Poster presented at the 2007 American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL. Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2005, April). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using multi-user environment (MUVs) in middle school science. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Considine, D.M., & Haley, G.E. (1999). Visual messages: Integrating imagery into instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press. Craver, C.W. (1994). School library media centers in the 21st century: Changes and challenges. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Cross, J., O’Driscoll, T., & Trondsen, E. (2006). Another life: Virtual worlds as tools for learning. E-Learn Magazine. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articl es&article=44-1 Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dede, C. (1995). Artificial realities, virtual communities, and intelligent artifacts: Implications for engineering education. In J.R. Bourne, A. Broderson, & M. Dawant (Eds.), The influence of technology on engineering education (pp. 36-65). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Education Week (2007, November 30). Projects probe new media’s role in changing the face of learning. Education Week. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.edweek. org/ew/articles/2007/12/05/14macarthur.h27. html?print=1 Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Global Kids Digital Media Initiative (2007). Engaging youth with a new medium: The potentials of virtual worlds. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http:// www.holymeatballs.org/2007/05/media_engaging_youth_with_a_ne.html Heins, M., & Cho, C. (2003). Media literacy: An alternative to censorship. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/medialiteracy2d.html Hobbs, R. (2004). A review of school-based initiatives in media literacy education. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(42). 42-57. Hobbs, R. (2005). Media literacy and the K-12 content areas. In G. Schwarz & P. Brown (Eds.) Media literacy: Transforming curriculum and teaching (pp. 74-99). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Columbus, OH: Upper Saddle River. Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dede, C., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Inquiry teaching for depth and coverage via multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

267

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

Ketelhut, D.J., Nelson, B., Dede, C., & Clarke, J. (2006). Inquiry learning in multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco, CA.

Squire, K.D., & 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.

Kubey, R., & Baker, F. (1999, October 27). Has media literacy found a curricular foothold? Education Week, 19(9), 38-56. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory. cfm?slug=09ubey2.h19&keywords=kubey

Starker, S. (1989). Evil influences: Crusades against the mass media. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Massachusetts Department of Education (June 2001). Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0601.pdf McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill. Media Literacy Clearinghouse. (n.d.). State Standards Which Include Elements of Media Literacy. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www. frankwbaker.com/state_lit.htm National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: scientific inquiry. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.nsta.org/ main/forum/showthread.php? t=1175 Nelson, B. (2005). Investigating the impact of individualized, reflective guidance on student learning in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University, MA. Pantelidis, V.S. (1993). Virtual reality in the classroom. Educational Technology, 33(4), 23-27. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Second Life. (2007). Education. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://secondlife.com/whatis/ Selwood, I., Mikropoulos, T., & Whitelock, D. (2000). Guest editorial. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 233-236.

268

The New Media Consortium. (2007). The 2007 Horizon Report. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from http://www.nmc.org/horizon/2007/report Thomas, E. (1986, Spring). Blueprint for responseability. Media & Values, 35. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article185.html Washington Post. (2008, February 6). Spies’ battleground turns virtual. Washington Post. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/ AR2008020503144_pf.html Watson, D. (2000). Editorial. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 231-232.

Key terMs And deFInItIons 3-D Online Learning Environments: Also known as 3-D virtual worlds. Represented by avatars, learners meet, socialize and interact with each other, computer-based agents, digital artifacts, and the environments in real time, just as they might in the real world. Inquiry Skills: Inquiry Refers to the desire of “I want to know” and the ability to question, analyze, and explore the many levels of meaning in the media-enriched and information-rich world. Media Literacy Education: The focus of traditional media literacy education has centered on an individual’s critical analysis and creative expression of media messages in a variety of media formats.

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

Media Literacy Skills: Rooted in the printbased media and the one-way transmission mode, media literacy skills have been defined generally as the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages in a wide variety of forms. New Media Literacy Skills: The scope of media literacy skills required in the emerging 3-D virtual learning environment needs to expand to include technical (transmedia), thinking (inquiry), and social (participatory) skills.

Participatory Skills: Refers to the skills for working within social networks, for pooling knowledge within a collective intelligence, for negotiating differences and divergences within and across online communities, and making sense of a coherent picture from conflicting bits of data around them. Transmedia Literacy Skills: Refers to the ability of sense-making, communication, and articulation across multiple media channels and modalities that requires a high degree of information processing.

269

270

Chapter XVII

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry Margus Pedaste University of Tartu, Estonia Tago Sarapuu University of Tartu, Estonia

AbstrAct The general aim of the present chapter is to focus on the factors influencing simulation-based computersupported inquiry learning in small groups. The authors will give an overview of research that describes different factors influencing inquiry learning and problem solving and will add a dimension of collaborative web-based inquiry from their studies. The evidence from relevant scientific literature as well as the empirical results collected by the authors form the basis for discussion about designing an effective learning environment through a viewpoint of different end-users of our results – especially teachers and software designers. As a result, three additional main factors have been found that should be taken into account in designing support systems for problem solving: i) the level of difficulty of problems, ii) the appropriate sequence of problems, and iii) the characteristics of learners’ groups.

IntroductIon Recent research papers discuss the validity and limits of numerous experiments carried out in psychology lab settings. It has become common knowledge that authentic context is needed for making conclusions that are applicable in science classrooms (Harskamp et al., 2007; Rieber, 2005). Therefore, we carried out a series of studies in the

context of science in authentic classroom learning settings in order to detect the factors that affect students’ outcomes when learning in small groups in a web-based inquiry environment. Our general aim was to give an overview how to integrate three different approaches effectively: simulation-based learning, computer-supported inquiry learning, and collaborative learning. Since simulation-based learning is regarded as a tool for collaborative and

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

computer-supported inquiry learning, we deal with it only briefly. Our main interest is inquiry learning in small groups. Firstly, this chapter summarizes literature from four domains: i) computer-based simulations and ii) solving problems through inquiry, iii) applying computer-based environments for problem solving and inquiry learning, and iv) the importance of collaboration in learning. Next, we refer to our previous studies that form the basis for developing the design principles of effective web-based simulations for collaborative inquiry learning. Finally, the design principles are presented in a list of implications for both teachers and software-designers.

coMputer-bAsed sIMulAtIons Simulations have been regarded as one of the most effective types of computer-based learning environments for more than twenty years as they give students an opportunity to clarify their understanding and misconceptions (Alessi & Trollip, 1991). Learners can manipulate different scientific models in constructing a new system of knowledge based on the old one (Brooks, 1990). Drawing direct connections between tasks in a learning environment and the real world help them to manage in solving everyday problems (Needels & Knapp, 1994). In a situational simulation, a participant is an integral part of the program and because of this, he or she can transfer more knowledge and understanding to practice in the real world. We have designed a situational learning simulation ‘Hiking across Estonia’ (http://bio.edu.ee/tour/), which provides students with an opportunity to virtually explore processes and phenomena of nature, manipulate variables, observe the effects of their operations, and make experiments to discover relations between variables. It enables students to discover the basic principles in ecology and environmental education.

probleM solvIng through InquIry Inquiry learning or scientific discovery has been studied for about fifty years starting with the research of Bruner et al. (1956). Unfortunately, these ideas started to spread into curricula and instructional programs, both classroom- and computer-based ones, more than thirty years later. The new era started when the ideas were developed in Klahr and Dunbar’s (1988) theory of ‘Scientific Discovery as Dual Search’ (SDDS). This theory states that scientific discovery is a dual search between the hypothesis space and the experiment space. Besides, the modern tools in application of multimedia enable the building of appropriate support for acquiring inquiry skills in computer based environments. During inquiry, students explore new relationships between various factors for themselves and, therefore, they understand natural processes better and are able to apply this knowledge in new situations for a longer time (Zachos et al., 2000). In a general manner, the processes of inquiry learning are divided into transformative and regulative ones (de Jong & Njoo, 1992). Transformative processes lead a learner towards the solution of a problem, step by step, whereas regulative ones are necessary for planning, monitoring, and evaluating transformative processes. It means that in inquiry learning, two parallel sets of actions are carried out and concentrating only on one of these could lead to unsuccessful problem solving. However, according to other authors, the regulative processes are embedded into a list of transformative ones and, therefore, we will describe the steps of inquiry in one sequence. The general sequence of inquiry learning stages is the following: identifying the problem, formulating research questions, formulating hypotheses, planning the study, executing the plan, analyzing and interpreting the results, and representing findings. However, the starting point and the endpoint of inquiry of different theories

271

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

are not always the same. Although the process commonly starts with getting acquainted with the situation (Veermans, 2002; Harlen & Jelly, 1997; Padilla, 1990), Friedler et al. (1990) have begun with defining a scientific problem that is typically the second step in this sequence. In the endpoint, in many cases, analysis and interpretation of results is the last step but in the work of Padilla (1990) or Harlen and Jelly (1997), there is an additional stage of presenting the findings to others in the learning community. It is reasonable to add this stage because it is not sufficient if a learner knows an answer to a problem but cannot make it understandable for others. In order to acquire inquiry skills effectively, we have to understand what skills are related with each stage of inquiry. Therefore, we will give an overview of these skills based on the work of Harlen and Jelly (1997) and Padilla (1990). It is possible to use this list of skills in evaluating the outcome of science learning in school. ‘Identifying the problem’ contains skills for watching carefully, taking notes, identifying similarities and differences, seeing patterns, and understanding the order in which the events have to take place. ‘Formulating research questions’ includes recognizing the questions that are generative, long lasting, and interesting enough to foster a rich investigation, understanding which questions can be answered by experimentation, and turning non-investigable questions into investigable ones. ‘Formulating hypotheses’ provides explanations consistent with available observations, questions, and evidence. Correct hypotheses have to be testable with an experiment. In the step of ‘planning the study’ the learner has to develop ideas for collecting evidence that are needed in recognizing patterns in data from which to extrapolate or interpolate in order to make conclusions. The next stage, ‘executing the plan’, is divided into the steps of planning, conducting experiments, measuring, data gathering, and controlling variables. This is the stage that overlaps with the step on ‘planning the study. ‘Analysis and interpretation of results

272

implies ensuring that the data supports the hypothesized connections, synthesizing, finding patterns, relating findings to initial questions and observations, and drawing conclusions. The final stage of ‘representing findings’, involves demonstrating the results in a clear manner, choosing the appropriate way to translate the outcomes to others, making representations such as charts or diagrams that illustrate data and results, talking to others about the whole study, and also listening to the others’ explanations.

FActors AFFectIng InquIry In coMputer-bAsed envIronMents The latest research on computer-based problem solving has demonstrated that while in a classroom environment a teacher guides students towards experience then in multimedia-based environment, the role of the teacher is minimized and, therefore, the absence of such a facilitator is one of the most important factors that can cause the failure in learning with computers (Zhang et al., 2004). In addition, it has been demonstrated that not only the physical but also the social environment plays a very important role in inquiry learning process. Therefore, internal and external factors are interrelated and can affect the outcome bymore than the sum of them. A learner is in social interaction with other students in a collaborative learning group and, also, with a virtual facilitator or adaptive support mechanism of the computer-based learning environment. Moreover, in some studies the support of the environment that enhances students’ situation awareness, either contextual or task and process, has been regarded as one of the most important factors influencing the computer-based learning process (see Veermans et al., 2000; Reid et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2004, Pata et al., 2007). Contextual awareness involves learners’ knowledge of available resources and relations in the learning environment. Task and

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

process awareness can be explained as students’ knowledge of why and how they have to do something in order to achieve their goals (Sonnenwald et al., 2004). Funke and Frensch (1995) have divided internal factors into experience, cognitive variables, and non-cognitive variables. According to Jonassen (2000), the experience indicates familiarity and knowledge, either concerning the domain or the structure of the task. It enables expert problemsolvers to apply problem schemas which can be employed more automatically while novices have to design these schemas and may fail already in this stage (Sweller, 1988). The ‘cognitive variables’ cover initial knowledge and skills concerning the problem task and context. Jonassen (2000) pays more attention to the terms of cognitive styles and controls which represent patterns of thinking and reasoning. We can also generalize that it means learners’ initial ability to solve problems and analyze various types of visual information presented in inquiry situations: graphs, tables, photos, and figures. However, these cognitive variables embrace the skills to organize learning in small groups. ‘Non-cognitive’ factors that influence problem solving are students’ self-confidence, perseverance, motivation, and enjoyment (Funke & Frensch, 1995). Jonassen (2000) describes epistemological beliefs in the same context. It means that problem solving and related inquiry learning requires considering the veracity of ideas and multiple perspectives during evaluation of possible solutions. Therefore, problem solving always remains different for various types of learners, even after intensive instruction with extensive support. In conclusion, both types of factors influencing problem solving – external and internal – are considerably well studied. However, there is a lack of information concerning some aspects of both types: i) the characteristics of learning groups, and ii) the presence and type of support. Therefore, our research focused on these two aspects.

eFFects oF collAborAtIon In probleM-solvIng sItuAtIons The third approach behind simulation-based and computer-supported inquiry learning of our studies has been collaboration. In the last decade, collaborative learning is an emerging topic in applying new technologies in schools and even for outside instructional purposes (see Pata et al., 2005; Pata & Sarapuu, 2006). The importance of this area is indicated by the growing number of international conferences and published papers on computer-supported collaborative learning. However, the collaboration can either facilitate or impede learning and, therefore, the interactions between learners have to be carefully analyzed and the help provided has to be in accordance with learners’ individual characteristics as well as their interactions (Mercier et al., 2007). It has been demonstrated that individuals facilitate or support the progress of a group by performing particular roles (Cohen, 1994) or implementing specific strategies (Barnes & Todd, 1977; Forman & Gazden, 1985; Cazden, 1988; Slavin, 1996). The main roles are those of a i) facilitator, ii) proposer, iii) supporter, iv) critic, and v) recorder. A facilitator invites participation, monitors the work, and promotes a friendly discussion. A proposer generates new ideas that will be evaluated and subsequently supported or criticized by supporters and critics. A recorder is important for summarizing the discussion. However, each learner may have various strategies for assuming one or the other role and these may lead to effective or ineffective problem solving. Based on the number of roles, an effective group should contain up to five learners. Still, it is not always so because each member of the group may adopt various (all) roles in different parts of the discussion (Chiu, 2000). Therefore, we have been also interested in how the size of a group influences the outcome of inquiry learning. The group work is usually more effective than the sum of the individuals’ actions. It has been

273

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

demonstrated that learners who understand little about the immediate problem but work cooperatively may generate multiple perspectives and coordinate them for synthesizing a correct solution (Stodolsky, 1984; Chiu, 2000). Students in a group can interact less or more cooperatively while still working independently, displaying some of their information to others, explaining their ideas, and comparing only their answers or even particular problem solving strategies. However, successful cooperation presumes that all stages of problem solving have to be discussed with each other before going further (Chiu, 2000). According to this idea, learning in groups has a high potential in the field of learning complex problem solving skills. Still, collaborative learning has another advantage compared to cooperative learning. While in the case of collaboration the learners are working together at the same tasks, they can scaffold each others’ work (Littleton & Häkkinen, 2003). The factor of peer scaffolding is especially important when the contribution of a tutor is lower or missing (Pata et al., 2005). Nevertheless, learning in groups embraces many hazards because it is a highly specialized form of communication in which students and the teacher assume specific roles (Vygotsky, 1978). The teacher has to manage the learning environment, provide scaffolding, administrate the instruction, monitor the process, assess and give relevant feedback based on the students’ needs and performance. Students play an active part and assume more responsibility for their own learning and interact actively with their peers to enhance their learning process (Chiu, 2000). When students can cooperate or collaborate in such situations more or less similarly to real cases, the teacher is often absent in computer-based environments. However, there is still the problem that a computer can evaluate and apply in acting only on the electronic representations of students’ minds while the teacher has the possibility to monitor feelings, facial expressions, etc.

274

In studying the effects of gender, Strough and Berg (2000) have demonstrated that preadolescent girls use more high-affiliation strategies than boys in collaborative situations. Boys, on the other hand, often focus on dominance and asserting themselves at the expense of others (Leaper, 1991). Some other studies indicate similarities in different age groups (Gilligan, 1982; Sheldon, 1990; Fultz & Hertzog, 1991; Leaper, 1994; Jarvinen & Nichols, 1996; Rose & Asher, 1999). In addition, more effective collaboration also leads the group of girls to a higher level of performance in solving problems (Strough et al., 2001). It means that females are thought to be more orientated than males toward interpersonal concerns. Therefore, it is easier to apply the advantages of learning in groups that are formed from girls whereas the teams consisting of boys may need more guidance and support from a teacher in the classroom. Based on this idea, the groups of boys may also need more support than girls in computer mediated learning. Nevertheless, a group where there is one dominating boy and the rest are girls, may work perfectly according to the ideas of Strough et al. (2001). Whitelock and Scanlon (1998) have demonstrated that in the context of physics problem solving, female groups have significantly higher performance than male groups, or mixed teams that have almost equal outcomes.

FrAMeWorK oF our studIes on Web-bAsed collAborAtIve InquIry leArnIng In our studies, the groups of learners formed voluntarily and organized their work by themselves. Some of the groups consisted of only boys or girls whereas the others had a mixture of genders, thus the ratio of boys or girls in a group was an important characteristic in our analyses. On the other hand, it was not possible to assess if students’ work in groups was more collaborative or cooperative. Therefore, the effect of collaboration cannot be

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

over-emphasized in the results and discussion. Our key interest was on analyzing the influence of support on the process of learning with the simulation program. We have demonstrated that the development of students’ problem solving and inquiry skills acquired in a complex situational simulation cannot be achieved without a support system in many cases (Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2006a and 2006b). In a particular study, students’ skills of analyzing information in tables, diagrams, photos, and figures was assessed before and after the usage of a learning environment “Hiking across Estonia” (Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2004). In this learning environment, students get acquainted with five ecosystems: heath forest, grove, meadow, waterside meadow, and bog. Each of these has a number of ecological or environmental story problems that have to be solved before moving on to the virtual hike. 25 different problems are presented in a certain sequence according to their type and content. Additional informative pages provide virtual hikers with all the facts needed for solving problems. In the case of simple problems, only the information in this learning environment has to be analyzed whereas in complex problems, a virtual tool has to be applied for collecting data in addition to the available information in the texts and visuals. After solving each problem, students get immediate feedback if their answers are correct or wrong and what the main mistakes are.

In the learning simulation “Hiking across Estonia”, students have to analyze information provided and make inferences on the basis of it. In an all-Estonian competition, students formed teams of 3 to 5 persons from the 6th to 12th grade (age 12-18). The teams were divided into five clusters on the basis of their results of inquiry learning, learning strategies, and personal data (see Table 1). Groups’ learning strategies and outcomes were used for naming the clusters: ‘Success-learners’ and ‘Smart-learners’ were effective in acquiring inquiry skills whereas ‘Slow-learners’, ‘Quicklearners’, and ‘Ineffective-learners’ had particular problems. Without any support, only two clusters out of five (35 % of the teams) showed a statistically significant development when comparing the results of the pre- and post-tests about their inquiry skills. In the next study, the hypothetical clusters of learning teams were unraveled using determinant analysis. This enabled us to provide learners with appropriate support. ‘Success-learners’ and ‘Smart-learners’ did not need any specific support. ‘Slow-learners’ had no success in solving complicated problems. Therefore, the sequence of the problems was rearranged – they were provided with simpler ones first. These students spent too much time on solving problems and, as a result, notes for enhancing task and process awareness were added. ‘Quick-learners’ used little time and did not vet their answers before submitting

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the sample of our studies Types of learning groups

Number of groups

Number of students

1. study

2. study

1. study

2. study

Average age 1. study

2. study

Ratio of boys in a group (%) 1. study

2. study

A. ‘Slow-learners’

6

4

23

22

14.5

14.5

48

40

B. ‘Quick-learners’

3

3

11

11

15.3

14.3

82

71

C. ‘Success-learners’

6

3

26

15

14.7

16.3

31

7

D. ‘Smart-learners’

17

13

66

45

14.5

14.5

12

7

E. ‘Ineffective-learners’

33

27

134

102

13.6

14.3

56

52

Total

65

50

260

195

14.1

14.5

43

40

275

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

them and, obviously therefore, failed in solving the most difficult problems that were based on analyzing figures and tables. Thus, notes were added more carefully their answers were added. ‘Ineffective-learners’ had major difficulties with complex problems but failed in solving simple ones as well. On the other hand, they solved problems too quickly — the sequence of these was therefore rearranged. Next, this cluster was provided with simpler problems first, and some notes for enhancing their contextual awareness were added. As a result of the adapted support, all clusters of teams developed (statistically) significantly in the skills of analyzing tables, diagrams, figures, and photos. Moreover, the measured skills increased in all teams at a comparable level with the two effective clusters determined in the whole population (see Table 2). The differences in the results of the pre- and post-test as well as in the comparison of the two studies were detected with ANOVA analysis. Thus, we can conclude that all three issues – collaborative learning, simulation-based learning, and instructional (adapted) support for increasing the effectiveness of learning process – are broadly

integrated in learning inquiry and problem solving skills. Finally, two implications can be drawn – some for organizing the learning process and the others for designing instruction.

Implications for the teachers in Applying Inquiry based problem solving We have analyzed a number of factors that have an influence on the success of learning process. Suggestions related to these factors can be regarded as the implications for practice. We have concentrated on initial knowledge and skills, the sequence of learning tasks, learning time, and support as these have been under investigation in the current studies as well. Initial knowledge and skills determine the difficulty level and appropriate sequence of the problems. However, the differences in general problem solving performance in groups of learners were not remarkable in our case and, therefore, we made a deeper analysis of problem solving skills. We evaluated various analytical skills that were needed by students for interpreting the problem

Table 2. Groups’ development in solving complex problems in the first (without support system) and second study (with adapted support) Name of the cluster

First study Pre-test mean

Post-test mean

Second study F

p

Pre-test mean

(max=20)

F

p

F

p

(max=20)

A. ‘Slowlearners’*

13.8

13.5

0.0

n.s.

10.0

14.3

20.2

<0.01

36.9

<0.01

B. ‘Quicklearners’*

10.7

10.3

0.0

n.s.

11.7

14.7

4.5

<0.05

12.5

<0.05

C. ‘Successlearners’

11.2

14.1

3.9

<0.05

11.9

14.6

3.9

<0.05

2.1

n.s.

D. ‘Smartlearners’

12.6

15.4

9.9

<0.05

12.4

14.3

4.2

<0.05

3.1

n.s.

E. ‘Ineffective-learners’*

9.0

10.2

0.4

n.s.

8.9

11.6

10.0

<0.01

41.2

<0.01

* clusters that were provided with adapted support in the second study

276

Post-test mean

Comparison of the studies

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

situations and for deciding if the actual problem contributed to any known schemata (see Riley & Greeno, 1988; Chi & Bassok, 1989). We assessed learners’ skills to analyze tables, graphs, figures, and photos that were embedded into problem stories. It appeared that all these skills were independent of each other. It also revealed that students’ initial skills to analyze graphs and photos played an important role in determining the outcome of ineffective clusters such as ‘Slowlearners’ and ‘Ineffective-learners’, while the level of skills to analyze tables and figures related to distinguishing more effective groups such as: ‘Quick-learners’, ‘Success-learners’, and ‘Smartlearners’ (Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2006a). Therefore, it was concluded that the skills to analyze graphs and photos were lower level abilities compared to the analyses of tables and figures. The former ones were presented in the clusters ‘Successlearners’ and ‘Smart-learners’ whereas the latter were partially developed in those cases. The importance of the sequence of problem tasks was clarified with comparison of the results in pre- and post-test and simulation in one study without rearrangement of the sequence with the other study where tasks were rearranged according to the type of problems and the cluster of learners. Two ineffective clusters that had problems with more difficult tasks in the first study were under investigation. In the second study, the sequence of the tasks was rearranged and, consequently, they solved simpler problems first and moved on to the more difficult ones step by step. The importance of the order of learning operations has been demonstrated by Landa (1974), however, in the current study the rearrangement of learning tasks was applied for supporting the groups of learners. As a result, these clusters demonstrated the biggest improvement in problem solving and analytical skills. Moreover, ‘Ineffective-learners’ became the only group where all analytical skills (skills to analyze graphs, photos, figures, and tables) improved.

Next, it is obvious that the time spent on learning has a strong influence on the students’ performance. It appeared that the ‘best duration’ for the learning process depends on the students’ group. It means that some groups of students can learn successfully even in a short time while the others use too much time without any good results due to the absence of situation awareness or weak strategies for solving problems. The factor ‘time’ was selected as the variable that had the strongest correlation with the learning outcome. However, ‘time’ can symbolize different meanings for teachers. In our case, we had 9% of the groups — the so-called ‘Slow-learners’. It could indicate the lack of task and process awareness, while these groups spent 39 minutes per task but had no (statistically) significantly better results compared to the other clusters. In the groups named ‘Quick-learners’ or ‘Ineffective-learners’ the variable ‘time’ could mean a low level of contextual awareness that led to the situation where some answers to the problems were generated not on the basis of the information available in the learning environment. The students did not use the appropriate resources of the learning simulation or they did not even know that they existed. The support needed by groups depended not only on their initial knowledge and timeusing strategies but also on the gender of group members. It appeared that generally the groups, mainly containing girls, had better achievement compared with other groups. It reveals that the groups of boys need much more guidance than girls. This finding is supported by the theories of collaborative learning that take into account the differences of genders (see Gilligan, 1982; Sheldon, 1990; Fultz & Hertzog, 1991; Leaper, 1994; Jarvinen & Nichols, 1996; Rose & Asher, 1999). Strough and Berg (2000) have demonstrated that girls use more high-affiliation strategies than boys in collaborative situations and, therefore, learn more in a shorter time; boys, on the other hand, focus on dominance and asserting themselves (Leaper, 1991). We agree with these considerations

277

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

in general but while looking into the differences of various clusters of learning groups, we have noticed among the others two little exceptional groups: i) one cluster that contains mainly girls but is still ineffective due to the absence of situation awareness (‘Slow-learners’, about 9% of the groups) and, ii) another cluster with the groups of boys who are very successful with minimal time (‘Quick-learners’, about 5% of groups). It follows that the gender of the learners and other variables need to be cognized when developing an instructional design concerning a web-based collaborative learning environment for problem solving. The type of the support is another important factor affecting the learning process. We developed different support systems for three ineffective clusters: ‘Slow-learners’, ‘Quick-learners’, and ‘Ineffective-learners’. These clusters were provided with different supportive notes on the basis of the difficulties, and are characteristic to the analogous clusters in a former experiment. As a result of using these notes, the formerly ineffective groups developed remarkably in respect of all inquiry skills measured with a pre- and post-test. Therefore, we can conclude that these supportive notes for improving either contextual or task and process awareness enabled the development of learners’ skills to solve problems (statistically) significantly compared to the learning process without any support. Even more, this support was appropriate for overcoming the initial weaknesses of these groups, as there were no statistically significant differences between these and other (effective) groups after the treatment. It proves that the adapted support is one of the essential components of collaborative multimedia-based environments for learning problem solving and inquiry skills. Different studies demonstrate that in organizing the learning process, all teachers and especially the science teachers should take the following into account:

278

i.

ii.

iii.

The difficulty level of solving (inquiry) problems collaboratively in web-based learning environments depends on the type of analysis needed for solving them. Problems that embed graphs and photos, in addition to texts, are easier to comprehend than those that contain figures and tables. The problems have to be presented to learners in an appropriate sequence. Wrong sequence could lead to lower motivation and outcome if there are some too complex or, for the others, too simple assignments at the beginning of the learning process. Solving complex problems is a difficult process and this complexity is often not realized by learners. It results either in wasting time or, in most cases, in giving the answers very quickly without the process of analyzing the task, background information, and input data. Providing them with appropriate support for enhancing their situation awareness is an important factor that helps learners to solve problems effectively.

design of an effective Web-based simulation for developing problem solving skills Although, instructional designers should consider the same implications as teachers, there are some additional guidelines specifically for them: i.

ii.

The effectiveness of a web-based learning environment for developing learners’ skills to solve problems depends on the appropriate support. Due to this, the design of the support system has to be a key stage in composing any instructional computer-based environment. The support system for students has to be adapted according to their characteristics because the clusters of learners are very different in their strategies of learning. Thus, it is necessary to specify the variety of learners

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

at first and, next, to design a support system according to their characteristics. iii. The methodology of combining hierarchical cluster analysis with discriminant analysis for developing a support system appeared to be very effective and, therefore, we recommend applying that for instructional design processes. According to this methodology, the following seven steps should be implemented: a. composing a learning environment; b. testing it with a pilot group; c. clustering the learners according to their strategies and outcomes of learning and personal information using hierarchical cluster analysis; d. determining by discriminant analysis the differentiating factors of the clusters found; e. designing an initial support system according to these factors; f. running a main study where the clusters of learners are predicted with discriminant analysis;

g.

evaluating the effectiveness of the support system by comparing the results of different clusters in the pilot and main study.

On the basis of these studies, we developed an empirical model of developing a support system for web-based problem-solving environments (see Figure 1). According to this, the support system has to be designed according to the learner groups’ differences (internal factors), the characteristics of particular learning tasks, and all additional materials of the learning environment, including those for developing learners’ metacognitive skills and enhancing situation awareness (external factors). The approach of external and internal factors of Funke and Frensch (1995) has been used in designing the model in our research. The groups’ performance in solving problems and their general characteristics, such as the number of members in a team, the ratio of genders, and the average age of students, were used as the groups’ characteristics for providing various groups with appropriate support. Rearranging the

Figure 1. Design principles of the support system for multimedia-based learning environments based on the relations between internal and external factors influencing problem solving (adapted from Funke & Frensch, 1995) Proble m tasks

EXTERNAL FACTORS

SUPPORT SYSTEM

INTERNAL FACTORS

Learning environme nt

Characteristics of problem

Cognitive and metacognitive tools

Rearranging the sequence of problems

Adding notes into the learning environment

Groups’ characteristics and performance in problem solving

Proble m solvers

279

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

sequence of the problems and adding the supportive notes into the learning environment formed the support system. In more detail, there were two types of notes – the first one for guiding students towards the usage of cognitive tools embedded into the learning program and the second one, especially for increasing learners’ metacognitive skills through explaining how to operate in the learning environment with different available materials and cognitive tools. The core ideas of this model are the following: i) we have to characterize internal and external factors that have a significant influence on the learning process, ii) next, the support system should be built on a variety of external factors, and iii) it has to be applied adaptively according to the learners’ characteristics. In our case, the internal factors characterized only the students because they learned without a teacher. In some other settings, the learning process is a collaboration of learners and instructors and then also instructors’ characteristics have to be taken into account as internal factors. Similarly, we had a limited number of tools in the learning environment but the set and properties of these can vary in other environments. Thus, the supportive elements should be in accordance with the learning environment but also depending on the particular problem tasks.

conclusIon In conclusion, we can list the factors affecting learning in multimedia-based inquiry environments on the basis of relevant scientific literature and our results. In general, these factors can be divided into external and internal ones. External factors involve the properties of the learning environment and learning tasks. The learning environment is not only the web-based simulation but also the surrounding environment of learners (classroom, computer-lab, etc.). Internal factors include the characteristics of learners

280

and teachers. There are constant characteristics (some personal characteristics) and changing ones (knowledge and skills). In addition, internal factors can be divided into personal (gender, age, knowledge, skills) and groups’ characteristics (ratio of genders, variety of ages, shared body of knowledge and skills, roles existing in a group). Our studies have demonstrated that both internal and external factors have to be taken into account in designing appropriate environment for learning. However, all properties have to be analyzed case by case because the learners or learning groups differ from each other and, therefore, they need different support system. In our case, there was only one third of learning groups where statistically significant improvement in inquiry skills was detected when there was no support in the web-based learning environment. At the same time, the others achieved the skills of the same level only if they were provided with adapted support. Even more, as a result of adapted support they outperformed the others concerning some particular inquiry skills. Although, we carried out the research in a webbased inquiry simulation where small groups of students learned in a self-regulated way, we can generalize some findings in a broader context. We can say that in order to improve the quality of learning in small groups, even in traditional classrooms, not only the characteristics of individuals and the properties of learning environment but also the differences of groups have to be taken into account. And in this case, analogically to the support system of a computer-based environment, the teacher has to provide different support for various types of groups. Therefore, teachers should carefully analyze their strategies of composing groups for successful collaborative inquiry learning.

AcKnoWledgMent This work was supported by the ESF grant 7410. We are also thankful to the teachers and learn-

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

ers who participated in our studies and to the Estonian Tiger Leap Foundation that supported the development of the learning environment “Hiking across Estonia”.

reFerences Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). ComputerBased Instruction: Methods and Development (2nd Edition). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. Boston: Routledge.

Forman, E., & Gazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive values of peer interaction. In J. Wertsch’s (Ed.) Culture, communication and cognition (pp. 323-347). Cambridge: Cambridge. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 173-191. Fultz, N. H., & Hertzog, R. (1991). Gender differences in affiliation and instrumentally across adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 6, 579-586.

Brooks, J. (1990). Teachers and Students: Constructivists Forging Connections. Educational Leadership, 47 (5), 68-71.

Funke, J., & Frensch, P. (1995). Complex problem solving research in North America and Europe: and integrative review. Foreign Psychology, 5, 42-47.

Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G.A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Science Editions.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and woman’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman. Chi, M. T. H., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 251-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem-solving process: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 27-49. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College. De Jong, T., & Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and Instruction with Computer Simulations: Learning Processes Involved. In E. de Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds) Computer-based Learning Environments and Problem Solving (pp. 411-429). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Harlen, W., & Jelly, S. (1997). Developing science in the primary classroom. Essex, UK: Addison Wesley Longman. Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction, 17, 465-477. Jarvinen, D. W., & Nichols, J. G. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals, beliefs about the causes of social success, and satisfaction in peer relations. Developmental Psychology, 32, 435-441. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 63-85. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual Space Search during Scientific Reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48. Landa, L. (1974). Algorithmization in learning and instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

281

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62, 797-811. Leaper, C. (1994). Exploring the consequences of gender segregation on social relationships. In W. Damon, & C. Leaper (Eds.) New directions for child development: Childhood gender segregation: Causes and consequences (Vol 65, pp. 67-86). San Francisco: Josey Bass. Littleton, K., & Häkkinen, P. (2003). Learning together: Understanding the process of computerbased collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 20-30). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Merscier, J., & Frederiksen, C. H. (2007) Individual differences in graduate students’ helpseeking process in using a computer coach in problem-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 184-203. Needels, M., Knapp, M. (1994). Teaching Writing to Children who are Underserved. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (3), 339-349. Padilla, M. J. (1990). The science process skills. Research matters – to the science teacher. Available from http://www.narst.org/publications/ research/skill.cfm, last accessed 23 November 2007. Pata, K, Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2007) The formation of learners’ semiosphere by authentic inquiry with an integrated learning object “Young Scientist”. Computers & Education, 49 (4), 1357-1377. Pata, K., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). A Comparison of Reasoning Processes in a Collaborative Modelling Environment: Learning About Genetics Problems Using Virtual Chat. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11/15), 1347-1368. Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Archee, R. (2005). Collaborative Scaffolding in Synchronous Environ-

282

ment: Congruity and Antagonism of Tutor/Student Facilitation acts. In T. Koschman, D. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The next 10 years (pp. 484-493). Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2004). Developing Students’ Problem Solving Skills by Learning Simulation “Hiking across Estonia”. In C. P. Constantinou, & Z. C. Zacharia (Eds.) Computer Based Learning in Science. Conference Proceedings 2003. Volume II – The Educational Potential of New Technologies (pp. 218-228). Nicosia, Cyprus: University of Cyprus. Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2006a). The Factors Influencing the Outcome of Solving Story-Problems in a Web-Based Learning Environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 14, 2, 153-176. Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2006b). Developing an effective support system for inquiry learning in a Web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 42-67. Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 9-20. Rieber, L. P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and micro worlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 549-568). New York: Cambridge University Press. Riley, M. S., & Greeno, J. G. (1988). Developmental analysis of understanding language about quantities in solving problems. Cognitive Instruction, 5, 49-101. Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (1999). Children’s goals and strategies in response to conflicts within a friendship. Developmental Psychology, 35, 69-79.

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes, 13, 5-31.

Whitelock, D., & Scanlon, E. (1998). The roles of gaze, gesture, and gender in CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 158-165.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.

Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. J., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting Theoretical and Empirical Foundations for Assessing Scientific Inquiry and Discovery in Educational Programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 938-962.

Sonnenwald, D. H., Maghlaughlin, K. L., & Whitton, M. C. (2004). Designing to Support Situation Awareness Across Distances. An Example from the Scientific Collaboratory. Information Processing and Management, 40, 989-1011. Stodolsky, S. S. (1984). Frameworks for studying instructional processes in peer work-groups. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.) The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes (pp. 107-124). New York: Academic. Strough, J., & Berg, C. A. (2000). Goals as a mediator of gender differences in high-affiliation dyadic conversations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 117-125. Strough, J., Berg, C. A., & Meegan, S. P. (2001). Friendship and gender differences in task and social interpretations of peer collaborative problem solving. Social Development, 10, 1-22. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. Veermans, K. (2002). Intelligent support for discovery learning (Doctoral dissertation). Twente, The Netherlands: Twente University Press.. Veermans, K., de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2000). Promoting self-directed learning in simulation-based discovery learning environments through intelligent support. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 229-255. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 269-282.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Collaborative Learning: A form of learning in which a number of students work on a common goal, divide learning activities, and share knowledge and skills needed for achieving the final outcome of the learning process. Inquiry Learning: A process where relations between dependent and independent variables are found through formulating research questions and hypotheses, planning and carrying out experiments, analyzing experimental data, and communicating the outcomes. Inquiry Skills: Skills that are related to the stages of inquiry learning and enhance the effectiveness of inquiry learning processes. Multimedia-Based Learning Environment: A technologically enhanced (mostly computerbased) learning environment combining different types of media. Problem Solving: A process of solving problems consisting of activities starting from the initial problem state to the goal state. Simulation: Presentation of a real process in a virtual environment, which is often manipulative. 283

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

Situation Awareness: Students’ understanding of available resources in a learning environment and the knowledge of the meaning, reasons, and methods of applying various learning activities.

284

Support: A specific activity for enhancing the effectiveness of the learning process.

Section II

ICT Tools

286

Chapter XVIII

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males Stephenie Hewett The Citadel, USA

AbstrAct This chapter examines the differences in the educational needs of males, the origins of video games, and the issue of the decline in literacy achievement levels of male students worldwide. It promotes the idea that a new literacy which includes computer technology and visual literacy has changed the scope of literacy and that males have succeeded at developing the new literacy skills. The chapter is intended to inform educators of the literacy skills involved in video games, make connections with video game literacy and traditional literacy, and to encourage teachers to integrate video games into their curriculum.

IntroductIon According to the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) females scored thirteen (13) points higher on average in reading than male students (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005). Gurian (2001) also cites statistics indicating that boys: • • •

Earn seventy percent (70%) of D’s and F’s and fewer than half of the A’s, Account for two-thirds of learning disability diagnoses, Represent ninety percent (90%) of discipline referrals,

•

• •

Dominate such brain-related learning disorders as ADD/ADHD, with millions now medicated in schools, Make up eighty percent (80%) of the high school dropouts, and Make up fewer than forty percent (40%) of college students.

The current educational system around the world is failing to meet the educational needs of males. In the United States, Black males are three (3) times more likely than white students to be labeled as mentally disturbed (www.BET.com, 2005). Males are more often classified as being mentally retarded, having learning disabilities, and having attention deficit disorders.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

Girls performed better than boys academically in the thirty-five (35) countries who participated in a three (3) year study of knowledge and skills of males and females. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) studied males and females in industrialized countries including the United States, Canada, European countries, Australia, and Japan. The results show that reading and writing skills brought the male scores down the most. (Gurian & Stevens, 2004) The dismal educational achievement of males continues in the high school dropout rates and graduation rates of males. The difference in graduation rates for males and females widen within minority groups. There is an eleven percent (11%) difference in graduation rates of African-American males and females, nine percent (9%) fewer Hispanic males graduate than Hispanic females, five percent (5%) fewer white males graduate as compared with white females, and three percent (3%) fewer Asian males graduate from high school than Asian females (Greene &Winters, 2006). During the past decade, the graduation rate for Black women improved while the rate for Black males slipped. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Black women graduate from high school compared with forty-three percent (43%) of Black males ( NAEP, 2005). The differences in high school graduation rates of males and females lead to differences in college attendance rates. Women earn an average of fifty-seven percent (57%) of all BA’s and fifty-eight percent of master’s degrees in the United States (Conlin, 2005). The United States Department of Education predicts that if the current trend continues that by 2020, there will be 156 women for every 100 men earning college degrees. The college attendance rates for African-American males are even lower with only thirty-seven percent (37%) of Black males being enrolled in college (NAEP, 2005). The college graduation rate of Black males is lower than any other group. The research clearly shows that males are getting lost in the educational system. One of the

problems could be that the current curriculum is designed for all students to learn the same things at the same time in the same ways. It does not examine the cultural expectations of or for the males and does not consider the differences in the males’ brains, learning styles, or developmental levels. With the use of the current curriculum, the unrealistic expectations of teachers for males in the classroom, inappropriate teaching and presentation styles, and the restrictions on student movement in the classrooms, it becomes easy to understand why males appear to be angry, aggressive, and frustrated. In order to relieve the frustrations of males and to reverse the current educational trends of males, it is important for educators to consider all types of instruction. All students should be taught utilizing the knowledge of cultural gender differences as well as gender differences in brains and interests. Cultural expectations and gender differences are difficult to quantitatively study but have been extensively researched by literary and developmental experts such as Leonie Rowan (2002), Elaine Millard (1997), and many others. Research on the brain has vastly expanded with new medical technologies available to scan and learn more about the brain. Neurologists are finding that there are major differences in the characteristics of males’ brains and females’ brains. Evidence supporting brain differences in males and females is referenced by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens (2004) showing that: •

“boys brains have more cortical areas dedicated to spatial- mechanical functioning, males use, on average, half the brain space that females use for verbal-emotive functioning. The cortical trend toward specialmechanical functioning makes many boys want to move objects through space, like balls, model airplanes, or just their arms and legs. Most boys, although not all of them, will experience words and feels differently than girls do. (Blum, 1997; Moir & Jenssel, 1989). 287

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

•

•

•

boys have less serotonin than girls have, but they also have less oxytocin, the primary human bonding chemical. This makes it more likely that they will be physically impulsive and less likely that they neurally impulsiveness to sit still and empathetically chat with a friend (Moir & Jessel; 1989, Taylor, 2002). boys lateralize brain activity. Their brains not only operate with less blood flow than girls’ brains, but they are also structured to compartmentalize learning. Thus, girls tend to multitask better than boys do, with fewer attention span problems and greater ability to make quick transitions between lessons (Havers, 1995). The male brain is set to renew, recharge, and reorient itself by entering what neurologists call a rest state. The boy in the back of the classroom whose eyes are drifting toward sleep has entered a neural rest state. It is predominantly boys who drift off without completing assignments, who stop taking notes and fall asleep during a lecture, or who tap pencils or otherwise fidget in hopes of keeping themselves awake and learning. Females tend to recharge and reorient neural focus without rest states. Thus, a girl can be bored with a lesson, but she will nonetheless keep her eyes open, take notes, and perform relatively well. This is especially true when the teacher uses more words to teach a lesson instead of being spatial and diagrammatic. The more words a teacher uses, the more likely boys are to “zone out”, or go into rest state. The male brain is better suited for symbols, abstractions, diagrams, pictures, and objects moving through space than for the monotony of words (Gurian, 2001).”

The schools are failing to recognize and respond to the current educational gender specific needs of males. In today’s world, computers and video games play a major role in a student’s life. Whether the student is completing work on the

288

computer or using it for video games, a major portion of a student’s day is spent using a computer of some type. The education system has embraced the use of computers to complete assignments and conduct research for class projects. The disconnect between the educational system and technology occurs with the lack of a complete integration of the use of technology including video games for instructional purposes.

hIstory oF usIng vIdeo gAMes For InstructIonAl purposes In examining the history of educational games (video games), it is important to define the term educational video games. In this chapter, the definition of the term educational video games is written by Sara de Freitas (2006) in a report to the JISC e-Learning Programme in London. She defines educational games as “applications using the characteristics of video and computer games to create engaging and immersive learning experiences for delivering specific learning goals, outcomes, and experiences” (de Freitas, 2006, 10). With this definition in mind, a review of the history of video games for educational purposes will be focused on the use of electronic games to enhance learning. Spacewar was the first computer game to be developed. In 1961, Steve Russell used a PDP11 at the Massachusetts Institute of technology to develop the game that was collaborative and exhibited learning capabilities (Herz, 2001). The first games used to support learning and training were simulations. These games were war games and led to the fighting and shooting games of today (de Freitas, 2006). In the 1980’s, Brøderbund and the Learning Company are two of the first companies created who developed educational software. Reader Rabbit, developed in 1989 by the Learning Company, is one of the first software programs designed to teach children basic reading and spelling skills (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Educational_software, 2007). The personal

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

computer promoted the development of software that could be used to help students learn concepts, provide practice, and engage students in a fun activity. Peter Catalanotto first coined the word edutainment in the late 1990s as he traveled around the country edutaining school children about writing and illustrating. Edutainment is defined as “a form of entertainment designed to educate as well as to amuse” (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Edutainment, 2007). Edutainment typically seeks to instruct or socialize its audience by embedding lessons in some familiar form of entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edutainment, 2007). Today, there are millions of video games that are considered as edutainment. Parents and children can use a search engine (google) using the key words “reading video games” and one hundred twenty-nine million (129,000,000) sites can be accessed.

current use oF InstructIonAl technology Since the invention of the teaching machine in the 1920’s by Sidney Pressey, an educational psychology professor at Ohio State University, and the problem cylinder by M. E. LaZerte, Director of the School of Education at the University of Alberta, the use of technology in the classroom has been expanding and developing. In 1960, Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations (PLATO) created the first computer assisted courses at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. From there, distance education classes were developed where students did not have to actually sit in classrooms to learn the concepts. Students could use the computer to assist them in mastering objectives and completing coursework at their convenience. In the 1970’s computers were first used in elementary classrooms in Canada. In 1976, the first virtual college was founded in the United States. In the 1980’s, PLATO introduced a cartridge to be used

at home with the ATARI home computer escalating the use of home systems for instruction. The 1990’s saw an increase in the use of computers in schools with the establishment of computer labs in most schools. Teachers were able to individualize instruction with the software programs that were available. Educational software companies exploded with some school districts forming their own software libraries for teachers to check out programs for use in the computer labs. As computers became less expensive and more attainable for schools, computers began to appear in classrooms. Teachers began to develop PowerPoint presentations with the introduction of computer to television connections and LCD projectors. Learning games became less prevalent as teachers struggled to integrate technology into their daily lesson plans. Sandford, Ulicsak, Facer, and Rudd (2006) conducted a MORI poll of teachers in the United Kingdom and found that thirty-one and five tenths percent (31.5%) of teachers have used games designed for entertainment in their lessons and fifty-nine percent (59%) of the teachers reported a possibility of considering them in the future. The study also found that sixty-three percent (63%) of the teachers believed that students using games actually learned specific content knowledge. In a Eutopia survey conducted by Sara Bernard, five hundred one teachers responded to the question, “Are computer and video games effective teaching tools?” (Bernard, Http://www. edutopia.org/are-computer-and-video-gameseffective-teaching-tools). Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the responders voted yes that “computer games engage, motivate, and inspire students and educational researchers and game designers are collaborating to create their ideal niche in the classroom” (Bernard, Http://www.edutopia. org/are-computer-and-video-games-effectiveteaching-tools). Many teachers agree with the theory of the benefits of video games without actually integrating them into their curricula. This is where there is a disconnect between the

289

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

approval and actual application of video games into classroom instruction. Video games are definitely part of students’ lives, especially the males. The interests of students need to be considered in creating an active, engaging learning environment. The integration of video games into instructional practices may help to connect males back to learning experiences.

vIdeo gAMes And MAles Males can find the action they seek from using video games. They enjoy fighters, shooters, action adventure games, and strategy games. More and more, males find the adventure and action they seek not from books but from video games. In an American study, one thousand four hundred ninety-one (1,491) children aged ten (10) to nineteen (19) comprised a representative sample of adolescents. It was found that thirty-six percent of the sample population played video games. Eighty percent (80%) of the males and twenty percent (20%) of the females played video games for approximately one hour on weekdays and ninety (90) minutes on weekends. On the average, students who spent time playing video games spent thirty percent (30% ) less time reading and thirty-four percent (34%) less time doing homework (Cummings; Vandewater, 2007). The study also found that for every hour males played video games during the week, they spent two (2) minutes less time reading. Educators and researchers need to understand what draws students, especially males, to sit for long periods of time and focus on video games. The studies have shown that there is a sharp difference in the percentage of males and females who play video games as well as differences in their video game preferences and amount of time spent playing video games. Male video game players tend to like person shooters and sports games. These games increase the chances that the player will be completely absorbed in playing the game. Game promoters believe that people play

290

video games to escape from everyday life and to a world of adventure without risk. Adults who play video games report that video games are mentally stimulating and that hand-eye coordination is improved by playing (Dawson, 2007)

MAles And reAdIng Reading assessments throughout the world are substantiating the fact that males are scoring lower than their female counterparts in reading. The National Center for Educational Statistics has been reporting reading and mathematics assessment results from 1971 to 2005 for the United States. Its report, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, documents that from 1971 to 2004 that males have consistently scored below females. Average scale score differences range from 12.7 (1971) to 5.3 in 2004 (http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/lttnde/viewresults.asp). In 2006, the Canadian Human Resources and Social Development concluded from their assessments that “females have much superior reading achievement than males” (http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/ sp/hrsdc/lp/publications/2006-002833/page06. shtml) In the Canadian study, sixty-one percent (61%) of the students in the high achievement reading category (75th percentile) were females leaving males with only thirty-nine percent (39%) scoring in the seventy-fifth (75th) percentile. Males also had seventy-three percent (73%) scoring in the low achieving category which is below the twenty-fifth (25th) percentile. Michael Sullivan, the director of the Weeks Public Library in Greenland cited research done by Lanning Taliaferro from the Journal News stating that “By the time boys are in the eleventh (11th) grade, they can be three (3) years behind girls in their reading levels” (Cicco, 2005) In 2002, Smith and Wilhelm summarized their literacy and gender research in their book Reading Don’t Fix No Chevys: Literacy in the Lives of Young Men. The conclusions include that:

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

• • • • • •

Males spend less time reading for pleasure than females. Males do not report reading as an enjoyable experience as often as females. Males are not as confident in their reading abilities as females. Males take longer to learn how to read than females. Males talk about what they are reading less often than females. Males like to physically respond to the reading by acting out responses or by making something.

Males do report that they enjoy stories and information that they can relate to through their own personal experiences (http://www.liberatingboys.com/books.html). Magazines, internet text, and even video games capture males’ attention as being reading that they can relate to. Elizabeth Haydon, an author of adolescent books, writes that “Themes that are appreciated by boys this age [preteen] are action, the more detailed the better, some sort of struggle, threat or fighting, particularly of the heroic sort – whether it is epic or in the schoolyard – suspense, puzzles, horror and humor, often of the crass kind.” (Brown, 2007)

vIdeo gAMes And leArnIng And lIterAcy connectIons Learning occurs when a person “gains knowledge or understanding of a skill by study, instruction, or experience” (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 353). James Paul Gee, a University of WisconsinMadison curriculum and instruction professor, has studied the connection between video games, learning, and literacy. He found that learning principles and knowledge about human learning is incorporated into video games (Gee, 2003). Video games captivate players by giving them complex problems to solve in real world settings that get progressively more difficult with each

level mastered. The players’ problem solving skills are tested at each level with the game giving positive reinforcements for each accomplishment. That description of a video game could be the description of a learning centered environment producing successful students. “Playing video games evokes a potentially powerful, active learning environment that includes demonstration, rehearsal, and reinforcement” (Funk et al, 2006). Thinking and learning skills can be developed by playing some video games. Reading skills, logical thinking skills, observation skills, vocabulary development, problem solving skills, and strategy planning can all be improved through the use of some of the available video games. Most of the video games require reading. The problem occurs because the reading required in video games is not the traditional form of literacy thought to develop reading skills. Video games are creating new forms of literacy. In today’s world, print media and literacy of print media is not enough to be successful. Playing video games offers the opportunity to learn a different type of literacy. Computer games, the internet, instant messages, and phone texts have shaped the way people, especially males, interact with texts. Males use a sub-standard form of English to communicate with others quickly while playing games. The language used is to help them reach the goals of the game. The literacy of the games is action oriented. Paul Gee (2003) writes that visual literacy is an important part of communication that is often ignored in typical classrooms. The viewing and understanding of symbols, graphs, charts, and visuals in necessary to obtain an adequate level of literacy in today’s world. “Visual literacy is just as important an element as that of reading the written word in gaining a more complete understanding of society and culture” (Madill and Sanford, 2006). Active learning can occur and generate a greater understanding by interacting visually with something rather than simply reading about it.

291

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

“Experiencing the world in new ways, forming new affiliations, and preparation for future learning” are the three (3) components of active learning identified by Gee (2003). Video games offer the student a visual image that invites the student to become completely involved in the experience. As the students interpret and become immersed in their imaginative play, the meaning of the experience is more tangible (Robertson, 2005). “They’re learning to take up different pieces of information all at the same time. This is not just about entertainment. The skills that they are learning will transfer to the world of work” (Madill and Sanford, 2006). The skills obtained from playing video games may be more intricate than those required by simply reading a text. Researchers (Schmidt, 2006) at the University of Victoria found that males exhibited high literacy levels in video game technology. The study concluded that the “unique richness” of the literacy of males in regards to video games is not recognized as being meaningful or useful in today’s educational system (Schmidt, 2006). Males enjoy reading the magazines and web sites that give directions, tips, and clues on how to progress further in the level of the games. Students actively seek information on the new game systems and video games that will be available in stores. Males interact with one another with a different heightened sense of excitement when discussing the video game, its characters, and action scenes. The interaction about and excitement regarding video games are the same behaviors that teachers seek in students required to read books and stories. The video game has led males to become a different type of reader requiring him to develop a literacy of the world of computers and online resources. Gee (2003) states that “video games are not replacing books, they are simply an art form that will interact with them, and change them and their role in society in various ways”. Teachers do not recognize that video games are a form of literacy or art. “It’s very sophisticated, but a lot of adults aren’t reading this kind of text, so

292

we don’t recognize it as high functioning because it doesn’t look like traditional literacy”, Leanna Madill said at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education in Toronto (2006). The video game players take for granted their knowledge of the video game terminology and computer literacy not recognizing the actual level of difficulty. Males are not becoming less literate; they are becoming more literate in a less traditional form of literacy. The new literacy is difficult for teachers to relate to and is one of the most pressing challenges for an educator in today’s world.

chAllenges oF usIng vIdeo gAMes to IMprove lIterAcy One of the challenges facing educators is assessment of the new literacy. In order to measure improvement of literacy, there must be some form of assessment. Currently, the forms of available literacy assessment are the read the passage and answer questions type. This type of literacy assessment does not measure the new literacy that males have acquired. The use of games in instruction may promote different, more flexible types of assessments. It becomes the teacher’s responsibility to become technologically literate to be able to develop and incorporate the new forms of assessment. Most teacher preparation programs have basic integration of technology classes in their programs but do not have the advanced level technology courses required for teachers to become adequately prepared to fully utilize and assess various forms of technology and technological literacy. Basically, we have PK-12th grade students entering classrooms with better developed technological skills than the teachers. The rush of new technology into the world has created a technological blockade in the educational system. Students have the abilities and skills to use technology and video games to learn, but teachers do not have the computer skills and video game knowledge to integrate video games into their learning curriculum.

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

Educators know that it is extremely important to motivate student learning through the use of the students’ interests. Teachers also know that males are extremely interested in video games. To promote traditional literacy development, teachers must match students’ interests with the right book. The same pedagogy holds true for using video games for instruction. Not all students like to play video games. Not all students like the same types of video games, and not all students are good at playing video games. Many students, including males, find video games to be frustrating. Providing a wide range of types of video games is important to match the interests and meet the needs of all male students. Providing a wide variety of video games for instruction poses an additional problem. The expense of the hardware and software along with the lack of funding for such endeavors poses a threat to the development of a program that utilizes video games to improve literacy. In the report, “Learning in Immersive Worlds: A Review of Game Based Learning”, Sara de Freitas (2006) reported that “The main barrier to using games in school…is a lack of access to equipment and availability of up-to-date graphics/video cardsmaking it difficult for teachers to run games on their own PC’s – a problem also faced in higher and further education”. De Freitas (2006) listed the seven (7) major barriers to the integration of video games in learning practice including: • • • • • • •

“access to the correct hardware including PC’s with high end graphics video cards; effective technical support or access to suitable technical support; familiarity with games-based software; community of practice within which to seek guidance and support; enough time to prepare effective gamesbased learning; learner groups who would like to learn using effective games-based approaches; cost of educational games software or licenses” (16)

Although barriers do exist for the integration of video games into the instructional process, there are ways to overcome the barriers.

possIble solutIons Examining the barriers to the integration of video games into classroom curriculums can result in a more flexible instructional curriculum and assessment process. To ease the process of including video games to improve literacy of males in the regular school curriculum, the following initiatives need to be explored: • • • • •

Increase and improve video game training in teacher preparation programs; Create and adopt video game guidelines for teachers; Develop video game curriculum based on skills used in novels; Seek expanded funding for schools to purchase hardware and software; Analyze data to determine that video games do improve literacy in males.

Schools and colleges of education have begun to include instructional technology classes for all future teachers. These courses need to include methods of including video games into the curriculum as well as computer programming languages so that they will be able to develop video games that meet the curriculum requirements of individual classrooms. New master degree programs in instructional technology have appeared which may allow for more support in the schools for the teachers implementing game technology. Professional development classes in video game instruction for current teachers will also enhance the initiative. Having the teachers play the video games with the students will also serve as learning experiences for both the students and the teachers. The teachers can help instruct the concepts to be learned through playing the games; while the

293

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

students teach the technology skills and literacy to be successful in the game. For video games to be a successful tool in the classroom, teachers will need to have guidelines to follow and have video game learning outcomes aligned with the content standards. Typical guidelines for using video games to improve literacy of males include: • •

•

•

• •

•

Define and establish clear learning outcomes; Select the video game that supports the learning outcomes and that can be appropriately assessed; Sequence the learning activities so that the game fits and flows within the instruction, practice, and assessment of the learning outcomes; Structure the game playing session with pre-play connections to the desired learning outcomes and post-play reflection on the actual concepts and skills learned; Assess the learning outcome of the video game including computer literacy skills; Evaluate the effectiveness of the game for reinforcing and teaching the desired skills and outcomes; and Make changes as needed based on the assessment data and feedback from students (de Freitas, 2006).

With the aforementioned guidelines serving as a framework and structure for teachers to follow, development of curricula integrating video games into literacy instruction will utilize best practices in teaching with video games. In promoting literacy, best practices have typically revolved around the use of novels. Fiction and non-fiction books were used to teach classic literature skills. In today’s educational arena, this approach is not working for all students, especially males (Conlin, 2003; Greene and Winters,2006; Gurian, Henley, and Trueman, 2001). The skills that are usually taught with novels can be taught

294

through the use of video games. These skills would be the easiest connection to video games. The specific skills/learning outcomes to be taught by the novel should be identified and sequenced. Then a video game which teaches the same skills should be identified/developed. The video game can then be placed in the correct sequence of instructional activities to insure that the proper outcomes occur. Assessments would determine the mastery of the outcomes/skills as well as the effectiveness of the game to teach and reinforce the desired outcomes and skills. Currently this type of literature curricula is not commercially available and would have to be created by the teachers. Curriculum development of this type is time consuming and may require additional funding for teacher training and software development. Funding for new initiatives in technology is essential to have the training, technical support, software support, and hardware to ensure success. Software designers need to consider the needs of teachers in developing new games. Teachers need to be proactive in demanding funding for development of curriculum that uses video games. Software designers and teachers need to come together to align literacy skills and standards with the current available video games to facilitate the development of the video game/literacy curriculum.

recoMMendAtIons For usIng vIdeo gAMes to IMprove lIterAcy levels oF MAles To quicken the process of using video games to improve literacy levels in males, it is important to explore the current technology available. Millions of video games are available in stores all over the country. Although their educational qualities have not been their selling points, most video games can be used to teach certain literacy skills. For example, reading skills can be enhanced for males through video games by requiring the

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

game player to read the directions for play first, then allowing the student to play the game, and finally having the student research the tips and hints to reach higher levels of play. Through this structure, teachers are requiring males to read. The more the males read, the better they get at it. Males do not resist reading about the video games that they love. Additional traditional literacy skills can be taught through video games including symbolism, genre, comprehension, literary merit, vocabulary development, logical thinking, critical thinking, and problem solving skills to list just a few. By using the current software available, traditional literacy connections can be made to the video games. Male students can already list video games that match concepts being taught in history classes. Civilization builder games are historically based and allow the player to better understand geography of different areas and the effect of choices on the success or failure of the civilization. Video games create new paths and different outcomes that encourage the student to consider how the choices not made in real history could have changed historical events (Whelchel, 2007). By changing the choices made, students can actually create better civilizations and determine the causes of civilization failures through trial and error processes. For learning with video games to be effective, connections need to be made between what is learned in the game and how it is applied to practice in other literary genres. This follows most theories and best practices of teaching and learning. Follow-up reflection of the learning outcomes by the game player and connections to the literary applications in different genres are essential (de Freitas, 2006). Wilhelm (1997) found that males have to responsively interact with the reading before critical analysis could take place. Games promote the responsive interaction required to think critically. Bonk and Dennen (2005) conducted empirical studies concerning skills supported by game-based learning approaches and

found that “ …another way to build conceptual knowledge is to engage in dialogue with peers or experts about the game during game play” (29). The hands-on learning experiences offered by video games promote the types of discussions between students that all teachers encourage. Male game players are more likely to excitedly explain their moves in a step-by-step sequence to another game player and analyze their moves and decisions altering the outcomes of the game. In the new literacy studies conducted by Gee (2006), results supported the concept that reading and writing are not only mental achievements but are also social and cultural practices. Video games allow the players to simulate characters and to share the characters’ experiences and social relationships. Critical thinking skills are gained through interacting with the game, taking on new identities, solving problems through trial and error, and gaining expertise or literacy within the game (Craft, 2004). The analyzing skills gained through video game play are of the highest level of reading comprehension. If appropriately assessed, the literacy levels of the males would increase. Through the vivid graphic images, character analysis, and challenges that video games present, students interact with the game acquiring mastery of skills that literacy teachers would recognize as essential for traditional literacy. Although students do not recognize the learning aspects of the game, they quickly become immersed in playing the game. In a presentation on “Teaching Generation X”, Christopher Clark (2005) presented facts about learning including that video games and teachers have 30 seconds to “hook the player or the player is gone for good”. He challenged educators to establish methods (including video games) to get students emotionally connected with the content as quickly as possible (Clark, 2005). Video games can “hook” males into obtaining high levels of literacy without even knowing that they are learning. Males may be able to show their literacy skills better through video games than through the traditional literacy assessments. 295

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

With males consistently scoring lower on literacy assessments than females, teachers need to know that: • •

• •

There is a real difference in literacy levels of males and females; Text selection and curriculum development should be based on the knowledge of males and their interests; Teacher assigned reading should be enhanced with self-selected reading; Males should be guided in making connections with texts through a wide variety of activities to support their reading comprehension and analysis skills (Bowen, 1997). Knowing how males learn literacy skills best and what motivates them to read and learn is essential in closing the gap on literacy achievement.

As the keynote speaker at the University of Newcastle’s 4th Biennial Working with Boys Building Fine Men’s conference Dr. Martine F. Delfos, a Netherlands researcher said, “Boys learning can be enhanced by taking into their account evolutionary deeply embedded preference behavior. Teaching strategies should encompass boys’ preference for competitive behavior; a cognitive style orientated more towards discovery and rote memory; and a need for strong peer connections. Boys have a tendency to action, and need action in class” (http://www.newcastle.edu. au/news/2005/04/teachingboys.html). In Michael Pollock’s book entitled Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood (1998) states that boys have superior spatial abilities and see things in three dimension easily. He advocates using activities with intense movements and make believe violence. He contends that by allowing these types of activities, boys would learn how to harness the energy. Video games can create the active learning environment that males need through demonstration, demonstration, rehearsal, and reinforcement (Funk et al, 2006).

296

suMMAry The researchers (Craft; Cummings; Dawson, de Freitas; Funk et al) studying the use of video games in promoting learning agree that video games offer the hands-on types of experience that males need to efficiently learn. Males learn differently from females and require a more interactive, physical type of activity. Video games offer the vivid images, flashy display of text, action, and challenges that engage males in participating and learning. The current generation of male students enters classrooms with technology skills that far exceed that of the teachers. Many teachers do not recognize the technology skills as literacy skills, although the literacy outcomes of a male playing a video game may be very similar to the outcomes expected in traditional literacy activities. Research on the use of video games in classrooms is expansive with more positive impacts noted that negative. Research on the use of video games to improve literacy skills of males is limited, however. James Gee is the leading researcher in the area of video games, learning, and literacy. He strongly promotes the use of video games to improve literacy skills. He explains that the literacy skills of the males currently in school are not lower than they have been in the past. They are just different. He contends that the literacy skills taught by the use of video games reflect the skills necessary to be successful in today’s world. In the Review of Game Based Learning, de Freitas (2006) explains the possibilities that game based learning holds for the future educational system. For game based learning to progress in the educational arena, more funding needs to be offered to schools to improve their levels of technological support and provide up-to-date equipment and software. Teacher preparation programs need to include more indepth computer classes including computer programming as well as instructional technology integration. Teachers need to be trained in the structure and guidelines

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

for integrating video games into their curriculum. Teachers and video game developers need to work together to align content standards and games. Game developers need to consider the educational possibilities of creating games that go along with traditional reading materials. Video games can expand the understanding of the written texts, especially of males. If the goal of learning is to “gain knowledge or understanding of a skill by study, instruction, or experience” (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 353), video games may be the best learning tool for males. It offers the opportunities for males to study their choices/moves, analyze the outcomes of those choices/moves, reflect on the changes to be made to improve their level of play, and experience a wide variety of situations that simulate real world issues and problems. The active nature of video games match the learning requirements of males and better engage them in the learning activity. Video games have an addictive nature to them resulting in video games being an excellent tool for creating lifelong learners. The entertaining aspect of the video game combined with the educational components create an potentially exciting and invigorating classroom learning tool which may improve the literacy levels of males. More research on the literacy level gains with the use of video games needs to be conducted to best determine how to meet the twenty-first century literacy needs of all students.

reFerences Bernard, S. (2006). The Edutopia Poll. Http:// www.edutopia.org/are-computer-and-videogames-effective-teaching-tools. Blum, D. (1997). Sex on the brain: The biological differences between men and women. New York: Viking. Bonk, C. J. & Dennen, V. P. (2005). Massive Multiplayer online gaming: a research framework

for military training and education. Madison, WI: Advanced Distributed Learning. Retrieved from Http://www.strategicleader.us/ExperientialLearningPapers/GarneReport_Bonk_final.pdf. Brown, T. (2007). Introduce him to the joy of reading: Great books for preteen boys.Retrieved August 28, 2007 from Http://att.iparenting.com/ preteenagers/joyreading.htm. . Cicco, N. (2005). Librarians Look to Hook Boys on Books. Portsmouth Herald, September 4. Conlin, M. (2003). The new gender gap: From kindergarten to grad school, boys are becoming the second sex. Business Week, May 23, 2003. Craft, J. (2004). A review about what video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Electronic Literacy, 8, 2004. Http://www.cwrl.utexas. edu/currents/fall04/craft.html. Cummings, H; Vandewater, E. (2007). Relation of adolescent video game play to time spent in other activities. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 7. Dawson, C. (2007, April 17). Playing Video Games -- BBFC Publishes Research. Http://www.bbfc. co.uk/news/stories/20070417.html. De Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in Immersive Worlds: A review of game-based learning (Tech. Rep.). London: JISC e-Learning Programme. Funk, J; Chan, M; Brouwer, J; Curtiss, K. (2006). A biopsychosocial analysis of the video game— playing experience of children and adults in the United States. Studies in Media and Information Literacy Education, 6, 3. Gee, James P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/St. Martin’s. Greene, J., and Winters, M. (2006, April). Leaving boys behind: Public high school graduation rates. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, No. 48, 2006. Http://www.manhattan-institute.org/ html/cr_48.htm 297

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

Gurian, M., Henley, P., & Trueman, T. (2001). Boys and girls learn differently! A guide for teahers and parents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/ John Wiley. Gurian, M., & Stevens, K. (2004). With boys and girls in mind. Closing Achievement Gaps, 62(3), 21-26. Havers, F. (1995). Rhyming tasks male and female brains differently. The Yale Herald, Inc. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Herz, J.C. (2001). Gaming the system: what higher education can learn from multiplayer online worlds. Educause, Publications from the Forum for the Future of Higher Education. Retrieved August 7, 2006, from Http://www.educause.edu/ library/pdf/ffpiu019.pdf Madill, L and Sanford, K. (2006). Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Toronto, Canada. Millard, E. (1997). Differently Literate: Boys, Girls, and the Schooling of Literacy. Philadelphia: RoutledgeFalmer, Tayler and Francis, Inc. . Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (2000). Brain sex: The real difference between men and women. New York: Dell Publishing. National Center for Education Statistics (2005). National Assessment of Educational Progress: The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from Http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ lttnde/viewresults.asp Pollack, M. (1998). Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Rich, B. (Ed.). (2000). The Dana brain daybook. New York: The Charles A. Dana Foundation. Rowan, L.; Knobel, M. et al. (2002). Boys, Literacies, and Schooling. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

298

Taylor, S. (2002). The tending instinct. New York: Times Books. University of Newcastle, Australia (2005). Are we teaching boys as if they were girls? A keynote address given Tuesday, April 5, 2005 at the University of Newcastle’s 4th Biennial Working with Boys Building Fine Men. Retrieved September 5, 2007, from Http://www.newcastle.edu.au/ news/2005/04/teachingboys.html. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2007). History of virtual learning environments. Wikipedia. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from Http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/History_of_virtual_learning_environments Wilhelm, J. D. (1997). You Got to Be the Book: Teaching Engaged and Reflective Reading with Adolescents. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Web sItes www.BET.com (2005). African-American Male Research Data. http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/hrsdc/lp/publications/2006-002833/page06.shtml. (2006, January). Improving reading skills: Policy sensitive non-school and family factors. Retrieved September 5, 2007.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Brain Differences: The variations found in the male and female brains. Computer Assisted Courses: Software programs designed to provide extra instruction and practice on educational concepts. For example: extra computer based drill on multiplication facts.

Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males

Cultural Gender Differences: Ways in which males and females are expected to act and are treated in different cultures. Educational Video Games: Software programs designed to provide instruction, practice, and feedback of educational concepts. Edutainment: Entertaining ways to teach educational concepts typically through games. Instructional Technology: The use of any type of computer software programs or computer components such as LCD projector and SMART Boards to teach students educational concepts.

New Literacy: The increased requirements of literacy, not only requiring understanding of the written word, but understanding of computer images, languages, software, and hardware. Reading Assessments: Diagnostic tests to determine levels of reading. Traditional Literacy: The ability to read the written word to gain understanding and meaning. Visual Literacy: The ability to look at charts, graphs, pictures, and other visual images to grasp an intended message.

299

300

Chapter XIX

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy Andrea J. Harmer Kutztown University and Lehigh University, USA

AbstrAct This chapter introduces an inquiry designed to foster learner engagement in science and literacy in using new media. The design included an online, problem-based, science inquiry that investigated environmental pollution at the Lehigh Gap, a U.S. Superfund Site. During five weeks of classroom sessions, several sessions were enhanced by remote access to an electron microscope to analyze Lehigh Gap samples. This access allowed the students to capture images from the microscope, known as micrographs, and furthermore, allowed them to perform an elemental analysis of samples from the polluted area. Additionally, an introduction to nanoscale science and nanotechnology used for remediation of heavy metal contamination was explored. Students contributed the artifacts they generated during their research to a university database and presented them to researchers at the university working on similar problems. This approach proved highly engaging and generated design guidelines useful to others interested in student engagement, introducing nanotechnology, and using remote electron microscopy in middle school science.

IntroductIon From 1898 to 1980, a zinc smelting plant near the town of Palmerton, PA, emitted sulfur dioxide at rates of up to 3,600 pounds per hour, killing plant life and animal habitats. In 1983, thirteen years after the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed, the Palmerton area was designated to the national priorities list of U.S.

Superfund sites, a title reserved for known toxic waste sites. Now known nationally as the Palmerton Superfund Site and locally as the Lehigh Gap, the clean up of this toxic waste site, which includes a portion of the otherwise scenic Appalachian Trail, has been contentious and slow. This chapter describes a three-year, research program that engaged sixth-grade students in the authentic, environmental and health concerns resulting

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy

from the 83 years of zinc smelting activities at the Palmerton Superfund Site. Students chose soil and plant samples from the Site and were provided with the opportunity to remotely operate a scanning electron microscope from their sixth grade classroom. The students researched current EPA solutions to remediate the polluted Site, which includes various attempts at re-vegetation, and further studied a new, university-based technique that includes using iron nanoparticles to neutralize heavy metal toxins in other polluted areas. What happens when middle school students and university faculty join forces to try and solve a community, environmental problem using the latest techniques in scanning electron microscopy and nanotechnology? The answer is real time, engaging, learning takes place for both parties involved. Intended to engage students in a meaningful problem, this method used an online, science inquiry that investigated the Lehigh Gap, Palmerton Superfund Site during five weeks of collaborative classroom sessions. The inquiry prototype was authored in WISE, the Web-Based Science Inquiry Environment headquartered at UC, Berkeley. Online materials, readings, and class sessions were augmented with the remote access to an electron microscope to analyze Lehigh Gap samples. An introduction to nanoscale science and nanotechnology through the ImagiNations Web site at Lehigh University was also used. Students contributed the artifacts they generated during their research to a university database and presented them to researchers at the university working on a similar problem. This approach proved highly engaging and generated design and development guidelines useful to others interested in designing for student engagement and introducing nanoscale science and electron microscopy in middle school science (Harmer, 2008). This study further found that students’ engaged in science inquiry both behaviorally and emotionally and on several different levels. The various levels appeared to create two hierarchies

of engagement, one based on behavioral criteria and the other based on emotional criteria (in review). For students involved in the collaborative, problem-solving science, which included experts and access to their microscopes, the highest levels of engagement seemed to empower students and create in them a passion towards learning. These evolving hierarchies are illustrated with students’ direct quotes, which prove how students engaged in this particular design of inquiry. Students’ engagement in the inquiry led to their achievements in understanding nanoscale science, nanotechnology, and electron microscopy and initiated positive attitude changes towards learning. It was found that five factors most prominently contributed to the students’ engagement; cutting-edge technology, creative freedom, collaboration with scientists working on the same problem, contribution to the problem solution, and communication of the students’ results outside of the classroom.

WhAt Is MIssIng In MIddle school scIence? Today, eighth grade achievement standards in science and math provide evidence to support students’ claim that they are bored in school (NAS, 2006; NCES 2003). For example, the most recent Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) study completed in 2003, indicated U.S. students’ scores were below the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average for science literacy and problem-solving internationally (NCES, 2003). In fourth grade U.S. students’ science scale scores (536) ranked 6th in the world, only 29 points behind Singapore’s first place (565) (NCES, 2003). However, by the time these same U.S. students reached 8th grade, their science scale scores (527) decreased 44-51 points below the world leaders, Singapore (578) and Chinese Taipei (571), dropping the U.S. rank in science to ninth place (NCES, 2003). By 12th grade, the average math and science achievement

301

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy

of a U.S. student ranks in the bottom 10 percent when compared to their international peers (NAS, 2006). These statistics have now become a national concern for the U. S. Bush administration, as indicated in the President’s State of the Union address in January 2006. Renewed government interest in science education and research focused on nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources was prompted by technology industry executives and highly-regarded scientists who asked government officials to respond to a report by the National Academy of Science (Markoff, 2006). The report warned that America’s complacency in science education could quickly threaten American economic competitiveness and that although the U.S. has historically lead the world for decades in science and technology innovation, the world is changing rapidly and our position is no longer secure (NAS, 2006). The report argued that without renewed commitments to strong and effective science education, as well as research and innovation, our nation’s children face “poorer prospects than their parents,” (p.9). Thus, the problem appears imminent; the need for more effective methods for teaching science, along with scientifically trained teachers to implement those methods, prompting student engagement in learning and increasing achievement for global competitiveness. However, in today's world of social networking, reality television, video games, and the Internet, sustaining the attention of middle school students is becoming increasingly difficult.. Furthermore, what sets today’s youth apart from previous generations is the expectation of interactivity in which they can customize and personalize everything in their world.

usIng MedIA lIterAcy to IMprove scIence lIterAcy Hurd (1997) argued that a science curriculum sensitive to meeting the needs of the developing adolescent is still missing and further contended

302

that there is a failure to recognize that adolescence is a period of fluxuation, socially, biologically, and intellectually. Thus, he advocated middle school science curricula linked to practical thinking, problem-solving, and decision making, along with consideration of the values and ethics accompanying those solutions and decisions. He envisioned a curriculum contextualized in the lived world to which adolescents must adapt and can help shape. The curriculum he proposed focused on problems and issues that developing adolescents endure, those that provide meaning toward their welfare and society’s progress in today’s knowledge-based global economy. According to Friedman (2005), a leveled, international economic playing field is obtained through an educated, innovative, solutions-based workforce founded on human capital, the most “precious resource of any country” (NAS, 2006). Yet over 50% of recent Gallup Poll participants (Jones, 2005) reported being somewhat or completely dissatisfied with U. S. K-12 science and mathematics education, which is responsible for developing our most precious resource. According to the National Research Council’s Committee on Science Learning (K-8), improving science education in the U. S. has never been more important than it is today (NRC, 2006). Yet, by age fifteen (just after middle school), U.S students ranked 19th in science literacy when compared with their international counterparts (NAS, 2006). This seemed to have implications for changed practice in middle school science education, including better-educated, higher quality teachers using research-based designs and implementation methods for instruction. Furthermore, with Web 2.0 tools at their fingertips, it is noted that today’s youth expect to customize and personalize daily experiences in ways previous generations never could (Yahoo and OMD, 2005). As youth, particularly in the U.S., have taken media programming and content creation into their own hands, and learning is part of their daily experience, it seemed plausible that allowing young students

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy

to contribute to solving a meaningful scientific problem by creating media on advanced scientific instrumentation in the classroom (via an electron microscope operated remotely from a laptop) might engage them more in learning science.

beneFIts oF probleM-bAsed scIence InquIry Problem-based science inquiry, which has students investigate science by solving a problem, may be a way to provide a meaningful assignment, and thus potentially a way to engage learners. Shapiro (1994) agreed problem-based science inquiry might actively engage middle school students in more authentic learning, promote greater knowledge acquisition, and develop students’ problem-solving abilities. Savery and Duffy (1996) further added that in order to design effective problem-based environments, the learner must “own” the problem, as well as the process. By “owning the problem,” the authors appear to mean that students must be able to relate to the problem enough to be motivated to solve it. Tomlinson and Doubet (2005) found that adolescents respond well to relevance and challenge through inquiry based around students’ lives and their community. Lambros (2004) agreed that problembased learning highlights the relevance of learning for students when the problem scenarios have a real world frame of reference, and have the added benefit of developing a life-long process for learning. Lambros reported that students get excited about problem-based learning because they have determined their own need or purpose for learning. Conversely, Herrington, Oliver, and Reeves (2003) argued that there is increasing evidence that to fully engage with an authentic task or problem-based scenario, students need to engage with a process similar to moviegoers – suspension of disbelief. Whether by relating to an authentic challenge or through suspension of disbelief, the question of what students need to engage when

solving problems warrants further investigation. While problem-based learning is gaining wider acceptance as a method for engaging students in science inquiry (Barrows & Myers, 1993; Evenson & Hmelo, 2000), the National Science Resource Center (1998) argued middle-school learners might gain even more from these activities if they actively engaged in designing solutions to the problems, rather than selecting solutions from those presented within the environment. The National Science Resource Center is not alone in advocating this approach. Baxter-MaGolda (1999) and Edelson, Gomez, and Pea (1997) contended effective problem-based science inquiry must encourage students’ self-authorship, for example through designing and presenting solutions. Students’ unique solutions designs (which may, and most likely will include multiple media adaptation) could often be the result of their attempts to solve “ill-structured problems”; those in which there may be many possible solutions stemming from several different perspectives and disciplines, yet information and actions needed to solve the problem are not obvious (Ge and Land, 2004). Joseph (2002) suggested we go still further and advocated the “passion school” concept, which uses extreme learner interest to drive learning by encouraging active engagement with experts. This concept views learning environments as classrooms organized by communities with a common personal interest, rather than as a collection of people from the same age group. Vygotsky (1978) contended the social plane is where all learning takes place and Jenkins (2005) argued that sharing knowledge increases students’ understanding and also provides them with a sense of empowerment and expertise. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) advocated what they called “knowledge-building communities,” where learning is situated around a common goal, oftentimes a community problem. Scherer (2005) argued for improving instruction stating that traditional curriculum and instructional approaches do not seem relevant or useful for anything but getting into college. Noguera

303

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy

(2003) argued for a more interactive teaching style coupled with a more relevant curriculum, which allows students to have a voice in their own education. Some researchers, such as Dede (2005) look to gaming in school as a way to regain student interest and engagement in learning. Referred to by some as the “Media Generation,” students today will typically look to familiar methods of media from which to assimilate, accommodate, create, and contribute their ideas (Yahoo & OMD, 2005, Piaget, 1967).

desIgn oF InstructIon Among these various approaches, it seemed useful to investigate students’ knowledge-building interactions with experts (scientists) for solving current, real world problems relevant to the adolescents’ environment, and hence, their lives. Fostering students’ collaboration with research scientists for a shared purpose (such as solving a problem) might prove to be a useful way of engaging students in science inquiry. Furthermore, allowing the students to use the same scientific instrumentation that the scientists had available to them, might engage the students through the use of cutting-edge technology.

the reseArch study To test this learning design and implementation in the middle school classroom, a pilot study was conducted in 2004 to identify key elements of student engagement in science (Harmer & Cates, 2007). A larger, more robust study, known as the Lehigh Gap Environmental Remediation Project, was conducted in 2005 and 2006 with 120 sixth graders to further test the learning design in the classroom. For five weeks in collaborative classroom sessions, students in the Lehigh Gap Project used an online, problem-based, science inquiry that investigated the Palmerton Superfund Site,

304

known locally as the Lehigh Gap. During the fifth week, the students’ used an electron microscope operated remotely from a laptop computer in their classroom. Using the electron microscope, the students generated magnified images and performed an analysis of the elements found in fourteen samples taken from the Lehigh Gap, including soil and vegetation. Students were also introduced to nanotechnology through the ImagiNations Web site at Lehigh University to study new nanoparticle techniques to remediate polluted areas. Students contributed the artifacts they generated during their research to a university database and presented them to researchers at the university working on a pollution similar problem in a different location. At the conclusion of the 2005 study, the sixth graders concluded that the university researchers’ nanoparticle solution might work to solve their problem at the Lehigh Gap, and to their amazement and delight, the researchers agreed. Consequently, at the conclusion of the 2006 study, and as a direct result of the sixth graders’ recommendations to the university researchers, the new nanoparticle technique to remediate polluted soil was being used at the Lehigh Gap and was demonstrated to the students upon their visit to the university. This approach proved highly engaging and generated design and development guidelines useful to others interested in designing for student engagement (Harmer, 2008) and introducing nanoscale science and electron microscopy in middle school science. The findings of the West Nile Virus Project, along with the second larger, related research study called the Lehigh Gap Environmental Remediation Project found that students engaged with science inquiry that included the “5 C’s of Engagement;” cuttingedge science, creative freedom, collaboration, contribution, and communication.

conclusIon Analysis of the two projects described earlier, not only found that cutting-edge science, creative

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy

freedom, collaboration, scientific contribution, and communication engaged students, it also confirmed Barrows & Myers’ research (1993) that found students engage more in their learning when it is based in the context of a problem. Futhermore, various levels of engagement emerged and ranged from “mild interest to passion” and from “noted relevance to empowerment.” Given the tools to create and contribute, along with the opportunity to collaborate first hand with scientists working on the same problem allowed the students who reached the highest level of engagement to perceive themselves as present and future scientists (see Table 1). These students believed they were able to make a difference by contributing to scientific knowledge, which in fact they were. The students reported to a leading university researcher that they thought his method of using iron nanoparticles to neutralize lead might work on the zinc problem the students were studying. The researcher concurred with the students’ analysis of the problem and potential solution, and has

since begun researching this idea himself at the university. Students felt they were able to help scientists, their community and others beyond by becoming educated about eliminating environmental pollutants, and, as content creators, they were recognized for their efforts outside of the classroom. These students also displayed the highest level of investment of time and energy to the project, exhibited by their commitment to work on the weekends and their desire to share their accomplishments with their parents. Table 1 displays the students’ direct quotes indicating empowerment. Table 2 displays students’ quotes indicating investment of time, energy and emotion in the project, a passion for the topic. Figure 1 summarizes the design elements that were implemented in the West Nile Virus and the Lehigh Gap Environmental Remediation Projects, and Table 3 displays the summary of students’ reactions to the design elements implemented in the two studies. This table and figure indicate that if a student is passionate about a topic, but

Table 1. Students’ direct quotes indicating empowerment Category Understanding Importance of Collaboration with Scientists and Potential Contribution to Science

Student Written Data • •

•

Interactions with Scientists Tools (XL30 SEM with EDS to determine elements present in sample operating microscope remotely, higher magnification than optical microscopes (“cool images”), monetary value of microscopes themselves, potential career possibilities operating microscopes, and unique access to SEM)

•

• •

• •

Student Oral Data

“It was an awesome experience presenting in front of Dr. Zhang and all the other scientists. “It was truly a great honor to present for [the scientists] and the other members working on the project. Thank you so much.” “Then I started talking to Dr. Zhang, which was my favorite part of the entire trip.”

•

“Thank you for letting me come to the University to have me see of the giant microscopes. It was one of the best field trips I ever been to.” The microscopes were amazing.” “I thought it was so cool that I got to see an atom. I went home and told my dad and he thought it was really cool too. I never thought volcanoes ash was so cool, but it was.” “It will be a trip I’ll never forget.” “I liked seeing the XL30 <while visiting the university> because we actually got to use it at school.”

•

• • • •

• •

“Maybe scientists will listen to our solutions and it will give them ideas they didn’t think about before.” “Because it’s our idea, we are helping to contribute.” “We might have better ideas.” “Scientists may over think <problems> like on a test and we might have better ideas.” “to give ideas for the scientists.” “Exciting. Cool. Special. Unique. Awesome.Amazing. Fun. Mad lights and buttons.” “Remote control is cool and saw new things in a leaf.” “We are the only 6th graders doing this anywhere.”

305

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy

Table 2. Students’ direct quotes indicating passion toward science Category Student Investment of Time and Energy (students’ desire for more science, and desire to pass on knowledge and experience to others not already involved)

Student Written Data

Student Oral Data

•

“I would suggest that you offer this website and learning experience to children in 4th grade and up!” “Make this education available to younger children.” “Show us <more> pictures of atoms and give us more information on the microscopes.” “Now every morning, I look forward to science.”

•

“Now I’m thinking that I might want to go to the University to become a scientist.” “ I was always kind of bored in science last year, but this year has been great, especially since you came to help us learn about nanotechnology. I might even now consider studying nanotechnology in college.”

•

• • •

Student Investment of Longer Term Commitment to Science (going to college for further study of topics related to inquiry, looking forward to science on a daily basis)

• •

lacks tools or collaborators with which to pursue the topic, then the student is relatively powerless to proceed in learning more about the topic. Similarly, if a student has many tools at his or her disposal, yet lacks the interest or cannot relate to the topic being studied, then the student will not engage with the learning. It is thus concluded that

• •

Students explain to me how their parents reacted to the new nanotechnology information the students discussed outside of class. Students ask if their parents may attend their presentations at the university. Students ask if they can use one of the microscopes while they are on tour <noting that they do know how to run the XL30> “Some of these kids are really into it and they can’t wait to go to the university. Some of them are saying they might even want to go to school there.”

students engage in learning when they start with a topic that is meaningful to their lives and are then empowered with both tools and collaborators, which enable them to create and share information to learn more. Furthermore, if we personalize and customize students’ learning experiences, and in turn allow them to use media and media literacy

Figure 1. Summary of inquiry design elements and their effect on student engagement

306

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy

Table 3. Summary of students reactions to design elements in science inquiry

R ealm of Dis engagement

R ealm of E ngagement

Disengaged (real or perceived inability to make a difference or contribution to scientific purpose, along with lowest level of student investment of time and energy)

Powerless (lowest perception of student empower-ment to be able to make a difference)

Dis-interested (lowest level of student investment of time and energy, no desire to pass along knowledge)

Passionate (highest level of student investment of time and energy, desire to pass along knowledge even to non-collaborators, desire for more science)

Empowered (highest perception of student empower-ment to be able to make a difference)

Engaged (real or perceived ability to make a difference or contribution to scientific purpose, along with highest investment of time and energy)

No tools

No tools

May or may not have tools

May or may not have tools

Has tools

Has tools

No collaborators

No collaborators

May or may not have collaborators

Eager to communicate with collaborators and non-collaborators

Has collaborators

Has collaborators

Purpose is not authentic or not perceived to be authentic

Purpose is authentic or is perceived to be authentic

Purpose is not authentic or not perceived to be authentic

Purpose is authentic or is perceived to be authentic

Purpose is authentic or is perceived to be authentic

Purpose is authentic or is perceived to be authentic

Purpose is not relevant to student

Purpose is relevant to student

Purpose is not relevant to student

Purpose is relevant to student

Purpose may become relevant to student due to access to tools and/ or collaborators

Purpose is relevant to student

to personalize and customize their responses to the learning, then students may engage at the highest level. Technology integration also proved useful in making students (and their teachers) feel as though they were part of an experts’ team in solving an authentic problem. For example, the interested young learners were invited into direct conversations and collaborative videoconferences with experts trying to solve a shared problem. Merrick (2005) argued that students’ virtual field trips, which allow them to meet directly with experts are becoming more commonplace as K-12 broadband access increases and these types of collaborations can produce beneficial interactions between students and their mentors, the experts. Visits between students and real-world experts for the purpose of solving a problem common to both may encourage students’ interactive com-

munication and may prove engaging for young minds. This idea bears further investigation. Enger and Yager (2001) argued that connecting students and their concerns to the real-world may be a way to minimize the difference between what is learned in isolation in school science settings and what may be relevant in their lives. Today, educators may have an opportunity to engage students not just with leading-edge science, but also with inquiries including leadingedge technology. Aberration-corrected electron microscopes (those allowing improved atomic level resolution) are now enabling scientists to see and manipulate structures and properties of matter on the nanometer scale (one billionth of a meter), which in turn may promise opportunities for development of revolutionary new applications in science (Roco, 2001).

307

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy

At the same time, Web 2.0 social networking tools are enabling people to contribute to open, virtual environments, making the potential for collaboration between sixth graders and scientists even more of a reality. Thus, recent developments in communication enabling technologies (powerful microscopes, social networking tools and virtual learning) appear to be at the heart of emerging media literacy for K-12 levels. How these tools may be used most effectively still remains a topic for continued research.

reFerences Barrows, H., & Myers, A. (1993). Problem-based learning in secondary schools(Unpublished manuscript). Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute, Lanphier High School, & Southern Illinois University Medical School. Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructivedevelopmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2004). Paying attention to attention: New economies for learning. Educational Theory, 54, 381-397. Dede, C., Clarke, J., Ketelhut, D., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005, April). Students’ motivation and learning of science in a multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec. Retrieved August, 16, 2006, from http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/muvees2003/ documents/motivation_muves_aera_2005.pdf Edelson, D., Pea, R., & Gomez, L. (1997). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B.G.Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 151-164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

308

Enger, S., & Yager, R. (2001). Assessing student understanding in science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Evenson, D., & Hmelo, C. (2000). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (p. 2 2 7 ) . New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Ge, X., & Land, S. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problemsolving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(2), 5-22. Harmer, A.J. (2008). Educational efforts in K-12 nanoscaled science and engineering education and related research studies using remote electron microscopy. In A. E. Sweeney & S. Sudipta (Eds.), Nanoscale science and engineering education. Stevenson Ranch, CA: American Scientific Publishers. Harmer, A.J. & W.M. Cates (2007). Designing for learning engagement in middle school science: Technology, inquiry, and the hierarchies of engagement. Computers in the Schools, 105-124. Binghamton, NY: Harworth Press, Inc. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19, 59-71. Retrieved November 11, 2004, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/ herrington.html Hurd, P. (1997). Inventing science education for the new millennium: Ways of knowing in science series. Duschl, R. (Ed). New York: Teachers College Press. Jenkins, H. (2005). Getting into the game. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 48-51.

Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy

Joseph, D. (2002). Passion as a driver for learning: A framework for the design of interest-centered curricula. Seattle, WA: John G. Nicholls Trust. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from http://tigger. uic.edu/~thork/Trust/joseph.htm Lambros, A. (2004). Problem-based learning in middle and high school classrooms: A teacher’s guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Markoff, J. (2006, February, 2). Behind Bush’s new stress on science, lobbying by republican executives. New York Times. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://select.nytimes.com/gst/ abstract.html?res=F70815F8345B0C718CDDA B08 94DE404482 Merrick, S. (2005). Videoconferencing k-12: The state of the art. Innovate: Journal of online education. Retrieved October 16, 2005, from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=art icle&id=24&action=articleNational Academy of Sciences. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Retrieved July 8, 2006, from http:// nces.ed.gov/timss/Results03.asp Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education: Multicultural education series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The coordination of perspectives. The child’s concept of space (pp. 209-246). New York, NY: Norton. Roco, M. (2001). International strategy for nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 3(5-6), 353-360. Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1996). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology,

35, 31-38. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Scherer, M. (2005). Keeping adolescents in mind. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 7. Shapiro, B. (1994). What children bring to light: A constructivist perspective on children’s learning in science. New York, NY: Teachers College.Tomlinson, C., & Doubet, K. (2005). To teach them. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 9-15. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yahoo & OMD (2005). Truly, Madly, Engaged: Global Youth, Media, and Technology. Retrieved May 9, 2008 from us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ adv/tmde_05/truly_madly_final_booklet.pdf

Key terMs And deFInItIons Nanoscale Science: Emerging field of science being studied based in the length scale of approximately 1 - 100 nanometer range. Nanotechnology: Research and technology development at the atomic, molecular or macromolecular levels, providing a fundamental understanding of phenomena and materials at the nanoscale to create and use structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size. Problem-Based Inquiry: An instructional strategy, which is based in the context of a problem, and in which students collaboratively solve the problem(s) and reflect on their experiences. Remote Electron Microscopy: Refers to a computer-operated electron microscope that is able to be operated by remote control via another computer in a location different from the actual microscope.

309

310

Chapter XX

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education Thiam Seng Koh Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Kim Chwee Daniel Tan Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

AbstrAct This chapter discusses the potential uses of Web 2.0 technologies in enhancing scientific literacy and the learning of science in the K-12 sector. Web 2.0 offers services and products that could facilitate the learning of science by harnessing the collective intelligence of individuals connected to the Web through social networking. A framework based on social constructivism for thinking about the potential uses of Web 2.0 technologies in the learning of science is proposed. The use of Web 2.0 technologies could bring about a fundamental shift in pedagogy and assessment towards a participatory learning approach that promotes a deeper and more engaged understanding of science.

IntroductIon The aims of science education, in general, are to enable students to acquire sufficient knowledge and understanding of the concepts, values and skills in science to be “become confident citizens in a technological world, able to take or develop an informed interest in matters of scientific import…recognize the usefulness, and limitations, of scientific method and to appreciate its applicability in other disciplines and in everyday

life” (Ministry of Education, 2006, p.1), and to be prepared for further studies in the pure sciences, applied sciences or science-related vocational courses. However, in many countries, students have to sit for high-stakes examinations which are focused mainly on students’ recall, understanding and application of facts and algorithms to solve closed-ended problems (O’Neill & Polman, 2004). Teachers may be under the pressures of parents’ and students’ expectations of good results in the examinations, as well as the publicized league

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

or ranking tables of schools based on students’ performance in the high-stakes examinations that are reported in the media in many countries. Such pressures have led many teachers to adopt drill-and-practice instructional strategies to ensure that their students are well prepared for these high stakes examinations. Therefore, it is not surprising that science teaching and learning in many countries have been criticized as being distorted by these high stakes assessment and focused on students’ content knowledge which is easily assessed (Osborne & Hennessy, 2003; Rop, 1999). Important considerations such as care for the environment, scientific habits of mind, social and cultural practices of science, and the relevance of the school science to the students’ everyday life may not feature as prominently as they should in science lessons. In Singapore, the Ministry of Education recognizes the shortcomings of an examination-driven science education and has made a deliberate policy decision to design an inquiry-based science curriculum for schools to give students a more bal-

anced science education and to prepare them for the future as informed citizens and for a career in science for those with talent and interest. The Curriculum Planning and Development Division of the Ministry has re-designed the curricula for primary and secondary science based on a ‘Science as an Inquiry’ framework (as shown in Figure 1) which has three integral domains, namely (a) knowledge, understanding and application, (b) skills and processes, and (c) ethics and attitudes (Curriculum Planning & Development Division, 2007). The primary and secondary science curricula envisage students acquiring science concepts, process and thinking skills, attitudes and values through inquiry activities “grounded in knowledge, issues and questions that relate to the roles played by science in daily life, society and the environment” (Curriculum Planning & Development Division, 2007, p.1). The Ministry has also launched another initiative, the ‘Baseline Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Standards’ (Ministry of Education, 2007) to enable students to acquire

Figure 1. Framework for Singapore science education1

311

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

the necessary ICT skills at various levels of their primary and secondary education to ensure that these students would be able to benefit fully from an ICT-enhanced learning environments that include the learning of science. These ICT standards include the basic use of productivity software such as Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint, communicating with others using email and blogs, making multimedia presentations, and searching for information on the internet and evaluating the information before using it. Schools in Singapore are strongly encouraged to leverage the potential of ICT to enhance science teaching and learning, and to support inquiry-based science learning, for example, using simulations for virtual inquiry activities (Hennessy, Deaney, & Ruthven, 2006) and datalogging in experiments (Linn, Davis, & Bell, 2004; Tan, Hedberg, Koh, & Seah, 2006), as well as online mentoring of students by scientists (O’Neill & Polman, 2004). Examples of simulations that students can use to learn science include those on the mixing of primary colors, the transfer of heat between an object and its surrounding, and the relationship between mass and friction (see http://www3.moe.edu.sg/edumall/ tl/digital_resources.htm). Datalogging involves the use of electronic sensors and interfaces to measure and record changes in variables during experiments, for example, temperature and light intensity. The experimental data are automatically collected and can be displayed in real-time in the form of tables and graphs on a computer screen. Datalogging frees students from the mundane task of taking measurements, tabulating data and drawing graphs by hand so that they can focus on more cognitively demanding tasks such as the planning of experiments, data analysis and interpretation (Osborne & Hennessy, 2003). The recent advances in ICT and media technologies have led to the transformation of the World Wide Web from Web 1.0, a read-only Web, to Web 2.0, a read-write Web. A read-only Web allows one-way flow of information from the producer to the reader, whereas a read-write Web allows

312

information to be edited and/or new material to be put up by readers, themselves, and this facilitates interaction among the original producer and the readers. For example, a person can post a reflection on an event on her/his blog and others can comment on it and even on each other’s comments to the original reflection, thereby creating a dialogue among the blog writer and the readers. In this chapter, we will begin with a brief discussion of scientific literacy and the focus of science education followed by a brief explanation of Web 2.0 technologies. We will then discuss the fundamental implications of the potential uses of Web 2.0 technologies on scientific literacy and the learning of science.

scIentIFIc lIterAcy Scientific literacy includes both science and technology and encompasses the knowledge, values and experiences of science that a person should have (Bybee, 1997). Bybee proposes five levels of scientific literacy which include (1) illiteracy, (2) nominal literacy, (3) functional literacy, (4) conceptual and procedural literacy, and (5) multidimensional literacy. When a person is scientifically illiterate, he/she has very little knowledge about science and technology, and is unable to understand or answer questions related to science and technology. A person with nominal literacy knows certain scientific or technological terms but does not understand them and have alternative conceptions of phenomena. Functional literacy allows one to use scientific and technological vocabulary but in a limited context or activity, and without adequate understanding of the relationship between concepts. A person with conceptual and procedural literacy is able to understand and apply scientific and technological concepts, methods and processes. When a person has multidimensional literacy, in addition to having conceptual and procedural literacy, he/ she also has an understanding of the nature and

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

history of science, the relationship between the disciplines of science, and the role of science in society. Bybee acknowledges that a person develops his/her scientific literacy over a lifetime and that science literacy can be manifested in a ‘multi-tiered’ manner – “several levels of literacy at once depending on the context, the issue, and the topic” (p. 83). A strong research and development programme in science and technology is essential for the economic well-being of a country in the modern world. Thus, there is a need for the citizens of the country to achieve a sufficiently high level of scientific literacy to supply the manpower for such research and development endeavours (Laugksch, 2000). In addition, a population with high levels of scientific literacy will have more realistic expectations of scientific research and development outcomes, able to make decisions on everyday life matters based on adequate understanding of the scientific issues involved, and be less bewildered by lack of consensus in science as evidenced by media reports of scientific claims and counter-claims (Laugksch, 2000; O’Neill & Polman, 2004). However, Jenkins (2000) cautions that science is “a messy business and, far from scientific knowledge being central to decisions about practical action, it is often irrelevant or, at best, marginal to it” (p. 209); scientific knowledge and thinking may be misrepresented, rejected or ignored as the different values, agendas, and political power of individuals, organizations and different sectors of society come into play (Kolstø, 2001). Thus, the moral and ethical dimensions of science education need to be emphasized as well (Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005).

scIence educAtIon In schools Constructivist theories of knowledge are based on the assumption that knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner rather than being transferred from the mind of the teacher to the mind of

the learner (Bodner, Klobuchar, & Geelan, 2001). Learners have to personally make sense of what they are learning in science but they need to be initiated into the culture and social institutions of science because they cannot discover these on their own (Driver, 1995; Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994; Osborne, 1996). Teachers need to provide the appropriate experiences with the phenomena concerned and introduce the concepts, theories, models, procedures and language used by the scientific community. Driver et al. (1994) highlight the similarities between the science ideas constructed by students and the development of scientific ideas and theories; both result from the interaction of individuals with phenomena, and what is known about the phenomena are the constructions of the individuals (Driver, 1995; Duit & Treagust, 1995). The students need to make sense of the science content taught, discuss with their peers their own understanding of the science content as well as their peers’ understanding. Scientific ideas and theories also need to be communicated, discussed and validated before being accepted, resulting “in the scientific community sharing a view of the world involving concepts, models, conventions and procedures” (Driver et al., 1994, p. 6). However, schools seldom provide students opportunity to meaningfully explore, negotiate and construct their understanding of science. School science tends to focus on “information or skills to be repeated or demonstrated on assignments and tests” (Rop, 1999, p. 228); often, teachers teach and students learn content only to obtain good results in examinations (Barrow, 1991; Osborne & Collins, 2001; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994). Osborne (2003) highlighted that the conception of science education as pre-professional training will result in the emphasis in schools on seemingly unrelated abstract knowledge which are required by practicing scientists, without opportunities and time afforded to the scientists to gain conceptual understanding of the knowledge. Thus, for the majority of students who will not end up being

313

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

scientists, school science will be boring and irrelevant for them, and gives them the impression that science consists of discrete facts and knowledge which are beyond their understanding to be of use to them. Osborne believes that “there is simply a blind refusal to recognise that the science education offered to the majority of pupils is singularly unattractive fare – inappropriate to their needs and interests” (Osborne, 2003, pp. 43-44), and cites the declining numbers of students in the UK taking A-level (Grade 11 and 12) science subjects as evidence. Another complaint about the science curricula in schools is that they focus too much on breadth instead of depth (Osborne, 2003; O’Neill & Polman, 2004). O’Neill and Polman compared science learning in the US to touring a country by airplane – fleeting images of the topics are retained, if at all, making the topics incomprehensible. This may even affect the more intellectually able students as science becomes “more superficial, less challenging, and less engaging” (Osborne, 2003, p. 45). O’Neill and Polman (2004) believe that schools should reduce the content covered and teach in ways which would allow students to understand and participate in the processes in which scientific knowledge is constructed and evaluated to help them deal with scientific issues in their everyday life; science to many students is something which is “taught, tested and forgotten in turn” (p. 236). Osborne (2003) agrees that learning scientific knowledge without the opportunity to do science is unlikely to develop the habits of mind required in science. Many researchers have expressed their thoughts on how science education can be improved. Bybee (1997) states that science programmes should have personal and social meaning to students, and “should be presented in a context that enhances personal and social decision making” (p. 76); the focus should be on what will make students want to learn science so that they want to engage in it in their lives, not just

314

in school (Osborne, 2003). In order to accomplish this, science lessons should mirror the activities of scientists for students to be able to learn and use scientific language in authentic situations (Wallace, 2004). In addition, students need to be exposed to scientific argumentation so that they have the opportunities to examine data, competing claims, assumptions, opinions, values and predictions to make decisions on issues (Zeidler et al., 2005). Scherz and Oren (2006) believe that if school science is more closely related to authentic scientific and technological activities, students may have more positive attitudes toward science and technology. Technology such as the Web can help foster a learning community where students engage in knowledge construction and science inquiry as it is able to link students, teachers and scientists together for collaboration, in addition to providing real-time scientific information and first-hand resources (Mistler-Jackson & Songer, 2000). However, it may be developmentally and cognitively inappropriate for students to engage in learning activities that totally reflect the reallife scientific activities (Dawson, Lederman, & Tobin, 2002). So, in designing learning activities in science, the students’ ability and readiness need also to be taken into account.

Web 2.0 technologIes Web 2.0 technologies can be defined as Web-based services or products that allow individuals to share digital resources with one another, to engage each other in conversation and to collaborate with one another so that they can collectively construct knowledge. These technologies include wikis, blogs, social networking sites and immersive virtual environments. The use of Web 2.0 technologies will encourage two significant shifts in usage patterns for both teachers and students, that is, from the use of personal application software to increasingly the use of Web-based applications

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

and from personal computing to increasingly social computing. The shift in paradigm for Web 2.0 learning is that it allows the students to learn by harnessing collective intelligence of other individuals connected to the Web through social interactions. The availability of user-friendly content creation and communication tools on the Internet has transformed the Web from Web 1.0, a read-only Web to Web 2.0, a read-write Web. In the past Web 1.0 world, only technically-savvy people and companies had the necessary expertise to provide content on the Web. Essentially, content was created by a few people or companies but may be viewed by many. The information provided was generally static and mainly an outcome of the digitalization of existing knowledge. Today, in the Web 2.0 world, there is mass participation and anyone who wishes to create and share content can do so easily without needing much technical expertise; the proliferation of blogs and the popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook.com attest to this. People are using the Web to interact with one another more and more, and are also finding new ways of collaboration. Thus, knowledge on the Web is no longer under the control of a few people and companies.

trends In globAl technology There are three key global technological trends that have supported the emergence of social computing based on mass participation. They are: • • •

Rapid advances in computing power and digital storage space; Increasing availability of pervasive networking; and Convergence of digital technologies and media.

Firstly, computing power and digital storage space have continued to advance at a rapid pace.

Based on Moore’s Law, computing power doubles every 18 – 24 months and is expected to continue to do so in the foreseeable future (Lundstrom, 2003). Accordingly to Disk Law, digital storage space is doubling every 12 months. This trend implies that, in going forward, we can expect affordable and yet powerful personal computing devices to become available. Secondly, computer networking is becoming pervasive. Increasingly, people have various options of connecting to the Internet, for example, by modem that offers either wired or wireless networking or by 3G (third generation) mobile telephony. Accordingly to Fibre Law, communication or network bandwidth is expected to double every 9 months. Thus, we can expect faster and faster Internet connection over time if we can afford to pay for it. In the future, we expect an internet connection to become a utility just like electricity and water. Personal computing devices will not only be affordable but will also be always connected to the internet such that the Web can be accessed at any time and any place. Other likely scenarios are that personal storage space will not be on a local computing device but on the Web and application software will most likely to be Web-based and bought on a subscription basis. Finally, there is rapid convergence of digital technologies and media. Today, a personal computer is no longer used for just running familiar software applications such as word-processing or spreadsheet, it is also an entertainment system that can be used to listen to music or to view movies. With software such as Skype, it can be turned into a video phone allowing more ‘expressive’ communication at lower cost. Thus, the personal computer is increasingly becoming an all-in-one device. Likewise, other digital devices such as mobile phones are no longer just phones but can be used to access the internet, listen to music or view movies on the move. A good example is the recently introduced Apple iPhone (see http://www. apple.com/iphone/) which is likely to set new

315

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

standards for mobile handheld computing. This convergence in digital technologies will allow any digital device to be a mobile computing device. There is also an increasing convergence in media which leads to information being represented in multiple formats. For example, movies that are produced for children nowadays are no longer just for screening at the cinemas. Often, movie websites will be set up and other media products based on the theme of the movies such as printed storybooks, online/CD-ROM games and toys will be produced to increase revenue as well as promote the movies and subsequent sale of the online/VCD/DVD versions of the movie. The trends just described point to a future where many students will own affordable personal mobile computing devices that will always be connected to the Internet. They will have access to large digital storage capacities on the Web that will be capable of storing everything that they need to or want to read, photographs taken, music that they listen to, movies that they view and various digital products that they create which can be accessible any time anywhere. Instead of being just consumers of content and services available on the Web, the students will be ‘prosumers’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosumer), that is, both producing as well as consuming content and services on the Web. This ability of students being able to be ‘prosumers’ will necessitate a fundamental shift in the way we view learning in science. Students need to construct their own personal meaning and understanding through a participatory process involving interactions among themselves and teachers (c.f. Hung, 2001; Leach & Scott, 2002; Singer, Marx, Krajcik, & Chambers, 2000). We are basically looking at a future that promises to make participatory learning of science accessible ‘anywhere, any time, and on any device’.

316

FundAMentAl IMplIcAtIons oF Web 2.0 technologIes on scIentIFIc lIterAcy And scIence educAtIon As previously discussed, scientific literacy in today’s global environment has become essential for all citizens. Today, those citizens who have acquired sufficient competencies to be able to leverage the Web 2.0 technologies would be more likely to achieve a sufficient level of scientific literacy to meet their day-to-day living needs. This is because Web 2.0 technologies have not only made access to a wide range of scientific information possible but also provide a mechanism through a mass participatory process to verify the accuracy of scientific information with the scientific community, often with the primary experts, themselves. As Web 2.0 technologies facilitate mass participation among individuals through social networking, the application of Web 2.0 technologies in science education require a shift in the pedagogy towards a student-centered one that engages students in participatory learning through these social networks. The mere transfer of printed science texts into Web pages containing multimedia elements will not leverage fully the Web 2.0 technologies to bring about better learning. There will be a need to fundamentally re-think the pedagogical approaches which leverage the Web 2.0 technologies to bring about more engaged learning. The potential uses of Web 2.0 technologies in scientific literacy and science education (Tan & Koh, 2008) are summarized in Table 1. A framework based on social constructivism for thinking about the potential uses of Web 2.0 technologies in the learning of science might include: a.

Productivity Tools. To increase the productivity of teachers and students in collaborating with one another on various tasks including remote instrumentation associated

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

b.

c.

d.

with science teaching and learning any time anywhere. Information Tools. To facilitate teachers and students in accessing information on science which allows for knowledge sharing and knowledge building. Assessment Tools. To facilitate alternative assessment through the development of artifacts on science that would be opened to a participatory assessment process. Visualization/Simulation Tools. To facilitate teachers and students in conducting collaborative analysis of patterns, trends, relationships in scientific phenomena or visualizing scientific phenomena.

e.

Reconstruction Tools. To facilitate the development of integrated collaborative virtual environments that allow for the experiential learning of science.

productivity tools With Web 2.0, teachers and students now have access to various Web-based productivity applications such as ‘Microsoft Office’-like applications, information or news feeds, social bookmarking applications and instant messaging. The typical ‘Microsoft Office’ applications such as word processing, spreadsheet, presentation and database are available as Web-based applica-

Table 1. Potential uses of Web 2.0 technologies in science learning Usage

Examples of Web 2.0 Technologies

Productivity

• • • • •

Information

• • • •

Assessment

• • •

Visualization/ Simulation

• • •

Reconstruction

• •

Google suite of Web-based applications to “communicate, show and share” that include shareable calendar, word processing and spreadsheet (http://docs.google.com/). RSS feeds for staying informed of the latest content on Websites such as those on science news or science-based blogs. Social networking sites such as Myspace.com (http://www.myspace.com/) and Facebook.com (http://www. facebook.com/) for creating personal Web pages and for connecting with others with similar interests. Websites such as MyWebdesktop (http://www.myWebdesktop.net/) for creating virtual desktop for sharing files, communication and collaboration. Instant messaging such as MSN Messenger (http://www.msn.com/), Yahoo Messenger (http://messenger. yahoo.com/) and Skype (http://www.skype.com/) for staying in communication through chat, audio and video conferencing. Wikis such as Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), PBwiki.com (http://pbwiki.com/) and Curriki (http://www. curriki.org/) for creating and revising content on science collaboratively. Blogs or podcasting for posting content and for others to respond to the content posted. Websites such as StudyCurve.com (http://studycurve.com/) that links US middle school students to experts for finding answers to their questions. Social bookmarking websites such as StumbleUpon (http://www.stumbleupon.com/) and Del.icio.us (http://del. icio.us/) rely on collective intelligence on the Web to find desired content. Blogs or podcasting for posting students’ work which others could critique. Multimedia Web sites such as Web Quests collaboratively created by students to display their science project work which others could critique. Web-based concept mapping collaboratively created by students to demonstrate their understanding of scientific concepts. Photo Web sites such as Flickr ((http://www.flickr.com/) and Zoto (http://www.zoto.com/) allow individuals to interact with one another over the photos shared. Video Web sites such as YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/) or Teacher Tube (http://www.teachertube.com/) allow individuals to upload videos for sharing and to post comments. Simulations created in virtual environments such as in Second Life (http://www.secondlife.com/) that allow collaborative viewing and interactions. Immersive virtual environments such as Second Life (http://www.secondlife.com/) and Active Worlds (http:// www.activeworlds.com/) potentially allow the design of virtual learning spaces that are collaborative and experiential. Online Games such as Civilisation (http://www.civ-online.com/) and The Sims Online (http://www. simscityguides.com/) provide a virtual learning environment for role playing according to the theme of the games.

317

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

tions. For example, Google offers a suite of free Web-based applications that includes shareable calendar, word processing, spreadsheet and group discussion forum. Zoho (http://www.zoho.com) is an example of another company that offers a comprehensive suite of Web-based applications that allow users to work collaboratively online. The Zoho suite includes, among others, word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, wikis and collaboration groupware. RSS feeds provide individuals with an automatic way of keeping abreast of the latest changes in tracked web sites on science topics. The term, RSS, could refer to the following format specifications, “Really Simple Syndication”, “RDF Site Summary” or “Rich Site Summary” [see http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format)]. RSS feeds could be obtained through a software application called a RSS reader or an “aggregator” which could either be loaded on an individual personal computer (PC) or be Web-based. Examples of PC-based RSS readers include FeedDemon (http://www.newsgator.com/Individuals/ FeedDemon/) and NewzCrawler (http://www. newzcrawler.com/) while examples of Web-based readers include Bloglines (http://www.bloglines. com/) and Google Reader (http://reader.google. com). Once teachers and students are subscribed to the RSS feeds of web sites that they are interested in using either a web-based or PC-based RSS readers, these readers will automatically check and download any new content from the tracked Web sites at regular intervals. Essentially, the RSS feeds provide teachers and students with a mechanism for dealing with a huge amount of information on the Web by filtering and organizing the information. Teachers and students will be able to stay informed of any changes in content in their preferred sources of information on the Web, whether news sites, blogs, wikis or any online resources where content is updated regularly. Social networking sites such as Myspace. com (http://www.myspace.com/), Facebook. com (http://www.facebook.com/) and Friendster

318

(http://www.friendster.com/) are focused on building online social and professional networks. While these social networking sites are familiar and widely used by university students and academics, there is no known report of their use in K-12 science education. Science educators are also likely to view such sites with caution because of the potential danger of K-12 students socializing in open online environments. Nevertheless, these sites do offer some possibilities for science education in that they provide simple-to-use tools for creating personal web pages and for connecting with other individuals, with similar interests in science and in any part of the world, for collaborative science projects. Perhaps, science teachers could also explore the use of such sites for professional networking. Internet messaging services such as MSN Messenger (http://www.msn.com/), Yahoo Messenger (http://messenger.yahoo.com/) and Skype (http:// www.skype.com/) provide a convenient means for teachers and students to stay in communication with one another through chat, audio and video conferencing. Internet messaging facilitates teachers and students in their collaboration beyond their classrooms to anywhere in the country or internationally. The existing Web technologies also allow the possibilities of remote instrumentation where K-12 students could get access to research instruments such as a scanning electron microscope (Brown & Adler, 2008; Teasley et al., 2000). For example, the Bug scope project provides K-12 students with access to a scanning electron microscope to view insects at high magnification (Potter et al., 2001). This remote access via the Web to research instruments housed in scientific establishments such as universities or corporate laboratories is a significant development as it makes it possible for K-12 students to experience authentic science. Without such remote resources, related science inquiry projects will not be possible as it is unlikely that K-12 schools have the financial means and expertise to purchase and use these research instruments, respectively.

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

Information tool In making science lessons more interesting and engaging, science teachers would often incorporate interesting biographical information on famous scientists from the internet into their lessons to stimulate interest in a particular scientific principle, technique or even the development of scientific methods. Students could also visit websites containing everyday applications of science to gain better understanding of scientific concepts and procedures. These activities are facilitated even more with Web 2.0 as both teachers and students can tap into the collective intelligence to get quick access to interesting nuggets of information, often current, from Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, podcasts, wikis and social bookmarking applications. With blogs and podcasts, individuals interested in science-related news and information will be spoiled for choice. Blogs and podcasting are Web 2.0 technologies that allow individuals to easily post content without the need for much technical expertise. Being Web 2.0 technologies, they allow others to respond to the blogs and podcasts. If you were to use Google to do a search on the terms, “blogs” and “science”, you will be pointed to numerous blogging sites that are science-related. Some of the top hits obtained in the Google search would include Science Blog (http://www.scienceblog.com/), ScienceBlogs (http://scienceblogs.com/) and Science News Blog (http://www.sciencenewsblog.com/). There is even a web site for the Best Science Blog at http://2006.weblogawards.org/2006/12/best_science_blog.php. The major popular science publications such as Nature, Science and Scientific American, major news channels such as ABC and BBC, print newspapers such as New York Times and Guardian, and organizations such as NASA and Boston Museum of Science offer podcasts on science topics to reach their target audience. Teachers and students can download podcasts of interest and use them in class or listen to them anywhere

and at any time. Several schools in Singapore use blogs to capture the highlights of fieldtrips, with students uploading their pictures and videos taken during the fieldtrips, as well as their reflections on their experiences and learning. Wikis are online user-created encyclopaedias that allow individuals to easily upload multi-media content onto websites without much technical knowledge. Other individuals visiting these wikis, if permitted, could update and edit the entries. The best known Wiki is probably Wikipedia. In December 2005, Nature (Giles, 2005) reported that the science entries in Wikipedia were found to have an accuracy that was close to the Encyclopaedia Britannica which was authored by experts. Despite Encyclopaedia Britannica’s objections to the Nature’s finding on encyclopaedic accuracy (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2006), Nature responded in their editorial on 20 March 2006 that they stood by their study and published online a point-by-point rebuttal (see http://www.nature. com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf). The Wikipedia versus Encyclopaedia Britannica debate on accuracy underscores the importance of having a critical mind in examining sources of information even from experts. For the purpose of acquiring scientific information, the Wikipedia would certainly be a convenient firststop information source to find the preliminary leads to pursue further inquiry. Students in a secondary school in Singapore use a knowledge constructor, which is very similar to a wiki, to “brainstorm ideas, review works, critique each other’s ideas, build on these ideas and organize them in an array of visual displays” (Foo, S.Y., personal communication, May 23, 2008). This resulted in organized networks of ideas in which teachers could trace the development of conceptual knowledge, identify alternative conceptions and gaps in the students’ understanding as well as assess the contribution of each student to the knowledge construction process. Instead of taxonomies or categorization systems organized by experts, the Web 2.0 has given

319

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

rise to folksonomies (see http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Folksonomy) where thousands of links on various topics including those on science are now categorized by users on the Web without expert guidance (Bohannon, 2007). Social booking Web sites such as Del.icio.us (http://del.icio. us), a general purpose site, and Connotea (http:// www.connotea.org), a science-specific site, offer thousands of links on science topics that are bookmarked by individuals and generally offer a better indication of the relevance and usefulness of these links for scientific information that would be of interest to many individuals. The key feature of these web sites is that they all allow individuals to share their web links with any selected group of people. Thus, blogs, podcasts, wikis and social bookmarking applications are resources which can be utilized in the learning of science. These tools not only provide access to information on science but, more importantly, provide platforms for knowledge building and sharing in science.

Initiative (http://www.osportfolio.org/). Examples of Web-based concept mapping include C-TOOLS (http://ctools.msu.edu/) developed at the University of Michigan (Luckie, McCray-Batzli, Harrison, & Ebert-May, 2003) and COMPASS (or COncept Map ASSessment Tool) developed at the University of Athens (Gouli, Gogoulou, & Grigoriadou, 2003). Many of the blogging and wiki sites offer a simple-to-use Web interface for setting up a web site on any science project work. For example, students who are undertaking an inquiry-based multi-media science project such as a WebQuest (http://www.webquest.org/index. php) (March, 2004) can upload their project work on the Web at PBwiki.com (http://pbwiki.com/) or at a free WebQuest website such as InstantWebQuest (http://www.instantprojects.org/webquest/ main.php) or use a WebQuest Generator available at PHP Webquest (http://eduforge.org/projects/ phpwebquest/) for evaluation by teachers, peers and members of the community.

visualization/simulation tool Assessment tool There is a general acknowledgement that preparing students to do well in standardized assessments do not necessarily lead to deep understanding in the learning of science (Klassen, 2006). There are moves towards authentic alternative forms of assessment for the learning of science which include among others, portfolio, concept mapping and project work. Web 2.0 technologies can be used to facilitate the implementation of these authentic alternative forms of assessment of science learning by simplifying the process of recording the learning, keeping track of the development of understanding and assessing the understanding achieved. There are a number of free Web-based e-portfolio applications that are available for use in K-12 education. They include, for example, Edu-portfolio.org (http://www.eduportfolio.org/ en/index.php), KEEP Toolkit (http://www.cfkeep. org/static/index.html) and Open Source Portfolio

320

Photo Web sites such as Flickr ((http://www.flickr. com/) and Zoto (http://www.zoto.com/) and Video Web sites such as YouTube (http://www.youtube. com/) or Teacher Tube (http://www.teachertube. com/) allow students to upload their digital photos and videos onto the Web for sharing and for others to post comments. At the most basic level of scientific visualization, these Web sites offer both teachers and students a quick way of uploading digital photos or videos taken on science field trips or small science projects undertaken for sharing with others. Concord Consortium has developed a javabased client called Pedagogica Explorer (http:// pedagogica.concord.org/) that simulates “atomicscale models to relate a wide range of macroscopic physical, chemical and biological phenomena to basic properties of atoms and molecules and their interactions”. This application currently runs on the local computer and is only linked to a remote

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

database on the Web. When Pedagogica is made available on a Web site that support collaboration groupware, powerful visualization and simulations will be available for collaborative inquirybased learning of science. Marcia Linn from University of California, Berkeley is collaborating with Concord Consortium and other collaborators to bring about this integration (Linn, Lee, Tinker, Husic, & Chiu, 2006). Teachers or students with technical know-how could venture into immersive virtual environments such as Second Life (http://www.secondlife. com/) to create interesting three-dimensional simulations of scientific phenomena that would allow collaborative viewing and interactions. We are beginning to see interesting experiments on visualization tools and simulations in these immersive virtual environments. For example, a Hungarian medical student, Bertalan Meskó, reported in his blog that he was the first to develop a medical simulation on Second Life (http:// scienceroll.com/2007/08/03/the-first-medicalsimulation-in-second-life-come-and-watch/). With the growing popularity of such immersive virtual environments among people, educational institutions and high-technology companies, we could expect more of such simulations in the future.

reconstruction tool In the near future, there will be possibilities for K-12 students to learn science collaboratively and experientially in immersive virtual environments such as Second Life (http://www.secondlife.com/) and Active Worlds (http://www.activeworlds. com/). Currently, such immersive virtual environments for the learning of science are still in their infancy. There are early examples of such possibilities, for example, the virtual hallucinations project at the University of California, Davis led by Peter Yellowlees (http://www. ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/psychiatry/research/virtual.

html) and the River City project team at Harvard University led by Chris Dede which developed a virtual multi-user environment to teach middle school students about disease transmission and the scientific method (http://muve.gse.harvard. edu/rivercityproject/). In these immersive virtual learning environments, K-12 students will be able to collaboratively reconstruct scientific concepts, principles and theories that will be experiential in nature but in safe working spaces. A high school in Singapore has explored the use of Second Life to develop students’ multiple perspectives and generate quality argumentation on contentious topics such as euthanasia. Through role playing a character in the form of an avatar and thinking, speaking and acting on issues from another persona’s perspective, the high school believes that students explore current issues relating to euthanasia from multiple perspectives and gain a deeper appreciation of complexity of the issues involved.

Future possIbIlIty: the ‘long tAIl’ oF Web-bAsed scIence educAtIon It is evident today that teachers and students who have access to the Web will be spoiled for choice when it comes to scientific information and activities. While the Web 2.0 technologies provide unprecedented access to both scientific information and the communities interested in the scientific information, they will not be substitutes for teachers and students having the necessary competencies to be able to make sense of, evaluate and critically interpret the various multi-media messages available in Web 2.0 to become truly scientifically literate. The real challenge in the use of Web 2.0 technologies in science education is making the fundamental shift in pedagogy and assessment towards a participatory learning approach to bring

321

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

about deeper and more engaged learning for the science education would be described as falling students. The deployment of Web 2.0 technoloon the ‘head’ segment of the learning of science gies for science education in the K-12 sector will that involves most students spanning a limited not reap the full benefits if this fundamental shift number of science subjects/topics found in the in pedagogy and assessment that leverages the standard curriculum. That is, science subjects Web 2.0 technologies does not take place. In our or topics are offered in schools subject to certain view, the participatory learning approach that minimum number of students enrolled in these leverages the Web 2.0 technologies will require subjects or topics. teachers to design sustained inquiry for the learnIf we are prepared to go beyond the typical ing of science that either involves the inter-play classroom or institutional structures and boundof complex scientific principles and concepts or aries, there is also scope to conceptualize online requires multi-perspective analysis of scientific science learning across many schools that integrate phenomena. Students need to explore scientific formal curriculum with informal curriculum concepts and theories, construct their own underoffered by the community (cf. Halverson & Colstanding of the scientific concepts and theories, lins, 2006). Anderson would have described this to share and test their ideas, and obtain feedback segment of science learning to fall on the ‘long from peers, teachers and even the scientific comtail’ where Web 2.0 technologies would facilitate munity; Web 2.0 technologies support this social a few individual students in different schools to technologies will require teachers to design sustained inquiry for the learning of science that constructivist learning. connect with one another either involves the inter-play of complex scientific principles and concepts or requires multi-and with experts in the However, weofare only beginning exploreneed to explore community suchconcepts as science centres and scienceperspective analysis scientific phenomena.toStudents scientific and theories, own understanding of the scientific based concepts and theories, the uses ofconstruct Web 2.0their technologies in science eduinterest groupsto to learn some specialized share and test theirchapter, ideas, and from peers, and even the that scientific cation. In this weobtain havefeedback only focused our teachers science topics may interest them but are not community; Web 2.0 technologies support this social constructivist learning. discussion on the forms of Web 2.0 technologies found in the standard curriculum; the topics that that might be used for the learning of science student canin pursue However, we are only beginning to explore the uses topof Web 2.0atechnologies science online is almost unlimited education. this chapter, we have only focused our discussion (Brown on the forms of Web 2008). 2.0 ics in theInstandard curriculum. Anderson (2006) & Adler, In other words, these technologies that might be used for the learning of science topics in the standard curriculum. described a long tail curve where he suggested students would, in theory, have the opportunities Anderson (2006) described a long tail curve where he suggested that “the future of business that “the future of business is in selling less of pursue theirtopassion is in selling less of more”. If we were to adapt the concept of thetolong tail curve sciencein the learning of science more”. If we were to adapt the concept wouldonotherwise education, it would be depicted as shown in Figureof2.the The abovethat discussion the uses of not be possible because Web 2.0tail technologies scienceeducation, education would be described as falling onscience the ‘head’ long curve to in science it would be either the topics are not in the standard segment of the learning of science that involves most students spanning a limited number of depicted as shown in Figure 2. The earlier discurriculum, there are no teachers with the approscience subjects/topics found in the standard curriculum. That is, science subjects or topics cussion on the uses of Web 2.0 technologies in priateenrolled expertise to facilitate the learning of the are offered in schools subject to certain minimum number of students in these science topics, or there are insufficient numbers subjects or topics. of students interested in a particular school for the Figure 2: Long Tail Curve for Science Education school to offer such science topics. This ‘long tail’ Figure 2. Long tail curve for science education phenomenon opens up promising new possibiliHead ties for the learning of science that has yet to be explored by school systems around the world. Number of Students

Author note Long Tail

This chapter is an expanded version of a paper published by the School Science Review, a journal of the Association for Science Education.

Science subjects/topics

If we are prepared to go beyond the typical classroom or institutional structures and boundaries, there is also scope to conceptualize online science learning across many schools 322 that integrate formal curriculum with informal curriculum offered by the community (cf. Halverson & Collins, 2006). Anderson would have described this segment of science learning to fall on the ‘long tail’ where Web 2.0 technologies would facilitate a few individual

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

reFerences Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion. Barrow, G.M. (1991). Intellectural integrity or mental servility. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(6), 449-453. Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M., & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107. Retrieved May 24, 2008 from http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/ Journal/Issues/2001/Aug/index.html Bohannon, J. (2007). Folk wisdom for web sites. ScienceNOW, 123, 5. Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 17-32. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/ pdf/ERM0811.pdf Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Curriculum Planning & Development Division (2007). Draft science syllabus: Lower secondary Special/Express/Normal (Academic) 2008. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Dawson, V., Lederman, N.G., & Tobin, K. (2002). The nature of science. In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on the problems of practice (pp. 7-21). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & WoodRobinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London and New York: Routledge.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D.F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 46-69). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2006). Fatally flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://corporate.britannica.com/ britannica_nature_response.pdf. Giles, J. (2005). Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head To Head. Nature, 438(7070), 900-901. Gouli, E., Gogoulou, A., & Grigoriadou, M. (2003). A coherent and integrated framework using concept maps for various educational assessment functions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 215-240. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://jite.org/indexes/Vol2.htm. Halverson, R., & Collins, A. (2006). Information technologies and the future of schooling in the United States. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 145-155. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 701-732. Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Educational Media International, 38(4), 281-287. Jenkins, E. (2000). ‘Science for all’: Time for a paradigm shift? In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 207-226). Buckingham , UK: Open University Press. Klassen, S. (2006). Contextual assessment in science education: Background, issues, and policy. Science Education, 90(5), 820-851. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with science dimension

323

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-42. Linn, M. C., Davis, E.A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Linn, M.C., Lee, H.S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J.L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313(5790), 1049-1050. Luckie, D.B., McCray-Batzli, J., Harrison, S., & Ebert-May, D. (2003). C-TOOLS: Conceptconnector tools for online learning in science. International Journal of Learning, 10, 332-338. Lundstrom, M. (2003). Moore’s Law forever? Science, 299(5604), 210-211. March, T. (2004). The learning power of WebQuests. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 42-47. Ministry of Education (2006). Science General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level 2008 Syllabus: 5116 Science (Physics, Chemistry), 5117 Science (Physics, Biology), 5118 Science (Chemistry, Biology). Singapore: Author. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from http://www.seab.gov.sg/SEAB/ oLevel/syllabus/2008_GCE_O_Level_Syllabuses/5116_5117_5118_2008.pdf Ministry of Education (2007). Baseline ICT standards: Guide to implementation (Primary School). Singapore: Author.

324

Mistler-Jackson, M. & Songer, N.B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459-479. O’Neill, D. K. & Polman, J.L. (2004). Why educate “little scientists?” Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234-266. Osborne, J. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53-82. Osborne, J. (2003). Making science matter. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education: Responding to the work of Peter Fensham (pp. 37-50). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Osborne J. & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467. Osborne, J. & Hennessy, S. (2003). Literature review in science education and the role of ICT: Promise, problems and future directions. NESTA FUTURELAB SERIES (Report 6). Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.futurelab.org. uk/download/pdfs/research/lit_reviews/Secondary_School_Review.pdf Potter, C.S., Carragher, B., Carroll, L., Conway, C., Grosser, B., Hanlon, J., et al. (2001). Bugscope: a practical approach to providing remote microscopy for science education outreach. Microscopy and Microanalysis, 7(3), 249-252. Rop, C.J. (1999). Student perspectives on success in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 221-237. Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5-30. Singer, J., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J., & Chambers, J.C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry

Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education

projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-178.

Constructivism: Theory of knowledge which suggest that the learner has to make sense of new material based on his or her prior knowledge.

Scherz, Z. & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students’ images of science and technology. Science Education, 90(6), 965-985.

Inquiry-Based Science Learning: Individuals or groups of students working together to solve problems requiring the use of science concepts. It generally involves generating hypothesis, planning investigations, collecting and analyzing data, making inferences from data, evaluating the whole inquiry process and making known the results of the inquiry.

Tan, K.C.D., Hedberg, J.G., Koh, T.S., & Seah, W.C. (2006). Datalogging in Singapore schools: Supporting effective implementations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(1), 111-127. Tan, K.C.D., & Koh, T.S. (2008). The use of Web 2.0 technologies in school science. School Science Review, 90(330), 113-117

Scientific Literacy: Knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts, values and ways of thinking and doing. Social Bookmarking: Users bookmark web pages and share these bookmarks with others who belong to the same group or network.

Teasley, S.D., Finholt, T.A., Potter, C.S., Carragher, B., Carroll, L., Conway, C., et al. (2000). Participatory science via the internet. In B. Fishman & S. O’Conner-Divelbiss (Eds.), 4th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 376-383), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Web 1.0: A read-only Web allows one-way flow of information from the producer to the reader as the reader cannot modify the web content.

Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses and the “third space”. Science Education, 88(6), 901-914.

Web 2.0: A read-write Web allows information to be edited and/or new material to be put up by readers, themselves, and this facilitates interaction among the original producer and the readers.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A researchbased framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.

Web 2.0 Technologies: Web-based services or products that allow individuals to share digital resources, communicate, collaborate and coconstruct knowledge with one another.

Key terMs And deFInItIons

endnote

Authentic Assessment: Students solving reallife problems using that will indicate mastery of concepts and skills.

1

Curriculum Planning & Development Division (2007). Singapore: Ministry of Education.

325

326

Chapter XXI

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use:

Developing an Instrument for Measuring Student ICT Use Romina Jamieson-Proctor University of Southern Queensland, Australia Glenn Finger Griffith University, Australia

AbstrAct Teaching and learning in the 21st Century requires teachers and students to capitalise upon the relative advantage of integrating Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to enhance current curriculum, pedagogy and assessment approaches, as well as transform teaching and learning. While most educational systems agree that ICT has the potential to transform teaching and learning, attention has been given recently to the challenge of how to measure and evaluate the impact ICT is having on teaching and learning. This Chapter argues that the most important focus in measuring ICT use needs to be on student use of ICT, as policies and teacher professional development initiatives by themselves are insufficient to ensure that student learning is either enhanced or transformed through ICT use. Insights are provided into the development of a contemporary instrument, for use by Education Queensland, Australia, which aims to measure teacher perceptions of the quantity and quality of student use (as opposed to teacher use) of ICT in the curriculum. The instrument enables teachers and schools to identify their current and preferred levels of student ICT use, and from this, to generate discussion about the integration and transformational potential of ICT and to develop strategic plans to achieve their preferred level of student use. This Chapter also provides summaries of the implementation of the instrument in two large Queensland education systems, and argues that ICT research, such as this approach, which enables large scale, evidence-based research to measure student outcomes as a result of using ICT in the curriculum should be a matter of priority to effectively monitor and manage learning with ICT. Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

IntroductIon – the chAllenge oF IMprovIng student use oF Ict Internationally, there has been an increase in the provision of computer and Internet access to students and teachers in schools, together with increases in access to computers and the Internet for students in their homes. These increases are reflected in international data which show increased student access to ICT. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), undertaken in 2000, 2003, and 2006 which is “a survey of students’ skills and knowledge as they approach the end of compulsory education” (OECD, 2005a), included questions which asked students about their use of computers and their attitude towards them. The OECD reported that in 2003, 84.19% of students indicated they had access to a computer at school, and 79.44% indicated they had a computer to use at home. The PISA 2006 study reported improved access with 95.57% of Australian students indicating they had a computer for school use and 90.99% had access to the Internet at home (OECD, 2007). However, when frequency of computer use was examined in 2003, only 7.34% of students reported that they used a computer at school ‘almost every day’ (OECD, 2005b). While improvements have occurred, with 23.31% in 2006 indicating they used a computer at school ‘almost every day’, this still means that ICT is integral to learning for only 1 in 5 Australian 15 year old students (OECD, 2007). Elsewhere, Cuban has noted that the claims for improving student use of computers in schools have been overly optimistic (Cuban, 2000) and refers to computers as being ‘oversold and underused’ (Cuban, 2001). As Cuban (2000) indicates, in referring to the United States of America: The facts are clear. Two decades after the introduction of personal computers in the nation, with

more and more schools being wired, and billions of dollars being spent, less than two of every ten teachers are serious users of computers in their classrooms (several times a week). Three to four are occasional users (about once a month). The rest--four to five teachers of every ten teachers-never use the machines for instruction. When the type of use is examined, these powerful technologies end up being used most often for word processing and low-end applications in classrooms that maintain rather than alter existing teaching practices. Thus, we suggest that, while possession of infrastructure such as computers and Internet access are important, in themselves they are insufficient to guarantee student and teacher use of ICT for teaching and learning. Similarly, immersing teachers in professional development also does not necessarily translate to effective use of ICT by students for enhancing learning. While there has been almost universal support to “better exploit the potential of ICT” (Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), 2002, p. 3): …this potential has not been realised in any significant way, particularly the potential to transform how, what, where and why students learn what they do. While there are only limited examples of the transformative power in the educational sector, experience from industry and other sectors clearly demonstrates that new times need new approaches, and that the nature and application of ICT enable that transformation. Teaching and learning in the 21st Century requires teachers and students to capitalise upon the relative advantage of using ICT to both enhance current curriculum, pedagogy and assessment approaches, as well as transform existing practices. These challenges have been reflected in the policies and planning of many educational systems throughout the world, such as the policy roadmaps for the use of ICT in education in the

327

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

USA in Transforming learning through technology (Milken Exchange on Education Technology, 2005). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, Becta (formerly known as the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency) presented the Five year strategy for children and learners (Becta, 2005), while in New Zealand, the Digital horizons: Learning through ICT policy statement was developed (Ministry of Education, 2003). In Australia, the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) established the MCEETYA ICT in Schools Taskforce which developed the Learning in an online world strategy (MCEETYA, 2000). Accompanying ICT policy developments and improved access by students to ICT, much of the research related to ICT in schools has tended to focus on areas associated with two key questions - why ICT might be used, and how ICT might be used in teaching and learning. While ICT research has provided useful theorizing about why and how ICT might be used, the research has tended to be limited to isolated case studies of ICT use by teachers and schools mostly involving ‘lighthouse’ or extraordinary projects. These studies provide rich descriptions of those ICT projects, but do little in terms of contributing large scale evidence-based data relating to student use of ICT for learning across whole systems or even numbers of schools within an educational system. Consequently, it is frequently the case that, despite improved access to ICT, explanations for the perceived limited student use of ICT in schools has been accompanied by advocacy for more effective wide-scale models of teacher professional development. Consequently, attention is now being focused on the challenge of how to define, measure and evaluate the impact of ICT use on teaching and learning more broadly. This Chapter argues that attempts to measure ICT use in schools need to specifically focus on student use of ICT. This approach is aimed at determining the learning outcomes for students of ICT use, rather than the

328

quantity of input measures by a school or education system (e.g. numbers of computers, funding for teacher professional development). Policies and professional development of teachers by themselves are insufficient to ensure that student learning is either enhanced or transformed by ICT use. Research is required that identifies the extent to which students use ICT and how students use ICT for learning. This Chapter describes the development of a contemporary instrument called Learning with ICT: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum, developed for use by Education Queensland in Australia to measure teacher’s perceptions about the quantity and quality of student use of ICT (Department of Education, Training and the Arts, 2005; Jamieson-Proctor, Watson & Finger, 2003; 2004a; 2004b). The instrument enables teachers, schools and school systems to gauge the extent, depth and quality of their ICT curriculum integration strategies. The instrument is also a strategic tool as it enables the identification of both the current and preferred level of ICT use by students in classrooms, schools, and school systems to stimulate and generate strategic discussions about the best ways to use and integrate ICT to enhance and transform teaching and learning. Subsequent to describing the instrument, summaries are provided of its effective implementation to measure ICT use in two large education systems in Queensland, Australia; namely, an investigation involving 929 State School teachers from Education Queensland, and an investigation involving 1723 teachers from Catholic Education schools across Queensland. This Chapter acknowledges and draws upon the extensive publications that detail the development and subsequent implementation of this instrument (Jamieson-Proctor, Watson & Finger, 2003; Jamieson-Proctor, Watson & Finger, 2004a; 2004b; Jamieson-Proctor & Finger, 2006; 2007; Finger, Jamieson-Proctor, & Watson, 2003; 2006; Jamieson-Proctor, Burnett, Finger, & Watson, 2006; Jamieson-Proctor, Watson, Finger, Grimbeek, & Burnett, 2007).

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

the InstruMent - leArnIng WIth Ict: MeAsurIng Ict use In the currIculuM

1.

A review of the literature relating to the integration of ICT use in schools reveals that researching and measuring the impact of ICT integration in schools has been found to be problematic (Cuttance, 2001). This is due to the complexity of rationales and terminology that underwrite various ICT initiatives, various dimensions and stages of ICT integration, inherent methodological difficulties, obstacles and barriers to ICT integration, significant issues relating to teacher professional development, and the ICT competencies of teachers (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2003). We argue that, before measuring ICT use, it is important to conceptualise frameworks for defining and measuring ICT use. Relevant to this, a 2005 Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference Symposium provided insights into a range of current approaches for measuring ICT use in Australian schools (Fitzallen & Brown, 2006; Lloyd, 2006; Trinidad, Newhouse & Clarkson, 2006; Finger et al., 2006). Each of those approaches tended to utilise stages or dimensions of ICT use. For example, Trinidad et al. (2006) in developing a three-layered framework “that would support, describe and promote good practice in the use of ICT in teaching and learning in schools” (Trinidad, Newhouse & Clarkson, 2006, p. 1), conceptualised the stages of teacher development as inaction, investigation, application, integration and transformation, with a ‘critical use border’ between application and integration seen as being essential for ICT to be used in ways to enhance teaching and learning (Trinidad, Newhouse & Clarkson, 2006). In guiding the development of the instrument for measuring student use of ICT, Jamieson-Proctor et al. (2003; 2004a) utilised four different but overlapping dimensions of ICT use, namely:

2.

3.

4.

A tool for use across the curriculum or in separate subjects where the emphasis is on the development of ICT-related skills, knowledge, processes and attitudes; A tool for enhancing students’ learning outcomes within the existing curriculum and using existing learning processes; An integral component of broader curricular reforms, which will change not only how students learn but what they learn; and An integral component of the reforms, which will alter the organisation and structure of schooling itself. (Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 2000).

Those four dimensions relate closely to Trinidad et al’s. (2006) stages of teacher development. In particular, the first two dimensions largely reflect ICT integration whereby ICT is used to develop ICT related skills, knowledge, processes and attitudes, and to enhance student learning within the existing curriculum and learning structures and processes. The third and fourth dimensions reflect the transformational nature of ICT in schools, in which ICT can be seen as the catalyst for transformation and integral to reforming curriculum and how students learn and what they learn. Therefore, an instrument that aims to measure student ICT use, needs to be underpinned by a clear definition of what is meant by ICT integration. Comprehensive accounts of the development of such an instrument are provided elsewhere (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2003; 2004a; 2004b; Jamieson-Proctor & Finger, 2006; Finger et al., 2003; 2006; Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2006; Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2007). The instrument was developed, trialled and evaluated for Education Queensland in 2005 (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2007). The survey style instrument Learning with ICT: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum (Department of Education, Training and the Arts, 2005) is available for download from http:// education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/strategy/ sp_census_learning.html. The instrument en-

329

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

ables teachers, schools and systems to gauge the extent, quality and impact of their ICT curriculum integration strategies. By using the instrument, teachers, schools and systems at large can: •

• •

Identify their current and preferred quantity and quality of ICT curriculum integration in each of their classrooms; Identify each individual class’s access to ICT; and from these data they can Generate discussions and think strategically about the best ways to use and integrate ICT into the classroom to enhance and transform the curriculum, teaching and learning. (DETA, 2005)

Importantly, the development of this instrument also needed to be positioned to enable the incorporation of Education Queensland’s strategic intent now articulated in the Smart Classrooms strategy whereby the “overriding aim of the Smart Classrooms strategy is to make ICT integral to learning” (DETA, 2007). Therefore, the Smart Classrooms strategy moves the focus from infrastructure, connectivity and professional development of teachers (all system input measures), to the use of ICT by students to transform learning through innovative approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (outcome measures). Alongside this transformational vision, ICT can also be integrated into the existing curriculum. Thus, we are suggesting that: …before formulating an evaluation approach, teachers, schools and education systems need to clearly describe and understand the distinction between ICT integration and making ICT integral to teaching and learning. It is the latter which reflects the transformational story. The difference is significant, and will affect the evaluation methodologies that are developed. (Finger, Russell, Jamieson-Proctor, & Russell, 2007, p. 252)

330

The Learning with ICT: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum teacher survey consists of Part A which obtains demographic data about the teachers (gender, school type, years of teaching experience, confidence to use ICT with students for teaching and learning, year levels and curriculum areas currently taught) and Part B which consists of 20 items that investigate the quantity and quality of student use of ICT for learning across the four dimensions noted earlier. In the process of developing these items, a four-point ordinal response scale of Never, Sometimes, Often, and Very Often was created to gauge frequency of student use. Two identical frequency-of-use scales were used for teachers to indicate their Current and Preferred positions relating to their students’ use of ICT for learning. The decision to adopt the dual Current and Preferred scales was informed by the DEST report entitled Raising the Standards (DEST, 2002, p. 17), which recommended that an ICT competency framework should enable both performance measurement and professional development. In this way, the instrument can be used as a strategic tool for identifying not only where a teacher, school or system is at, but also can assist in identifying where they want to go with respect to the use of ICT for teaching and learning. Through a robust, statistical trial and development process, an initial suite of 137 items was refined to 45 items, and finally 20 items were revealed to load strongly on two factors (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2003; 2004a; 2004b). Table 1 displays the items with Alpha loadings of the Learning With ICT: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum instrument. The first factor contains 14 items that define ICT as a tool for the development of ICT-related skills and the enhancement of curriculum learning outcomes, that is, the ICT integration dimension. The second factor comprises 6 items that define ICT as an integral component of reforms that change what students learn and how school is structured and organized, the transformational

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

dimension of ICT use (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2003; 2004a; 2004b; 2007). The use of the online instrument (DETA, 2005) supports the calculation of frequency-of-use scores by individual items, and by total items on each factor and can be calculated on an individual teacher, school, or system basis. Teachers have the option of printing out their individual records as

well as automatically generating two 4-quadrant graphs that display their mean frequency-of-use scores for each factor and these can be saved and compared with their responses to the items in the future. In this way, change over time may easily be interpreted by individual teachers. Figure 1 displays the explanations provided to teachers for each quadrant of the 4-quadrant graph that

Table 1. Items on the instrument - learning with ICT: Measuring ICT use in the curriculum Factor and Items

Factor 1*

Factor 2*

In my class, students use ICTs to… 1

acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes to deal with on-going technological change.

.66

2

develop functional competencies in a specified curriculum area.

.73

3

synthesise their knowledge.

.82

4

actively construct their own knowledge in collaboration with their peers and others.

.76

5

actively construct knowledge that integrates curriculum areas.

.81

6

develop deep understanding about a topic of interest relevant to the curriculum area/s being studied.

.80

7

develop a scientific understanding of the world.

.57

8

provide motivation for curriculum tasks.

.79

9

plan and/or manage curriculum projects.

.74

10

integrate different media to create appropriate products.

.68

11

engage in sustained involvement with curriculum activities.

.68

12

support elements of the learning process.

.74

13

demonstrate what they have learned.

.72

14

undertake formative and/or summative assessment.

.45

15

acquire awareness of the global implications of ICT-based technologies on society.

.78

16

gain intercultural understanding.

.75

17

critically evaluate their own and society’s values.

.82

18

communicate with others locally and globally.

.54

19

engage in independent learning through access to education at a time, place and pace of their own choosing.

.58

20

understand and participate in the changing knowledge economy.

.69

Alpha Reliability Coefficients

0.94

0.86

* Oblimin Rotated Factor Loadings and Reliability Coefficients (N=929)

331

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

teachers can print following completion of the instrument. Thus, the Learning with ICT: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum instrument has been developed from a sound theoretical framework, informed by contemporary Australian and international literature relating to recent trends in the definition and measurement of ICT curriculum integration, and robustly analysed to determine its statistical reliability and validity.

Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2006), and in Catholic Schools in Queensland (Jamieson-Proctor & Finger, 2008). Summaries of its administration in these two education systems are provided in the following sections of this Chapter.

MeAsurIng student use oF Ict – educAtIon queenslAnd The summary here relates to the use of the instrument to measure student use of ICT in Education Queensland state schools. More detailed reporting of this has been provided elsewhere (JamiesonProctor et al., 2006; 2007). The data were collected from 929 teachers from 38 Queensland state schools who voluntarily applied the Learning with ICT: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum instrument (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2003; 2004a) to their individual teaching context in late 2003 as part of Education Queensland’s ICTs for Learning

MeAsurIng student use oF Ict – ApplIcAtIon oF the leArnIng WIth Ict: MeAsurIng Ict use In the currIculuM InstruMent This instrument has been shown to be useful in measuring ICT use by students in Queensland State schools (Jamieson-Proctor & Finger, 2006;

Figure 1. The four quadrants - current and preferred student use of ICT. 4 Very Often

Quadrant 2 Strategies for ICT Curriculum Integration Required

Quadrant 1 ICT Curriculum Integration Highly Evident

•

•

Preferred Use

•

•

Student use of ICT is currently low. Evidence that improved ICT Curriculum Integration is preferred. Need to implement ICT Curriculum Integration strategies.

• •

Student use of ICT is currently high. Evidence that ICT Curriculum Integration is preferred. Need to celebrate.

Quadrant 4 Low levels of ICT Curriculum Integration Evident

Quadrant 3 Strategies to Maintain ICT Curriculum Integration Required

•

•

• • 1 Never

Student use of ICT is currently low. Evidence that ICT Curriculum Integration is not preferred. Need to strategise and implement ICT Curriculum Integration NOW.

• •

Student use of ICT is currently high. Evidence that ICT Curriculum Integration is not preferred. Need to resist the urge to turn back.

1 Never

4 Very Often

Current Use

332

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

Annual Census. Of the total of 929 teachers, 133 teachers came from seven schools classified by Education Queensland as low socio-economic, 268 came from 13 schools classified as mid-low socioeconomic, 372 came from 13 schools classified as mid-high socio-economic, and 156 came from five schools, classified as high socio-economic. Of the total number, 76% (706) of teachers completing the instrument were female, 58% of teachers surveyed had more than 10 years teaching experience, and 57% indicated that they were reasonably confident or very confident users of ICT for teaching and learning. In terms of gathering and collating the demographic data, Part A of the instrument proved to be very effective and efficient. It also effectively gathered data which provided a breakdown of the demographic data pertaining to Year levels and curriculum areas and the teachers’ perception of the extent to which their students use ICT at each Year level and in each curriculum area they teach. Prior to implementing this instrument, Education Queensland had limited processes for obtaining data related to actual student use of ICT, as information about the use of ICT in various curriculum areas and year levels was generally supplied by one staff member from each school for the whole school, and they were required to indicate either ‘Yes’ (100%) or ‘No’ (0%) to questions about the extent to which ICT were used in each of the curriculum areas and year levels. In addition to the demographic data about teachers, 20 questions in Part B related to the quantity and quality of student ICT use. These data were anlaysed using paired-samples t tests to compare mean pairs for dimension 1 (enhancing) and dimension 2 (transforming) for both the current and preferred scales. Significant differences resulted for the comparison between the current (M = 2.00, SD = 0.61) and preferred scales (M = 2.76, SD = 0.61) for dimension 1 (enhance), t(928) = -46.73, p = .00; current (M = 1.60, SD = 0.55) and preferred scales (M = 2.47, SD = 0.70) for dimension 2 (transform), t(928) = -47.71, p = .00;

dimension 1 (M = 2.00, SD = 0.61) and dimension 2 (M = 1.60, SD = 0.55) for the current scale, t(928) = 29.26, p = .00; and dimension 1 (M = 2.76, SD = 0.61) and dimension 2 (M = 2.47, SD = 0.70) for the preferred scale, t(928) = 20.11, p = .00. Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations for each of the two dimensions on each of the two scales and also indicates the significant mean differences. These results indicate that teachers would prefer their students to use ICT more frequently than they currently are for both enhancing and transforming curriculum experiences (AB, CD). Teachers also indicated that they currently use ICT more frequently to enhance the current curriculum than to transform it (AC) and they prefer this trend to continue (BD). This study involving 929 state school teachers provided data on teachers’ confidence to use ICT with students for teaching and learning related to their gender, years of experience, school type and curriculum area taught. It also provided evidence of the quantity and quality of student use of ICT for learning related to teacher gender, confidence, years of experience and school type. In total nine sub-questions related to the overarching research question: Are ICT integration initiatives making a significant impact on teaching and learning in Queensland state schools? were investigated. The

Table 2. A comparison of means for each of the dimensions of ICT use for the Current and Preferred scales for Education Queensland (N = 929) Mean

SD

Dimension 1 (Enhance) Current

Dimension & Scale

2.00 A

0.61

Dimension 1 (Enhance) Preferred

2.76 B

0.61

Dimension 2 (Transform) Current

1.60 C

0.55

Dimension 2 (Transform) Preferred

2.47 D

0.70

* Significant paired differences

A,B A,C B,D C,D

* p < .05

333

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

results of the study have been reported internationally by Jamieson-Proctor et al. (2006) and some of the findings are summarised here. For example, the analysis found that: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Male teachers report significantly higher levels of confidence in using ICT with students for teaching and learning; The students of male teachers (or more confident teachers) use ICT more frequently to both enhance and transform the curriculum; There was no significant relationship between years of teaching experience and teacher confidence to use ICT with students for teaching and learning; Teachers who have had least teaching experience however prefer their students to use ICT more to both enhance and transform the curriculum; Secondary teachers were more confident to use ICT with students than Special Education teachers; Primary, Secondary and Special Education teachers’ students currently use ICT for learning more than students of Preschool teachers; Primary, Secondary and Special Education teachers prefer their students to use ICT more than Preschool teachers to both enhance and transform the curriculum; and Teacher confidence was related to student frequency of ICT use in all curriculum areas except for Languages Other Than English (LOTE), Health and Physical Education (HPE) and New Basics.

The results of this study undertaken in Queensland, Australia strongly support the BECTA (2003) finding that teacher confidence is a major factor determining teachers’ and students’ engagement with ICT. Further, teacher resistance to change and to transforming the curriculum with ICT is evident, especially among older teachers.

334

The average age of teachers in Queensland state schools in 2005 was 41.8 years. There also appeared to be a close relationship between such factors as teacher gender, confidence, school type and curriculum area and these variables impact on the level of student use of ICT. In total, these results provide significant challenges for an education system. The dissonance noted by Luke (2001) is reflected in these results by the fact that teachers prefer to enhance the current curriculum rather than transform the curriculum with ICT and move beyond familiar practices to prepare themselves and others for future times. As forecast by Hodas (1993) these results reflect a conservative conception by teachers of what schools should be like and this predisposition may lead to technology refusal, and a resultant resistance by teachers to change familiar practices to align their curriculum with new times and new technologies regardless of the current system initiatives and imperatives with respect to ICT.

MeAsurIng student use oF Ict – cAtholIc schools In queenslAnd The instrument was also used to investigate the quality and quantity of ICT use by students in Queensland Catholic schools in 2007, as reported by their teachers. The instrument was completed by 1723 Catholic school teachers from 130 Catholic schools across five Diocese and a group of Religious Institute Schools in Queensland, which represents approximately 46% of the Catholic schools in the state (Queensland Catholic Education Commission, 2006). The 1723 teachers were from the Diocese of Brisbane (N=676, 39%), Cairns (N=27, 2%), Townsville (N=77, 5%), Rockhampton (N=354, 21%), Toowoomba (N=465, 27%); and a group of 3 Religious Institutes (Christian Brothers schools (N=124, 7%). A comprehensive report entitled An investigation of the quantity and quality of Informa-

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

tion and Communication Technology (ICT) use by students in Queensland Catholic schools (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2007) identified key issues and recommendations for further action for the Queensland Catholic Education Commission with respect to the use of ICT for teaching and learning in Catholic schools. The study also further demonstrated the reliability and effectiveness of the instrument when applied in another education system. Among the significant findings provided in that report, and a subsequent publication in the 2007 Australian Association for Research in Education annual conference proceedings (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2008) were that: • •

•

•

•

•

58% of the 1723 teachers surveyed had more than 10 years of teaching experience; 75% of the teachers surveyed felt moderate levels of confidence (either Some confidence or Reasonably confident) to use ICT with students for teaching and learning. 9% reported Very little confidence and another 16% reported that they were Very confident to use ICT for teaching and learning; Female teachers were significantly less confident than male teachers, with 49% of females and 30% of males indicating they were Unconfident, while 51% of females and 70% of males indicated they were Confident with respect to their use of ICT with their students for teaching and learning; The students of male teachers currently use ICT more frequently than the students of female teachers for both the curriculum enhancement and transformation dimensions of ICT use; While male teachers indicated higher current student use of ICT for both dimensions of use, female teachers preferred their students to use ICT more in order to transform the curriculum, teaching and learning; For both dimensions of ICT use measured by the instrument, teachers who felt more

•

•

•

•

confident to use ICT with their students for teaching and learning reported that their students currently used ICT more than the students of unconfident teachers and further, they preferred their students to use ICT more for teaching and learning than did unconfident teachers; Years of teaching experience, which is an approximate indication of teacher age, was a significant determiner of the confidence of teachers to use ICT with their students for teaching and learning. Teachers with less than 11 years of experience (≈ 42%) were more likely to report that they were confident about using ICT, whereas teachers with more than 21 years of experience (≈ 33%) were generally less confident than their less experienced (and possibly younger) colleagues; Students of more experienced (perhaps older), female teachers were currently using ICT less for both dimensions of ICT use as measured by the instrument; Teachers in Secondary schools (Years 8-12) tended to be relatively more confident about using ICT with students for teaching and learning than teachers in Primary or P10/P-12 schools; and Teachers in Secondary schools were most likely and teachers in Primary schools least likely to report that their students frequently use ICT to both enhance and transform the curriculum currently. Further, Secondary teachers were most likely and Primary teachers least likely to prefer their students to use ICT more frequently to both enhance and transform the curriculum.

Overall, teachers in the Catholic system reported higher levels of student ICT use to enhance the curriculum than to transform the curriculum, teaching and learning in both current and preferred contexts. Teachers also reported that they would prefer higher levels of student use of ICT to both

335

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

enhance and transform the curriculum than they were currently achieving. Significantly, when this and the previous study involving 929 state school teachers are compared, the results strongly support the finding that teacher confidence to use ICT with students for teaching and learning is a major factor determining students’ engagement with ICT.

conclusIon This Chapter has presented the argument that, while considerable improvements in teacher and student access to ICT in schools have occurred, and energies and resources have been devoted to providing professional development opportunities for teachers with respect to ICT use, there has been insufficient widespread, large-scale, evidence-based research describing the outcomes for students derived from their use of ICT for learning in classrooms. It is particularly evident from the two large-scale studies cited here that the professional development initiatives to date have had differential impact on male and female teachers. For example, it was found that female teachers were significantly less confident to use ICT with students for teaching and learning and that the students of less confident (female) teachers used ICT less than the students of more confident (male) teachers to both enhance and transform learning. Given that more than 70% of Australian teachers are female, it can be inferred that 70% of students are being taught by female teachers, many of who are less confident than their male colleagues. The reasons why female teachers are less confident and the strategies which might be adopted to improve their confidence levels need urgent exploration. In order to measure ICT use, we have argued that it is important to be able to describe and conceptualise ICT curriculum integration and transformation to determine what it is that we

336

are trying to measure. The development of the instrument Learning with ICT: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum which can be used for performance measurement and professional development purposes was presented, as well as an articulation of the strategic possibilities the data might also enable through the use of Current and Preferred scales. Finally, summaries of key findings derived from the successful implementation of the measurement instrument in two education systems were provided. Our caution is that this instrument, by itself, has limitations aligned with all self-reporting instruments and we recommend that it is complemented by additional research methodologies, such as case studies, student surveys and observations, and more longitudinal data collection in order to get a comprehensive picture of how the use of ICT is both enhancing and transforming the curriculum, teaching and learning in classrooms, schools and systems. It would be particularly pertinent to create a parallel instrument that asks students to provide their perceptions of how and to what extent they use ICT for learning. However, while the limitations are acknowledged, the field of research is enriched by this approach to both describing and measuring teachers’ perceptions of the quantity and quality of actual student use of ICT to enhance and transform learning. ICT research is largely characterised by small scale, case studies of ICT ‘lighthouse’ projects. We believe that the collection and analysis of systematic, large-scale evidence is required to enable informed policy and strategic planning initiatives aimed at improving student learning outcomes as a result of their use of ICT for learning. For efficient and effective evidence-based strategic planning to occur, research approaches which can capture data at the system level, as well as the individual teacher, school and project level, need to be developed as a matter of priority.

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

reFerences British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) (2003). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Coventry, UK: Becta. Retrieved January 18, 2003, from http://www.BECTA.org. uk/research/index.cfm British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) (2005). The Becta review 2005: evidence on the progress of ICT in education. Coventry, UK: Becta. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://www.becta.org. uk/research Cuban, L. (2000). So much high-tech money invested, so little use and change in practice: how come? Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http:// www.edtechnot.com/notarticle1201.html Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: reforming schools through technology, 1998-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuttance, P. (2001). School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002). Raising the Standards: a proposal for the development of an ICT competency framework for teachers. Canberra: DEST. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http:// www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/ publications_resources/other_ publications/ raising_the_standards.htm Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (2000). Good practice and leadership in the use of ICT in schools. Cited in Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002). Raising the Standards: a proposal for the development of an ICT competency framework for teachers. Canberra: DEST, p.20.

Department of Education, Training and the Arts (DETA). (2005). Learning with ICTs: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on September 9, 2007 from http:// education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/strategy/ sp_census_learning.html Department of Education, Training and the Arts (DETA). (2007). Smart Classrooms Goals. Retrieved on September 9, 2007 from http:// education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/strategy/ goals.html Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G. (2003). Recommendations for the Development of an ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument: Focusing on Student Use of ICTs. Proceedings of the annual conference for the Australian and New Zealand Associations for Research in Education (AARE – NZARE), Auckland, New Zealand. Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R. & Watson, G. (2006). Measuring Learning with ICTs: An external evaluation of Education Queensland’s ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument. Paper presented at The Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Education Research Creative Dissent: Constructive Solutions, The University of Western Sydney Parramatta Campus, Australia, November 27 – December 1, 2005. Finger, G., Russell, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Russell, N. (2007). Transforming Learning with ICT: Making IT Happen. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia. Fitzallen, N. & Brown, N. (2006). What profiling tells us about ICT and professional practice. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Education Research Creative Dissent: Constructive Solutions, The University of Western Sydney Parramatta Campus, Australia, November 27 – December 1, 2005. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http:// www.aare.edu.au/05pap/abs05.htm#T

337

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

Hodas, S. (1993). Technology refusal and the organisational culture of schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1(10). Jamieson-Proctor, R. M., Burnett, P. C., 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. (2006). Relationship between pre-service and practising teachers’ confidence and beliefs about using ICT. Australian Educational Computing - Special Conference Edition Of the Journal of the Australian Council for Computers in Education, 21 (2), 25-33. Jamieson-Proctor, R. & Finger, G. (2008). Measuring Student Use of ICT: A Summary of Findings of ICT Use in Queensland Catholic Schools. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Education Research Conference Research Impacts: Proving or improving? November 25-29, 2007, Fremantle, Australia. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Finger, G., & Grimbeck, P. (2007). An investigation of the quantity and quality of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) use by students in Queensland Catholic schools. Report prepared for the Queensland Catholic Education Commission. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G., & Finger, G. (2003). Development of ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument for Education Queensland. Brisbane, Australia: Centre for Learning Research, Griffith University. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G., & Finger, G. (2004a). An external evaluation of Education Queensland’s ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument. Report prepared for the Institute of Educational Research, Policy and Evaluation. Brisbane, Australia: Centre for Learning Research, Griffith University.

338

Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G., and Finger, G. (2004b). Measuring Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Curriculum Integration. Computers in the Schools, 20 (4) 67 – 87. New York: The Haworth Press. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G., Finger, G., Grimbeek, P., & Burnett, P. (2007). Measuring the Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the Classroom. Computers in the Schools, 24 (1/2) 167 – 184. Lloyd, M. (2006). Towards a definition of the integration of ICT in the classroom. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Education Research Creative Dissent: Constructive Solutions, The University of Western Sydney Parramatta Campus, Australia, November 27 – December 1, 2005. Retrieved September, 2007 from http://www.aare. edu.au/05pap/llo05120.pdf Luke, A. (2001). Introduction to whole-school literacy planning. How to make literacy policy differentially: Generational change, professionalisation, and literate futures. Paper presented at the ALEA-AATE Conference, Hobart, Australia. Milken Exchange on Education Technology. (2005). Transforming learning through technology: policy roadmaps for the nation’s governors. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Retrieved from September 9, 2007 from http:// www.mff.org/edtech Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2000). Learning in an online world: the school action plan for the information economy. Canberra, Austalia: DEETYA. Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (2003). Digital horizons: learning through ICT. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. OECD. (2005a). PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Home Page:

Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use

What PISA Produces – PISA 2003. Retrieved from September 9, 2007 from http://pisaweb.acer.edu. au/oecd_2003/oecd_pisa_data.html OECD. (2005b). PISA 2003 Database. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://pisaweb.acer.edu. au/oecd_2003/oecd_pisa_data.html Queensland Catholic Education Commission (QCEC) (2006). Frequently asked questions about Catholic schools in Queensland. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://www.qcec.qld.catholic. edu.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=10602 Trinidad, S., Newhouse, P., & Clarkson, B. (2006). A framework for leading school change in using ICT: Measuring change. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Education Research Creative Dissent: Constructive Solutions, The University of Western Sydney Parramatta Campus, Australia, November 27 – December 1, 2005. Retrieved from September 9, 2007 from http://www.aare. edu.au/05pap/abs05.htm#T

Key terMs And deFInItIons Curriculum: The content and activities of a particular subject or course. Evaluation: Determining the impact of a specific program, tool or activity. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT): Includes all technologies or tools that are used for communication and information retrieval purposes and which have a computer as a key tool e.g. computers, internet, software, email, digital cameras, mobile devices. Integrating/Integration: Embedding a resource or activity in an existing program or curriculum. Pedagogy: The act or performance of teaching. Transforming/Transformation: Significantly changing an activity, program or curriculum; creating something new that didn’t exist previously.

339

340

Chapter XXII

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development Clare Wood Coventry University, UK Karen Littleton University of Jyväskylä, Finland Pav Chera Sutherland Institute, UK

AbstrAct This chapter explores the question of how interactive multimedia talking books can promote young children’s literacy development. Whilst commercially available talking books can motivate young children to read, there is little evidence that they are linked to the development of skills known to promote reading itself. The ‘Bangers and Mash’ talking books (Chera, 2000), were designed to address this issue, and we review studies that evaluated their effectiveness as classroom resources that could promote reading-related skills and abilities. We then consider the various barriers to collaborative learning in Early Years classrooms, and describe how resources like talking books could address some of those issues. The chapter concludes with a research agenda that emphasises the need for software designers to take into account the interpersonal aspects of classroom learning, as well as individual differences in children’s knowledge.

IntroductIon In the UK there has been a rapid increase in the availability and use of computers in the context of primary school children’s classroom activities (Hartley, 2007), which has developed in line with various corporate initiatives, the widespread use of interactive whiteboards (e.g. Martin, 2007), and

most recently the recognition that young children’s informal experience with technology has the potential to positively impact on their school learning experiences (e.g. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2007). This chapter will explore the question of how interactive multimedia talking books can promote young children’s literacy development. The dis-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

cussion of this question will centre on a review of the use and evaluations of the ‘Bangers and Mash’ talking books, developed by Chera (2000), which aimed to support the literacy development of beginning readers.

early evaluations of commercially Available talking books Interactive, multimedia talking books are software applications that present children with a storybook-type interface enhanced to enable the computer to ‘read aloud’ to the children on demand. They often also incorporate ‘hotspots’ on screen, which enable the children to interact with the illustrations of the book in order to trigger animations or additional activities. Commercially produced talking books have been available since the advent of CD Roms, but whether the use of these applications increases children’s reading skills has been debated in the academic literature. That is, whilst there is no doubt that use of such software improves children’s computer literacy and helps to develop their understanding of texts and narratives (Davies & O’Sullivan, 2002), there is little evidence that their potential to improve children’s reading attainment has been realised (Underwood, 2002). One of the first attempts to evaluate commercially available talking books was that of Miller, Blackstock and Miller (1994), who compared four children on their repeated reading of both talking books and regular storybooks. Although they noted some benefits of the talking books in terms of reducing reading errors based on searching for meaning, they expressed some caution about children’s use of talking books, advising that their optimal use in the classroom may involve teachers observing the children’s use of the software and making notes for future instruction with the child. A similar message emerges from the work of Jane Medwell (1996, 1998) who compared children’s use of commercial talking books and their

paper equivalents, and also built in a comparison between talking books that were based on ‘real’ storybooks relative to ones based on books from reading schemes. Like Miller et al. (1994), she too concluded that best progress was made in the condition where the children were using the talking book with the support of a teacher. Moreover, Medwell reported that while the children who used talking books showed improved story recall relative to the paper storybooks, there was little evidence of improvement in the children’s word reading ability when the words were presented out of context. However, she speculated that talking books could have the potential to support young boys’ reading development given the observation from the 1996 study that the boys showed greater increases than the girls in their word reading accuracy following contact with the talking books: “it seems that any reading technology which is advantageous to boys might well be a welcome addition to classroom practice” (Medwell, 1996, p45).

researcher-designed Approaches to computer-based reading tuition So, the research into commercially available talking books suggests that they were most effective when teachers were involved in how the children worked with them. Despite limited evidence of their impact on reading skills, there was still positive discussion of their potential, which was reiterated by Cathy Lewin’s (1998) survey into teachers’ views of talking books. She found that the teachers recognised the potential of the speech feedback aspect of talking books to develop reading skills and suggested in particular that in future such software incorporate speech feedback at the onset-rime level (e.g. st-art), and provide reinforcement activities. This request for sub-word speech feedback was consistent with research by Wise et al. (1989), which had explored the utility of speciallydesigned talking books to support the reading

341

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

development of children who were experiencing reading difficulties. They had developed a system that provided either whole word, syllable level or onset-rime level speech feedback. They found that word recognition improved in all the speech feedback modes, but that the onset-rime condition also resulted in improved phonological awareness. Similar results were found by Van Daal and Reitsma (1990), who presented children who had reading difficulties with individual words on a screen (rather than a story), which they could click for speech feedback. Both whole word and onset-rime speech feedback resulted in improved reading attainment. Olsen and Wise (1992) also compared the effectiveness of different forms of speech feedback for children with reading difficulties, including phoneme-level speech feedback, as well as syllable and onset-rime segmentation. Improvements in phonological awareness were observed for subsets of the children in relation to syllable level (least severely affected group) and onset-rime level feedback (most severely affected group), but phoneme level feedback produced the smallest benefits. It therefore seemed that, in contrast to evaluations of commercial talking books, researcherdesigned software interventions that provided readers with sub-word speech feedback improved children’s word reading and phonological awareness. However, this research focussed upon supporting children with reading difficulties, rather than younger, typically-developing children who were in the early stages of learning to read. Also, the software used in these studies offered only a very basic interface and in some cases did not provide readers with a story context.

the bangers and Mash talking books: the rationale Mindful of the research conducted by Lewin, and the studies that had found benefits for onset-rime level speech segmentation, Chera (2000) began the development of a small set of talking books based

342

on the Longman reading scheme ‘Bangers and Mash’. Bangers and Mash was selected because it was a reading scheme that was highly structured and based on phonic principles. However, Chera wanted to incorporate animation as well as speech feedback to emphasise the construction of words. The books were also unique in that all the different levels of speech feedback were available to the children throughout the book, which enabled the children to decide for themselves which level of feedback was most appropriate to their needs during the reading activity. The talking books were therefore characterised by the following features: •

•

•

Children were able to select whole page, whole word and onset-rime speech feedback at any time. Whole page feedback was selected by clicking an icon at the bottom of the screen. Individual words could be heard by moving the cursor over the word. Subword feedback was elicited by clicking on an individual word. If sub word feedback was selected this also triggered an animation, which showed the word’s onset being separated from the rest of the word, at the same time as hearing the component parts spoken and ‘put together’ again. On two pages of each book the children could navigate to activity pages that where designed to reinforce the rime families in that book by enabling the children to click on onsets to make new words using the same rime unit.

Another aspect of these talking books that was distinctive was that the final design was arrived at as a result of iterative consultation with the target users of the software (young children in the early stages of reading), teachers, and reading researchers, who were shown prototypes of the software and invited to comment and suggest additions and amendments.

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

outcomes: can the talking books promote reading development? A key question posed by Chera (2000) had been to do with how best to evaluate such software. The books had been ‘evaluated’ in the more traditional sense associated with software development, as they were informally evaluated by their users, and this had been built into the design process itself. However, in terms of formal evaluation, Chera & Wood (2003) decided to conduct a traditional experimental intervention study where the skills targeted were assessed at pre and post test, and any gains observed were compared to those shown by an ability matched control group who had not received the same intervention. The Bangers and Mash talking books were originally designed to improve the children’s word reading and their phonological awareness (awareness of the various units of sound in speech, such as syllables, rimes and phonemes), as phonological awareness has been argued to be a key skill needed to underpin successful reading acquisition (see Adams, 1990, for a review). It therefore seemed logical to assess the children at pre and post test on these skills. For a word-reading test, the decision was taken to administer a standardised reading test (the British Ability Scales word reading subtest) to offer a strict assessment of the children’s word reading ability. Tests of onset-rime awareness were also administered, alongside a test of letter sound knowledge. For the sample, 30 beginning readers aged between 4 and 6 years of age were selected from 75 children to form two groups of children individually matched on age, gender and letter sound knowledge. One group received 10 ten-minute sessions with the talking books over a four-week period, whilst the other group participated in their normal classroom activities during the same time. The children who received the talking books received instruction on how to use them but were otherwise free to work through the books as they wished, as we wanted their use to be as naturalistic as possible.

Both the intervention and control groups completed pre tests, immediate post-tests, and delayed post-test assessments of their phonological awareness and ability to read the words from the storybooks when presented out of a story context. We found that although the children in the talking books group showed a significantly greater improvement in their phonological awareness relative to their controls at the time of the first pre-test, there was no significant difference between the two groups on their word reading ability. So whilst we were able to demonstrate short-term benefits to children’s phonological awareness, there was no evidence that the children were transferring this knowledge to their word reading activities. This was something of a surprising result given previous research in this area, and raised questions about the way in which the children were opting to use the software, although it was possible that the intervention period had simply been too short, or that the reading test had been too strict an assessment, given that it did not directly target the words that were included in the books. However, it will be recalled that unlike previous studies, the children had control over the type of speech feedback and when it was given, and so we needed to assess how this may have contributed to the results that we obtained. There was also an even more fundamental question that needed to be assessed: were the talking books as effective at improving children’s reading skills as reading, one-to-one with an adult tutor was? This was an important question as Topping (1991) had argued that “no methodology has been found which is as effective as one-to-one tutoring, the impact of which leaves computerbased teaching standing – even supposing you have enough computers” (p 112). Moreover, it will be recalled that Miller et al. (1994) also commented that perhaps teachers needed to observe how children used the talking books, and Medwell (1996, 1998) found that the best outcomes were found when teachers were involved in reading them with the child. However, those comments

343

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

were made in relation to commercial talking books that lacked the level of interactive and user-controlled speech feedback that the Banger and Mash software was characterised by. Could the Bangers and Mash books succeed in offering the children a surrogate reading tutor that was just as good as an adult tutor would be? To assess these questions, Wood (2005) designed a small-scale study that assessed the ways in which the children were using the different forms of speech feedback and related that to any improvement in phonological awareness. The children using the talking books were also compared with children who received an equivalent intervention with paper versions of the same books, but with an adult who worked one-to-one with them. The intervention and control groups were matched on age, gender, rhyme detection ability and alliteration detection ability as far as possible. Not only were the two groups of children compared on their phonological awareness improvement from pre to post test, but changes in their reading strategies were also noted, as evidenced by miscues. Miscue analysis involves noting and categorising the types of error that the children make when they are reading aloud. Changes in the types of miscue that children make from pre- to post test are indicative of the approaches to reading that children adopt, and we would hope to see a progression away from saying ‘don’t know’ to evidence of attempts at decoding. The first finding was that there was no difference in the performance of the two groups, showing that the computer was just as good as the adult at providing support for reading in this age range, and this was borne out by the fact that the children’s reading strategies changed in broadly similar ways from pre to post test. In terms of the children’s use of the speech feedback functions, the children’s progress in rhyme detection was associated with their use of read the page and read the word levels of speech feedback, but not with the sub word feedback, which was seldom

344

used in comparison. The activity pages were also rarely accessed. There was some evidence of a shift in reading strategy being associated with the children’s use of the ‘read the page’ function, as children who used this function showed a decreased tendency to mispronounce words that they could not read along with a decrease in word refusals from pre to post test, and an increased tendency to use word substitution strategies. These results showed that the computer could act as a reading tutor despite the relatively limited ways in which the children were using the software. This continued to hint at the full potential of these resources, if the children could be instructed to use the full range of speech feedback made available to them. Perhaps the key to this lay in encouraging the children to work collaboratively around such resources, rather than working individually on the computers. If the children were provided with guidance on how to support each others work on the talking book, they may be prompted to make additional connections and use the software in less restricted ways.

processes: collaborative learning Interactions around talking books Another reason for considering the use of talking books to resource peer learning in the classroom lay in the way that the National Literacy Strategy (introduced in England and Wales) had influenced early years literacy tuition, which typically took the form of a structured, hour-long session which comprised various elements, including a period when the teacher was working with one group of readers whilst the rest of the class were given activities to complete on their own. During this period the framework document states that: “Pupils should be trained not to interrupt the teacher and there should be sufficient resources and alternative strategies for them to fall back on if they get stuck. They should also understand the importance of independence for literacy, and how to use their own resources to solve prob-

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

lems and bring tasks to successful conclusions” (Department for Education and Employment, 1998, p13). However, most literacy hour classrooms are organised so that children of the same ability sit together, and higher ability children sit at different tables from their lower ability peers. This means that when a child gets stuck, it is unlikely that there will be someone sitting at the same table that could help them. This was where we felt the software had a role to play – if the children got stuck, the speech feedback offered a source of ‘expert knowledge’ that was otherwise lacking on the ability streamed tables. If the children were engaged in a shared reading task with a talking book, the children may be able to support each other effectively without recourse to their teacher. Wood, Littleton and Chera (2005) therefore undertook an initial exploration of how young children could work together using the talking books. We identified two groups of beginning readers: pairs of children matched on reading ability and phonological awareness, and pairs of children unequal in terms of both reading ability and phonological awareness. Transcripts of their sessions of joint work were analysed for evidence that the children were able to work effectively together in either of the pair combinations. If this was found to be the case, the opportunity to design effective computer interventions intended for joint peer activity in the classroom would become a realistic possibility. One third of the young children who participated were able to work effectively on a shared computer-based literacy task, as evidenced by the way that they recognised the need for and negotiated a similar style of using and interacting with the software. Other children showed some awareness of the need to accommodate their partner’s needs on at least one occasion, even if they were not able to share the same style of software use. The sharing of a common approach to using the software was not related to the nature

of the pair type itself, i.e. either mixed or same ability pairing, but to the ability and gender of the individual children. Firstly, we found that higher ability children were more likely to share a style of software use with their partners than lower ability children were. This suggests a number of possibilities. Firstly, it may be the case that these children were better able to understand the need to accommodate their partner. Alternatively, it may be that their ability to accommodate the needs of peers partly explains their higher ability: consistent with a neoVygotskian approach, children who are sensitive to learning relationships in the classroom should be the ones who make the greatest gains early in their experience of school. If this interpretation is the case, it further underscores the need for, and the potential of, educational software that permits joint activity, as it may help to develop children’s awareness and experience of the interpersonal aspects of effective learning. With respect to gender, we found that all the children who negotiated a shared style were girls; even the higher ability boys did not accommodate their partner on the task. This suggests that there may be only limited scope for using a ‘joint activity’ approach to educational software with boys of this age, especially those who are underachieving in literacy. However, it also seems unlikely that use of the software with individual boys would yield positive results in terms of learning outcomes, given that all the boys in this study relied heavily on the adult present to be the mediator of their learning. They did not seem willing to direct their own use of the software; the adult was observed to direct the children’s attention back to the task, limit the extent of their off-task activity, mediate between disagreements and offer praise and reassurance. Often the boys were noted to turn towards the researcher at the end of each page, as if wanting recognition or verification of their achievements before continuing with the task. Throughout the transcripts, the extent of this contact with the adult was striking, as was

345

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

its relative absence from the transcripts of the girls’ sessions. Such observations run counter to popular assumptions about the use of computer technology in schools, which tend to characterise boys’ use of and relationship with computer technology as unproblematic (Littleton & Hoyles, 2002). Yet this study has indicated some more problematic facets of the male relationship with computer technology. Given that some commentators might conclude from the existing literature that the use of ICT in literacy-related contexts could have a positive impact on the motivation and achievement of underachieving boys, it is particularly important that these problematic aspects are recognised and understood. While there is scope for exploring whether computer-based literacy interventions can support underachieving boys, such studies need to take into account the interpersonal aspects of any paired or group work. However, it would be of interest to explore whether boys who are paired with someone who shares their style of software use gain more from educational software than do pairs of boys who are mismatched on style. This issue of boys’ use of talking books is one we will return to in the next section. The observations of young, beginning readers’ use of the talking books suggest that despite the explicit instruction that they should work together, many of the children perceived adults to be the sole authenticators of knowledge and appropriate classroom activity. This presents a potential barrier for introducing the joint use of educational software into mainstream early years classrooms. One solution may be to induct children into the benefits of accommodating and learning from other children in their class, perhaps by pairing each child to another who will be their partner in learning for all lessons. This long-term partnership may better enable children to become sensitive to other approaches, and to the needs of others during learning, from which they themselves may also learn. They may also develop a degree of self-regulation in which both

346

partners share responsibility for achieving the desired outcome of a given activity. A different solution might be to implement an intervention programme designed to foster a culture of collaboration in the classroom using an approach designed to help children talk and work flexibly in different groups and pairs (e.g. Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Further, detailed qualitative analyses of the pairs’ joint work (Littleton, Wood & Chera, 2004) clearly indicated that talking books software can resource many diverse modes of interaction. These can be seen as constituting different computer-text mediated social practices, some of which echo or involve the application of practices encountered in other literacy-related contexts, such as hearing a story read aloud to them by an adult. Other modes were more reminiscent of direct transfer of past computer use, in which we saw boys in particular attempting to ‘play’ the talking book like a computer game. The diverse ways of engaging with the talkingbooks software that we observed can be seen as embodying culturally-based processes of meaning making, in which beginning readers are making sense of the social situation afforded by the availability of a partner and a novel piece of software. At times this process of sense making and the interpretation of the situation clearly differs between peers, and is at odds with that intended by the researchers and the teacher. The learners were thus building and applying interpretative frameworks, adapting: ‘classroom activities such that they complied with their own understandings and past experiences’ (Jackson, 1987, p.86). The meaning of the reading activity the children had been set was not a fixed or tangible commodity, rather, it was contextually constituted and fundamentally situated. Whilst in many cases the children’s modes of interacting embodied creative engagement with the collaborative reading task, it is important to recognise that effective participation in classroombased reading activities demands the recognition

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

and production of: ‘the ‘right’ situated meanings…- that is those shared by the community of practice to which …(the learners) are being ‘apprenticed’ (Gee, 2000, p. 200). Beginning readers are expected to conform to expected behaviour patterns and particular ways of relating and interacting, both with texts and others. The implication here is that practitioners wishing to use talking books in the context of collaborative work will need to give careful consideration to how best to enable effective participation in these classroom-based reading activities - such that children come to recognise and produce the ‘right’ situated meanings, discerning and complying with the accepted learning patterns of their classroom (Jackson, 1987, p.85).

rethinking the evaluation of computer resources in the classroom Whilst the modes of interaction observed may reflect particular cultural practices in the specific context studied, understanding them has important implications for the design of evaluation studies in relation to computer-based resources for learning to read. Such resources are seldom evaluated (Chera & Wood, 2003; Hodges & Sasnett, 1993), and the evaluations that do exist tend to focus on the products of learning - how much the children’s reading attainment has improved as a result of introducing this new resource (e.g. Olson, Wise, Ring & Johnson, 1997; Van Daal & Reitsma, 1990). This inevitably means that the evaluations tend to be controlled investigations in which the software is seldom taken up and used as part of regular classroom-based work. As a consequence we have no understanding of what children bring to the use of such computer-based resources. Such an approach to evaluation risks construing the process of teaching literacy to early readers as a one-sided affair: the children, seemingly, have

little to contribute to the situation that is relevant, being novices not just in reading, but in the educated discourse that surrounds learning about reading. This characterisation, which implies a somewhat passive role on the part of the children, over-simplifies the complex nature of their learning interactions and neglects their participation in learning activities as active ‘meaning-makers’. This points to the importance of exploring children’s understanding of the literacy resources we provide them with - rather than designing evaluation studies in such a way as to deny that children’s understanding of the task will impact on their potential to learn from the software, or in ways that simply assume that children will recognise the learning agenda that is implicit in the nature of the software’s interactive features. Teachers and researchers need to understand how the situations in which children are working and the meanings they ascribe to tasks support or constrain their activity and performance. We never experience artefacts, such as computers and associated-software, in isolation but only in connection with a contextual whole. An object ... ‘is always a special part, phase or aspect of an environing experienced world’ (Dewey, 1938, p.67). Children’s reactions to and performance on a computer-supported reading task may thus be crucially determined by the context of activity within which the task is encountered. When studying and evaluating the efficacy of such computersupported collaborative activity it is vital that we attempt to understand participants’ goals and frames of reference, as opposed to working with our own assumptions concerning what these are or may be. Our studies of beginning readers thus need to treat children as people with concerns, not just objects of concern (Prout, 1998). This work offers an important insight into both ‘learning to collaborate’ and ‘collaborating to learn’ using computer based approaches to supporting literacy. Firstly, children have to recognise learning situations as offering an ap-

347

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

propriate opportunity for collaboration. That is, some children may view computer-based literacy activities as a context in which shared working is inappropriate (perhaps because of the emphasis in UK classrooms on assessment of literacy at an individual level), or even undesirable at a personal level, because they perceive computer use as something sufficiently attractive that they are unwilling to share the experience if it means that their own contact with the computer will be limited in some way. The first barrier to collaboration is not always to do with interpersonal factors such as age, gender or ability. Often, as our work illustrates, collaboration fails because the children see no opportunity or need for it. When the children are observed to work together, their collaboration is not always directed towards the educational goal that we had in mind. This reminds us that collaborative activity is ‘creative’ in that it broadens the repertoire of experiences from which children can interpret the potential of the task they are presented with. While desirable, such diversity is at odds with the prescriptive nature of literacy tuition in the UK at the present time. In this way ‘collaborating to learn’ is fraught with potential pitfalls for both teacher and student who have to negotiate shared understandings of each other’s expectations and needs. Amongst this age group we see evidence of children working together, making sense of the task collectively. The children are collaborating to learn, but their interpretations of what the intended lesson might be (e.g. listening to a story, telling their own stories, reading independently, playing a game) can conflict with those that we have as educators. Developing a range of activities that can recast many of these modes of interaction as potentially productive forms of literacy learning, is the next challenge for those seeking to develop collaborative learning practices in the classroom.

348

the gender Agenda: boys’ use of talking books Framed by concerns about boys’ attainment in literacy, work by Littleton, Wood and Chera (2006) have investigated the potential of talking books software to support the literacy development of male beginning readers. The study primarily considered whether typically developing boys (N = 18) who showed lower levels of attainment in phonological awareness would show a greater degree of improvement in phonological awareness or a change in reading strategy following a talking books intervention than boys who were demonstrating higher levels of phonological awareness. It also examined whether the boys’ phonological awareness attainment would affect how they used the software to support their attempts at reading, both in terms of their interactions with the computer and the types of speech feedback that they selected. The analysis also considered whether there was any association between the nature of the boys’ teaching and learning interactions with the computer and whether there was evidence of a change in their reading strategies from pre to post-test. The boys who had the lower phonological awareness scores at pre-test improved significantly more on the composite phonological awareness measure than the higher attaining boys did. This suggests that the use of the talking books software was particularly beneficial for those boys who initially showed lower phonological proficiency. Furthermore, the boys who showed lower phonological proficiency at the outset of the study appeared to engage with the talking books in a way that was appropriate to their developmental level, with most of these children bookbinding (in these types of interactions we see that the computer is entirely responsible for reading the story, and ‘stands in for the author’) or chiming in with the computer (here the computer still has primary responsibility for reading the text, similar to bookbinding, but these sessions are character-

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

ised by more consistent contributions from the children who ‘chime in’ when they know a word and may also comment on the story narrative). Both these forms of literacy learning interactions serve important literacy functions in early reading development. Guppy and Hughes (1999) argue that bookbinding encourages children to develop meaning making skills, developing children’s understanding of what a story is, how to interact with a text and how to make predictions about what will happen next. It also supports the initial development of phonological and alphabetic awareness, as it can support letter recognition, the detection of recurring patterns of text and sound, and help to build a child’s sight vocabulary. Through this conceptualisation of bookbinding, we can see why the children in Wood (2005) who used the ‘read the page’ level of speech feedback showed improvement in their phonological awareness and reading strategies. Chiming in, or commenting and echoing what was being read by the computer, may furthermore result in a more confident approach to word reading, by encouraging children to try out and develop alternative reading strategies in a safe environment. It was also evident that the boys with better phonological awareness were observed to use the computer to engage in more advanced styles of literacy learning, where they took responsibility for decoding the text but used speech feedback to support them when needed. This explains why the less proficient children were observed to use the speech feedback more often – they needed to in order to attempt the task of reading. As noted, the lower attaining boys were seen to benefit from using the talking books in terms of phonological awareness attainment. However, it was also found that the higher attaining boys showed a significant change in their reading errors, as they increased in their tendency to mispronounce words. Mispronunciation errors are significant as they are indicative of a phonicbased attempt at decoding. So, although the boys with lower phonological awareness improved their

phonological knowledge it was the higher attaining children who more likely to attempt to increase their attempts to apply it to reading. Taken together these results suggest that the talking books do have the potential to support reading development in both ability groups, albeit in different ways dependent on the boys’ developmental level. Similarly, an association was found between literacy learning style and reading strategy, in so far as adopting a more independent interaction style was also associated with the increased tendency to make mispronunciation errors. Contrary to previous work with dyads reported earlier, the boys in this study did not engage in undirected play around the computer, rather they utilised the talking books software adaptively, drawing appropriately on different features of the software to resource their reading activity according to their phonological proficiency. This suggests that the use of such software could have a potentially valuable role to play in supporting the literacy development of boys who are beginning readers. However, it also underscores the importance of not making generalised statements about the ways in which computer software might resource boys’ literacy development. The work indicates that the features of such software may be ‘taken up’ differently according to the boys’ attainment in literacy and mode of working (for example, as an individual or in a dyad). The context in which the activity is located (for example, school or home) will also have a crucial bearing on the boys’ interpretation of the task and the associated ways of engaging with and using the software. In the current climate of anxiety concerning boy’s literacy attainment it is vital that we move beyond the notion that computers are ‘engaging’ and ‘appeal to boys’ and build on work such as this, to construct a more detailed understanding of how specific computer technologies may resource or constrain boys’ literacy learning interactions and how these interactions are further mediated by individual differences and social context.

349

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

conclusIon

reFerences

On the basis of our work around the Bangers and Mash software, we would argue that there is still insufficient work explaining the processes of teaching and learning that occur around computerbased resources if we are to properly understand the learning outcomes children achieve through using them. Further research is needed to assess children’s ability before and after a prolonged period of software use to see whether it is the children with higher ability who will gain the most from contact with the software. Alternatively, it may be the case that children who share a style of software use with their partner, irrespective of their initial ability in reading and phonological awareness, will gain the most from using it. Such a study would also enable a consideration of whether there is any interaction between these two factors in determining the amount that the children will gain from using the software in a shared way. Gender also needs to be considered as a factor. That is, we have found little evidence of boys being able to collaborate effectively, regardless of their ability level. The question of whether boys would benefit from mixed gender and / or mixed ability pairings in the context of collaboration around computer-based resources remains a crucial one if we are to know how best to organise classroom activities for their benefit. In summary then, research needs to take into account children’s gender, individual differences in children’s prior learning (both formal and informal) and recognise the interpersonal aspects of computer-based work in contemporary classrooms. Whilst there is a need to examine the child-computer interface, there also needs to be greater recognition of how children’s learning relationships, both with each other and with technology, can impact on what is learned.

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

350

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (2007). Delivering the Future for Learners: Harnessing Technology. Coventry, UK: Becta. Chera, P.D.K. (2000). Multimedia, CAL and Early Reading: Iterative Design, Development and Evaluation. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, UK. Chera, P.D.K. & Wood, C. (2003). Animated multimedia talking books can promote phonological awareness in children beginning to read. Learning and Instruction, 13, 33-52. Davies, H. & O’ Sullivan, O. (2002). Literacy and ICT in the primary classroom: the role of the teacher. In A. Loveless & B. Dore (Eds.). ICT in the Primary School. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Department for Education and Employment (1998). The National Literacy Strategy – Framework for Teaching. London: DfEE. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan. Elliot, C. (1996). The British Ability Scales II. Windsor: NFER Nelson. Gee, J. (2000). Discourse and socio-cultural studies in reading. In M. Kamil, B. Mosenthal, P. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. III). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Guppy, P. & Hughes, M. (1999). The Development of Independent Reading: Reading Support Explained. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

Hartley, J. (2007). Teaching, learning and new technology: a review for teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 42-62. Hodges, M.E., & Sasnett, R.M. (1993). Multimedia Computing – Case Studies from MIT Project Athena. London: Addison-Wesley. Jackson, M. (1987). Making sense of school. In A. Pollard (Ed.). Children and their primary schools: A new perspective. London: The Falmer Press. Lewin, C. (1998). Talking books design: what do practitioners want? Computers and Education, 30, 87-94. Littleton, K. & Hoyles, C. (2002) Gendering IT. In N. Yelland and A. Rubin (eds.) Ghosts in the Machine - Feminist perspectives on computing, (pp. 3-32). New York: Peter Lang. Littleton, K., Wood, C. and Chera, P. (2004). Reading Together: Computers and Collaboration. In K. Littleton, D. Miell and D. Faulkner (Eds.) Learning to Collaborate, Collaborating to Learn, (pp. 31-47). New York: NOVA. Littleton, K., Wood, C., & Chera, P. (2006) Interactions with talking books: phonological proficiency affects boys’ use of talking books. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 382-390. Martin. S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: a new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy, 41, 26-34. Medwell. J. (1996). Talking books and reading. Reading, 30, 41-46. Medwell, J. (1998). The talking books project: some further insights into the use of talking books to develop reading. Reading, 32, 3-8. Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach. London: Routledge. Miller, L., Blackstock, J., Miller, R. (1994). An exploratory study into the use of CD-Rom storybooks. Computers and Education, 22, 187-204.

Olson, R.K., & Wise, B.W. (1992). Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 107-144. Olson, R.K., Wise, B., Ring, J. & Johnson, M. (1997). Computer-based remedial training in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: effects on the post training development of word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 235-253. Prout, A. (1998) Concluding remarks. Presentation at the Conference on Children and Social Exclusion, Centre for the Social Study of Childhood, Hull University, UK. Topping, K. (1991). Achieving more with less: raising reading standards via parental involvement and peer tutoring. Support for Learning, 6, 112-115. Underwood, J. (2002). Computer support for reading development. In M. Monteith (Ed.) Teaching Primary Literacy with ICT. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Van Daal, V.H.P., & Reitsma, P. (1990). Effects of independent word practice with segmented and whole word sound feedback in disabled readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 13, 133-148. Wise, B, Olson, R., Ansett, M., Andrews, L., Terjak, M., Schnieder, V., et al. (1989). Implementing a long-term computerized remedial reading program with synthetic speech feedback: hardware, software and real world issues. Behaviour Research methods, Instruments and Computers, 21, 173-181. Wood, C. (2005). Beginning readers’ use of ‘talking books’ software can affect their reading strategies. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 170-182. Wood, C., Littleton, K., & Chera, P.D.K. (2005). Beginning readers’ use of talking books: styles of working. Literacy, 39, 135-141.

351

Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development

Key terMs And deFInItIons Collaborative Learning: Where participants are engaged in a coordinated, continuing attempt to solve a problem or in some other way construct common knowledge. Crucially, collaboration involves a co-ordinated joint commitment to a shared goal, reciprocity, mutuality and the continual (re) negotiation of meaning. Evaluation: A judgement of the relative strengths and weaknesses of something. Literacy: Generally speaking, the activity of reading and / or writing effectively.

352

Phonological Awareness: The ability to isolate, identify and manipulate the individual sound units of language. Reading: The ability to decode and comprehend written text. Reading Strategies: The approaches taken by a person to decode and /or comprehend a written text. Talking Book: A computer-based story book in which children can click areas of the screen to elicit animations or speech feedback.

353

Chapter XXIII

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age Yu-Chang Hsu The Pennsylvania State University, USA Yu-Hui Ching The Pennsylvania State University, USA Barbara Grabowski The Pennsylvania State University, USA

AbstrAct Web 2.0 affordances have changed the landscape of technology use for learning, knowledge construction, and collaboration important for K-12 learner literacy. This chapter introduces web 2.0 technologies, including folksonomy, collaborative writing tools such as wikis, and weblogging, as cognitive tools that can support learning of content, metacognitive activity, and self-regulation (SR) at the K-12 level. Recent conceptual and empirical research is reviewed to support the use of these technologies. Application scenarios are provided to elaborate on how the technologies can be incorporated into teaching. Design and implementation implications, and a discussion of issues and challenges are included throughout for teachers, practitioners, and researchers interested in adopting these new media in the school setting.

IntroductIon: evolutIon oF the World WIde Web In educAtIon In the new media age, an individual’s capability of using emerging information and communication

technologies (ICTs) opens unlimited possibilities for efficient and enriched living. Among those ICTs are hardware (e.g., personal computers, digital cameras and camcorders, mobile phones, and PDAs), software (e.g., Word, PowerPoint, and Excel) and Web applications (those unique

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

extensions of software residing on the Web). While the authors recognize the importance of computer hardware and software literacy under a traditional conceptualization, this chapter focuses on the literacy of new Web applications, that is, Web 2.0 technologies, at the K-12 level. Netcraft Ltd. (2006) found more than 100 million websites as of November 2006. That number continues to grow. The evolution of Web use in education, to a great degree, matched the development of the early Web, namely, evolving from a place to find information, to a searchable repository where information was easily found and integrated into traditional lesson plans. Teachers used the early Web to gain access to the vast array of information from databases, historical and current events, images and sounds. Also accessible were experts, colleagues or collaborators (Grabowski, Koszalka, & McCarthy, 2007), through exchanges that are now deemed rudimentary —i.e., e-mail, chat, listservs. The Web was an efficient repository of information; but the Web as depository for teachers was mostly out of reach, save for the relatively few with Web creation skill or support. The literature suggests that various factors influence teachers’ use of ICT for teaching and learning, including teachers’ technical capabilities (e.g., computer and Internet skills (Becker, 2001)), self-efficacy (Markauskaite, 2007), pedagogical beliefs (Becker, 1999; Ertmer, 2005), and personal experience with the technology (Ertmer, 2005), to name a few. Among these factors, teachers’ technical capability was the fundamental predictor for any technology to be integrated in the classroom. That is, only after much hands-on practice will teachers start to feel confident about and consider adopting high level use of the technology with their students. This means that for a technology that requires complex skills and has a long and steep learning curve, teachers are less likely to develop the confidence they need to adopt it. With the old Web, different levels of technical capabilities were required for different levels of integra-

354

tion. Most teachers were capable of using the old Web passively for information searching and retrieval. However, if teachers wished to actively participate in creating and sharing knowledge on the old Web, it was necessary for them to possess advanced technical skills, such as Web authoring, and server and database management skills. These required skill sets were complicated and required teachers to invest a considerable amount of their valuable time learning technical nuances and troubleshooting technical problems. Fortunately, the new-generation of Web technologies have lowered the technical threshold required of teachers and allow for relatively easy learning, thereby increasing the probability that teaches will adopt Web use to support higher levels of learning afforded by contemporary teaching methods.

bAcKground: the spIrIt And chArActerIstIcs oF Web 2.0 With the emergence of a new generation of Web technologies, a different model conceptualizing the Web materialized. The new model transforms the Web from a repository/depository space of information into a collaborative space enabling proactive and participatory use. The concept marks the transition of the Web from the “Webas-information-source” to the “participatory Web,” encouraging user participation, creation, and sharing, beyond simple retrieval of information (Decrem, 2006; Wikipedia, 2007e). The new Web has, therefore, morphed from an individual’s toolbox to a societal sandbox. Dale Dougherty, Web pioneer and O’Reilly Vice President in 2004 (O’Reilly, 2005) coined the phrase Web 2.0 for this new Web. Common terms of the new generation of Web technologies include wikis, Weblogs, folksonomy (i.e., tagging), podcasts, RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds, etc. (O’ Reilly, 2005; Wikipedia, 2007e). The concept behind Web 2.0 signifies collective and cooperative creation of content and

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

knowledge through user-friendly collaboration and communication tools, which of course, is in addition to the massive, expanding repository of information. For teachers, the new conceptualization of Web use parallels the advances in pedagogy that promotes “student-centered and active-learning models which encourage students to solve meaningful problems and reflect on their thinking processes” (Maloney, 2007).

lIterAcy oF Web 2.0 technologIes With the advancement of media and technology in the 21st century, literacy takes on a broader meaning. Broadly interpreted, to be literate is a key prerequisite and foundation for becoming a critical participant in society. A traditional view of literacy was limited to a person’s ability to read and write. Later as television and multimedia became prevalent, visual literacy to decode symbols and images that convey meaning became an important skill (Gee, 2003). As people’s lives depended on and were influenced by a preponderance of technologies, technological literacy was added to the essential skills list. According to the International Technology Education Association (ITEA), technological literacy refers to “one’s ability to use, manage, evaluate, and understand technology” (International Technology Education Association, 2000/2002). New media Web 2.0 technology literacy in education is defined, therefore, as an individual’s ability to understand, evaluate, manage, and use Web 2.0 technologies that enhance constructivist and social-constructivist communication and collaboration to create knowledge and learning products. Note that from this definition, new media Web 2.0 technology literacy in education is critically important for both teachers and students. In constructivist communication and collaboration, learning results from learners’ active creation of their own knowledge while engaging

in meaningful learning activities (Jonassen, 2000). Individuals create their own representation of the world. During knowledge construction, whether in dialogue with others or just with oneself, learners engage in a variety of cognitive activities. They access and assess information, organize and integrate it with prior knowledge, generate alternatives, and evaluate choices and draw conclusions. Web 2.0 tools facilitate these cognitive activities that engage students in critical thinking (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998). Web 2.0 technologies also provide opportunities for students to think metacognitively by reflecting on their own thinking during learning (Flavel, 1976; Hacker, 1998) and regulating their learning by setting goals, modeling, monitoring, and evaluating their progress (Pintrich, 2000). The new Web offers easy access, user-friendly tools for categorizing, organizing and integrating information (e.g., tagging), self-reflection, group reflection (e.g., Weblogging) and individual and group knowledge construction (e.g., wikis). As such, Web 2.0 tools are indeed cognitive tools because they provide the environment or serve as the vehicle for “knowledge construction and facilitation… that can be applied to a variety of subject matter domains” (Jonassen, 1996, p.10). A social-constructivist view of learning emphasizes interactions in which knowledge is distributed among others as a condition for learning (Gredler, 1997). In classroom collaborations, students co-construct knowledge with teachers and their peers while sharing their thinking. This social interaction enables students to learn from different perspectives that challenge them to examine and evaluate their understanding. Built for sharing and participation, Web 2.0 technologies provide teachers with a venue for their students to learn by collaborating in innovative ways that could not be achieved easily through earlier computer and Internet technologies. Web 2.0 technologies open up individual knowledge construction, organization and regulation for

355

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

group review, construction, organization, and regulation. Figure 1 depicts the relationships between Web 2.0 technologies and learning as described earlier. Using sound instructional strategies with Web 2.0 technologies fosters and amplifies individual cognitive activities and collaborative knowledge construction. New Media Web 2.0 technology literacy in education, therefore, means a teacher’s or a learner’s ability to use these technologies for the purpose of fostering their own learning.

Web 2.0 technologIes: generAl ApplIcAtIon Three Web 2.0 application literacy skills for tagging (Folksonomy), collaborative writing (Wikis and Docs) and journaling (Blogs) are among the most common applications for learning. Each application is shown as progressively more useful for promoting higher order cognitive processes.

While all three applications, arguably, promote all of the cognitive processes listed, each is discussed and applied in a K-12 classroom as shown in the shaded cells in Table 1.

tAggIng And FolKsonoMy An easy way to understand tagging and folksonomy is by thinking of it as organized “bookmarking.” A tag can be thought of as “a relevant keyword or term associated with or assigned to a piece of information (e.g., a picture, article, or video clip), thus describing the item and enabling keyword-based classification of information” (Wikipedia, 2007d). In tagging, the users select individually meaningful labels for “…a resource in the online environment” (Riley, 2006). In fact, assigning keywords, per se, has been a long time practice for library collections. However, in the Web 2.0 era, tagging is no longer top-down or limited to default keywords, but rather allows us-

Figure 1. Web 2.0 technologies as cognitive and collaboration tools

356

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

Table 1. Cognitive processes enabled by Web 2.0 technologies Cognitive Processing Involved

Organization and Integration with Prior Knowledge

Web 2.0 Technologies Tagging (Folksonomy) Individual

Social

Personal Tags

Community Networked Tags

Knowledge Construction Personal Tag Clouds

Critical Thinking: Evaluating, Analyzing, and Connecting

Community Networked Tag Clouds

Collaborative Writing Tools (Wikis and Docs) Individual

Social

Journaling (Blogs) Individual

Social

Content Journals

Blog Conversation

Blog Communities

Personal Information Depository and Knowledge Management System (Wikis)

Community Information Depository and Knowledge Management System (Wikis)

Content Journals and Notebooks

Collaborative Documents

Collaborative Documents

Blogs as Responses and Filters

Metacognitive and Self-regulated Reflection

ers to associate digital objects, such as websites, pictures, and video clips, with the keyword(s) of their own choosing. This Web 2.0 is a bottom-up model in which users’ viewpoints count when creating categorizations. The results of Web 2.0 tagging lead to what Thomas Vander Wal, an information architect and Internet developer, called folksonomy— “the taxonomy decided by folks including you and me.” According to Vander Wal (2005), “Folksonomy is the result of personal, free tagging of information and objects (anything with a URL) for one’s own retrieval. The tagging is done in a social environment (shared with and open to others). The act of tagging is done by the person consuming the information.” Simply stated, users classify Web pages and Web resources by organizing them with labels that make sense to them. It frees the learner from force fitting items into boxes that do not make sense to them or do not match the way they think about the topics.

Reflective Journals

Blog Communities

Two examples of current tagging application websites leading to folksonomy are del.icio.us and Flickr. After free registration, del.icio.us allows users to tag their bookmarked website, and Flickr allows users to tag the photos they upload to the Flickr website.

Features of tagging When a user finds a website, she can simply bookmark it using the online folksonomy website. However, folksonomy’s power as a cognitive tool is unleashed when users create a tag, or a series of tags to classify the website. Classifying a site requires understanding of the website content and how it can be used. At the folksonomy website, users can create any number of tags in a tag list that represent categories of resources that would be useful to them in the future. Users can then retrieve bookmarked websites or photos easily by using their personal taxonomy. Furthermore, us-

357

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

ers can choose to display their tags in a tag cloud format—a grouping of tags in which size reflects popularity. The tags with more linked websites are shown in a larger font, visually indicating which tags (i.e., categories) are of the most interest. This strategy, of course, assumes that more bookmarked websites equates with interest. Users can sort the “clouds” alphabetically or by size. The beauty of using the Web 2.0 folksonomy for tagging enables sharing one’s taxonomy with others and seeing websites that have been tagged similarly. In this way, users can see who uses the same tags as they do, and which other websites or photos share the same tag. Through this process, collaborative social tagging is achieved, which offers three advantages. First, a social network is formed by individuals finding others who share the same vocabulary or interests. Second, individuals with similar vocabulary serve as “human filters” for each other (Vander Wal, 2005) — that is, users can refer to websites others have tagged, one indication of value. Third, users can see how others have classified or understood similar sites or topics.

Applications of tagging in education How can teachers apply the practice of tagging? Personal Web 2.0 tagging serves as a cognitive tool by enabling learners to create personally meaningful tags that help them organize new website information. In this case, students also are afforded the opportunity to create their own tag structure for a knowledge base, which can be critiqued by their teacher. At the community level, Web 2.0 tagging enables socially constructed knowledge. It allows one to categorize and share the tags as well as tagged digital objects with others in a virtual learning community. The result is knowledge that is distributed among learners. One’s tags serve as candidates for labels when others try to tag the same or similar objects. Tag clouds are very useful for this purpose displaying popular

358

tags visually larger which attracts more attention. Web 2.0 tagging tools, therefore, enable learners to move from lower level cognitive processes of organization and integration with one’s own understanding to constructing social knowledge used by the community at large. Although the process of individual and social tagging helps learners engage in deeper learning, it is possible that learners may develop misconceptions regarding a certain subject matter or concept as they do tagging via intuition. It is recommended that teachers provide appropriate scaffolding during the process when students reflect on their own or each other’s tagging. For example, teachers could comment on the tags assigned to the photos by asking students to reason about and justify the appropriateness of their tags. With teachers’ scaffolding, learners could learn to organize, synthesize, and integrate new information using the tagging activity.

scenario—Applying tagging in a primary level natural science project Mrs. Lim, a primary school teacher in Singapore, initiated an exciting project in her class this semester. She implemented “tagging” activities in a biology class to help the students learn about animals and plants in their neighborhood. She also connected them with 4th graders taught by her master’s program classmate, Mrs. Narita, in Mexico City. Mrs. Narita’s class was involved in similar project. Although the biology project applying tagging was mainly completed through collaboration among students from the separate classes, the students from Singapore and Mexico were able to share each other’s work via the Internet throughout the semester. Mrs. Lim divided her students into teams of four, and asked them to play the role of biodetectives. Their main task was to research, locate, observe, and record plants and animals in their neighborhood. They took photos of those they observed, and uploaded them to Flickr where the

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

team “tagged” the photo and wrote descriptions about them. During the process, students were required to post at least one comment each week to their team members’ photos on 1) what they found similar or different in terms of the “tag(s)” associated with the photo, 2) what they thought about their teammates’ reasoning behind the assigned tags, or 3) what they found interesting in terms of the plants or animals their teammates photographed. Although the activities of tracking, observing, and tagging kept the class busy, Mrs. Lim encouraged the class to visit the Flickr sites of the 4th graders in Mexico City to see how their projects evolved. At the end of the semester, each team was asked to present their findings about the neighborhood ecology system through the collection of their photos entries. A discussion panel was held for the class to exchange their thoughts on the project. During the semester, the students were encouraged to send the photos they took to their personal blogs and to reflect on the process using the “blog this” function.

from others’ perspectives, building on socially constructed knowledge. Flickr, in this scenario, has its limitation— users with free accounts are allowed up to 100 MB monthly upload quota limit (10 MB per photo). Considering the high resolution capability of today’s digital camera and the number of enthusiastic students in each group, the uploaded photos might exceed the quota per month very quickly. However, this could be a prime opportunity for Mrs. Lim to help her students think critically and discriminatively about the images they choose to share. Another solution, of course, would be to limit photo size, or have students apply for more than one account. In addition to the benefits of tagging technology in learning, we would encourage teachers to consider the aforementioned learning-related and technical issues while planning for similar projects as described in the scenario.

collAborAtIve WrItIng tools tagging scenario discussion In this scenario, tagging was used initially by individual students to categorize the plants and animals they tracked. Students associated newly learned and existing vocabulary with the animals or plants they logged, thus tying it to prior knowledge. Since they made the associations themselves, the students thought and made decisions that made sense to them. This personal decision making requires higher levels of processing, thereby promoting deeper understanding, as opposed to being told associations to remember. The process of tagging allowed the students to construct a rough structure for their knowledge base about nature. Students also reflected, compared, and contrasted their tagging with those of others, which helped bring on further learning—by reexamining and reconsidering the appropriateness of their tags and the reasoning behind them. Also, students were able to engage in learning

Two types of Web 2.0 collaborative writing tools—interlinked databased documents known as wikis, and stand-alone collaborative documents commonly understood as word processing documents, presentations, or spreadsheets—enable individuals regardless of location to work together to create common understandings and develop new knowledge.

Wikis An easy way to understand wikis is by thinking of an online encyclopedia that has been written by many people. Leuf and Cunningham (2001) and Webopedia (2008), would define a wiki as “a collaborative website of freely expandable collection of interlinked Web pages that comprise the perpetual collective work of many authors, allowing anyone to edit, delete, or modify content that has been placed on the website using a Web

359

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

browser interface.” This definition of wiki underscores its educational value as a tool/platform for online collaborative learning, writing, and publishing. But why call it a wiki? “Wiki” is a short term for “Wiki Wiki,” which means “quick” in the Hawaiian language. Wiki was used to name this technology by its first developer because the nature of a Wiki website is a “quick” Web on which people collaborate (Cunningham 2007). An example of a wiki website. The best known and popular Wiki website is Wikipedia, “a multilingual, Web-based, free content encyclopedia project, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization. … the largest, most extensive and fastest growing encyclopedia currently available on the Internet” (Wikipedia, 2007f). Three-month traffic in 2008 ranked Wikipedia among the top ten most visited websites worldwide (Alexa Internet, 2008). By its nature, Wikipedia encourages use by the masses—anyone can become a registered user, log in, and create entries. Wikipedia contains the latest or most updated entries unlike printed encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica. However, Wikipedia’s grassroots/bottom-up nature causes critics and users to be concerned about the credibility of its content. “Wikipedia appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed publications rather than the personal authority of experts. Wikipedia does not require that its contributors give their legal names or provide other information to establish their identity” (Wikipedia, 2007f).

Features of Wikis Three fundamental features of wikis include 1) accessibility through any Web browser, 2) interlinked Web pages hosted on one website, and 3)

multiple-author editing of the same document from anywhere in the world with Internet access. Two other essential features for collaborative writing include searching and version control. With a search capability authors or readers can look for specific articles using relevant keywords (or tags) quickly, With version control, participating authors can make changes to an entry composed earlier, without worrying that earlier versions would be deleted, unavailable for comparison, further editing or reverting back. These five features allow a wiki to function as: 1) a personal information manager, that is, a Web-based notebook; 2) knowledge base or knowledge management system, that is, a depository of accumulative content; or 3) a platform for collaborative projects (Engstrom and Jewett, 2005; Fuchs-Kittowski & Köhler, 2002).

creAtIng A WIKI WebsIte on A WIKI FArM A wiki farm is “a server or a collection of servers that provides wiki hosting, or a group of wikis hosted on such servers” (Wikipedia, 2007b). Creating a wiki site hosted by a wiki farm is as easy as applying for an e-mail account. All one needs to do is apply for a wiki account on the selected wiki farm, decide on a name (domain name), and invite members. (See Figure 2). Two examples of Wiki farms are Wikidot (http://www.wikidot.com/) and Wikispaces (http://www.wikispaces.com/site/for/teachers100K). Wikidot was created and is maintained by Michal Frackowiak, a Polish Web developer. This wiki farm is free of charge with unlimited storage of up to 10 wiki sites, although there may

Figure 2. Steps for creating a wiki website on a wiki farm

360

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

be size limitations for documents, audios, videos, etc. attached to pages created (i.e., 100 MB). It allows one to generate entries called pages, tag the entries, and create forums that afford threaded discussion on specific topics. Other features include site design templates, customizable themes, and common wiki platform attributes such as version control. Like most wiki software and wiki sites, it has search capability for easy retrieval of information on the website. Wikispaces allows for creating unlimited pages and messages, searching entries, and threaded discussion; however, the threaded discussions are topic-oriented, which means users cannot impose categories upon those topics for better organization. An advantage of Wikispaces over Wikidot is the size of the file storage. The relatively large storage capacity is ideal for teachers who plan to include audios or videos on their wiki sites. Also unique to Wikispaces is that it supports an RSS function for subscribers to be notified of changes made to wiki entries. Nonetheless, Wikidot and Wikispaces are by no means the only wiki farms available, but they offer a starting point for teachers who plan to integrate wikis in their instruction.

collaborative documents For teachers interested in engaging students in collaborative writing using familiar word processing interfaces, Google Docs (http://docs.google. com/) and Zoho Writer (http://writer.zoho.com/) are excellent alternatives to wiki platforms. Both applications are free-of-charge and are Web-based with no need of downloading software to one’s local computer. Users create accounts by registering with the service provider websites. Users create documents, edit and store them online, allowing access to the document from anywhere with Internet access and a Web browser. Like word processing documents, users create stand-alone documents rather than interlinked pages, as one would with wikis. But, like a wiki, these collaborative document tools provide version control,

allowing users to revert later versions to earlier ones. The finished project can be saved on one’s own computer in various formats, including pdf, word, text, and html. Zoho Writer even allows users to post their writing to their blogs from within the online application. Zoho, the service provider of Zoho Writer, also has a service called Zoho Wiki, which is a wiki farm similar to Wikidot mentioned earlier.

Applications of collaborative Writing tools in education Wikis have been used to support learning among middle school students. Engstrom and Jewett (2005) selected TWiki as the platform for about 400 middle school students to engage in inquiry and collaborative problem solving on the topic of Missouri River damming. With 11 teachers facilitating from the participating schools, students in groups of 4 to 6 collaboratively explored and reported on relevant issues including river flow, natural habitat reduction, tribal water rights or sedimentation. Due to the nature of collaborative writing, students are able to revise others’ work and vice versa, where they see appropriate. Without appropriate “rules for the game,” there might be tension or feelings of frustration among group members if some of their work was modified by other members. Teachers should then consider providing some instruction or mini-lesson to inform students about what to expect when their work is revised by their group members during the project and encourage them to communicate with members regarding modifications. Appropriate scaffolding from teachers will not only make the process smoother, but also help students practice justifying their actions. Some technical issues with a wiki or collaborative documents might be worth noticing when two or more individuals try to edit the same Webpage or document at the same time. On wiki sites, only one person is allowed to make edits at a time—the

361

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

Webpage is locked for one person’s editing until the that person is done. On collaborative document sites, although more than one person could be viewing the same document and making edits, it is recommended one individual make edits while others observe. With more than one person editing at the same time, it could result in information not being properly saved, which might lead to frustration in the collaborative work. Similarly, with a gentle reminder, this kind of frustration could be prevented.

scenario: Applying Wikis in a 5th grade history class Mr. Jones participated in a professional development seminar during the summer and became really excited about the educational value of wikis, and wanted to give it a try. He decided that his 5th grade history class would benefit from collaborative conceptualizing and writing. His twenty 5th graders would be learning about the Westward Movement in the fall semester, and would be engaged in a project on the socialcultural background and status during this period in the U.S. history. To start his wiki website on a wiki farm, Mr. Jones applied for an account on Wikispaces, and named his wiki site “westwardmove.” He chose this wiki farm because it also allowed him to create a discussion forum. Most importantly of all—the service appeared to be stable. He divided his students into four groups of five members and created four corresponding group wiki websites. He explained to his students that they were to create their own wikis on the topic of the Westward Movement. Each group could collaboratively create their entries after exploring topics such as dining, clothing, living, and traveling, or other categories of interest. The students in each group used the forum set up by Mr. Jones on the wiki site for group communication and brainstorming ideas. In the beginning, each group wiki site was set up for group member access

362

only. At the end of the semester, Mr. Jones held a presentation party so that each group could share their project results with the class. In addition, Mr. Jones also made the site public so members from other groups could access and view the results of each group’s effort. After the presentation party, he suggested each group create a forum thread to invite members from other groups to provide constructive feedback to their project.

discussion of the Wiki scenario In this scenario, the teacher chose a free wiki farm that met his needs and was manageable. Students were asked to use their wiki sites to manage and organize content, and to host their projects and discussion forums to help formulate ideas. Students co-constructed an understanding of the Westward Movement in the U.S. through the wiki platform with articles/entries demonstrating their learning while the discussion forum posts traced their efforts through the process. As Schunk (2004) pointed out in his discussion of Vygotsky’s social cultural theory, the “social environment influences cognition through its tools” (p. 294). In the context of their discussion, the wiki platform itself served as a cognitive tool and a social environment through which students experienced cognitive changes, internalized and transformed knowledge. In addition to learning the subject matter, students acquired new media literacy skills of collaborative group writing and knowledge building using the wiki technology via relatively low-stake, real-world practice. The group-based wiki site increased a sense of responsibility to the project, which in turn further motivated student involvement in the project.

Weblogs Weblogs or blogs can be thought of as an electronic personal journal or diary with links to the outside world. A blog is a new media Web 2.0

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

technology whose content is published on the Web and thus, shared with others through the Internet. Updated daily or frequently, blogs can reflect the personality of the author (Baggetun & Wasson, 2006) and provide a venue for individual voice (Oravec, 2002) that can reach potentially a world-wide audience. Beyond the personal journal or diary, blogs also provide a channel for conversation between writers and readers. Readers are able to add comments to an individual blog to which the writer can also respond. Through this interaction, a community that includes writers and readers are formed. Blogs can also be connected to other blogs through embedded hyperlinks and all the blogs connect into a blogosphere where all blogs “exist together as a connected community (or as a collection of connected communities)” (Wikipedia, 2007a). Blogs, in essence, give voice to the masses, where it was virtually non-existent in the past. Blogs may be classified in diverse ways based on the genre of the writing, or the content. Blood (2002) classified blogs into three broad categories: blogs in which writers record their daily life in the form of short journals; notebooks that writers write about their ideas or thoughts focusing on both their personal life and the outside world, and filters in which writers usually comment on the news interesting to them. Blogs can be topical focusing on a specific subject. There are also community blogs created by a group of people with a common interest. In this type of blog, the whole community contributes. Blogs have become extremely popular, increasing at an exponential rate in the last few years and are likely to be the most familiar to teachers. While Technorati, an Internet search engine for blogs, tracked about 28 million blogs in February 2006, this search engine claims that it indexed 99 million blogs in August 2007. The explosion of blogs can be explained by the increasing ease of creating and maintaining a blog site by non-programmers. As a result, bloggers come from all ages. A content analysis of 203 randomly-selected blogs, for ex-

ample, noted that about 40 percent of the bloggers were teens (Herring, Kouper, Scheidt, & Wright, 2003). The results of a recent survey conducted by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) and Grunwald Associates LLC showed that of students with Internet access, 96 percent used social-networking technologies, including blogging (eSchool News, 2007). Writing blogs appears to be a widely-accepted phenomenon among teenagers and an essential part of daily activities for some (Nussbaum, 2004), and a phenomenon to be capitalized upon by teachers. Given the social conversational phenomenon unleashed in blogging, it seems natural to capture this interest for promoting metacognitive and self-regulated reflection in educational settings.

Features of blogs Most blog sites have certain common features that provide a familiar environment for bloggers and their readers. First, posts are arranged in a chronological fashion in descending order so that repeat readers can easily access the latest posts. Following each post is a section for readers to make comments. This is where a conversation between writers and readers starts. Readers can respond to the original posting by agreeing or questioning the author and/or providing different perspectives. At the same time, the blogger can provide responses and keep the conversation going. In addition, readers can respond to others’ comments. An intriguing post in a popular blog can sometimes generate numerous comments and lead to different threads of amazing discussion. As the posts accumulate, they are typically archived by month and year in which they were posted. Links to these archived posts are usually shown on the side of a blog. Tagging is another way to organize the posts by assigning each post short keywords that facilitate future retrieval. A blogroll contains links to other websites on the Web. For education blogs, these links may be resources or references, such

363

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

as online dictionaries or encyclopedia websites, or blogs of the community members. Blogs can also contain multimedia such as images, photos, sound files, and video clips in the posts. Finally, RSS, which automatically sends Weblog content to its subscribers, plays an important role in blog content distribution. The integration of RSS in blogging has great educational potential since students can keep themselves updated about their classmates’ latest comments on issues discussed in the class, and vice versa. In sum, these features give bloggers an easy-to-use tool to publish and communicate with others.

Applications of blogging in educational settings In the past several years, many teachers have recognized the learning opportunities that the blog as a medium can afford, with a few researchers beginning to explore the potential cognitive and metacognitive effects of incorporating blogs in teaching and learning activities that engage and facilitate meaningful learning. To date, a few research studies have investigated the use of blogs in education, and the effects of educational blogging on cognitive processing and self-regulation skills, and affective effects. Cognitive Processing. Many bloggers comment on Internet materials or news events in their blogs. This practice can be beneficial for students to develop their critical thinking skills. Jonassen (1996) defined critical thinking as involving “the dynamic reorganization of knowledge in meaningful and usable ways” (p.29), and has noted three general skills: connecting, analyzing, and evaluating. As blogs allow embedding hyperlinks in the text, it is relatively easy to link the source of certain issues or supporting information to one’s writing, which helps students practice their connecting skills. While searching for relevant sources or information, students should analyze information and evaluate the source or relevancy of the information. Thus, blog writing can “em-

364

power students to become more analytical and critical” (Oravec, 2002, p.618). Martindale and Wiley (2005) taught graduatelevel courses using blogs either as a supplementary or core instructional platform. They found their students had positive blogging experiences, and found the length and quality of their students’ argument improved in the process, especially after students had the opportunity to read other classmates’ blog entries. It is reasonable to suggest that students learned about how to construct their thinking from reading others’ blogs. In addition, some students expressed their excitement about keeping their blogs since some of the “big names in the field” were reading and dialoguing with them after the instructor made their posts available for external readership. Self-regulation Skills. In an exploratory study on the affordances of self-regulated learning in Weblogs, Baggetun and Wasson (2006) analyzed a set of self-initiated blogs created by 19 college students in Norway. The content analysis supplemented with an analysis of student interviews suggested that these students engaged in a range of different self-regulated learning activities when they were blogging, including reflection, motivation, ownership, and categorization (metacognitive tools). Most of the blogs were used as a tool for self-reflective practices where students wrote a reflective journal about their learning (Baggetun & Wasson, 2006). These researchers argued that “A Weblog is not only a trace showing that students are aware of their struggles (metacognitive knowledge), it also gives insight into what others are thinking and what they struggle with. The reflection on both one’s own learning and other’s reflections on their learning is a powerful tool for collectively developing a conceptual understanding of a topic; we could call this collective self-regulation” (p. 469). Affective Effects. Dickey (2004) conducted an interpretive case study to investigate the impact of using blogs as a discourse tool for Web-based learning with the specific focus on how blogs

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

impact learner perceptions of isolation and alienation in a Web-based learning environment. In the study, pre-service teacher education students were divided into small learning communities and required to post reflections on online readings and exemplars to a communal blog. She found that “the use of blogs as a discourse tool for small group learning communities supported the emergence of community by affording students opportunities to socialize, interact and enter into dialogue, seek support and assistance, and express feelings and emotions. This in turn helped bridge or prevent feelings of isolation” (Dickey, 2004, p.288).

scenario 1: blogs as learning and Reflective Journals (E-Portfolios) In Mr. Smith’ 8th grade science class last year, every student was asked to create a blog in which they posted their assignments and reflection on their learning. On the class blog, Mr. Smith posted weekly assignments and students were asked to respond to the assignment by making a post in their own blogs. For example, one assignment asked students to follow a hyperlink to a PowerPoint presentation on the issue of environmental sustainability and asked them to post their thoughts about the presentation. For their semester-long individual science fair project, they were required to develop process logs on their blog. They posted their plan for the project at the beginning of the semester and got feedback and approval from Mr. Smith through the blog’s commenting function. During the project, they wrote about their progress and asked for assistance on any concerns. During the semester, each student also collected photos of his/her science project, and made diagrams of their science experiments, and were encouraged to include a sound file of their oral presentation. At the end of the project, students engaged in reflection on what they have learned and what they would do differently. They also posted their reflection on their blogs. Although not required, students were encouraged to visit others’ blogs

and leave comments. All the students’ blog were listed in the blogroll on the class blog so that Mr. Smith and all the students had quick access to everyone’s blog. Occasionally, Mr. Smith invited guest speakers to meet with his students virtually through the class blog. Students compiled a list of questions they would like to have answered on the class blog and the guest speaker provided answers to those questions. Mr. Smith incorporated a world map inside their blogs showing where the guest commenters came from. At the end of the semester, the blogs were converted into e-portfolios that demonstrated their learning progress and showcased the results of their learning.

Weblog scenario 1 discussion In this scenario, Mr. Smith incorporated blogs in his science class as a learning journal to help students track their own learning across time. Having all the work for the 8th grade science organized on the blog provided an excellent opportunity for reflection because students could see how their knowledge evolved by tracking what they had accomplished (Richardson, 2006). Moreover, students could reflect metacognitively by looking back at the struggles and successes during their learning (Baggetun & Wasson, 2006). The teacher, too, provided scaffolding to facilitate later reflection by asking students to examine existing knowledge about a topic and set learning goals at the onset of each new unit. This strategy scaffolded students’ self-regulation of learning because the goal served as a gauge against which to monitor and evaluate one’s learning (Pintrich, 2000). Creating the e-portfolio provided another great opportunity for reflection on learning. In addition, learners were more likely to be motivated to devote effort in preparing their blog posts to demonstrate their knowledge because the e-portfolio would be published on the Web and accessible by audiences worldwide (Ferdig & Trammell, 2004).

365

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

scenario 2: blogs as learning communities for Knowledge construction Mr. Perry teaches high school German. In the past semester, he had his students work collaboratively in small groups on a project that focused on German culture. Each group created a blog on a specific cultural aspect that discussed its products, perspectives, and practices. Throughout the project, students went through the following process. First, group members negotiated about possible topics and picked a topic of interest. Second, each student searched for relevant information about the products, perspectives, and practices on a specific aspect of German culture, and shared the information on their blogs. Third, they discussed the appropriateness of the information, how the products, perspectives, and practices interacted in the target culture, and how the cultural aspects of interest differed compared to those of their native culture. The discussion was enabled by making comments on the various posts. Finally, each group synthesized their information and discussion of their chosen topic, and created an in-depth report on the cultural aspect on their blog. To connect each group, Mr. Perry made all of the group blogs accessible by listing these blogs on his own blog. Students could easily link to other groups’ blogs and were encouraged to make comments on others’ posts. (This scenario is adapted from the research of Ducate & Lomicka (2005))

Weblog scenario 2 discussion This scenario demonstrates the use of blogs as a collaboration tool that provides a space for small groups to work together. While group members exchanged their ideas, resources, and information collected, they formed a learning community where they were engaged in a collective effort of sense-making and understanding (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999). In this learning community,

366

various perspectives were shared and learners were encouraged to be retrospective of their own beliefs if there was conflict between different views (Webb & Palincsar, 1996). As a result, conceptual understanding could change. As far as constructing knowledge, the entries students posted to their group blogs were different from the entries found on the reflective blog in Scenario 1. In scenario 2, students were most likely to post information about the cultural aspects they investigated and make annotations and/or comments about how it was related to their project. As such, the group blog served as an online depository for collected and collective information. The process of annotation of the online information enhanced students’ critical and analytical skills since students had to examine Web resources in light of their own purpose (Oravec, 2002). By the end of the project, the group blog became a knowledge base on German culture. This knowledge base contained relevant Web materials, students’ discussion of the materials, the sensemaking process of different pieces of information, and the learning product—a coherently synthesized report on certain cultural aspects. The two scenarios present the applications of blogs as cognitive and collaboration tools that foster learning. In addition, from the usage of Weblogs in the aforementioned two scenarios, we could find the strengths and flexibility of blogs as both individual and group learning tools. However, compared with wikis, blogging does fall short in terms of collaborative writing and editing on the same article because it does not provide version control. The lack of version control makes it difficult for group members to track the changes made to the same article. A good example of applying blogging on instruction would be Shaun Fletcher’s classroom blog at http://classblogmeister.com/blog. php?blogger_id=84725. For more applications and discussion of educational use of blog, Supportblogging.com (http://supportblogging.com/ Links+to+School+Bloggers) is a nice place to

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

start as it collects blogs on the aspects such as education, classroom, teacher, and student.

FIve Web 2.0 IMpleMentAtIon recoMMendAtIons For teAchers Web 2.0 offers many instructional possibilities for teachers. Based on the affordances and potentialities, we offer five implementation recommendations. 1.

2.

Become familiar with the technologies and research its use. It is always a good idea to practice with the new technologies before adopting them for learning or teaching in the classroom. Although most of the Web 2.0 technologies are easy to learn and use, hands-on experiences with these technologies allow teachers to explore their affordance of educational use for different contexts and learning objectives. In addition, many teachers are practicing the spirit of Web 2.0 by sharing their experiences on integrating Web2.0 technologies through their own blogs or wikis. Teachers can learn from these experiences about which contexts match grade levels or subject matter. A good starting point for researching the use of Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom is through Classroom 2.0 (http://www.classroom20. com/). This website provides a discussion forum for teachers, good links to examples of educational use of Web 2.0 technologies, and access to different communities of practice. Start small and be realistic. Web 2.0 technologies are powerful tools that can be used to achieve a wide range of learning objectives. Despite the power of these technologies, it is suggested that teachers start small by limiting the scope of adaptation instead of taking on a full-blown project incorporating

3.

4.

several different technologies all together. In addition, before making decisions about certain technologies and their providers, teachers need to think about the resources available to them including time, technology skills, support and policy of schools/school districts, school infrastructure, IT support available, students’ accessibility to computers and the Internet, and parental support. Provide scaffolding in using the tool. Engaging students in meaningful learning through Web 2.0 technologies needs thoughtful and comprehensive instructional design. Although many of today’s children and teenagers are already computer or Web 2.0 technologies literate, they are most likely not familiar with the use of these technologies to facilitate their learning. It is critical that teachers scaffold their use through modeling and coaching. Teachers can spend some time introducing the technology and provide the reasons why the very technology is used. Before using the technology as a cognitive or collaboration tool, teachers will need to design enabling tasks to help students get used to different functions and the learning environment. For example, teachers can design a mini task that asks students to create hyperlinks to their favorite websites, or to post their favorite photos on their blogs. Teachers can also show and discuss good and bad examples of writing (blog entries or comments), appropriate reference to Internet resources, and then have students construct a rubric for evaluating the writing. Meanwhile, teachers can also set up clear expectations of quality of students’ work such as the frequency and length of postings/comments. During the process of learning, teachers might provide assistance or feedback to coach students’ use of the technologies. Design the lesson that calls for the appropriate and desired cognitive activities.

367

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

5.

Simply exposing students to the technologies will not generate the desired use of these technologies. For these tools to function as cognitive or collaboration tools, teachers need to design the lesson/project with this purpose in mind. For example, teachers can ask students to carry out the reflection at the end of each lesson on their blog if they plan to use blogs as a tool that fosters reflective thinking. Also it is important that teachers model the use of blog for reflective thinking for their students. If the goal is for students to collaborate on their wiki, teachers need to design the project that requires collaboration and teach them collaboration skills before and during the process. Refer also to Table 1 for ideas of how to match cognitive skills with Web 2.0 technologies. Make it a big deal. Students’ motivation in using Web 2.0 tools for their learning is likely to be stimulated if they can share their work with real audiences. What teachers can do is to invite parents, other teachers and students in the school district, experts, or individuals outside the community to read and comment on students’ work. Being aware of the fact that there is real audience, students are more likely to put more efforts on their work and in turn, improve the quality of their learning. Furthermore, this may lead to students’ persistence in keeping use of these tools for their learning.

chAllenges And conclusIon Among the challenges in applying Web 2.0 technologies to learning and instruction, is the somewhat ephemeral life span of emerging technologies and websites. Although the technologies hold promising potential in education, due to their “project-like” characteristic, many of the websites or services become discontinued or suspended without warning. Therefore, instructors

368

or instructional designers who intend to use the Web 2.0 technologies need to constantly watch for changing sites and technologies. The more desired reward for keeping a watchful eye on the emerging Web 2.0 work is finding new and even better applications that can promote learning among their students.

reFerences Alexa Internet (2008). Wikipedia.org-Traffic details from Alexa. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/wikipedia.org?range=3%C2%A0m &size=large&y=t Baggetun, R. & Wasson, B. (2006). Self-regulated learning and open writing. European Journal of Education, 41, 453-472. Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/ findings/internet-use/text-tables.pdf Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Irvine, CA. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models, Vol. II (pp. 269-292). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Blood, R. (2002). What is a Weblog. In R. Blood (Ed.), The Weblog handbook: Practical advice on creating and maintaining your blog (pp. 1-25). Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Cunningham, W. (2007) Wiki history. Retrieved September 26, 2007 from http://c2.com/cgi/ wiki?WikiHistory

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

Decrem, B. (2006). Introducing Flock Beta 1. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.flock. com/node/4500 Dickey, M. D. (2004). The impact of Web-logs (blogs) on student perceptions of isolation and alienation in a Web-based distance-learning environment. Open Learning, 19 (3), 279-291. Ducate, L. C. & Lomicka, L. L. (2005). Exploring the blogosphere: Use of Web logs in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 38 (3), 410-421. Engstrom, M. E., & Jewett, D. (2005). Collaborative learning the wiki way. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 49(6), 12-16. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 25-39. eSchool News. (August, 14, 2007). 96 percent of teens use social-networking tools: Survey reveals schools have a huge opportunity to harness technology for instruction. E-School News. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://www.eschoolnews. com//news/showstoryts.cfm?ArticleID=7304 Ferdig, R., & Trammell, K. (2004). Content delivery in the ‘blogosphere.’ T.H.E. Journal, February, 12-20. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http:// www.thejournal.com/articles/16626 Flavel, J.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fuchs-Kittowski, F., & Köhler, A. (2002). Knowledge creating communities in the context of work processes. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 23(3), 8-13. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Grabowski, B., Koszalka, T., & McCarthy, M. (2007). Web-enhanced learning environment strategies handbook and reflection tool (12th ed.) University Park, PA: Penn State University. Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Ed.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Herring, S. C., Kouper, I., Scheidt, L. A., & Wright, E. L. (2004). Women and Children Last: The discursive construction of Weblogs. In L.J. Gurak, S. Antonijevic, L. Johnson, C. Ratliff, & J. Reyman (Eds.), Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of Weblogs. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/ blogosphere/women_and_children.html International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 43(2), 24-32. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Collaboration and sharing on the Internet. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. The Chronicle of Higher

369

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

Education, 53(18), B 26. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/ i18/18b02601.htm

Riley, J. (2006, July 8). Tagging. TechEssence. info. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http:// techessence.info/tagging

Markauskaite, L. (2007). Exploring the structure of trainee teachers’ ICT literacy: The main components of, and relationships between, general cognitive and technical capabilities. Education Technology, Research and Development, 55 (6), 547-572.

Schunk, D. (2004). Learning Theories: An educational perspective (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Martindale, T., & Wiley, D. A. (2005). Using Weblogs in scholarship and teaching. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 49(2), 55-61. Netcraft Ltd. (2006). November 2006 Web Server Survey. Retrieved September 4th, 2007 from http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/11/01/ november_2006_Web_server_survey.html Nussbaum, E. (2004, January 11). My so-called blog. The New York Times. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/ magazine/11BLOG.html?ex=1389762000&en= 4c02ba67f747f9f8&ei=5007&partner=USERL AND O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http:// www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228

Vander Wal, T. (2005). Folksonomy definition and Wikipedia. Retrieved August 26, 2007, from http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel. php?blog=1750 Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S., (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.).Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841-873). New York: Macmillan. Webopedia (2008). Wiki. Retrieved October 07, 2008 from http://Webopedia.com/TERM/W/ wiki.html Wikipedia (2007a). Blogsphere. Retrieved September 09, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Blogosphere Wikipedia (2007b). Comparison of wiki farms. Retrieved September 2007, from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Comparison_of_Wiki_farms Wikipedia (2007d). Tag. Retrieved September 09, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tag_%28metadata%29

Oravec, J. (2002). Bookmarking the world: Weblog applications in education. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(7), 616-621.

Wikipedia (2007e). Web 2.0. Retrieved September 09, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Web_2.0

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic Press.

Wikipedia (2007f). Wikipedia. Retrieved September 09, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia

Richardson, W. (2006, ). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Key terMs And deFInItIons

370

Blogging: The activity of keeping and publishing online blog/journal.

Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age

Cognitive Tools: Tools that scaffold cognitive activities, such as accessing and assessing information, organizing and integrating new information with prior knowledge, generating alternatives, and evaluating choices and drawing conclusions. Folksonomy: The taxonomy decided by common people, as the results of free tagging of information and objects for one’s retrieval. Participatory Web: The paradigm shift from the old Web as the passive information source to the new Web encouraging active participation and contribution.

Tagging: The act of assigning “tags” (i.e., keywords) to digital resources such as websites, photos, and articles. Web 2.0: A term coined to cover the new generation of Web technologies that allow users to create and share information on the Web. Wiki: A Web-based application/platform for depositing and sharing information, allowing for convenient collaborative writing and document management.

371

372

Chapter XXIV

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning with Web 2.0 Steven C. Mills The University Center of Southern Oklahoma, USA

AbstrAct Educators face the challenge of keeping classroom learning relevant for a generation of students who have never known life without computers, cell phones, and email. With Web 2.0 technologies educators can easily mediate student-centered learning experiences that engage students collaboratively in problem-solving and critical thinking. This chapter describes how Web 2.0 technologies can supply communication tools and information resources that facilitate the application of a robust set of instructional methodologies in the K-12 classroom. When the pedagogical features of Web 2.0 technologies are used with problem-solving methodologies, teachers can create powerful student-centered learning experiences for educating students for the 21st century.

IntroductIon An 8th grade science teacher, Ms. S, retrieves her MP3 player from the computer-connected cradle where it’s spent the night scanning the 17 podcasts she subscribes to. Having detected three new programs, the computer downloaded the files and copied them to the handheld. En route to work, Ms. S inserts the device into her dash-mounted cradle and reviews the podcasts,

selecting a colleague’s classroom presentation on global warming and a NASA conference lecture about interstellar space travel… Meanwhile, social studies teacher Ms. L scans through sites tagged genetics in the school’s social bookmark service. Her students may need quick access to them as they discuss genetic engineering current events during class… All assignments in Ms. L’s class are turned in via blogs because she

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

finds that their conversational nature encourages students to think and write in more depth than traditional formal essays or short answer assignments. Another advantage of receiving assignments in blog format is that both she and her students can subscribe, which means all of the students’ blogs appear in her aggregator, and students can reap the benefits of seeing each other’s work. A few doors down the hall, veteran English teacher, Mr. P, is reviewing a new batch of student wikis. In an effort to help the students become better communicators, he never provides study guides for tests, instead relying on students to construct their own study resources using their team wikis. He rewards teams that create the most useful/popular study guides. Mr. P uses a wiki tool installed on the school’s network… From A Day in the Life of Web 2.0 by David Warlick Over the past decade and a half since the creation of the Internet and the World Wide Web the use of information technology has significantly increased in K-12 classrooms. As the Web continues to evolve, new Internet and Web technologies become facts of life for today’s students. And as David Warlick (2006) indicates in A Day in the Life of Web 2.0, teachers are using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classrooms because it is compatible with the technology many students use on a daily basis through popular websites such as MySpace, Wikipedia and Flikr. According to Lee Rainie, Director of the Pew Internet and American Life project, “an American teen is more likely than her parents to own a digital music player like an iPod, to have posted writing, pictures or video on the Internet, to have created a blog or profile on a social networking website like MySpace, to have downloaded digital content such as songs, games, movies, or software, to have shared a remix or ‘mashup’ creation with friends, and to have snapped a photo or video with a cell phone.” (Rainie, 2006). Because of

this daily high-level interaction that youth have with technology, educators face the challenge of keeping classroom learning relevant for a generation of students who have never known life without computers, cell phones, and email. Baird and Fisher (2005-2006) note that “neomillennial students expect interactive, engaging content and course material that motivates them to learn through challenging pedagogy.” Thus, the bar has been raised seemingly beyond the technological expertise of many educators for providing learning experiences that keep today’s students interested and engaged. The good news for educators is that the latest expression of the World Wide Web, known as Web 2.0, provides online information resources and communication technologies that are easier to use and simpler to implement, requiring far less technological expertise than the preceding generation of Internet applications. With Web 2.0 it is far easier for educators to mediate student-centered learning experiences utilizing the pedagogical features of these new technologies. For example, the social networking capabilities of Web 2.0 familiar to most students can promote student engagement in learning because students actively participate in constructing a learning landscape based on social interactions and information exchanges with peers (Baird & Fisher, 2005-2006). Web 2.0 is a term used to describe Web technologies used to harness collective intelligence, provide interfaces and services across multiple devices, and enhance collaboration. Although the term, Web 2.0, suggests a new version or generation of the World Wide Web, in reality it refers to a re-visioning of the Web—what Downes (2005) characterizes not as a technological revolution but as a social revolution. Thus, Web 2.0 relates to new ways to use the Web rather than an update to the technical specifications of the Web. According to Downes, Web 2.0 represents a shift from an information-consumption medium to an information-creation platform: “In a nutshell, what was happening was that the Web

373

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

was shifting from being a medium, in which information was transmitted and consumed, into being a platform, in which content was created, shared, remixed, repurposed, and passed along. And what people were doing with the Web was not merely reading books, listening to the radio or watching TV, but having a conversation, with a vocabulary consisting not just of words but of images, video, multimedia and whatever they could get their hands on.” Perhaps the most well-known example of Web 2.0 is a blog. Blogs permit writers, known as a bloggers, to post commentary and visitors to leave responses. Other examples of Web 2.0 applications are wikis, podcasts, Web feeds, social bookmarking, and social networking. Interactive online games and virtual worlds could also be considered Web 2.0 applications. While the label “Web 2.0” may imply a more advanced use of technology to deploy the Internet, what is important to this discussion is the pedagogical features of Web 2.0 that can be exploited for relevant and effective classroom instruction. Web 2.0 provides the affordance of collaborative information discovery that can be converted into instructional methodologies (Alexander, 2006) that can scaffold student learning in K-12 classrooms. The International Society for Technology in Education’s (2007) release of the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) indicates that to learn effectively and live productively in an increasingly digital world, students should know and be able to use technology for creativity and innovation, communication and collaboration, research and information fluency, and critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making. For K-12 classrooms to address these standards, instructional approaches must facilitate active, resource-rich, student-centered learning environments that help students learn to think critically, analyze and synthesize information to solve technical, social, economic, political, and scientific problems, and work productively in groups (Mills, 2006). Classroom learning

374

activities should focus on rich, multidisciplinary learning tasks that address complex sets of learning objectives. One way for K-12 schools and classrooms to address the NETS-S is by deploying Web 2.0 technology in the classroom. Web 2.0 is useful for implementing complex learning objectives because of its ability to combine technology with collaboration to facilitate functional communication with professionals, subject experts and other students who have Internet access. Using Web 2.0 technologies, information can be manipulated and meshed to generate knowledge for creating new solutions, solving problems or making decisions because Web 2.0 permits substantive information exchanges and collaborations among peers and with subject-matter experts outside of the classroom. Some Web 2.0 technologies that are commonly used by today’s students that have broad subject-matter applications include blogs, wikis, Web feeds, podcasts, and Web conferencing. For example, blogs and wikis can enhance writing experiences. With a school or classroom blog students can receive editing advice and content corrections from peers. Wiki software can be used to enhance research and writing objectives by enabling students to add a section of research to a document being created by a group or class. The live editing of the document permitted by the wiki allows for writing and research revisions through peer editing. Thus, students strengthen writing skills and sharpen research skills because they are engaged in learning through a collaborative communication process. With RSS or Web feeds, teachers and administrators can communicate news, events, and activities to students and parents. For example, school administrators can send announcements about school events to parents and teachers can send homework assignments and other classroom reminders to students. Podcasts can be used in the same way as RSS feeds to mass communicate with students and parents. With podcasts, teach-

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

ers and administrators use pre-recorded audio or video messages. Teachers can also use podcasts to record classroom instruction to create an archive for students to review for exams or for absent students to access and use for make-up work. Web 2.0 has applied the complex technologies of videoconferencing to the personal computer. Communication at a distance that used to require expensive decoding equipment can now be performed with webconferencing software via most personal computer connections to the Internet. With webconferencing guest speakers can be brought into the local classroom from anywhere in the world there is an Internet connection. Students can speak with scientists and other content experts or even students from classes in different countries. The vast resources of data and information on the Internet supply tools and resources that permit application of a broader and more powerful set of instructional methodologies in the classroom. Using Web 2.0 technologies to support teaching and learning makes it possible to use powerful methodologies such as cases, projects, and problems that are relevant and representative of realworld tasks. However, using Web 2.0 to implement these more powerful instructional methodologies requires teachers to create learning experiences that align with the classroom curriculum. Because Web 2.0 technologies best support instructional methodologies that employ collaborative and authentic learning experiences, implementing Web 2.0 technologies in the K-12 classroom will generally take the form of project- or problem-based learning (PBL). Therefore, the following sections of this chapter will first establish a framework for PBL that demonstrates its effective implementation when embedded with Web 2.0 capabilities and then will describe some Web 2.0 technologies that are effective for developing PBL experiences.

leArnIng theory, probleM-bAsed leArnIng, And Web 2.0 Cognitive learning theories influence most modern pedagogy. Cognitive learning theories place more emphasis on factors that are internal to the learner than behavioral theories, which place more emphasis on factors within the environment (Smith & Ragan, 1999). Information processing theory is a cognitive learning theory that has provided an important contribution to the field of instructional design and development (Smith & Ragan) as well as to learning and developmental psychology (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Information processing theory hypothesizes a set of structures in the brain that work much like a computer. For learning to occur, a series of transformations of information takes place in or through these structures. Like a computer, the human brain receives information into working memory, performs operations on the information to change its form and content, and stores it in long-term memory, then locates it and generates responses to it. Information processing theory suggests that there is a two-way flow of information as we try to make sense of the world around us (Huitt, 2003). We use information that we gather through the senses and information we have stored in memory in a dynamic process to construct meaning about our environment and our relations to it. Information processing theory defines the learning process as based on integrating or assimilating information into long-term memory in a meaningful way that includes gathering and representing information, called encoding, storing information, called retention, and then getting at the information when needed, called retrieval. Transfer is an important process for acquiring a deep or meaningful understanding of learned

375

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

information. Transfer of learning occurs when a learner unconsciously or deliberately applies knowledge or skills associated with one task to the completion of another task. In one sense, the purpose of learning is to transfer knowledge and skills from one situation, context, or domain to another. Transfer of learning can occur along a continuum of varying degrees of difficulty where transfer of certain knowledge or skills can be developed to a high-level of automaticity while transfer of other knowledge or skills requires conscious, deliberate efforts. PBL is an instructional methodology that is fully compatible with information processing theory. With PBL students construct an individual understanding of the problem and then develop and present a solution. PBL is well-suited to encoding and transfer because it situates learning in real-world problems and develops solutions through collaborative processes. Web 2.0 technologies can be used to support problem-based learning in the K-12 classroom. For example, Web 2.0 applications can provide information tools and resources that can be deployed to simulate real-world problems by providing both content and context for a problem. Using Web 2.0 technologies, the Web can be explored to identify and acquire the information necessary to understand the problem and students can communicate with outside experts or peers to develop solutions to the problem. With PBL the teacher guides students through a problem-solving process. Students may first reason through the problem and apply knowledge they already have to the problem. This elaboration of prior knowledge helps students understand what information they need to acquire to better understand and resolve the problem. As students begin to research and acquire information about the problem and reach possible solutions, they develop the information literacy skills they need to become self-directed learners.

376

learning strategies and problem-based learning Many learning theorists believe that working memory has limited capabilities; therefore, it is necessary for learners to employ strategies to regulate their learning when performing learning tasks. For example, information processing theory assumes that that a control mechanism is required to oversee the encoding, transformation, processing, storage, retrieval and utilization of information because of mental constraints on the amount of information that can be processed and the automaticity of the task. Therefore, not all of the processing capacity of the system is available because an executive function that oversees this process will use up some of this capability when one is learning a new task or is confronted with a new environment. Learning, then, is facilitated by executive functions called cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies include mental activities such as acquiring, selecting and organizing information, rehearsing material to be learned, relating new material to information in memory, and retrieving and retaining different kinds of knowledge. Metacognitive strategies deal with strategic learning or “learning to learn.” Some common metacognitive strategies include connecting new information to former knowledge, deliberate selection of cognitive strategies, and planning, monitoring, and evaluating cognitive processes. Problem-solving and related research activities can provide opportunities for developing the cognitive and metacognitive strategies that facilitate learning. Students can learn how to learn by developing a repertoire of cognitive or thinking processes that can be applied to solve problems. As students perform problem-solving activities, teachers can focus student attention not only on solutions (products) but also on how tasks are accomplished (processes).

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

When using problem-solving activities in the K-12 classroom, learning strategies can be embedded in the instructional content and procedures so that these process and product goals are accomplished and evaluated. Web 2.0 can provide technology tools teachers can use to mediate instruction and instructional procedures effectively. Web 2.0 technologies such as social bookmarks, blogs, and wiki can be embedded into PBL experiences to scaffold the cognitive and metacognitive strategies that result in potentially powerful, high-impact learning experiences.

collaboration and problem-based learning PBL focuses on challenging problems or tasks that can improve higher-order thinking skills. Because PBL is often used to perform complex tasks or solve ill-structured or ill-defined problems, a student working independently may not possess the knowledge, skills, or time to accomplish the task. Therefore, PBL can be used to help students learn to work together collaboratively and cooperatively. Collaborative learning refers to a variety of educational approaches that involve shared intellectual efforts by peers or experts. Collaborative learning generates dialog and interaction among peers or communities of peers and experts for the purpose of constructing collective knowledge or shared understanding about a concept, case, or problem. Schrage (1990) defined collaboration as “two or more individuals with complementary skills interacting to create a shared understanding” (p. 40). With collaborative learning, peers are responsible for one another’s learning as well as their own learning. Peers work in groups of two or more to search for a mutual understanding, solution, or meaning and to create a product of their shared learning experience. Collaborative learning activities can range from classroom discussions that may include short lectures to participation on research teams.

Generally, collaborative learning activities are designed to encourage interaction among students and promote consensus-building in reaching a shared solution. Through collaboration and cooperation, peers investigate subject matter at varying levels. Collaborative learning builds student awareness of different perspectives. By justifying and defending their ideas to peers, students build deeper knowledge and understanding of a topic. Collaborative learning is especially appropriate for complex and ill-defined problems because the construction of complex knowledge seems to be facilitated by collaborative processes (Feltovitch, Spiro, Coulson, & Feltovich, 1996). Collaborative problem-solving can be supported with Web 2.0 communication tools that facilitate the exchange of ideas among participants. Group learning can build collective knowledge based on shared problem-solving, interpersonal feedback, and social support and encouragement. Small groups can work together; collaboration and teamwork can be facilitative and can provide scaffolding for the construction of knowledge as well as enhance student satisfaction and learning (Doran, 2001). To form and use groups effectively for collaborative learning, teachers should employ a number of techniques including incorporating team-building activities at the beginning of the year, establishing a feedback process, requiring groups to report progress to the teacher online or face-to-face, evaluating group experiences and providing evaluation or assessment information to the teacher, and employing multiple instructional strategies with group work (Doran). Collaborative problem-solving using Web 2.0 technologies may utilize teams of students within the same classroom or in classrooms in multiple locations. Therefore, forming effective groups is an important aspect of using online communication to increase student participation in learning and to develop a learning community in the classroom. Online communication tools can be used effectively for collaborative problem-solving, even among students in the same classroom work-

377

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

ing in small groups because students can access information resources, experts, or peers anywhere in the world. Wikis or blogs may work best for teams of students formed within a classroom while webconferencing, podcasts, and social networking may work best with distant participants. Collaborative problem-solving in the K-12 classroom can maximize learning by organizing instruction according to the abilities and learning needs of students. When students work in groups, they bring different abilities and expertise to the learning dynamic. Group learning can promote academic achievement by allowing students to encourage each other, ask questions of one another, require each other to justify opinions and reasoning, and reflect upon their collective knowledge, (Brown, A. & Palincsar, A., 1989; Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1994). Collaborative learning is easy and inexpensive to implement and can promote improved behavior, attendance and positive attitudes about school (Slavin, 1987). Having students work in groups encourages discussion and develops social skills useful for a professional working environment for which they are training. Group collaboration takes advantage of learner-learner interactions rather than learnercontent interactions for learning. Small groups working on a project learn the team-building skills and goal-setting strategies needed to be productive in the workplace. Collaborative learning activities can increase students’ satisfaction with the learning process and can decrease the time required by the teacher for administering and structuring a course, program, or other unit of instruction. Collaborative learning is about building learning communities in the classroom, and learning communities can provide an organizing structure and delivery system for the practice of collaborative learning. Learning communities frequently provide more time and space for collaborative learning and other more complicated educational approaches. K-12 classrooms can provide a sense of community by promoting and supporting collaborative learning. 378

From its beginning the Internet and its associated applications and services have been substantially social and Web 2.0 technologies have served to increase the extent of these social capabilities to make the Web especially connective (Alexander, 2006). According to Alexander it is the affordance of collaborative information discovery that makes Web 2.0 technologies useful for education and instruction. Web 2.0 technologies such as social networking, media sharing, podcasting, and webcasting make it possible to transform classrooms into virtual learning communities by connecting students with peers, experts, and resources beyond the classroom. K-12 classrooms can create collective knowledge through the discoveries of students sharing information, interests and learning objectives via the Internet. This collective knowledge can even transcend a single classroom and a single school year through collaborative, problem-solving activities that allow students to build upon the knowledge and discoveries of predecessors.

Web 2.0 technolgIes For probleM-bAsed leArnIng Problem-solving consists of moving from an initial, undesired situation to a desired goal and so problem-solving is a process of planning and executing a set or series of steps to reach the goal (Moursund, 1999). There are numerous Web 2.0 applications and services that are available to support collaborative information problemsolving that can engage students in meaningful, challenging, and motivating inquiry and critical thinking. In this section we will consider several Web 2.0 technologies that have particular application to instruction, especially in developing collaborative PBL experiences for the K-12 classroom. This discussion is not meant to be a comprehensive list of Web 2.0 technologies but rather a substantive discussion of Web 2.0 technologies that are most

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

familiar to today’s students and have features and capabilities that are relatively simple to use and to embed in PBL experiences.

rss and Aggregators RSS stands for Rich Site Summary or Really Simple Syndication. RSS is a standardized Web format and application used for the distribution of content from Web pages. In the recent history of the Web, RSS technology was used primarily for content feeds from blogs and other online content sites like newspapers. Now RSS technology plays a critical role in several Web 2.0 technologies such as podcasts and social networks and the Web 2.0 applications that use RSS technology continue to increase. Therefore, it is important to have a basic operational knowledge of RSS in order to effectively use many Web 2.0 applications. RSS works in the background of a website to generate content (or code), called news feeds, RSS feeds, or Web feeds. It is then possible for users to subscribe and receive the RSS feeds and view the content without visiting the original site. The most notable feature of RSS is that it allows the user to easily generate her own content because the content, called feeds, comes to the user rather than the user going to get the content. Feeds are the actual content items that are posted on a website. RSS syndicates all of the content and will send everything that has been requested. Any site with one of the following - Feed Icon; icons will generate RSS feeds: - XML Icon; and - RSS Icon. Another type of feed is the Atom feed. Atom was developed as an alternative to RSS because of some dissatisfaction with RSS. Atom is widelyadopted but incompatible with RSS. The Atom feed can be downloaded by websites that syndicate content from aggregators that subscribe to Atom feeds. The intention of Atom was to ease the difficulty of developing applications with web feeds.

When feeds are received, there must be some way of viewing the content associated with the feed. An application that collects RSS feeds for later viewing is called an aggregator, feed reader, or news reader. An aggregator is a program or website that collects RSS feeds for viewing or reading. Aggregators can be either Web-based, an extension of a browser or email program, or a stand-alone program that is installed on the user’s computer or desktop. Desktop aggregators are designed to maintain RSS subscriptions and then collect Web feeds and group them together using a user-friendly interface, usually resembling the interface of popular e-mail clients. Web-based aggregators are hosted on remote web servers and use a web service to maintain subscriptions and receive the Web feeds into an account the user sets up on the Web-based aggregator website. The advantage of a Web-based aggregator over a client aggregator is that it is available through the Web and so it can be accessed anywhere by a user with an Internet connection. Some Web-based aggregators that can be used in schools and classrooms are Bloglines (http://www.bloglines.com), Netvibes (http:// www.netvibes.com/) and Google Reader (http:// www.google.com/reader). Microsoft Outlook, Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari all have reader extensions that can be embedded into the applications. An example of how RSS feeds and aggregators can be used in the classroom can be demonstrated by an English teacher who is teaching a writing unit on current events. The teacher makes the assignment for students to read articles on current event topics from several major newspapers and blogs and then write a theme about the issue. The teacher can subscribe to the RSS feeds from several relevant and appropriate blogs and newspapers. Students can then open the aggregator and read the stories without having to find and retrieve the content from its original source (either paper or digital). Additionally, the teacher can delete any content from the aggregator that

379

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

is not relevant to the assignment or appropriate to the age-level of the student. RSS is becoming a valuable tool for collecting and viewing digitally archived knowledge. RSS feeds can provide teachers and students with the opportunity to evaluate and filter content on the Web. For example, RSS can help teachers manage and review student postings on a school blog. When combined with other Web 2.0 technologies, applications, and services, RSS feeds can help focus and refine the process of conducting research and generating content based on new information.

social bookmarking and Folksonomies According to Wikipedia, social bookmarking is a method for Internet users to store, organize, search, and manage bookmarks of Web pages on the Internet with the help of metadata (“Social Bookmarking,” 2008). Social bookmarking is particularly useful for collecting Internet resources (links to resources) that are to be shared with others. Social bookmarking allows users to save bookmarks (links to Web pages known as URLs or Website addresses) that may be accessed in the future to a public website where it is annotated with descriptive information, tagged with keywords or descriptors, and designated as public or private. Registered users of the website can browse or search the website and view the public bookmarks, tags, and classification schemes that other registered users have created. The tags used by social bookmarking services are folksonomic. Folksonomic tagging is the practice of collaboratively creating and managing classifications or categorizations of content or data by the creators and consumers of the content as opposed to the traditional indexing schemes that are created by subject-matter experts. Thus, a folksonomy is a user generated taxonomy—a taxonomy created by the “folks” who use it.

380

Folksonomic tagging is intended to make information easy to search and navigate because it uses a shared vocabulary that is originated by its primary users. Folksonomies arise where usergenerated content such as pictures or videos is shared or where existing content such as websites, books, scholarly works, and blog entries are collaboratively tagged. A shift from the use of formal taxonomies or indexes to folksonomic taxonomies has important implications for teaching and learning because it changes the way information is stored and retrieved. In other words, it may become less important for students to know where information is found and more important to know how to retrieve it using a framework created by their peers. Social bookmarking was launched by the advent of Joshua Schacter’s del.icio.us (Alexander, 2006). Del.icio.us (http://del.icio.us/) is a service for storing, describing, and sharing bookmarked web pages online, which allows access to the bookmarks and additions to the bookmarks from any computer. Users register with del.icio.us and create their own del.icio.us account (my del.icio. us). Users can annotate each URL with a line of text describing the bookmarked URL and tag it with one or more keywords or descriptors to help organize and remember the bookmark. A user can be a group; thus, a group of students or a whole class can have a shared del.icio.us account to archive Internet-based research pertaining to a specific project or multiple projects. With del.icio.us bookmarks can be shared publicly (or not) so that peers and other people can view them for reference and collaboration. Additionally, a user can browse and search del.icio. us for interesting and useful bookmarks of other users, which is made easy with tags, and then add other’s bookmarks to one’s own collection. RSS feeds can be found on the bottom of almost every page within del.icio.us and the index can be used to subscribe to other people’s feeds.

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

Educators are finding numerous ways to use social bookmarking in the classroom. For example, the teacher can research existing sites to find appropriate and relevant articles, documents, or multimedia resources. The teacher can then direct students to conduct research for a project using the designated bookmarks. Another approach is for individual students, student teams, or even the whole class to use social bookmarking services for collaboration and sharing common information in regard to a specific project or multiple projects. Students select and archive their own resources on a given topic and then share those links with their peers. A group account can be established or students can join groups with similar interests. Some social bookmarking sites allow teachers to review and comment on resources the students have bookmarked. Other sites allow users to post notes directly to the account’s Web page and then teachers can verify if a student has linked to online resource and if they have understood what they have read or viewed based on the notes they have posted. Schools or classes can then place links in their home page to a social bookmarking service. A school may want to share social bookmarking accounts among the teachers in a certain department or even between different departments for interdisciplinary projects. Some social bookmarking sites provide citation services that will create a bibliography on a new Web page so bibliographic information can be cut and pasted into a document. Some other social bookmarking sites that can be used in schools and classrooms include Edtags (http://www.edtags.org), Diigo (http://www.diigo. com/), and Furl (http://www.furl.net/).

social Writing: blogs and Wikis A blog (short for Web log) is a tool that allows authors to quickly and easily publish (or post) content similar to that of a diary or journal on the Web. According to Wikipedia, blogs are usually maintained by an individual with regular entries

of text commentary or other material such as graphics or video that are displayed in reverse chronological order (“Blog,” 2008). While many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject, others function as more personal online diaries. Blog sites are organized like conventional websites. A blog page may include text, graphics, and navigation links much like a standard Web page. Blog sites, however, are more dynamic than standard websites because new content is posted to a blog on a daily (or more often) basis. Each new blog entry or posting starts a thread for subsequent comments (responses) made by persons reading the blog entry. Postings are often short and frequently updated and may contain text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, or media related to its topic. Postings appear in reverse chronological order and can include archived entries. Edublogs (http://www.edublogs.org/) is an example of a blog service that provides online hosting for educational blogging. Edublogs is a free service without any advertising, ample uploading space, and numerous features and currently hosts hundreds of thousands of blogs for teachers, and students and other educators. With Edublogs students and teachers can upload or copy and paste information into the blog page. The user can manage who gets access to the blogs through password and plugin safety measures. Edublogs can be used to connect multiple student and teacher blogs and the teacher can manage and edit blog posts and responses through an administrative panel. Edublogs permits the embedding of online video, multimedia presentations, and slideshows into blogs. Multiple blogs are easily created so it is easy to set up a dedicated blog for a specific project or event. Edublogs can even be used to create a multi-layered, multimedia-rich website that does not appear to resemble a blog. Wikis take social writing and interaction a step further by allowing collaborative editing of a document on the Web. According to Wikipedia

381

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

(“Wiki,” 2008) a wiki is a collection of Web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content. Wiki platforms can be used to create collaborative websites and power community websites. One of the best known wikis is Wikipedia, a collaborative, online encyclopedia. A wiki can be edited by its readers while a blog is written by one person and everyone else reads it and makes comments. Wikis permit groups to work collaboratively on the content of the site using nothing but a standard Web browser. The wiki platform tracks the history of a document as it is revised. When a revision to the content takes place, the revised version becomes the current version and an older version is archived. Blogs and wikis work well in classrooms because they are amazingly simple to implement and easy to use, requiring minimal technical knowledge. Blogs can be effortlessly created, edited, and updated at any time from any place from a computer with Internet access. Thus, teachers can extend the boundaries of classroom learning to where students live and play. Blogs can be a powerful tool for enabling learning because they provide authentic and convenient opportunities for students to read, write, and discuss collaboratively. Teachers can use blogs or wikis as a portal to create and cultivate the K-12 classroom as a community of learners. Blogs can be used not only to scaffold learning but to perform the management and coordination tasks of a learning community including the posting of handouts and assignments. Blogs can provide a space where teachers and students work together to accomplish learning goals. Peer review is a basic or embedded feature of a blog and teachers can provide online mentoring for student blogs. Blogs can facilitate substantive discussions about a topic or issue both within and outside of the classroom because they provide the opportunity and time for students to reflect on learning. Wikis can be used to allow students to collaborate on a group report, compile data, or

382

share the results of their research. Teachers in a particular grade-level or department might use a wiki to develop curriculum, class assignments, or lesson plans. Some other blog and wiki sites that can be used in schools and classrooms include Class Blogmeister (http://classblogmeister.com/), Bloglines (http://www.bloglines.com/), and Wikispaces for Educators (http://www.wikispaces.com/site/ for/teachers).

social networking and Media sharing Boyd and Ellison (2007) define a social network site as a Web-based information-sharing service that allows individuals to construct a profile within a restricted system, delineate users with whom they share a connection, and view and navigate a list of connections and those made by others within the system. The primary feature of social network sites, according to Boyd and Ellison, is not so much that users are permitted to meet strangers, but that users are enabled to publicly declare their social networks. Myspace (http:// www.myspace.com) is the most popular example of a social network. Safe social networks, or smart social networks as defined by Yarmosh (2006) place certain limitations on the connectivity among users. A safe or smart social network permits users to manage who contacts them, define who can comment on posts and pictures, and remove their profile from the search index. Yarmosh says that smart social networks bring intelligence into the network by permitting users to define and manage their online relationships, which makes smart social networks more appealing. Facebook (http://www.facebook. com) is widely used in higher education circles and permits users to control how they share their information and who can see it. The safe or smart social network is the better application for K-12 classroom integration of social networking.

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

The use of social networking in education focuses on allowing students to construct a learning landscape. Users can create new social networks in very little time, with no technical skill required. Once a name and a URL are selected, the user indicates whether the network is private (only invited people can view or join) or public; writes a tag-line and description of the network; assigns keywords; chooses from a selection of features (such as photos or videos, a blog, events, groups, or gadgets) and uses drag-and-drop tools to place those features on the page; chooses a visual theme (colors, fonts, sizes) and can customize these choices; and decides what information users will be asked to provide to join the network. If membership is restricted, the creator can invite individuals to join. RSS feeds let users subscribe to updates from specific parts of the social network. Today’s students spend countless hours on Facebook and MySpace. Using social networking in the classroom provides an opportunity for teachers to take advantage of an experience that is familiar and comfortable to students in order to engage them in learning experiences. Social networks are a model for how a community of learners functions because they establish a social and collaborative environment that meets the needs of its members and they establish standards for interaction among its members. By creating social networks around academic topics or projects, a teacher can facilitate a strong sense of community that facilitates personal interactions with the goal of creating collective knowledge. Social networks in the K-12 classroom can provide an opportunity for students to cultivate and sustain a network of peers similar to a network of professional contacts and relationships and to view those relationships in the broad context of learning. Elgg (http://www.elgg.org/) defines itself as a personal learning landscape—a social network platform with multiple capabilities including eportfolios, tagging, blogging, podcasting, and an RSS reader. Elgg combines capabilities for personal Web publishing with the capabilities of

social networking. Elgg differs from a regular blog or a social network by giving users control over who can access their content. Each profile item, blog post, or uploaded file can be assigned its own access restrictions from fully public to only readable by a particular group or individual. Elgg users can register a free account on Elgg. net, have their own installation of the application hosted on Elgg.net, or download Elgg and host it on their own Web server. However, a certain amount of technical knowledge is required to maintain an Elgg server. Elgg is designed to provide deep learning through conversational immersion over time. According to Campbell, Ammann, and Dieu (2005) learners are encouraged to write a weekly blog on topics that are relevant to their own interests. They can then tag their posts with keywords and search for other Elgg users who are writing about similar topics. Elgg users can be added to the contact lists, can join communities that are relevant to their interest, and can use the file repository to share audio messages, photos, or short videos. Teachers can take part in the activities as peer facilitators to help students make connections and to provide comments and feedback. Teachers can also monitor and participate in student activities. As the phenomenon of social media has expanded, websites that were focused only on media sharing began deploying social networking features and becoming social network sites themselves (Boyd and Ellison, 2007). Some examples of media sharing sites with social networking features include Flickr (photo sharing), Last.FM (music listening), and YouTube (video sharing). The photo-sharing site Flickr (http://www. flickr.com/) can be used in K-12 classrooms as a resource for images used in presentations, projects, and portfolios. Because many of the images uploaded to Flickr carry a Creative Commons license, they are suitable for educational use. The folksonomic tagging of images makes it much easier for students to find relevant content. Students can also use Flickr to publish their digital

383

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

photography to a wider audience. Flickr includes the capability to add hot-spots to an image so that portions of images can be annotated. VoiceThread (http://www.voicethread.com/) allows users to create an online media album that can hold multiple forms of media including images, text, and videos. Commentaries can be added to the media using a mixture of voice using a microphone or telephone, text, audio file, or video using a Webcam and shared or exported to an archival movie for offline use as a DVD or MP3 file. A VoiceThread allows group conversations to be collected and shared in one place, from anywhere in the world. VoiceThread has made its premium account available to K-12 educators for free. Some other social networking and media sharing sites that can be used in schools and classrooms include Classroom 2.0 (http://www.classroom20. com/), Ning (http://www.ning.com/), and Imbee (http://www.imbee.com/).

Multimedia broadcasting: podcasting, Webcasting, Webconferencing, and video blogging A podcast is an audio mini-program, in MP3 format, broadcast over the Internet. Podcasts can be downloaded and listened to on any MP3compatible digital music player such as Apple’s iPod. Users can either download a podcast once or subscribe to the RSS service for regular or periodic downloads. Podcasts can also be downloaded to a computer using podcasting applications such as iPodder. The producer creating the podcast, called a podcaster, can easily create podcasts with a microphone, a computer, videoediting software, a tool to generate RSS files, and ample server space to host large files. Podcasting is useful for the K-12 classroom because it easy and generally free for listeners (students) and minimal costs for producers (teachers).

384

Podcasting allows instruction to become portable. Podcasting is useful in the K-12 classroom because students are already familiar with the underlying technology. Instructional podcasting can promote the use of iPods and MP3 players not only for entertainment but also for educational experiences. For example, with podcasting teachers can create or record lesson content for students who miss class or provide access to subject-matter experts through interviews. Additionally, students can create their own podcasts as a record or log of classroom or project activities, a way to collect notes for a project or on a lesson, or a reflection on what they have learned. A webcast is a video/audio file that is distributed over the Internet using streaming media technology. A webcast can be either be live or recorded, and can be distributed live (synchronous) or recorded (asynchronous). Essentially, webcasting is the transmission of linear audio or video content over the Internet to many simultaneous listeners or viewers. With the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies webcasting provides a relatively simple and inexpensive option for synchronous and asynchronous mass communication anywhere in the world. For most online events that use webcasting, all that is needed is a computer with an Internet connection and speakers. While connecting to a webcast is a relatively simple process, transmitting live or recorded webcasts requires the capability to capture and produce video content—usually using a video camera, firewire, and videoediting software. The final cut of the video production must then be encoded to convert it to a streaming format using encoding software such as Windows Media Encoder for a Windows-based computer broadcasting a Windows Media stream or QuickTime Broadcaster for a Macintosh computer broadcasting a QuickTime stream. Webconferencing is similar to webcasting but with functionality such as electronic whiteboards and chat. Webconferencing offers a way to engage students in fully interactive, online learning ex-

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

periences; however webconferences can also be used for tutoring and online office hours. Webconferencing applications use common browser plug-ins and connect through a local or remote hosting service. At the scheduled time, participants log on to a website to join class sessions, participate in online office hours, or take part in other scheduled events. The webconference window usually includes a pane that lists current participants, a chat pane for written interaction, an audio/video pane, and a content window. The audio/video pane can show only the instructor or presenter or it can include other users if they have webcams. Many applications use voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) for the audio segment, eliminating the need for a separate phone connection. The content pane shows applications from the presenter’s desktop, which can include text or multimedia resources. Presenters can be seen and heard in real time by session participants, who can communicate with one another and the instructor through the chat pane, the audio and video, or tools such as a shared whiteboard. The instructor can respond to questions from participants, demonstrate applications, and share access to them in the content pane, as well as manage the layout of the environment. Sessions can be recorded and archived for later access and can be converted for playback on portable devices. Webconferences can be used in K-12 classrooms in a number of ways. Webconference technology allows distant groups of students to interact over the Web, work on shared topics, and build a learning community. Webconferences offer an easy way to bring subject-matter experts into a classroom. Webconferences provide an alternative to asynchronous online instruction because many students are more engaged when they can see and hear instructors, seek clarification, and communicate in real time. A videoblog, or vlog, is a blog using video rather than text or audio as its primary media source. Cell phone cameras and digital cameras

that record short video sequences or inexpensive video cameras usually provide the raw footage of a videoblog. Videoblogs are usually accompanied by text or still images, and some vlogs include folksonomic tagging. Digital videoediting software is often used to produce high quality video segments that include background music and special effects. A videoblog is updated regularly like a text blog. Like a text blog, a videoblog offers a simple mechanism for subscription and delivery through RSS feeds. Videoblogging can offer a richer and more intense Web experience than text blogging because it combines movies, audio, images, still photos, and text. Because it is becoming easier to record and edit video segments and quickly post them to a website, videoblogs can be a useful tool for recording classroom demonstrations, lectures, and lab experiments. Videoblogs can also be used for personal expression and reflection and are useful for eportfolios, presentations, and digital storytelling. Some multimedia broadcasting applications or services that can be used in schools and classrooms include Podomatic (http://www.podomatic. com/), Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge. net/), the podcasting section of iTunes has a category dedicated to education, Microsoft Office Live Meeting (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ livemeeting/), Wimba Classroom (http://www. wimba.com/products/wimbaclassroom/), and Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/);

conclusIon Web 2.0 has significantly lowered the barriers to access and effective use of technology to supplement and enhance instruction and to impact teaching and learning in the K-12 classroom. It is relatively simple to embed a del.icio.us tag, a classroom blog, or a Web conference with a subject-matter expert into a PBL activity. While the future of Web 2.0 is emergent, the path from

385

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

the previous generation of Internet technologies to Web 2.0 demonstrates that subsequent generations of Internet technologies may become a normal, if not requisite, part of mainstream pedagogy. Many of the features of Web 2.0 have great potential for instructional use that makes it more than just another medium for the delivery of instruction. When Web 2.0 applications and services are embedded into a PBL approach to learning, teachers can implement powerful learning experiences that facilitate independent and collaborative student-centered learning experiences. Web 2.0 allows teachers to engage students in learning experiences with authentic and relevant learning contexts. Web 2.0 provides scaffolds that accommodate collaborative PBL. With Web 2.0, teachers have tools to create high-impact learning experiences where students work in-depth with content to express their knowledge and understanding of the content. Thus, Web 2.0 can play a critical role in the K-12 classroom by establishing PBL environments and experiences that educate students for the 21st century.

reFerences Alexander, B. (2006, March/April). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review 41(2), 32-44. Baird, D., & Fisher, M. (2005-2006). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support ‘Always On’ learning styles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5-32. Blog. (2008, July 22). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Blog/ Boyd, D.M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved July 25, 2008

386

from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd. ellison.html Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R., (Editors), (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Brown, A . & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowledge, learning and instruction (pp. 307-336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Campbell, A., Ammann, R., & Dieu, B. (2005, September). Elgg—A personal learning landscape. Teaching English as a Second Language eJournal 9(2). Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Doran, C.L. (2001). The effective use of learning groups in online education. New Horizons in Adult Education, 15(2). Downes, S. (2005, October 17). E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine. Retrieved from, http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article =29-1 Feltovitch, P. J., Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., & Feltovich, J. (1996). Collaboration within and among minds: Mastering complexity, individually and in groups. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 25-44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from, http://chiron.valdosta. edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/infoproc.html International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards for students 2007. Retrieved June 30, 2008 from http://cnets.iste.org/

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning, (4th Ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Mills, S. C. (2006). Using the Internet for Active Teaching and Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Rainie, L. (2006, September 28). Digital ‘Natives’ Invade the Workplace. Retrieved from http:// pewresearch.org/pubs/70/digital-natives-invadethe-workplace Schrage, M. (1990). Shared Minds. New York: Random House. Slavin, R. (1987). Cooperative learning: Can students help students learn? Instructor, March, 74-78. Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional Design, (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2008, July 24). Social Bookmarking. . Retrieved from http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_bookmark Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2008, July 23). Wiki. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki Warlick, D. (2006, October 15), A Day in the Life of Web 2.0. Tech & Learning. Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle. php?articleID=193200296 Yarmosh, K. (2006, July 26). Smart Social Networks. ReadWriteWeb. Retrieved from http:// www.readwriteweb.com/archives/smart_social_ne.php

Key terMs And deFInItIons Blog: Short for Web log, a blog is a Web 2.0 technology that allows authors to quickly and easily publish (or post) content similar to that of a diary or journal on the Web. Blogs consist of regular or periodic entries of text commentary or other material such as graphics or video that are displayed in reverse chronological order. Some blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject while others function as more personal online diaries. Blog entries are often short and frequently updated. Blogs are organized much like conventional Web pages and may include text, graphics, and navigation links. Each new blog entry starts a thread for subsequent comments made by persons reading the blog entry. Collaborative Learning: A variety of instructional approaches that involve shared intellectual efforts by peers and/or experts. Collaborative learning generates dialog and interaction among peers or communities of peers and experts for the purpose of constructing collective knowledge or shared understanding about a concept, case, or problem. Peers work in groups of two or more to search for a mutual understanding, solution, or meaning and to create a product based on their shared learning experience. Folksonomic Tagging: The practice of collaboratively creating and managing classifications or categorizations of content or data by the creators and consumers of the content instead of using traditional indexing schemes that are created by subject-matter experts. Thus, a folksonomy is a user generated taxonomy. Folksonomies arise when existing content such as websites, books, scholarly works, blog entries, pictures or videos are collaboratively tagged. Folksonomic tagging is intended to make information easy to search and navigate because it uses a shared vocabulary that is originated by its primary users.

387

Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning With Web 2.0

Podcast: An audio mini-program in MP3 format that is broadcast over the Internet. Podcasts can be downloaded and listened to on any MP3compatible digital music player such as Apple’s iPod. Users can either download a podcast once or subscribe to an RSS service for regular or periodic downloads. Podcasts can also be downloaded to a computer using podcasting applications. Problem-Based Learning: Also known as project-based learning, PBL is an instructional methodology that helps students construct an individual understanding of a problem and then develop and present a solution. With PBL the teacher guides students through a problem-solving process. Students first reason through the problem and apply knowledge they already have to the problem and then students research and acquire information about the problem and reach possible solutions. PBL generally situates learning in realworld problems and allows students to develop solutions through collaborative processes. RSS Feeds: Also known as news feeds or Web feeds, RSS feeds are the actual content items that are published on Web pages and generated by RSS. RSS stands for Rich Site Summary or Really Simple Syndication and is a Web 2.0 technology used for the syndication of content from Web pages. RSS allows users to subscribe and receive the RSS feeds and view the content without visiting the original website. With RSS, content from Web pages comes to the user rather than user going to get the content. Social Bookmarking: A Web 2.0 service for storing, describing, and sharing bookmarked Web pages online, which allows access to the bookmarks and additions to the bookmarks from any computer connected to the Internet. Users register with the social bookmarking service and create their own account comprised of annotated and tagged navigation links (URLs). The social bookmarking service usually permits the bookmarks

388

to be annotated with a line of text describing the link and then tagged with one or more keywords or descriptors to help organize and remember the bookmark. A widely used social bookmarking site is Del.icio.us (http://del.icio.us/) Social Networking: A Web-based information-sharing service that allows individuals to construct a profile within a restricted system, delineate the users with whom they want to share a connection, and view and navigate a list of connections and those made by others within the system. The primary feature of social network sites is that users are enabled to publicly declare their social networks. Myspace (http://www. myspace.com) is the most popular example of a social network. Web 2.0: A term used to identify Web technologies that harness collective intelligence, provide interfaces and services across multiple devices, and enhance collaboration. Examples of Web 2.0 applications, services, and technologies are blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking, social networking, Web feeds, and wikis. Although the designation, Web 2.0, suggests a new version or generation of the World Wide Web, in reality it refers to a re-visioning of the Web. Wiki: A website that permits collaborative editing of a document on the Web. A wiki is a collection of Web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content. When a revision to the content takes place, the revised version becomes the current version and an older version is archived. A wiki is different from a blog because the content of the Web page can be edited by its readers while blog content is written and posted by one person and then everyone else reads it and makes comments. One of the best known wikis is Wikipedia, a collaborative, online encyclopedia.

389

Chapter XXV

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education Jo Tondeur Ghent University, Belgium Arno Coenders Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Johan van Braak Ghent University, Belgium Alfons ten Brummelhuis Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Ruben Vanderlinde Ghent University, Belgium

AbstrAct This chapter explores the possibilities of online tools to support ICT (Information and Communication Technology) integration in primary education. Before describing three valuable tools, a framework will be discussed which gives schools insight into the most important preconditions for successful use of ICT in relation to the selection of a specific tool. Consequently, three specific tools are described: (1) the “Four in Balance” tool measures a school’s current use of ICT, (2) the “ICT-Assessment tool” focuses on teachers’ knowledge and skills and corresponds with the school’s vision on ‘good’ education, and (3) “pICTos”, an online tool that supports the process of ICT planning in schools. These examples illustrate how the tools operate and their many possibilities.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

IntroductIon Effectively integrating ICT into learning systems and schools is a much more complicated phenomenon than providing computers and securing a connection to the Internet. Computers are only an instrument and no technology can fix an undeveloped educational philosophy or compensate for inadequate practices (Ertmer, 2005). Therefore, choices have to be made in terms of educational objectives (Sugar, Crawley, & Fine, 2004). In this respect, ICT integration is a dynamic process involving interacting factors over time (Brummelhuis, 1995). Moreover, no single solution exists to address the immense challenges of ICT integration because different perspectives of integrating ICT can be chosen (Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001). In this respect, many teachers, school principals, educational authorities and researchers are considering a range of questions about how to use ICT with young children, such as: What educational goals and learning objectives will be accomplished by using ICT in schools? Is there a need for a specific course in computer literacy? How can ICT be implemented effectively in existing subjects? Many of the questions related to ICT integration are still unanswered, and attempts to address them have generated widespread debates. Clearly, no “off-the-shelf” configuration meets the diversity of needs and conditions for integrating ICT in education. This chapter starts from the idea that online tools can be applied to support the process of ICT-integration. It focuses specifically on the use of electronic tools as supporting tools for ICTintegration. There is still little research literature on the subject of the application of such tools in education. A study of De Groot and Van den Elzen (2003) confirms that the characteristics of ICT can play a particular role in improving the application of ICT in education. ICT is able to accelerate the total innovation process while at the same time contributing extra content matter. In regards to the role of ICT in the innovation

390

process, Davenport (1993) makes a distinction between a content supporting role (for instance, generating new information), a procedure supporting role (for instance, raising, unlocking and reporting of information) and a group supporting role (for instance, providing communication). The three tools described in this chapter illustrate the three roles of ICT-related support within the specific processes underlying ICT integration in education. The tools are examples of online measuring instruments to support schools in the educational use of ICT. They can be framed in a model that reflects a school-improvement perspective. In brief, school improvement is a practice- and policy-oriented approach to strengthen schools’ capacities for managing change (Creemers, 2002). Reynolds, Teddlie, Hopkins and Stringfield (2000) argue that a school-improvement approach to educational change embodies the long-term goal of establishing a self-renewing school. They stress the central role of the school level in mediating change and focus on the problems and internal conditions of the schools (Brummelhuis, 1995; Wikeley, Stoll, & Lodge, 2002). ICT integration can be seen as a specific case in the wider field of school improvement and educational change (Tearle, 2004; Watson, 2006). A clear example is the development of a shared vision concerning how ICT is to be used for teaching and learning (Hughes & Zachariah, 2001; Otto & Albion, 2002). In this view, the use of ICT in schools is not an individual event but is, when used effectively, launched by the whole team. The tools described in this chapter can be used individually by a teacher but will be less effective than the use of the team version. The first and second tool – the Four in Balance tool (to measure the ICT situation of a school) and the ICT-Assessment tool (that focuses on teachers’ knowledge and skills) – are used relatively often in the Netherlands. They have been developed by Kennisnet, a public foundation that cooperates at both national and regional levels with schools,

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

educational organisations and governments The main task/purpose of Kennisnet is to provide tailor-made ICT support within a broad spectrum of educational target groups in primary, secondary and adult education. Kennisnet is demand-driven and continuously monitors specific needs in ICT and education. The mission statement of Kennisnet is ‘Learning to innovate with ICT and innovate learning with ICT’. In this respect, Kennisnet has developed a number of educational tools schools can use to map out their ICT situation in different areas. Countries like the Netherlands offer a broad and varied range of ICT tools. In order to fill the gap in Flanders, the Dutch speaking region in Belgium, pICTos (an online tool to support ICT planning in schools) has been developed recently as a joint project between the government (Flemish Department of Education), an ICT in-service teacher training centre (Regionaal Expertisenetwerk), a research institute (Department of Educational Studies of Ghent University) and a commercial IT company (Edu-Vision). This is the third tool discussed in this chapter. Before describing these tools, we will explain the overall framework in which the tools can be organised. The three tools presented in this chapter can be organised according to the “Four in Balance” model. This scientifically research based model gives schools insight into the most important preconditions for successful use of ICT. First, the principles of the Four in Balance model are explained, followed by a presentation of the

three online tools and how they can be linked to the same model.

A FrAMeWorK For tools The Four in Balance model reflects a scientifically researched vision for the implementation of ICT from a school-improvement point of view. This model gives schools insight into the most important preconditions for successful use of ICT in relation to the selection of a specific tool presented in this chapter. The underlying theoretical model has been developed and tested on international comparative data from several countries, such as France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the US (Pelgrum & Plomp, 1993; Tuijnman & Brummelhuis, 1992; Brummelhuis, 1995). In 2001, the results of these studies were summarized and presented for schools by Kennisnet in a comprehensive model entitled “Four in Balance”. The central idea behind “Four in Balance” is that the use of ICT for educational purposes is a matter of a well-balanced deployment of four elements: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Vision Knowledge, attitudes and skills (professionalisation) Educational software and content ICT infrastructure

Figure 1. Elements of the “Four in Balance model”

391

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

The challenge facing the field of education is to adapt these elements to the learning process for pupils. A teacher cannot manage this task alone. It demands leadership and the support and cooperation of other professionals. The four elements, together with leadership and cooperation, influence the use of ICT for learning (see figure 1).

1. vision The use of ICT influences the way learning processes are structured and organised. To ensure that ICT plays the supportive role in learning processes that schools intend, a shared vision of educational goals and structure is required. Such a vision consists of views about the roles played by teachers and pupils and the choice of methods and materials. Analysis of the available research reveals that successful ICT implementation depends upon goals shared by different actors and at different organisational levels (e.g., Hughes & Zachariah, 2001; Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak & Valcke, 2008). Having a shared vision regarding ICT integration has been identified as an important strategy (Hew & Brush, 2007).

available know-how. It is also necessary for educational practice and theory to work together to develop new knowledge (based on experience) (Foundation Ict op School, 2006).

3. educational software and content A computer does not embody one single pedagogical orientation; it offers a spectrum of approaches to teaching and learning. According to Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001), teachers select applications of computers in line with their selection of other variables and processes (e.g., instructional strategies) that fit into their existing educational beliefs. Clearly, ICT can change the way education is designed and organised. For example, ICT applications that support ‘communities of learning’ are designed as more than just drill and practice programs. Transparency in the learning processes supported by ICT applications makes it possible for schools to acquire the programs that are in tune with their educational vision. Educational software can either be a substitute for an existing way of working or support the entire learning process of the pupils.

4. Ict Infrastructure 2. Knowledge, Attitudes and skills Professional development in the field of ICT means more than organising training sessions for teachers to develop their technical skills. It is also about developing beliefs of teaching and learning and deliberately using ICT in the learning process. Several studies confirm that teachers who use computers do so because their conceptions of using ICT fit into their existing teaching beliefs or belief system (e.g., Ertmer, 2005; Tondeur, Hermans, Valcke, & van Braak, 2008). In this way, ICT is much more than computerising existing educational practices. Increasingly, there is a question of whether existing educational problems can in fact be solved through innovative uses of ICT. That involves more than simply sharing

392

Without adequate recourses, there is little opportunity for teachers to integrate computers into their teaching (Bradley & Russell, 1997; Hew & Brush, 2007). Access is more than simply the availability of computers; it also includes the proper amount and the right type of technology available on the sites where teachers and students can use them (Fabry & Higgs, 1997). To achieve optimum educational results, each school should base infrastructure decisions on a clear assessment of technical factors and educational needs and objectives. Schools require information and support in the investment and operation of ICT infrastructure. After obtaining equipment or software, many schools have problems using and maintaining ICT facilities (and financing

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

the associated costs). Technical and management problems often prevent the school from making the best possible use of its ICT facilities (Foundation Ict op School, 2006).

5. leadership Leadership is a necessary preconditions to shape ICT policy in schools. Leadership comes first and foremost in the process of vision development (Goodson, 2003; Hargreaves, 2003). The development of a vision on the use of ICT in educational practice means setting a direction for school development by identifying goals that are perceived as valuable by everyone involved in the ICT integration process. Once a picture of the educational goals is established and the role of ICT in that picture is clarified and broadly supported by team members, good management is essential in bringing in the remaining elements of Four in Balance. In short, a balanced coherence between these elements requires clear leadership to make ICT in education effective and efficient. A great deal is known about the characteristics of good leadership. The most important aspects are (Foundation Ict op School, 2006): • • • • •

Developing a vision and inspiring others; Establishing shared goals and objectives; Setting high expectations in quality of education; Encouraging the professional development of teachers; Developing a structure that encourages participation and involvement.

6. cooperation and support With respect to integrating ICT in education, cooperation and support are of vital importance (Galanouli, Murphy & Gardner, 2004; Lai & Pratt, 2004). Teachers should be aware of the agreements with respect to ICT at school level and coordinate

their activities accordingly. Teacher cooperation in this increases efficiency. By sharing knowledge and materials, a common goal can be reached. Cooperation can occur at the school level but also at the region level. Schools then cooperate with each other and teachers and schools pass on ideas and inspire each other. In turn, this contributes to the promotion of professionalism and a professional organisation.

7. pedagogical use of Ict for learning All of the aforementioned building blocks from Figure 1 are unavoidable for good pedagogical use of ICT in the classroom. The principles of the Four in Balance model can be compared with the principles underlying the Tetris computer game. In this game, the idea is to place geometric figures next to and on top of one another, with points being awarded when zones are completed. The points awarded match the level of the lowest zone. The game is played most efficiently and effectively by keeping the discrepancy between the maximum and minimum levels in the different zones as small as possible. When applying this comparison to the areas important for ICT integration, a balance between vision, knowledge, software and infrastructure is necessary (Foundation Kennisnet Ict op School, 2006). The weakest link in the whole ultimately determines your total return. Schools are supported by Kennisnet in using the tools based on the Four in Balance model. In school year 2007-2008 more than 10.000 teachers used one or more of these tools. Results provide insight in the current status on elements of the Four in Balance model and help school teams to define shared goals. Many schools use the Four in Balance model as a heuristic framework in their ICT policy plan to structure and organize goals and support activities for further integration of ICT.

393

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

three tools under the Magnifying glass The selection of the specific tools presented in this paragraph is based on the idea that ICT itself can be applied to support the process of ICT integration in learning and instruction. By using the tools, schools gain insight into their situation in a specific ICT domain related to the model mentioned earlier (Figure 1).

Four in Balance Tool The Four in Balance tool can be considered the “mothertool” of Kennisnet. When schools have no idea what their ICT situation is, this is the starting point. The tool consists of 21 questions about the use of ICT in education and the four building blocks of the Four in Balance model (e.g. vision, software, knowledge and skills and infrastructure). This tool can be considered as a baseline measurement.

Figure 2 is a screen shot of the results of a Four in Balance test. Teachers can position their current ICT use and relate it to the four building blocks of the model. The tool identifies four stages: exploring, beginning, advanced and very advanced. Teachers can consult not only their individual score, but also the average score of the school team. Based on the individual and the team results, subsequent steps have to be taken with respect to ICT professionalization. In the case of the example presented in Figure 2, vision and software are already in an advanced stage, so this is not a school priority. By contrast, investment in vision and knowledge and skills is needed in this school’s ICT development to bring the school’s ICT-picture “in balance”. This is possible, for instance, by constructing a common ICT plan with respect to vision and by coming to agreements at the team level. In the area of knowledge and skills, extra training could, for instance, be followed, or other schools in the region could be studied for good examples of ICT use. The green

Figure 2. Example result of Four in Balance (team version)

394

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

bars next to each building block in Figure 2 point to the national average of the Netherlands with the standard deviation. In this way, it is possible for schools to compare their own stages in different ICT areas with the average situation of the country1. Results achieved using the Four in Balance test are valuable information for schools, but schools have to follow up on them. Kennisnet has developed guidelines to help schools continue after seeing the results of the test. The first step is to discuss the results in a school team meeting. A protocol was drawn up to support this purpose. It is also important to ascertain whether the suggested description is recognised and acknowledged by the team members. If that’s the case, the special attention areas can be delineated and addressed by means of specific tools. The Four in Balance test is just a generic tool to determine the school situation. It’s only after this step that action can be taken. One of the specific replacement tools developed by Kennisnet is the ICT-Assessment tool.

ICT-Assessment Tool The ICT-Assessment tool focuses on teachers’ knowledge and skills and corresponds with the school’s vision on “good” education (see Fig. 1). The tool consists of three steps. In the first, four different classroom situations are presented, and teachers indicate if and how they recognize themselves in these situations and how relevant the example is for their future educational practice.

This step gives teachers an overview of their current ICT level and future ambitions. These four situations are based on the themes of pedagogical approach, class preparation, organizational and general education. These themes are threads running throughout the tool. Figure 3 shows how the themes are organized. In the second step of the ICT-Assessment tool, teacher’s education beliefs are questioned by means of 11 statements. Educational beliefs are important because they allow for tailor-made advice later on. The type of ICT use strongly depends on the ways in which teachers (want to) organise their work (Coenders, 2002), and this is taken into account when giving advice. The third step of the tool deals with the four aforementioned themes at competency level. Ten ICT-competencies are defined per theme, and teachers indicate both their level of competency and how relevant they consider that competency for future use. The tool, then, works with the perception of the teacher rather than some outside competency assessment. It acts on the assumption that teachers are professionals who are capable of indicating the degree to which they have mastered certain competencies. As a result, teachers receive an overview of their ICT strengths and weaknesses. Priorities are then made based on competence level and education beliefs. Furthermore, team members can compare their score to their colleagues and the team average score. This provides a school profile, with an overview of ICT competency needs. One of the central theories behind the

Figure 3. Domains of the ICT-Assessment tool

395

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

ICT-Assessment tool is that the advancement of professionalism needs to be demand-oriented. ICT trainings for teachers in the past have been too heavily based on the decisions and abilities of a training agency. As a consequence, teachers didn’t necessarily need the acquired knowledge and skills provided by these trainings and, therefore, they did not apply them. The ICT-Assessment tool, then, provides insight into where the needs of the teachers lie. All competences of the tool contain instructions that enable schools to ascertain their needs for themselves. The team version of the tool also shows which teachers score well for certain competencies and which score less well. This way, teachers can both offer and seek support from their own colleagues2.

pICTos: an Online Tool to Support ICT Planning in Schools Given the increasing literature on ICT planning (e.g., Dexter, Anderson & Becker, 1999; Kozma, 2003) and that Flemish schools are being encouraged to develop an ICT plan, a tool has been developed to support schools in this process. This tool is called pICTos (Planning for ICT in School) and has been developed by order of the Flemish government. As an important step in the consolidation of the integration of technology in education, the Flemish government has recently (September 2007) established a formal and compulsory ICT curriculum for schools. This curriculum is an important action in the Flemish policy of educational ICT support (Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2007; Vanderlinde, van Braak, & Hermans, 2007). The ICT curriculum is formulated in terms of crosscurricular attainment targets and does not focus on the achievement of technical skills. Rather, it emphasizes the integrated use of technology within the learning and teaching process. The attainment targets are formulated as competencies and should foster the ability of pupils to use technology in a functional way so their learning process is backed and reinforced3.

396

The main idea behind pICTos is to assist schools as they implement the new ICT curriculum into practice and to offer a platform for ICT plan development. After registration, schools can consult pICTos online (http://pictos.ictonderwijs.be), and it can be used as the basis for a staff development programme to help schools in the establishment of their own context-specific ICT plan. By using this tool, schools gain insight into their situation in their vision on education on how it is related to the use of ICT. This reflects the first principle of the Four in Balance model (Fig. 1). Alongside the description of the school context, pICTos also offers a central component that is meant for the whole school team. The school team is expected to go through five steps, which are referred to as the “cyclic process of ICT plan development”. Some of these steps will be followed by each teacher individually, while others will be worked on together with other teachers or by the entire school team. Each phase ends in with a feedback section in which all team members are expected to participate. The five consecutive steps are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Gaining insight into teachers’ vision of education Making an inventory of the actual use of ICT Setting priorities (based on the Flemish attainment targets) Considering new activities Drawing up an action plan

Figure 1 is a screen shot of the start page of the online tool and illustrates the five steps schools should take while developing their ICT plan.

1. Formulating a shared vision on education as the Foundation of an Ict plan The jumping-off point of technology plan development in pICTos is the formulation of a shared

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

Figure 4. Screen shot of the start page of pICTos: Steps in the cyclic process of technology plan development

(1) Vision of education (5) Action plan

(2) Actual use of technology

(4) New activities

(3) Priorities

Figure 4. Screen shot of the start page of PICTOS: steps in the cyclic process of technology plan development

vision on the nature of ‘good’ education because graph representing the combination of two types this is a seen as a crucial condition for success of educational beliefs at the school level. Gaining (see aforementioned). In the first step of the cycle, insight into teachers’ vision on education serves as teachers(1) have to complete an online survey to map as thea basis for debating andplan delineating a shared vision Formulating a shared vision on education foundation of an ICT their beliefs about good education. This survey is on education in general - and on the supportive The jumping-off point of technology plan development in PICTOS is the formulation of a based onshared a validated van role of technology particular. visionquestionnaire on the nature (Hermans, of ‘good’ education because this is a seeninaseducation a crucial in condition Braak, & van Keer, 2008), and a general distincIn the graph that represents teachers’ for success (see above). In the first step of the cycle, teachers have to complete an onlinepersonal surveybetween to map transmissive their beliefs about good education. This is based on5), a each validated tion is made (or teachervision on survey education (Figure teacher requestionnaire (Hermans,(orvan Braak, & van Keer,ceives 2008),a score and afor general distinction is made centered) and developmental pupil-centered) transmissive as well as developtransmissive (or teacher-centered) developmental (or pupil-centered) beliefs. beliefs. between After filling in the survey, participating and mental orientation. The horizontal axis (transmisAfter filling in the survey, participating teachers’ beliefs on education are plotted in a graph teachers’ beliefs on education are plotted in a sive belief) and the vertical axis (developmental representing the combination of two types of educational beliefs at the school level. Gaining insight into teachers’ vision on education serves as a basis for debating and delineating a shared vision on education in general - and on the supportive role of technology in education Figure 5. in Educational particular. beliefs at school level In the graph that represents teachers’ personal vision on education (Figure 5), each teacher receives a score for transmissive as well as developmental orientation. The horizontal axis (transmissive belief) and the vertical axis (developmental belief) were based on the average scale score of more than one thousand teachers who filled out the same questionaire in previous research (see Hermans, van Braak, & Van Keer, 2008; Tondeur, Hermans, Valcke, & van Braak, 2008).

397

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

belief) were based on the average scale score of more than one thousand teachers who filled out the same questionaire in previous research (see Hermans, van Braak, & Van Keer, 2008; Tondeur, Hermans, Valcke, & van Braak, 2008). It’s important to stress that no value judgement is connected to the belief made explicit by a teacher. Teachers differ in their educational beliefs, but that in itself doesn’t say anything about the quality of the teaching. Once all teachers have made their educational belief explicit, they obtain both a personal score (teacher profile) and a group score (school profile). Although no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ vision of education is defined, teachers can differ strongly with respect to educational beliefs. In this way, pICTos offers tools for a team discussion. Through these conversations, teachers can examine how equalities and differences translate to the reality of learning and teaching and, more specifically, to a school-specific ICT action plan. In this phase, the role of the trainer is crucial. The trainer guides the discussions and records the main conclusions in pICTos.

Once all teachers have entered their data, pICTos produces a number of graphs and charts of the ICT activities. The school profile, for instance, is an overview of the number of activities performed per final attainment level in the different grades. The idea is that this profile is evaluated in team so that teachers can see if the activities that are part of the current ICT final attainment levels are still underperformed in current classroom practice.

3. setting priorities ICT planning requires taking into account the gradual, well-considered integration of new activities. Therefore, based on conclusions from the previous phase, teachers are encouraged to indicate one or more attainment targets needing more attention in future class practice. Next, a schematic outline is prepared of the final attainment levels prioritised by the various participants. This outline is presented for discussion to the entire team. Based on discussions, a common decision can be made on which final attainment levels deserve priority attention. This forms the starting point of the ensuing phase.

2. Inventory of current Activities 4. registering new Activities In this phase, each teacher registers individually which ICT activities are currently practiced in their classrooms. For example: “the pupils work in groups of two for Web research on climate change” or “the pupils take digital pictures of animals during a visit to a farm and create a digital presentation in groups of three”. Here the teacher is encouraged to link current ICT activities with the ICT curriculum. Teachers who have little experience with the ICT curriculum can search for more background information on the curriculum in pICTos. So the main goal of this phase is to inventory existing activities and link them to the ICT curriculum. This also offers teachers an excellent opportunity to acquire more insight into the ICT curriculum.

398

In this phase, teachers register new ICT activities. The prioritised attainment targets serve as a starting point, but teachers can also add other ICT activities. In this phase, teachers are encouraged to work per grade. Each teacher can add activities for his or her own class as well as for classes in that same grade. This approach encourages teachers to work out new ICT activities together. Additionally, teachers can point out which conditions need to be fulfilled in order to integrate the new activity effortlessly into classroom practice – for instance, doing after school trainings, purchasing hard/software, etc.

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

5. drawing up an Action plan The fifth and last phase invites the school team to create an outline of policy actions using results from the previous phase. The ICT coordinator, in deliberation with team members, determines what actions are needed to optimise the current ICT actions and provides a deadline for each action. For instance: “The ICT coordinator and the headmaster evaluate the budget and determine the purchase of hardware and software (31/05/2008)” or “Purchase of a whiteboard for the sixth-grade (01/09/2008)”. pICTos creates a chronological chart for these actions. This way, the school team is ready with a plan to optimise ICT action according to a specific timeframe.

6. Administrative part pICTos also provides an administrative section for the school’s ICT coordinator. This person is responsible for the registration of data in regards to the school’s available hardware and software, internet connections, etc. The coordinator also defines the strategy of policy planning, including the establishment of an ICT steering group, division of tasks and collaboration with stakeholders. This data can be consulted by teachers while working on the five steps of the cyclic process.

discussion This chapter starts from the idea that online tools can be applied to support the process of ICTintegration. By using the tools, schools gain insight into their situation in a specific ICT domain. These are not “magic remedies” and have to be viewed as supporting tools on a course of ICT development. But to achieve real change and development, a subsequent course has to be activated. The tools help give direction, but the actual steps, such as belief development, competence advancement, improvement of infrastructure and acquiring software, only begin at that point.

In order to further develop our knowledge about the role of online tools supporting ICT integration, it is important to systematically monitor their effects. Because of our interest in understanding how ICT itself can be applied to support the process of ICT integration (De Groot & Van den Elzen, 2003), teachers and school principals were questioned about their experiences with the use of the tool(s) mentioned earlier (Kennisnet, 2007; Vanderlinde, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2008). The results confirm the importance of online tools with respect to the procedure supporting role and a group supporting role (see Davenport, 1993). Most of the participants mention the powerful impact of the tools to bring the school’s ICT picture “in balance”, based on the input of the individual teachers. This reinforces the fact that successful ICT integration becomes much more likely when teachers share the values expressed within a school and understand their implications (Kennewell, Parkinson & Tanner, 2000; Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak & Valcke, 2008). The results are not only helpful to develop a theoretical base but also to provide stepping stones for the improvement of the tools. A concrete example can be found with respect to pICTos, the last tool presented in this chapter. Comments of a number of principals with respect to the use of pICTos reflect the need to receive more content support (Vanderlinde, van Braak & Tondeur, 2008). Based on this remark, the instructional designers decided to develop a new module in the tool including examples of good practice. This suggested that online tools to support ICT integration cannot be seen as static but as instruments that need to be reviewed on a regular base.

conclusIon This chapter starts from the idea that ICT itself can be applied to support the process of ICTintegration in education. We especially focused on the description of three online tools to sup-

399

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

port ICT-integration. By using the tools, schools gain insight into their situation in a specific ICT domain. It holds up a mirror for schools and for teachers to accurately reflect their specific situations concerning the integration of ICT. Although further refinement and evaluation of the tools is needed to verify the relative impact of the tools, we hope that the principles underlying the examples are already helpful for those actively involved in the difficult task of managing the complex task of ICT-integration.

reFerences Brummelhuis, A. C. A., ten (1995). Models of educational change: The introduction of computers in Dutch secundary education (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Twente, The Netherlands). Twente, The Netherlands: Twente University Press. Coenders, A. (2002). Deskundigheidsbevordering omtrent ICT bij leraren in het primair onderwijs. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Foundation Ict op School. Creemers, B. P. M. (2002). From school effectiveness and school improvement to effective school improvement: Background, theoretical analysis, and outline of the empirical study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8, 343-362. Davenport, T.H. (1993). Process Innovation. Reegineering Work through Information Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers a catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 221-239. De Groot, S.A., & van den Elzen, G.J.F. (2003). De rol van ICT bij procesinnovatie. Case Argo Innovation Framework (AIF,) ( Rapport 7.03.07). Den haag, The Netherlands: LEI.

400

Ertmer P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Development Research and Development, 53, 25–39. Foundation Ict op School (2006). Dutch ICTTools. http://web.kennisnet2.nl/portal/onderzoek/ onderzoeken/monitoring/dutchicttools Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Computers & Education, 43, 63-79. Goodson, I. F. (2003). Professional knowledge, professional lives: studies in education and change. Philadelphia: Open university press. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: education in the age of insecurity. Philadelphia: Open university press. Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & van Keer. (2008). Development of the beliefs about primary education scale: Distinguishing a developmental and transmissive dimension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 129-139. Hew, K.F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55, 223-252. Hughes, M., & Zachariah, S. (2001). An investigation into the relationship between effective administrative leadership styles and the use of technology. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5, 1-10. Kennisnet (2007). Four in Balance Monitor 2007. ICT in Education in the Netherlands.Retrieved from http://web.kennisnet2.nl/portal/onderzoek/ onderzoeken/monitoring/fourinbalancemonitor Lai, K. W., & Pratt, K. (2004). Information and communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: The role of the computer coordinator.

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 461-475.

of computer use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2541-2553.

Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15-31.

Tuijnman, A.C., & Brummelhuis, A.C.A. ten (1992). Determinants of computer use in lower secondary schools in Japan and the United States. Computers in Education, 19, 291-300.

Otto, T. L., & Albion, P. R. (2002). Understanding the role of school leaders in realizing the potential of ICTs in education. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Nashville, TN.

Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Hermans, R. (2007). School conditions fostering the implementation of a new technology curriculum: Development of a theoretical framework. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications (AECT), USA, Anaheim, October, 23rd-27th.

Pelgrum, W.J. & Plomp, T. (1993). The IEA study of computers in Education: Implementation of an innovation in 21 education systems. Oxford, UK: Pergamon press. Reynolds, D. Teddlie, C., Hopkins, D., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research. London: Falmer Press. Sugar, W., Crawley, F., & Fine, B. (2004). Examining teachers’ decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology and Society, 7, 201-213. Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework for implementing change in ICT in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 331-351. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Curricula and the use of ICT in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 962-975. Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J. en Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51, 212-223. Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). Exploring the link between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types

Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2008 September 8-12). ICT Policy Planning in Primary Schools: Tool Development and CaseStudy Research. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ACER), Göteborg, Sweden. Watson, D. (2006). Understanding the relationship between ICT and education means exploring innovation and change. Education and Information Technologies, 11, 199-216. Wikeley, F., Stoll, L., & Lodge, C. (2002). Effective School Improvement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4, 363-385.

Key terMs And deFInItIons ICT: The term “Information Technology” came about in the 1970s to describe technology that gives the user direct access to a wide range of diverse information types. IT has being superseded by the term “Information and Communication Technology” to explicitly include the field of electronic communication. ICT Attainment Targets: The ICT attainment targets mentioned in this chapter are crosscurricular and do not focus on the achievement

401

Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education

of technical skills, but emphasize the integrated use of technology within the learning and teaching process. ICT Coordinator: This person is responsible for the hardware and software, internet connections, etc. The coordinator also supports ICT policy planning in schools, including the establishment of an ICT steering group, division of tasks and collaboration with stakeholders. ICT Integration: In the context of this chapter, “ICT integration” and “adoption of computer use” in education will be used as interchangeable concepts. ICT Policy Plan: In an ICT policy plan, a school describes its expectations, goals, content, and actions concerning the integration of ICT in education. Online Tools: This chapter focuses specifically on the use of electronic tools as supporting tools for ICT-integration. They are able to accelerate

402

the total innovation process while at the same time contributing extra content matter. Teaching Beliefs: Teachers’ educational beliefs are understandings, premises or propositions about education. There is a growing consensus that the adoption of educational innovations can only be explained when educational beliefs of teachers are taken into account.

endnotes 1

2

3

The Four in Balance test is available in English at http://downloads.kennisnet.nl/ onderzoek/fourinbalance.zip A simple version of the ICT-Assessment tool is also available in English: http://ictopschool.v12.nl/uk/main.html More information about the new ICT standards is available from http://www.ond. vlaanderen.be/ict/english

403

Chapter XXVI

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects Susan E. Gibson University of Alberta, Canada

AbstrAct This article identifies digital literacy as an important aspect of new media literacy at the K-12 level. Digital literacy includes developing the skills of information location and application as well understanding how to use available evidence to assist in problem solving and decision making about important questions and issues that have no clear answers. Two web-based examples of instructional strategies – WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects—are suggested as ways to develop these and other important 21st century learning skills.

WhAt Is dIgItAl lIterAcy? Over the last decade the term ‘ literacy’ has evolved to include an ever increasing, and diverse range of skills. “The new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs include the skills, strategies and dispositions necessary to successfully use and adapt to the rapidly changing information and communication technologies and contexts that continuously emerge in our world and influence all areas of our personal and professional lives” (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004, p. 1572). According to Jamie McKenzie (2005), “Literacy

is about wrestling understanding from chunks of information, whether these chunks be numerical, textual, visual, cultural, natural or artistic” (p. 7). One form of literacy, ‘digital’ literacy, can be defined as “a person’s ability to perform tasks effectively in a digital environment, with “digital” meaning information represented in numeric form and primarily for use by a computer... [and] includes the ability to read and interpret media (text, sound, images), to reproduce data and images through digital manipulation, and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments” (Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006, p. 9).

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

Developing the skills of information location and application is one aspect of digital literacy. These skills include the ability to find, evaluate, synthesize, and use information to answer questions and make informed decisions. Digitized information comes in many forms, and students need to acquire the ability to read, interpret, understand, and use all of these media formats. They need to understand that everything on the Web represents an individual’s point of view and that all sources need to be carefully and critically examined for authenticity and bias. They also need to recognize that no one source of information can adequately represent all there is to know about a particular topic; multiple sources on any topic should always be consulted and their information compared. Digital literacy also involves understanding how to use the available evidence to assist in problem solving and decision making about important questions and issues that have no clear answers. Furthermore students benefit from opportunities in which they are encourage to transform information in new ways to advance their own and other’s thinking, rather than simply consuming what others have produced. Finally, students need to develop a critical attitude toward computer technology in our society in terms of its present and future impact on humanity. The overall goal of digital literacy is to develop knowledgeable, skilled, and responsible users of computer technologies. The Partnership for 21st Century Learning [http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&I temid=120] calls for an emphasis in schooling on all of these literacy skills to ensure that students will be successful in the 21st century. The International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) Standards for Educational Technology (2007) also include creativity and innovation, communication and collaboration, research and information literacy, critical thinking, problem solving and decision making, digital citizenship, and technology operations and concepts.

404

Addressing all of these components of digital literacy is a major undertaking for schools and all teachers, grade levels and subject areas have important roles to play. This chapter begins by reviewing what we currently know about effective computer use to support and enhance teaching and learning. Constructivism is then examined as a promising theoretical framework for that use. The remainder of the chapter looks at WebQuests and their extension, Web Inquiry Projects, as approaches that have the potential to effectively address both constructivist learning principles and digital literacy, higher level thinking, problem solving and communication skills.

WhAt does the reseArch tell us About WhAt MAKes eFFectIve And MeAnIngFul technology IntegrAtIon? Before examining ways to address digital literacy skills in teaching with technology, it is important to review what we know about effective technology use. Computers are now more readily available in many schools worldwide and the Internet is often hailed as an innovation with unprecedented potential for the improvement of teaching and learning. Although some critics claim that the use of computer technologies has had minimal to no affect on learning outcomes (Cuban, 2001, Oppenheimer, 2003), there have been positive affects identified in the research literature. “Several recent research reviews and meta-analyses published in the United States and Britain suggest that, when measured across the board, educational technology yields “small, but significant” gains in learning and student engagement” (Viadero, 2007 p. 1). Learner motivation has been identified in numerous studies as being particularly evident with the use of computer technologies (Sterling, 2007). As for learning gains, Wan, Fang, and Neufeld (2007) found that,

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

“Technology can influence learning processes by facilitating cognitive information processing activities such as search, scanning, transformation or comparison of information” (p. 187). Higgins (2004) found advances in reasoning, understanding and creativity using computers. Viadero (2007) identified positive affects for writing with the use of word processors, and for generating deeper understanding and increasing knowledge through the use of simulations. Balanskat, Blamire and Kefala (2006) analyzed the evidence from 17 impact studies and found that using information and communication technologies had a positive impact on children’s’ learning of basic skills such as calculation, reading and writing, and on communication and process skills, while also allowing for greater differentiation to address individual needs and learning styles, and giving more responsibility for the learning to the student. The greatest benefits, according to Balanskat et al. (2006), were seen in primary education. Significant benefits have also been found in the areas of special needs (Hartley, 2007) and English as a Second Language (Lee, 2006). While the benefits from the use of computer technologies are evident, K-12 teachers continue to be at varied levels of awareness about the possibilities for employing these technologies in effective and efficient ways to enhance teaching and learning. “Effectively integrating new technology into educational practice is not just a matter of learning how to use technology. It is also a process of reflecting on how to teach and how students can learn most effectively in today’s world” (Wiske, Franz, & Breit, 2005, p. 3). Where the greatest challenge for teachers lies is in thinking differently about teaching and learning. According to David Thornburg, “The main thing that’s holding technology back is...a fear--a well-placed fear, I might add--that if technology becomes ubiquitous, it will totally transform the practice of education. There are a lot of people who don’t want the practice of education transformed because they’re very comfortable with it” (cited

in Brumfield, 2006, p. 1). Computer technologies can help teachers to develop new approaches to teaching and learning, but teachers need to be exposed to these new understandings and new capabilities. They also need to determine where technologies fit into their philosophy of teaching. As noted by Doolittle and Hicks (2003), “A philosophical and theoretical foundation provides answers to the questions of why and how specific pedagogy, including the application of technology, should be employed” (p. 76). The key to best use is not the fact that computers are being used, but how they are being used. Where success has been most apparent, has been in cases where teaching is transformed through the use of computer technologies and where learning is happening in ways that were impossible or difficult without the use of these technologies. “Education can be transformed using ICT which brings new capabilities and capacities to learning. For example, ICT has the potential for enabling teachers and students to construct rich, multi-sensory, interactive environments with almost unlimited teaching and learning potential” (Balanskat et al., 2006, p. 12) “Researchers are just now understanding how much greater the payoffs can be when digitallearning programs combine specific academic content with lessons from cognitive science and developmental psychology on how children learning in those subjects” (Viadero, 2007, p. 1). Computer use needs to go beyond low-level tasks such as students being able to demonstrate understanding of how to operate the various technologies with proficiency, to tasks that encourage more advanced learning by actively engaging students in learning, by releasing of agency from teachers to students, and through collaborative knowledge building around authentic or ill-defined problems. According to Dunn (2007) the best uses of computers gain learners’ attention, engage learners through productive work, increase learners’ perceptions of control, help learners visualize problems and solutions, link them to information resources and to learning tools, encourage shared

405

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

intelligences through collaborative and cooperative learning, and encourage higher level thinking. Using an inquiry approach to learning with computers can be an effective way of creating a learning environment that places less emphasis on acquiring and presenting information and more on constructing knowledge, making meaning, drawing on personal life experience, and taking responsibility for learning. The merging of technology and constructivism offers many possibilities for framing the design of such innovative learning environments.

hoW cAn constructIvIst leArnIng theory help teAchers to desIgn MeAnIngFul, coMputer-enhAnced leArnIng envIronMents? Ferdig (2006) identifies the importance of “tying innovation to learning theory to create authentic and engaging activities for students” (p. 750). Research on effective integration of computer technologies in schools points to uses that support constructivist learning principles (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003). Constructivism is a theory about how people learn in which learning is not just about acquiring more knowledge but rather “it’s the mental act of reformulating what we thought we knew into something new and different...Learning occurs through conceptual change” (Brooks, 2003, p. 13). This conceptual change occurs through an active and social process. The new learning always begins with and builds upon the learners’ previously stored knowledge; as the learners elaborate upon and interpret the new information, their initial ideas are reshaped, and misconceptions in prior knowledge can be addressed through the formation of alternate conceptions (Tarhan, Ayar-Kayali, Urek & Acar, 2007). They are routinely asked to apply knowledge in diverse and authentic

406

contexts, to explain ideas, interpret texts, predict phenomena, and construct arguments based on evidence (Windschitl, 2002). Learning occurs most effectively when it is situated in experiences that are authentic and meaningful to the learner and when they engage in task-oriented dialogue with one another. Constructivism as a framework for using computer technologies in the classroom has been advocated now for over a decade, but adoption has been slow. One of the reason is that it requires a significant shift in thinking about teaching and learning for many teachers from knowledge instruction to knowledge construction. Teachers who support this view recognize the importance of the active involvement of their students in learning and the need for a learning environment that encourages students’ independent exploration of ideas. Smith, Clark and Blomeyer (2005) see the greatest benefits in “constructivist approaches that use interaction within a situational context to encourage learners to think and reflect while constructing their own personal meaning” (p. 11). However, teachers need to remember that the technology does not teach students, but rather the students only learn when they construct their own knowledge and think and learn through their experience. The computer is simply a tool that can assist students in their knowledge construction. Technology use that is shaped by constructivist learning principles supports a more student centered, inquiry oriented approach to teaching. What is needed in classrooms are technology uses that help students to build knowledge and develop higher order thinking and problem solving skills by providing opportunities for them to think critically and analytically about information and represent their new understandings in multiple ways in an engaged setting (Marlow & Page, 2005). According to active learning principles, which emphasize constructivism, students must engage in researching, reasoning, critical thinking, decision making, analysis and synthesis during construction of their knowledge” (Tarhan, Ayar-

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

Kayali, Urek & Acar, 2007, p. 286). Ferdig (2006) identifies five components of a social constructivist innovation design: authentic, interesting and challenging academic content; a sense of ownership by the learner; active participation, collaboration and social interaction; opportunities for creation of artifacts in a variety of ways; and publication, reflection and feedback (p. 750). Teachers also need to recognize that the four classroom walls no longer bind learning. “When children collaborate, they can and do scaffold each others’ thinking” (Ferdig, 2006, p. 751). Every classroom has the potential to be a global learning environment. In this way, computer technologies can help to bridge the gap between the artificial world of school and the outside lives of young people by engaging then in projects that investigate real world issues, that draw on multiple perspectives and that encourage collaboration with experts and other students from around the world. Such global collaborative activities with peers in classrooms around the world can help to promote understanding and appreciation of multiple perspectives and encourage students to become global thinkers (Boss & Krauss, 2007). Thus, constructivist uses of computer technologies need to provide learning opportunities that are based on authentic tasks and environments and include opportunities for exploring and doing as well as for feedback and reflection. These learning environments should be learning spaces in which students have control over the learning activities and are able to use a variety of information resources and tools to solve problems. The inquiry should begin with students’ prior background knowledge and experience, and engage them in creatively applying the resultant new knowledge. This learning environment should represent as much as possible the complex real world of problem solving, however, students need to be taught the skills to work in such environments. This is where a more structured type of learning environment such as problem based learning can provide initial assistance in developing the requisite skills by providing a guided process.

What is problem based learning and how it is an example of a learning environment based on constructivist learning principles? In order to prepare students for today’s’ complex world, some schools engage students in problembased learning... trying to hone the students’ skills in applying what they learn to the kinds of problems they are likely to face. (Sternberg, 2008, p. 14) Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional model that exemplifies constructivist learning principles (Ochoa & Robinson, 2005). One of the main characteristics of problem-based learning is situating the learning in the examination of authentic, real-life problems and questions of relevance to the learner in order to engage them in the learning. Rather than ‘teaching’ the student in the sense of presenting or even assigning information, the goal is encourage student driven inquiry in which they activate their prior knowledge and investigate the problem from a number of different perspectives in order to develop equally viable alternative solutions to the problem (Ochoa & Robinson, 2005). “Teachers who value thinking and habits of mind would ensure that students confront the problem with a questioning attitude, arm themselves with attendant data, explore alternatives to the status quo, and predict the consequences of each of those alternatives” (Costa, 2008, p. 21). Learning abstract ideas in this way becomes more concrete and realistic for students (Frazier & Sterling, 2008). Effective PBL environments also involve communication and collaboration that require students to articulate their ideas in ways that strengthen and assist the knowledge construction process as well as activities that encourage the learners to reflect on their learning. Organizing content around significant questions or problems can also assist students in developing higher order thinking skills, flexible understanding and lifelong skills (Ruiz, 2008). The teacher in PBL does not teach the students what they should do or know and when they should 407

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

do it or go about learning it. Rather the teacher is there to support the students in developing their critical thinking skills, self-directed learning skills, and content knowledge in relation to the problem. The teacher should acknowledge and support the students’ thinking rather than impose structure on it but should also provide experiences that challenge that thinking. Initially the teacher needs to determine what the key concepts and procedures are that the child needs to know and then design a learning experience that requires students to use the that information in authentic tasks. Scaffolds also need to be built in to help students to organize and represent what they know as to provide the teacher with opportunities to probe students’ knowledge and thinking skills. The inquiry needs to focus on using information as a means to develop information-processing skills and problem solving skills. Computer technologies can be effective vehicles for introducing problems for student investigation because they “allow students to experience a shared context in which they engage in sustained thinking about complex problems and engage in interpretive learning experiences” (Hmelo-Sivler, 2004). WebQuest and Web Inquiry Projects are two examples of how online learning environments that are problem based can be designed.

hoW Is A Webquest An eXAMple oF A probleM-bAsed leArnIng ApproAch to technology use? A WebQuest is one example of how to design Internet-based learning experiences that promote digital literacy as well as the development of essential higher level thinking, problem solving and communication skills. There is a growing body of literature on the value of WebQuests as an instructional approach to integrate structured inquiry and the use of technology (Hicks, Sears,

408

Gao, Goodmans & Manning, 2004). A WebQuest is an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by learners is drawn from the Web (Dodge, 2005). WebQuests are designed to efficiently use learners’ time, to focus on using information rather than looking for it, and to support learners’ thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation (March 2004; Dodge, 2005). Such a use of the Internet supports a view of students as active creators and shapers of their own knowledge who are able and willing to think for themselves. Through a WebQuest, students can actively explore issues and problems from a number of different perspectives, as well as searching for solutions and making moral and ethical decisions about real contemporary world problems. In an authentic WebQuest there is no single correct answer. While engaged in the inquiry through a WebQuest, students are constructing their own personal meaning about the problem under investigation. The rationale for using a structured inquiry approach such as a WebQuest design can be traced back to Bruner’s cognitive development theory. For Bruner, the most important outcome of cognitive development is thinking and the process that students undergo to acquire knowledge, not the product (Bruner, 1966). Bruner’s discovery learning and inquiry teaching methods envision the learners creating their knowledge by “rearranging or transforming evidence in such a way that one is enabled to go beyond the evidence so assembled to additional new insights” (Bruner, 1961, p. 22). This requires an activity structure that scaffolds learners’ experience so that they must move beyond simply finding information to using that information to think through and resolve a problem or issue. Also, the question posed to students cannot be answered simply by collecting and spitting back information. A well designed WebQuest requires students to transform information into something else. Some of the thinking skills analogous with WebQuests are “comparing, classifying, inducing,

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

deducing, analyzing, constructing, abstracting, and analyzing perspectives” (Norton & Wiburg, 2003, p. 180). WebQuests have been used successfully to develop subject specific content in middle and high school social studies (Hung 2004; Leite, McNulty & Brooks, 2005; Lipscomb, 2003; Stickland, 2005); creativity in art (Kundu & Bain, 2006), conceptual understanding in elementary math (Orme & Monroe, 2005); thinking skills (Murry, 2006), with at risk students (Wilson, 2006); and ESL students (Goodwin-Jones, 2004); and for developing reading and literacy skills (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007). “Using a WebQuest can help to bring reading alive, address essential questions that bring meaning to learning, engage in information processing, problem solving, collaboration, alleviate the concern of how to address reading needs of all students, taking on role- meet individual needs and differing learning styles” (Teclehaimanot & Lamb, 2004). WebQuests can also enhance students’ communication skills as many involve working in cooperative groups and role-playing. Working either independently or in groups, the students explore an issue or problem in a guided and meaningful manner. Some WebQuests have the students take on roles that help to make the group work together more efficiently and effectively. These roles can include a group leader, recorder, communicator, encourager and evaluator, among others. Other WebQuests have the learners assume the roles of particular players in a role-playing setting where they access, analysis and synthesize the information provided from the perspective of that player. The most authentic WebQuests engage students in perspective taking on a particular problem or issue. Students investigate the context and the issue from an individual’s perspective in order to build a better understanding of the person, the event and the setting. The goal is for students to use the information collected to construct an argument based on evidence. They then publicly

share their findings with the class and the class tries to come to some kind of resolution to the problem under investigation. This resolution may mean arriving at class consensus or if there is a conflict of resolutions, then agreeing to disagree. Role-playing can be particularly beneficial for teaching students the importance of perspective taking when problem solving. Here is where WebQuests have the greatest potential for addressing the multicultural literacy aspect of digital literacy. Investigating problems from a number of different cultural perspectives can help learners to better understand the wide diversity of views on any one issue as well as the important cultural foundations of those views. This can lead to learning to respect and appreciate diversity. WebQuests and problem based learning fit well together as they both address constructivist learning principles, critical thinking, scaffolding, learner motivation, cooperative learning and authentic assessment (Levine, 2002). Both WebQuests and problem based learning encourage higher level thinking including analysis, critical thinking and creative thinking; both include a introduction that sets the stage and provides some background information; both place students in a scenario where they must solve a fuzzy problem; both actively engage students in the learning and empower them to determine the outcome; both have no one right answer; both require compiling information from a variety of sources in order to arrive at a solution; and, both use authentic assessment strategies such as rubrics. Where these two strategies differ is in how structured they are and in who imposes that structure. Problem based learning is less structured than a WebQuest and provides the students with a larger decision making role in terms of defining the problem to be investigated, setting the conditions for resolution, determining strategies for addressing the problem, deciding on the roles to be taken and the end product of the investigation, and in selecting the resources to be used.

409

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

WhAt Are the coMponents oF A Webquest? Usually a WebQuest consists of the introduction, task, process, resources, evaluation and conclusion. The first part, the introduction, lays out the task or the problem to be investigated, provides some background information and acts as a motivator to get the students interested in the activity. The task outlines the overall challenge the students will be engaged in and explains what they will be doing to represent what they have learned from completing the WebQuest. The task also provides the focus questions that frame the investigation and facilitate the learning process. The process provides a description of what needs to be done in order to accomplish the task in a step-by-step fashion. Here, students are usually assigned roles or provided with differing perspectives on the issue or problem being investigated. The resource section provides information sources that are needed for solving the task. Most of the resources used for the inquiry are other Websites that have been vetted by the teacher and linked directly to the WebQuest. Many WebQuests provide direct access to individual experts, current news sites and searchable databases for information sources. The evaluation section provides information for students on how they will be assessed. The assessment tool often included is a rubric for providing feedback on the outcome of the inquiry. Other formative types of assessment can be used throughout the inquiry including personal reflective logs, skills checklists, and self and group feedback on the effectiveness of their group work. The conclusion brings closure to the WebQuest by reviewing and summarizing the learning from the experience and often challenges learners to extend their learning in new ways. WebQuests can be either short term, on the average one to three classes, with the goal of acquiring and making sense of new information or longer term in which a student analyzes a body of information, transforms it in some way and

410

demonstrates an understanding of that information in a public way. Longer-term WebQuests can take anywhere from a week to a month (Norton & Wiburg, 2003). Throughout the WebQuest, the teacher acts as the facilitator checking to see that students understand the role that they are to take and that they stay on task.

Where cAn Webquests be Found? A WebQuest can be chosen from a series of pre-designed WebQuest collections [see or < http://www.kn.att. com/wired/fil/tips/Webquest_instructions.html >] or one can be created by the teacher to address a specific topic of study. The latter allows for more active student involvement in deciding what problem they might like to investigate and in designing an interesting and relevant learning experience around that problem. An example of a pre-designed WebQuest from one of the databases mentioned earlier entitled “Does the Tiger Eat its Cubs” [http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/ China/childquest.html] explores the way children in orphanages in China are treated. In this WebQuest, students investigate the question “What’s the truth about how children are treated in China?” They are directed to investigate the question from a number of perspectives. They are divided into three teams. One team reads international news reports, another reads responses from the Chinese people and a third examines the government of China’s position as stated in China’s One Child Policy. The class then comes back together and discusses their findings with the challenge of arriving at consensus decision on the issue. The culminating activity is to write a letter to the government expressing their opinion on what they feel should be done about the situation. In the WebQuest, Children of conf lict [http://www.accessola.com/osla/bethechange/

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

Webquest/conflict/index.html], students work in teams as part of a task force to investigate how conflict affects children in different parts of the world. After researching their particular areas, the groups come back together to present their recommendations to a special parliamentary committee to decide what Canada should do to help to protect children around the world. DNA for Dinner WebQuest [http://dnafordinner.blogspot.com/] engages students in an inquiry about the issue of genetically altered food. The issue to be investigated is “Should genetically engineered food crops be specifically labeled for consumers and why.” Using the resources provided, students are to read up on the issue and then draft a law based on their investigation. They are then encouraged to email a representative in the federal government detailing their investigation and their concern over the issue and explaining their proposed solution. A WebQuest such as this one is an example of how the learning activity can be designed to increase students’ motivation to want to learn by connecting what is learned in school to real world experiences. WebQuests can also be a powerful way for students to be immersed in historical events and to have the opportunity to work with historical documents. In the Scrooge for Mayor WebQuest [http://www.coollessons.org/Dickens.htm], students work in teams to develop a campaign proposal for Scrooge using information about labour, education, industrialization and quality of life issues in nineteenth century England as represented in Charles Dicken’s work of fiction “A Christmas Carol”. Each campaign team is made up of a team manager, research analyst, public relations person and political strategist. Students are directed to focus on how Scrooge’s viewpoint on daily life in London will need to change and what solutions to London’s problems and programs he will need to support in his run for mayor. Each person on the campaign team is responsible for writing an article for a newspaper describing what they found out including what life

was like in the area in the 1840’s, the conditions that made it necessary to bring about change, what changes were proposed and how those changes would better things as well as an editorial on the topic “Is the industrial revolution a good thing?” The team also is directed to create a campaign poster, a pamphlet and a PowerPoint presentation that are to be used to communicate their ideas to Scrooge. This WebQuest is an excellent example of how WebQuests can be used to integrate various subject areas in meaningful ways. It could be used to address the learning outcomes of social studies, reading, language arts and science. In the Ancient Egypt WebQuest [http://www. iWebquest.com/egypt/ancientegypt.htm] students take on a series of missions to learn about King Tut, early Egyptian daily life, and the study of archeology. Using the Middle Ages Storytelling Quest [http://www.iWebquest.com/middleages/Default. htm], students learn about the history of the Middle Ages then create their own story to teach their peers what they have learned about this historical time period. Some WebQuests encourage students to take on cooperative learning roles to make their group work more efficient. The Big Wide World WebQuest [http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/bww/ index.html] is an example of one that combines cooperative roles and focus topics to engage primary students in an investigation about their world. The “A “No-bullying Proposal” WebQuest [http://www.gecdsb.on.ca/d&g/nobullying/index. html] involves children in role taking from different perspectives on the issue of bullying. The groups then come up with a plan for how to address bullying in their school. As well as selecting from thousands of predesigned WebQuests, teachers can design a WebQuest to meet their own personal needs using available templates [see for example < http://Webquest.sdsu.edu/LessonTemplate.html.]. Students can also be encouraged to try developing their own WebQuests and sharing them with

411

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

classmates. A database of sample student developed WebQuests can be found at the ThinkQuest Library site [http://www.thinkquest.org]. Having students create their own WebQuests challenges them “to explore a topic, summarize what the most important events or facts are in relation to the topic, and then put together the links and questions or other students to follow” (Whitworth & Berson, 2003, p. 480). When students engage in creating their own WebQuests, it can also enhance the development of their critical, creative and higher level thinking skills. The two Websites noted previously provide templates that students can use for creating their own quests.

WhAt Are soMe oF the lIMItAtIons oF Webquests? The WebQuest approach is intended to capitalize on the possibilities provided by the Internet for guided inquiry learning while eliminating some of the disadvantages such as time wasted looking for resources, learners accessing inappropriate resources, and the lack of sufficient experience with the research process (Milson, 2002). There are some limitations to using WebQuests, however, that teachers need to be aware of. Maddux and Cummings (2007) caution that “simply because a lesson is cast in a WebQuest format is no guarantee that the lesson makes use of cooperative learning, advanced organizers, scaffolding, problem-based learning, nor does it guarantee that these concepts and techniques are effectively, or even merely competently, applied in a way that is consistent with the huge literature base underlying each of them” (p. 121). One problem is that not all WebQuests encourage higher order thinking and must be carefully scrutinized in order to assess how well they accomplish this. Many WebQuests are merely designed as fact-finding exercises that do little to engage students in problem solving. No attempt is made to engage students in role taking or learning to view problems from multiple

412

perspectives. Fewer still actually engage students in learning the important problem solving skills of conflict resolution, compromising or agreeing to disagree. Others lack clear direction to the user that can detract from the ability of students to take control of the learning experience. There are a number of Websites that provide rubrics for determining the quality of WebQuests. [See for example, and ]. The criteria included in these assessments are: engaging opener; clear question and tasks; learner roles match the issues and resources; higher level thinking built in; opportunities for feedback provided; and a conclusion that ties in to the introduction, makes the students’ cognitive tasks overt and suggests how this learning could transfer to other domains/ issues. Another limitation of WebQuests is that students are most often removed from the process of selecting resources on which to base their investigation. There is now more information than teachers, textbooks and the curriculum can dispense. Consequently, students need to learn the skills to become information managers themselves. New computer technologies have much to offer teachers and students in terms of enhancing their information access, use and evaluation skills to encourage more effective and thoughtful consumption of information. As current information becomes easily accessible online, it is increasingly important that students have the opportunity to develop their critical analysis capabilities (Mason, Alibrandi, Berson Diem, Dralle, Hicks, Keiper & Lee, 2000). Also educators are warned not to simply rely on Internet filtering software but rather to focus on teaching students critical thinking skills so that they can learn to make informed decisions and judgments about the information they encounter on the Internet (Whitworth & Berson, 2003, p. 480). The use of such filtering tools can also be a problem as many sites that would be relevant to the study of a topic, such as war and conflict, would be inaccessible to students.

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

Locating useful and accurate information on the Web can be a struggle for students. The abundance of things to access via the Internet can cause students to be easily side tracked and spend a great deal of time off task. Information gathering can easily become a mindless exercise in which quantity overrides quality. This sort of information-gathering exercise does little to promote deeper thinking and understanding. Students need to be instructed in and have opportunities to practice how to critically examine and make informed choices about the information they are accessing. Critical information literacy skills need to be carefully taught and monitored to ensure students are developing proficiency in their use. In addition to learning the skills of locating and evaluating information on the Web, students also need to learn how to select relevant pieces of information and synthesize and organize it in order to apply it to the learning activity and communicate it to others. Because there is an inclination to accept the computer as an authority and view the information accessed as the “truth,” students need to be taught to recognize that the information on the Web represents a particular viewpoint, as does any other resource. They need to be encouraged to conscientiously use critical thinking skills to make both appropriate and ethical choices when using computer-generated information. Students need to be taught how to apply the skills of actively interpreting the information provided, drawing conclusions from data, seeing several points of view, distinguishing fact from opinion, and finding meaning in information, as they interact with digital technologies. In order to develop students’ critical thinking skills, they should be taught to look for authorship/source, objectivity/biases, and validity of content, bibliography/reference links, currency and quality of writing. Questions such as the following can be helpful for students and teachers to use in judging the effectiveness of Websites:

• • • • •

• •

Where did this document come from and how reliable a source is it? Is the information presented objectively or with an obvious bias? How current is the information? How comprehensive is the coverage of the topic on the Website? How trustworthy is the data provided and how accurately does it depict the phenomenon? Does the site deepen my understanding of the topic? How useful is the site to me in assisting with the inquiry?

Critical literacy skills need to be carefully taught and monitored to ensure students are developing proficiency in their use. Children need to be instructed in and have opportunities to practice how to critically examine and make appropriate, ethical and informed choices about the information they are accessing. They need to be taught to recognize that the information on any Website represents a particular viewpoint and that it is important to examine several points of view on any issue. They also need to be taught how to distinguish fact from opinion. A third limitation is that WebQuests lead students through a scaffolded inquiry experience that specifies the task, the roles and perspectives to be taken, the resources to be used and the guides for organizing the learning with little opportunity for the students to set the direction and plan for the investigation. Being heavily scaffolded, WebQuests prevent learners from participating in higher-level inquiry activities (Molebash, Dodge, Bell, Mason & Irving, n.d.). While these initial scaffolds are very important for helping children to develop problem solving strategies, there needs to be opportunities for releasing some of the control into the hands of the learners. Molebash and Dodge (2003) note that the support of the WebQuest can be removed in stages by allowing more flexibility in how and what student are to

413

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

produce in the task, by gradually providing fewer URLs and expecting the learner to find more, by gradually removing the scaffolding such as note taking guidelines, information organizing structures, writing prompts, etc., and by putting more resources in the conclusion for learners to explore on their own later.

WhAt Are Web InquIry projects? In order to promote higher levels of inquiry in the classroom, less specific guidance can be given to students. Web Inquiry Projects (WIPs) are one example of a way to extend the WebQuest idea beyond structured inquiry to more open inquiry that promotes higher levels of thinking and student engagement. Web Inquiry Projects are “open inquiry learning activities that leverage the use of uninterpreted [primary source] online data and information” (Molebash, 2004, p. 2). Unlike WebQuests, which provide students with a procedure and the online resources needed to complete a predefined task, WIPS place more emphasis in having students determine their own task, define their own procedures, and play a role in finding the needed online resources. More often the inquiry is sparked by the interest of the students. The teacher’s role is to “insert the necessary scaffolding at each stage in the process to ensure that students are successful” (Molebash 2004, p. 2). According to Molebash, WIPS have seven stages: a hook to capture students’ interest, question generating, deciding on procedures for guiding the investigation, data investigation of possible online sources, analysis of data, findings reporting including drawing conclusions based on the evidence, and lastly the generation on new questions resulting from the investigation to encourage further inquiry. Numerous examples of Web Inquiry Projects can be viewed at http://edWeb.sdsu.edu/

414

wip/examples.htm. In the WIP entitled “The AIDS Epidemic: Can It Be Stopped?” [http:// edWeb.sdsu.edu/wip/examples/aids/index.htm], for example, students are presented with the following hook: The HIV/AIDS Epidemic is still occurring today. Currently medical research in finding a cure for AIDS have not progressed beyond prolonging HIV before it turns into AIDS. Although we don’t see HIV/AIDS in the news today, it is still a problem around the world. Many people feel that they are not at risk for contracting this disease, but it is important for individuals to realize that they may be at risk. The first case of HIV/AIDS was diagnosed in the United States in the early 1980’s. When will the last case be diagnosed? In order to address this challenge, students need to determine what investigative tools to use, what types of data they will need and how they will manipulate that data in order to predict an answer. As a part of their investigation they also conduct detailed research on AIDs in order to increase their understanding of the issues surrounding AIDs and HIV. In another example, North American Perspectives [http://eprentice.sdsu.edu/F034/sjohnson/ teacher_template2.html], students are hooked into the inquiry through a series of questions that they are to answer initially from their own perspective then from “behind Native American eyes”. They are encouraged to think of some questions related to this topic that they might like to investigate as well as being provided some teacher-initiated ones. There are some pre-selected resources provided but students are encouraged to locate their own as well. Some ideas for how to re-present their learning are made available but once again students are encouraged to come up with their own ideas too. Each of these examples allows for a greater degree of student control over the learning experiences.

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

concludIng reMArKs Attention to digital literacy has become an essential aspect of children’s education for the 21st century. This chapter began by defining digital literacy as well as highlighting other important 21st century skills including higher level thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration. Included under the umbrella of digital literacy are such skills as understanding how to operate a particular technology, knowing how and why technologies can be used, and recognizing the ramifications of their use. The research on best uses of technology for learning has identified a number of effective ways for infusing digital literacy skills and other technology outcomes throughout a child’s educational experiences. Emerging from this review of the research is an acknowledgment of the learning theory of constructivism as a way of framing learning experiences with computer technologies. WebQuests and their extension, Web Inquiry Projects, are two approaches that have the potential to effectively model constructivist learning principles while also addressing digital literacy, thinking, problem solving and communication skills. What makes these approaches to technology use in schools most effective is the emphasis on student directed learning and active student engagement. The level of student control over the decision making about the learning varies from a lesser degree in the more structured inquiry usually found in WebQuests to a greater degree in the open inquiry of Web Inquiry Projects. Other essential features of effective technology use found in both WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects that were identified were: a) problem based learning focused on real world authentic issues and questions of interest to students and, in the case of WIPs, generated by the students; b) a focus on collaborative learning both within and beyond the classroom walls; and, c) an emphasis on learning to manage information and to work with that information at a higher level of thinking

and understanding. All of these features support the call for learning experiences that attend to digital literacy and to developing the thinking, problem solving and communication skills of today’s learners.

reFerences Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (Dec. 11, 2006). The ICT impact report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ education/doc/reports/doc/ictimpact.pdf Boss, S. & Krauss, J. (2007). Real projects in a digital world. Principal Leadership, 8(4), 22-26. Brooks, J. (2003). Schooling for life: Reclaiming the essence of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brumfield, R. (April 4, 2006). Thornburg: Ed tech stalled by ‘fear’. eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/ index.cfm?i=36912&CFID=906452&CFTOKE N=45974173 Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32. Costa, A. (2008). The thought-filled curriculum. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 20-24. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dodge, B. (1996). Active learning on the Web. Retrieved May 23, 2008 from http://edWeb.sdsu.

415

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

edu/people/bdodge/active/ActiveLearningk-12. html

NECC_Research_Paper_Archives/NECC_2004/ Chang-Chew-Hung-NECC04.pdf

Doolittle, P. & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72-104.

Ikpeze, C. & Boyd, F. (2007). Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 644-654.

Dunn, R. (2007). Integrating technology into pedagogical practice. Digital Commons. Available at http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/educ_ fac_pubs/60 Ferdig, R. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37 (5), 749-760. Frazier, W. & Sterling, D. (2008). Motor mania: Revving up for technological design. The Technology Teacher, February, 5-12. Godwin-Jones, R. (2004). Emerging technologies: Language in action from WebQuests to Virtual Realities. Language, Learning & Technology, 8(3), 9-14. Hartley, J. (2007). Teaching, learning and new technology: A review for teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 42-62. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. Hicks, D., Sears, P., Gao, H., Goodmans, P., & Manning, J. (2004). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to be socially and ethically aware producers and consumers of interactive technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 470-481. Hung, C.C. (2004). The use of WebQuests as a constructivist learning tool in secondary school geography in Singapore. Paper presented at ISTE Conference. Retrieved May 9, 2008 from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ Research/

416

ISTE (2007). National Educational Technology Standards. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/ AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Moore, J. & Marra, M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Jones-Kavalier, B. & Flannigan, S. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 2, 8 - 10. Kundu, R. & Bain, C. (2006). Utilizing technology in a constructivist manner to facilitate meaningful preservice learning. Art Education, 59, 2, 6 - 12. Lee, R. (2006). Effective learning outcomes of ESL elementary and secondary students utilizing educational technology infused with constructivist pedagogy. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 87-93. Leite,, M., McNulty, A. & Brooks, D. (2005). Learning from WebQuests. International Society for Technology in Education Research Paper. Retrieved May 8, 2008 from http://www.iste.org/ Content/NavigationMenu/Research/ NECC_Research_Paper_Archives/NECC_2005/ Leite-Martonia-NECC05.pdf Levine, R. (2002). Comparing problem based learning and WebQuests. Retrieved May 20, 2008 from http://www.coollessons.org/compare.htm Lipscomb, G. (2003). “I guess it was pretty fun”: Using WebQuests in the middle school classroom. Clearing House, 76(3),152-155.

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

Maddux, C. & Cummings, R. (2007). WebQuests: Are they developmentally appropriate? The Educational Forum, 71(2), 117-127. March, T. (2004). The learning power of WebQuests. Educational Leadership, December / January, 42–47. Marlow, B. & Page, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining a constructivist classroom, (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks California: Corwin Press. Mason, C., Alibrandi, M., Berson, M., Diem, R., Dralle, T., Hicks, D., Keiper, T. & Lee, J. (2000). Waking the sleeping giant: Social studies teacher educators collaborate to integrate technology into methods’ courses. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International (SITE) Conference, 2000(1), 1985-1989.

Molebash, P., Dodge, B., Bell, R., Mason, C., & Irving, K.(n.d.). Promoting student inquiry: WebQuests to Web inquiry projects (WIPs). Retrieved from http://edWeb.sdsu.edu/wip/overview.htm Murry, R. (2006). WebQuests celebrate 10 years: Have they delivered? Action Research Exchange. Retrieved from http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/ vol5no1/Thesis%20PDF/MurryR_ARE.pdf North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2005). Critical issue: Technology - A catalyst for teaching and learning in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/ issues/methods/technlgy/te600.htm Norton, P. & Wiburg, K. (2003). Teaching with technology: Designing opportunities to learn. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Mackenzie, J. (2005). Singular displeasure: Technology, literacy and semantic power plays. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal 14(5) Retrieved from http://fno.org/jun05/ singular.html

Ochoa, T. & Robinson, J. (2005). Revisiting group consensus: Collaborative learning dynamics during a problem-based learning activity in Education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(1), 10-10.

Milson, A.J. (2002). The Internet and inquiry learning: Integrating medium and method in a sixth grade social studies classroom. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30 (3), 330-353.

Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House

Molebash, P. (2005). Web Inquiry Projects: A Paper Submitted as Part of the Symposium “Multimedia, Historical Inquiry and Preservice Teacher Education”. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 3854-3855). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Orne, M. & Monroe, E. (2005). The nature of discourse as students collaborate on a mathematics WebQuest. Computers in Schools, 22(1/2), 135146. Partnership for 21st century skills. (2004). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/ index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254 &Itemid=120

Molebash, P. (2004). Web Historical Inquiry Projects. Social Education, 68 (3), 226-230. Molebash, P. (2002). Web Inquiry Projects. Retrieved from http://Webinquiry.org/ Molebash, P. & Dodge, B. (2003). Kickstarting inquiry with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects. Social Education, 67(3), 158-162.

Ruiz, E. (2008). Problem-based learning: A pedagogical strategy for active learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(3), 251-257. Sternberg, R. (2008). Interdisciplinary problembased learning. Liberal Education, Winter, 12-17.

417

Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects

Sterling, D. (2007, December). Modeling problem-based instruction. Science and Children, 4, 50-53. Strickland, J. (2005). Using WebQuests to teach content: Comparing instructional strategies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 138-148. Tarhan, L., Ayar-Kayali, H., Urek, R. & Acar, B. (2008). Problem-based learning in 9th grade chemistry class. Research Science Education, 38, 285-300. Teclehaimanot, B., & Lamb, A. (2004, March/ April). Reading, technology, and inquiry-based learning through literature-rich WebQuests. Reading Online, 7(4). Retrieved from http:// www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index. asp?HREF=teclehaimanot /index.html Viadero, D. (March 29 2007). Collecting evidence. Education Week, 26(30), 30, 32-3. Wan, Z., Fand, Y. & Neufeld, D. (2007). The role of information technology in technologymediated learning: A review of the past for the future. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 183-192. Whitworth, S. & Berson, M. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(4), 472-509.

418

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72 (2), 131-175. Wiske, M., Franz, K., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Digital Literacy: The skills of information location and application including understanding how to use available evidence to assist in problem solving and decision making. Constructivist Learning Theory: A learning theory that acknowledges the learner as the holder and creator of their own knowledge. Inquiry: An approach to learning that directly engages learners in constructing their own knowledge and understanding. Problem Based Learning: An approach to learning in which learners inquire into problems about important questions and issues that have no clear answers. WebQuest: A Web-based structured inquiry approach to learning. Web Inquiry Project: A Web-based open inquiry approach to learning.

419

Chapter XXVII

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects in Secondary School Classrooms Robin Kay University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

AbstrAct The design, development, reuse, and accessibility of learning objects has been examined in some detail for almost 10 years (Kay & Knaack, 2007c, 2007d), however, research on the effectiveness of learning objects is limited (Kay & Knaack, 2005; Nurmi & Jaakkola, 2006a, 2006b, Sosteric & Hesemeirer, 2004), particularly in the K-12 environment. Until recently, learning objects were solely used in higher education (Haughey & Muirhead, 2005; Kay & Knaack, 2005, 2007c). The purpose of the current chapter is to examine factors that influence the effectiveness of learning objects in secondary school classrooms. These factors will include learning object qualities, gender, self-efficacy, grade, subject area, and teaching strategies.

IntroductIon Definition of Learning Objects It is important to establish a clear definition of a “learning object” in order to assess effectiveness. Unfortunately, consensus regarding a definition has yet to be attained (e.g., Bennett & McGee, P.,

2005; Metros, 2005; Muzio, Heins, & Mundell 2002; Parrish, 2004; Wiley, et al. 2004). Part of the problem rests in the values and needs of learning object developers and designers. The majority of researchers have emphasized technological issues such accessibility, adaptability, the effective use of metadata, reusability, and standardization (e.g., Downes, 2003; Koppi, Bogle, & Bogle, 2005;

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

Muzio et al., 2002; Siqueira, Melo, & Braz, 2004). However, a second “learning focussed” pathway to defining learning objects has emerged as a reaction to the overemphasis of technological characteristics (Baruque & Melo, 2004; Bradley & Boyle, 2004; Cochrane, 2005; Wiley et al., 2004). While both technical and learning-based definitions offer important qualities that can contribute to the success of learning objects, research on the latter is noticeably absent (Kay and Knaack, 2007b, 2007d). Agostinho, Bennett, Lockyear & Harper (2004) note that we are at risk of having digital libraries full of easy to find learning objects we do not know how to use in the classroom. In order to address a clear gap in the literature on evaluating learning objects, a pedagogically focussed definition of learning objects has been adopted for the current chapter. Learning objects are as defined as “interactive Web-based tools that support the learning of specific concepts by enhancing, amplifying, and guiding the cognitive processes of learners”. See Kay & Knaack (2008a) for concrete examples of the learning objects examined.

Benefits of Learning Objects Over the past 10 years, a substantial effort has been made to increase the use of technology in the classroom (Compton & Harwood, 2003; McRobbie, Ginns, & Stein, 2000; Plante & Beattie, 2004; US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). In spite of these efforts, a number of researchers have argued that technology has had a minor or negative impact on student learning (e.g., Cuban, 2001; Roberston, 2003; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003; Waxman, Connell, & Gray, 2002). Part of the problem stems from a considerable list of obstacles that have prevented successful implementation of technology including a lack of time (Eifler, Greene, & Carroll, 2001; Wepner, Ziomek, & Tao, 2003), limited technological skill (Eifler

420

et al., 2001; Strudler, Archambault, Bendixen, Anderson & Weiss, 2003; Thompson, Schmidt, & Davis, 2003), fear of technology (Bullock, 2004; Doering Hughes, & Huffman, 2003), a clear lack of understanding about how to integrate technology into teaching (Cuban, 2001), and insufficient access (e.g., Bartlett, 2002; Brush et al., 2003; Russell et al., 2003). Learning objects offer a number of key components that can reduce the impact of potential obstacles observed in the past (accessibility, ease of use, reusability) and enhance student learning (interactivity, graphics, reduction of cognitive load, adaptive). In contrast to former learning technologies burdened with barriers to development and implementation, learning objects are readily accessible over the Internet and users need not worry about excessive costs or not having the latest version (Wiley, 2000). Well over 90% of all public schools in North America and Europe now have access to the Internet (and therefore learning objects) with most having high-speed broadband connections (Compton & Harwood, 2003; McRobbie, Ginns, & Stein, 2000; Plante & Beattie, 2004; US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). In addition, because of their limited size and focus, learning objects are relatively easy to learn and use, making them much more attractive to busy educators who have little time to learn more complex, advanced software packages (Gadanidis et. al., 2003). Finally, reusability permits learning objects to be useful for a large audience, particularly when the objects are placed in well organized, searchable databases (e.g., Agostinho et al., 2004; Duval, Hodgins, Rehak & Robson, 2004; Rehak & Mason, 2003). With respect to enhancing learning, many learning objects are interactive tools that support exploration, investigation, constructing solutions, and manipulating parameters instead of memorizing and retaining a series of facts. The success of this constructivist based model

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

is well documented (e.g., Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Bruner, 1983, 1986; Carroll, 1990; Caroll & Mack, 1984; Collins, Brown, & Newman., 1989; Vygotsky, 1978). In addition, a number of learning objects have a graphical component that helps make abstract concepts more concrete (Gadanidis et al., 2003). Furthermore, certain learning objects allow students to explore higher level concepts by reducing cognitive load. They act as perceptual and cognitive supports, permitting students to examine more complex and interesting relationships (Sedig & Liang, 2006). Finally, learning objects are adaptive, allowing users to have a certain degree of control over their learning environments, particularly when they are learning and for how long.

use of learning objects in secondary schools Only four published studies were found investigating the use of learning objects with secondary school students (Brush & Saye, 2001; Kay & Knaack, 2007c; Lopez-Morteo & Lopez, 2007; McCormick & Li, 2005). Teacher perspective. Two studies looked at how teachers viewed learning objects (Kay & Knaack, 2007c; McCormick & Li, 2005). Kay & Knaack (2007c) reported preservice and experienced teachers strongly agreed that: a. b. c.

Learning objects were a beneficial tool for students, They helped students with respect to understanding concepts, and They would be interested in using the learning objects in their classrooms again.

Student perspective. Brush & Saye (2001) observed that students tended to look at superficial content in a learning object when left to their own devices and that more active guidance and structure was needed when using informationbased learning objects. Kay & Knaack (2007c) used a comprehensive assessment measure and reported that students were moderately positive about learning objects. In addition, overall usefulness, clear instructions, organized layout and good theme/motivation were particularly important to students. Finally, Lopez-Morteo & Lopez (2007) reported that students perceived interactive, recreation-based, collaborative learning objects positively. Student performance. To date, no studies have been done looking at the impact of learning objects on the performance of secondary school students.

purpose The goal of this chapter is to look closely at the kind of factors that can influence the effectiveness of learning objects in secondary school classrooms. A comprehensive review of the literature has revealed the following factors as potential influences on learning object effectiveness: • • • • • •

Learning object qualities Gender Computer comfort Grade Subject area Teaching strategies

Method McCormick & Li (2005) noted that 60 to 75% of teachers felt learning objects were useful and enjoyed using learning objects, although over 50% reported technical problems local to their schools.

overview In order to address the key methodological challenges noted in previous evaluation of learning objects, the following steps were taken:

421

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

A large, diverse, sample was used; Reliability and valid surveys were used ; Formal statistics were used where applicable; Both teacher and student perspectives were assessed; A measure of student performance was included; and A wide range of learning objects in a variety of subject areas was tested.

sample Teachers. The teacher sample consisted of 27 teachers (12 males, 15 females) and 50 classrooms (a number of teachers used learning objects more than once). Teaching experience ranged from 1 to 33 years with a mean of 9.2 (SD = 8.2). Subject areas taught were science (biology, chemistry, general science, physics, n=15), math (n=10), and social science (geography, history, n=2). A majority of the teachers rated their ability to use computers as strong or very strong (n=23) and their attitude toward using computers as positive or very positive (n=23). However, only six of the teachers used computers in their classrooms more than once a month. Students. The student sample consisted of 850 secondary school students (444 males, 406 females) ranging in age from 10 to 22 years (M = 16.5, SD = 1.1). The population base spanned three separate boards of education, 15 secondary schools, and 27 different classrooms. The students were selected through convenience sampling and had to obtain signed parental permission to participate. Learning Objects. A majority of teachers selected learning objects from a repository located at the LORDEC Website (Kay & Knaack, 2008c), although several reported that they also used Google. A total of 33 unique learning objects were selected covering concepts in biology, chemistry, general science, geography, mathematics, and physics. To view specific examples of learning

422

objects used by teachers in this study, see Kay & Knaack (2008a).

procedure Each teacher received a half day of training in November on how to choose, use, and assess learning objects (see Kay & Knaack, 2008d for more details on the training provided). They were then asked to use at least one learning object in their classrooms by April of the following year. It is important to note that teachers were given full control over the learning object they chose and how they used it in the classroom. Email support was available throughout the duration of the study. All students in a given teacher’s class used the learning object that the teacher selected. However, only those students with signed parental permission forms were permitted to fill in an anonymous, online survey about their use of the learning object. In addition, students completed a pre- and post-test based on the content of the learning object.

data sources Student survey. After using a learning object, students completed the Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S) to determine their perception of how much they had learned (learning construct), the quality of the learning object (quality construct) and how much they were engaged with the learning object (engagement construct). The constructs selected were based on a thorough review of the literature (Kay & Knaack, 2005, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d). The scale showed good reliability (0.78 to 0.89), face validity, construct validity, convergent validity and predictive validity (see Kay & Knaack, 2007b). Student performance. Students completed a pre-test and post-test based on the content of the learning object used in class. The difference between pre- and post-test scores was used to determine student performance.

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

results And dIscussIon Impact of learning object characteristics Background. With few exceptions (e.g., Kay & Knaack, 2005; Reimer & Moyer, 2005), the analysis of ‘learning’ in learning objects has remained largely theoretical. A detailed review of learning object research revealed five main evaluation criteria (Kay & Knaack, 2007a): interactivity, design, engagement, usability, and content. These criteria were identified based on a comprehensive review of the literature on instructional design (Kay & Knaack, 2007a) and key learning object evaluation models used previously (Cochrane, 2005; Haughey & Muirhead, 2005; Howard-Rose & Harrigan, 2003; Kay and Knaack, 2005, 2007c; Nesbit and Belfer, 2004). With respect to interactivity, key components considered by researchers included promoting constructive activity, providing a user with sufficient control, and degree of interaction. The underlying theme was that learning objects should provide rich activities that open up opportunities for action, rather than prescribed pathways of learning (Brown & Voltz, 2005). When looking at design, investigators focussed on layout, degree of personalization, quality of graphics, and emphasis of key concepts. Evaluation of engagement has incorporated difficulty level, theme, aesthetic appeal, feedback, and inclusion of multimedia. Assessment of usability has referred to overall ease of use, clear instructions, and navigation. Finally, with respect to content, the predominant features looked at have been the integrity and accuracy of material presented. However, in this study, teachers probably filtered “content” issues when they selected a learning object for their class. In other words, it is unlikely that they selected learning objects that did not have the correct content and scope. Therefore, four characteristics of learning objects were used to assess effectiveness of learning

objects examined for this chapter: interactivity, design, engagement, and usability. Reliability and validity were determined to be good for these constructs (Kay & Knaack, 2007a). Results - Student Perceptions. For students, good design (r=0.25, p <.001), higher engagement (r=0.24, p <.005), and better usability (r=0.28, p <.001) of a learning object significantly correlated with higher perceptions of learning. Interactivity, on the other hand, was not related to perceptions of learning (r=0.06, n.s.). Results - Learning Performance. Mean class learning performance (percent change from the pre- to the post-tests) was significantly and positively correlated with interactivity (r =.28; p < .005, n=119), design (r =.43; p < .001, n=116), engagement (r =.37; p < .005, n=84), and usability constructs (r =.40; p < .001, n=120). Conclusion. It appears that the well designed, engaging learning objects are the most effective with respect to student perceptions of learning, as well as gains in student performance. Usability is also and important characteristic, but only with respect to student perceptions of learning and student performance. It is quite possible that teachers are unaware of the student usability issues, and therefore underestimate the impact. Finally, students did not perceive interactivity as a critical factor in learning. This is an interesting finding that somewhat contradicts proponents of a more constructivist design. Nonetheless, interactivity in learning objects was positively associated with significantly higher learning performance.

Impact of gender Background. Numerous studies have investigated the role of gender in computer behaviour (see AAUW, 2000; Barker & Aspray, 2006; Kay, 1992; Sanders, 2006; Whitley, 1997 for detailed reviews of the literature) and the following conclusions can be made. First, most studies have looked at computer attitude, ability, and/or use. Second, roughly 30 to 50% of the studies report differences

423

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

in favour of males, 10-15% in favour of females, and 40 to 60% no difference. Third, differences reported, while statistically significant, are often small. Overall, one could say there is a persistent pattern of small differences in computer attitude, ability, and use that favours males, however considerable variability exists (Kay, 2008b). Results. A MANOVA was run for gender and the three student constructs (learning, quality, and engagement) and revealed no significant difference between male and female students. In addition, a t-test showed no significant gender differences with respect to student performance. Conclusion. Given that gender differences have been fairly small, but persistent over the past 25 years (AAUW, 2000; Barker & Aspray, 2006; Kay, 1992; Sanders, 2006; Whitley, 1997), one might have expected differences to emerge with respect to learning objects. However, no significant differences were observed between males and females for any of the four dependent student variables. This finding is consistent with the results reported by Kay & Knaack (2007e) on secondary school students. One of the reasons that learning objects may be relatively gender neutral with respect to perceived learning and student performance is because they are easy to use. In the past, females have reported being less confident and able to use computers. However, easy to use learning objects may minimize the impact of confidence and computer ability. It is also conceivable that the population examined in this study, namely secondary students, may be representative of a new trend citing fewer gender differences (Kay, 2008b). The fact that males and females did not differ with respect to computer comfort level provides indirect evidence that gender differences at the secondary school level may be disappearing.

Impact of Self-Efficacy Background. Considerable research has been done looking at the effect of attitude on computer related

424

behaviour (Barbeite & Weiss, 2004; Christensen & Knezek, 2000; Durndell & Haag, 2002; Kay, 1989, 1993; Liu, Hsieh, Cho, & Schallert, 2004; Torkzadeh, Pflughoeft, & Hall, 1999). As one might predict, more positive computer attitudes are generally associated with higher levels of computer ability and use. Self-efficacy or perceived comfort with using computers has been shown to be particularly influential on knowledge and use of computers (e.g., Barbeite & Weiss, 2004; Durndell & Haag, 2002). Results. Computer comfort was assessed using a scale developed by Kay & Knaack (2005) which should good construct validity and high reliability. The internal reliability for the scale used in this study was 0.81. Correlations among computer comfort and student perceptions of learning (r = 0.30 ± 0.06, p < .001), quality (r = 0.26 ± 0.07, p < .001), and engagement (r = 0.30 ± 0.06, p < .005) were significant. Student performance, though, was not significantly correlated with computer comfort (r = 0.01 ± 0.09, ns). Note that males and females did not differ significantly with respect to computer comfort. Conclusions. Secondary students who were more comfortable with computers tended to rate perceived learning, quality, and engagement of learning objects higher than students who were less comfortable. This result is consistent with previous research on self-efficacy and computer related behaviour. In addition, the lone study looking at secondary school students and learning objects (Kay & Knaack, 2007c) reported a similar finding. The critical point, though, is that computer comfort was not related to student performance. Students with lower computer self-efficacy may not have liked using the learning objects as much as their more confident peers, but performance was largely unaffected. One of the key attributes of learning objects, ease of use, may have tempered the negative impact of computer self-efficacy.

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

Impact of grade level Background. A number of researchers have examined differences in computer attitude and ability among various age groups, albeit in a somewhat patchwork manner. Older students (15-16 years old), for example, viewed computers as tools for accomplishing tasks and getting work done (e.g., word processing, programming, use of the Internet, and email), whereas younger students (11-12 years old) saw computers as a source of enjoyment (e.g., play games and use graphics software) (Colley, 2003; Colley & Comber, 2003; Comber, Colley, Hargreaves, & Dorn, 1997). Grimes, Hough, & Signorella (2007) looked at a larger age range and reported that working age adults used computers more and spent more hours online than either college students or retirees. Zhang (2005) added that younger employees felt the internet was more useful than older age groups. On the other hand, Harris & Granfgenett (1996) and Kubek, Miller-Albrecht & Murphy (1999) observed that age had a negligible affect on computer attitudes. Grade has not been looked at extensively, although one study reported that grade 11 students were less anxious than grade seven and nine students (King, Bond, & Blandford, 2002). More research needs to be done in this area, particularly in teasing out the differential impact of age and grade. It is unclear whether differences observed in computer related behaviour are a result of advances in cognitive and emotional maturity (age) or whether they are due to the increased academic importance that may increase with grade level. Results. A MANOVA was run for student perceptions of how much they learned, the quality of the learning object, and the extent to which they were engaged as a function of grade. Significant differences were observed for all three constructs. With respect to students perceptions of learning, a multiple comparisons analysis indicated that grade 12 students rated learning objects significantly higher than grade 9 and 10students (Scheffé post

hoc analysis, p < .05). Regarding, students perceptions of learning object quality, grade 12 students had significantly higher scores than grade 9 and 10 students (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .01). In addition, grade 11 students rated learning objects higher than grade 10 students in terms of learning quality (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .005). Finally, for students perceptions of engagement, grade 12 student scores were higher than grade 10 scores (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .05). A one-way ANOVA examining student performance as a function of grade level was significant (p < .001). Grade 12 students (M = 29.6%, SD 27.4%) performed better than grade 10 (M = 10.9%, SD 27.6%; Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .001) and grade 9 (M = 15.9%, SD 23.6%; Scheffé post hoc analysis, p <.05) students on their respective learning objects. In terms of change from pre-post test score, grade 12 students appeared to have a 14 to 19 percent advantage over grade 9 and 10 students. As well, grade 11 students (M = 24.3%, SD 26.1%) had higher performance scores than grade 10 students (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .005). Conclusion. Grade 12 students had significantly higher scores on all four dependent variables when compared to grade 10 and 9 students. Kay & Knaack (2007e) observed a similar result with secondary school science students. At first, this result might seem somewhat counterintuitive, given that younger students are typically exposed to more technology than their older peers. Furthermore, the culture of high school has not been ingrained in grade 9 and ten students, as much as it has in grade 11 and 12 students. Younger students should be more open to new teaching strategies. However, other grade-specific ‘cultural’ factors may come into play. For grade 12 students, succeeding is more important, particularly for students wishing to move on to higher education. For grade 9 and 10 students, the urgency of having to perform well may not have emerged yet. In addition, previous research suggests that older students view a computer as a tool to

425

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

support learning, whereas younger student see computers as a means of entertainment (Colley, 2003; Colley & Comber, 2003; Comber, Colley, Hargreaves, & Dorn, 1997). Learning objects are typically designed to promote learning, not fun – a goal that would more closely match the needs of the older students. Finally, it is possible, as suggested earlier, that learning objects work better for older students.

Impact of subject Area Background. No studies could be found looking at individual differences in computer behaviour as a result of subject taught, although several researchers have examined the use of computers in mathematics (e.g., Forgasz, 2006) or science classes (e.g., MacKinnon, 2003). The impact of subject area on computer attitude and performance, then, is unknown. Results. A MANOVA was run for student perceptions of how much they learned, the quality of the learning object, and the extent to which they were engaged as a function of subject taught. Significant differences were observed for all three constructs. A multiple comparisons analysis revealed that science students rated learning objects higher than math students with respect to perceived learning (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .001), quality of the learning object (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .001) and the engagement value (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .001). In addition, science students rated quality (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .01) and engagement (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .05) significantly higher than social science students. A one-way ANOVA examining student performance as a function of subject taught was significant (p < .001). Science students (M = 25.9% increase, SD 26.7%) performed better than math (M = 2.8% increase, SD 22.4%; Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .001) and social science students (M = 12.4% increase, SD 17.4%; Scheffé post hoc analysis, p <.05). In addition, social students had

426

higher performance scores than math students (Scheffé post hoc analysis, p < .05). Conclusion. It is somewhat surprising that subject differences emerged in favour of science students over mathematics and social science students. The sample size for the social science population was small, therefore the results observed should be viewed with caution. On the other hand, the availability of social science learning objects was relatively small compared to science and mathematics. Lower scores may simply reflect poorer quality learning objects. The differences between science and mathematics are harder to explain, since the number of learning objects available for each subject area was similar. There is no reason to believe that science teachers, on average, selected better learning objects than mathematics teachers. It is possible that science based concepts are more concrete and easier to relate to the real world making them more appealing than more abstract mathematics concepts. This fundamental difference may make science-based learning objects intrinsically more attractive and therefore more successful. It is critical in future research to ask students about their attitude toward a particularly subject area in order to test this hypothesis.

Impact of teaching strategy Background. The agenda for the majority of articles written to date has been to look at the design and developmental process of stand-alone objects that are readily accessed and reused (e.g., Kong & Kwok, 2005; Oliver & McLoughlin, 1999; Poldoja, Leinonen, Valjataga, Ellonen, & Priha, 2006). Only a handful of studies have examined the impact of individual teaching strategies used with learning objects and no studies have compared strategies. However, a substantial number of theorists (Alonso, Lopez, Manrique, & Vines, 2005; Bratina et al., 2002; Haughey & Muirhead, 2005; Koppi et al., 2004; McCormick & Li, 2005; Moyer, 2001; Thorpe, Kubiak, & Thorpe, 2003)

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

believe that how a teacher chooses to use a learning object is critical for successful implementation. Results. It was anticipated that strategies for social science might vary considerably from math and science, so only math and science subject areas were looked at to provide a more homogenous sample. The following teaching strategies for using the learning objects in a classroom were examined: (a) independent use of computers, (b) introducing the learning object, (c) supports provided for learning object use, and (d) consolidation of a learning object lesson. Independent use of computers. Almost all teachers (97%) chose to have students work independently on their own computers. Choosing to have students work independently on computers as opposed to in pairs or larger groups was not significantly related to student perceptions of learning, learning object quality, and engagement nor was it related to student performance. Introducing the learning object. With respect to introducing the learning object, 62% of the teachers provided a brief introduction and seven percent formally demonstrated the learning object. Demonstrating a learning object or providing a brief introduction was not significantly related to the four dependent variables used in this study (learning, quality, engagement, student performance). Simply letting students explore on their own, though, was significantly and positively correlated to student perceptions of improved learning (t = 2.88, df =469, p < .005) and higher perceptions of quality (t = 2.29, df =459, p < .05), but not perceptions of engagement. Student performance dropped significantly (11% decrease), though, if students were left to explore on their own (Table 4). Supports provided. In terms of supports provided, 35% of the teachers created a set of guiding questions, while 28% provided a worksheet. If a teacher created a set of guiding questions, students rated learning (t = -3.23, df = 469, p < .005) and learning object quality (t = -3.33 df =459, p < .005) higher, but not engagement. Student

performance increased significantly by 13% (p < .001). When worksheets were provided, students rated learning (t = -2.29, df = 469, p < .05) and learning object quality (t = -2.27, df =459, p < .05) higher, but not engagement. Student performance was unaffected. Consolidation. Thirty-eight percent of teachers chose to discuss the learning object after it had been used. When teachers chose to discuss the learning object after students worked with it, students rated learning (t = -2.71, df = 469, p < .005) and learning object quality (t = -4.65 df =459, p < .001) lower, but not engagement. Student performance decreased significantly by 11% (p < .001). Conclusion. Four areas of integration were evaluated in this study. First, the decision to have students work independently on computers and not in pairs was made by 97% of the teachers. While there was no difference between student attitude and performance between independent and cooperative use of computers, this result is compromised by disparate sample sizes. Second, providing a brief or extended introduction appeared to be necessary, but not sufficient for improving student attitudes and performance. While the type of introduction (brief vs. extended) was unrelated to student perceptions and learning outcomes, post-test scores were significantly lower if students were simply allowed to explore on their own. Paradoxically, students preferred the “explore on your own” approach. In this situation, students’ attitudes were not the best predictor of student performance. Some type of introduction and guidance is probably a good starting strategy when using learning objects. This result is consistent with previous research on providing sufficient context (Schoner et al., 2006). Third, regarding the provision of instructional supports, the results of this study are consistent with previous studies suggesting that worksheets or guiding questions are essential for the successful use of learning objects (Brush & Saye, 2001; Concannon, Flynn, & Campbell, 2005;

427

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

Lim, Lee, & Richards, 2006; Mason, Pegler, & Weller, 2005; Mayer, 2004). However, the precise nature of supports appears to be important. When simple worksheets were used, student performance was unaffected, but when guiding questions were offered, student performance increased significantly. Guiding questions may have offered a clearer pathway to the intended goals of the lesson. Finally, somewhat surprisingly, consolidation or class discussion after the use of a learning object appears to have a negative affect on student attitude and learning performance. This finding is opposite to what one would expect. One explanation might be that class discussion was used when the use of learning objects did not go smoothly, when there were problems, and perhaps when confusion was experienced by students. A more detailed description of the discussion is required to fully understand this result.

suMMAry And IMplIcAtIons For educAtIon A thorough review of the research identified six factors that might either enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of learning objects. The results are summarized in Table 1. This chapter explored factors that influence the effectiveness of learning objects in the secondary school classroom. It would be somewhat premature to offer definitive advice for educators based on one study. That said, several tentative suggestions may be worth considering. 1.

It appears that a well designed learning object that is easy to use and engaging will have the most positive impact on student attitude and learning.

Table 1. Factors influencing the effectiveness of learning objects Factor

Student perceptions of:

Student Performance

Learning

LO Quality

LO Engagement

Interactivity

No effect

No effect

No effect

Pos effect

Design

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Engagement

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Usability

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Gender

No effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

Self Efficacy

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

No Effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Pos effect

Independent Use

No effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

Introducing LO

No effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

Free Exploration

Pos effect

Pos effect

No effect

Neg effect

Guiding Questions

Pos effect

Pos effect

No effect

Pos effect

Worksheets

Pos effect

Pos effect

No effect

No effect

Consolidation

Neg effect

Neg effect

No effect

Neg effect

Learning Object Characteristics

Grade Higher grade Subject Area Science Teaching Strategy

428

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Gender differences in attitude and performance may not be a concern when using learning objects. Self-efficacy or computer comfort level may be a problem with respect to attitude toward learning objects, but it does not appear to affect performance. Teachers can be somewhat confident that their less computer savvy students will not be disadvantaged when these tools are being used. Students in higher grades (e.g., grade 11 and 12) appear to be more receptive to learning objects than students in lower grades (e.g., grade 9 and 10). It is speculated that younger students may need more structure, guidance, and support when using learning objects. Learning objects may be more successful in science than in mathematics, although the reason for this is unclear. Perhaps more effort is needed to establish context and engagement with mathematics based learning objects. The most effective strategy selected by teachers was to provide a set of guiding questions. A less effective strategy involved letting students explore on their own without direction.

b. c.

d.

e. f.

Why subject differences were observed; How does attitude toward a specific subject area influence the impact of learning objects; How effective are learning objects in other subject areas such as English, French, business, and computer science; How does ability in a specific subject influence the effectiveness of learning objects; Why consolidation leads to lower student performance

In addition, while providing guiding questions proved to be a successful strategy, the actual quality of questions was not examined. It is possible that certain kinds of questions are more effective than others in supporting the use of learning objects (Brush & Saye, 2001). Finally, the type of knowledge gains associated with instructional strategies need to be looked at in more detail. The results from this study suggest that certain strategies lead to significant gains in learning performance, but nothing is said about the qualitative nature of knowledge of these gains. For example, Reimer & Moyer (2005) observed increases in conceptual knowledge with learning objects, but not in procedural knowledge.

Future reseArch reFerences The quantitative measures used to assess effectiveness of learning objects in this study were reliable and valid, and one can be reasonably confident that certain factors play a significant role in determining the effectiveness of learning objects. However, it is unclear why some factors are more influential than others. More detailed qualitative analysis in the form of interviews, focus groups, or open ended questions is needed to look at: a.

Why grade level differences are observed in the use of learning objects;

Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyear, L., & Harper, B. (2004). Developing a learning object metadata application profile based on LOM suitable for the Australian higher education market. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 191-208. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. A. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52-81. Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D. & Vines, J.M. (2005). An instructional model for Web-based

429

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (2), 217-235. American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Foundation. Retrieved Dec 1, 2006 from http://www.aauw. org/member_center/publications/TechSavvy/ TechSavvy.pdf Barbeite, F. G. & Weiss, E. M. (2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample: Testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(1), 1-15. Barker, L. J., & Aspray, W. (2006). The state of research on girls and IT. In J. M. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology (pp. 3-54).Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bartlett, A. (2002). Preparing preservice teachers to implement performance assessment and technology through electronic portfolios. Action in Teacher Education, 24(1), 90-97. Baruque, L. B., & Melo, R. N. (2004). Learning theory and instructional design using learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 343-370. Bennett, K. & McGee, P. (2005). Transformative power of the learning object debate. Open Learning, 20 (1), 15-30. Bradley, C., & Boyle, T. (2004). The design, development, and use of multimedia learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 371-389. Bratina, T.A., Hayes, D. & Blumsack, S.L. (2002). Preparing teachers to use learning objects. The Technology Source Archives. Retrieved January 10, 2007 from http://technologysource.org/article/ preparing_teachers_to_use_learning_objects/

430

Brown, A. R., & Voltz, B. D. (2005). Elements of effective e-learning design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1). Retrieved June 1, 2007 from http://www. irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/217/300 Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk. Learning to use language. Toronto, Canada: George J. McLeod Ltd. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K , Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M., et al. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(1), 57-73. Brush, T. & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported studentcentered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10 (4), 333-356. Bullock, D. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that preservice teachers encounter as the attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during field placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211-237. Carroll, J. B. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carroll, J. M., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Learning to use a word processor: By doing, by thinking, and by knowing. In J. C. Thomas & M. Schneider (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Christensen, R.W., & Knezek, G.A. (2000). Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude scales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 327-336. Cochrane, T. (2005). Interactive QuickTime: Developing and evaluating multimedia learning

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

objects to enhance both face-to-face and distance e-learning environments. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved August 3, 2005 from http://ijklo.org/ Volume1/v1p033-054Cochrane.pdf

Downes, S. (2003). Design and reusability of learning objects in an academic context: A new economy of education? USDLA, 17(1). Retrieved June 1, 2007 from http://www.usdla.org/html/ journal/JAN03_Issue/article01.html

Colley, A. (2003). Gender differences in adolescents’ perceptions of the best and worst aspects of computing at school. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 673–682.

Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitude towards the internet and reported experience with the internet, by gender, in an east European sample. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18(5), 521-535.

Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students: What has changed? Educational Research, 45(2), 155–165. Collins, A. Brown, J. S., Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Comber, C., Colley, A., Hargreaves, D. J., & Dorn, L. (1997). The effects of age, gender and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educational Research Volume, 39(2), 123–133. Compton, V., & Harwood, C. (2003). Enhancing technological practice: An assessment framework for technology education in New Zealand. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(1), 1-26. Concannon, F., Flynn, A. & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (3), 501-512.

Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Rehak, D., & Robson, R. (2004). Learning objects symposium special issue guest editorial. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 331-342. Eifler, K. Greene, T., & Carroll, J. (2001). Walking the talk is tough: From a single technology course to infusion. The Educational Forum, 65(4), 366-375. Forgasz, H. (2006). Factors that encourage or inhibit computer use for secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 77–93. Gadanidis, G., Gadanidis, J. & Schindler, K. (2003). Factors mediating the use of online applets in the lesson planning of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 323-344. Grimes, A. G., Hough, M. G., & Signorella, M. L. (2007). Email end users and spam: Relations of gender and age group to attitudes and actions. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 318–332.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harris, J. B., & Grandgenett, N. (1996). Correlates among teachers’ anxieties, demographics, and tele-computing activity. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 300–317.

Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 342-361.

Haughey, M., & Muirhead, B. (2005). Evaluating learning objects for schools. E-Journal of Instructional Sciences and Technology, 8(1). Retrieved June 1, 2007 from http://www.usq.

431

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/vol8_no1/fullpapers/ eval_learnobjects_school.htm Howard-Rose, D. & Harrigan, K. (2003). CLOE learning impact studies lite: Evaluating learning objects in nine Ontario university courses. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from http://cloe.on.ca/ documents/merlotconference10.doc Kay, R. H. (1989). A practical and theoretical approach to assessing computer attitudes: The computer attitude measure (CAM). Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21(4), 456-463. Kay, R. H. (1992). An analysis of methods used to examine gender differences in computer-related behaviour. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 323-336. Kay, R. H. (1993). A critical evaluation of gender differences in computer-related behaviour. Computer in the Schools, 9(4), 81-93. Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2005). Developing learning objects for secondary school students: A multi-component model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 229-254. Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007a). A MultiComponent Model for Assessing Learning Objects: The Learning Object Evaluation Metric (LOEM) (Unpublished manuscript submitted for publication, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada). Retrieved from http:// faculty.uoit.ca/kay/papers/LOES_Student_2007. doc/MCV4.doc Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007a). Assessing learning, quality, and engagement in learning objects: The learning object evaluation scale for students (LOES-S) (Unpublished manuscript submitted for publication, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada). Retrieved Nov 1 from http://faculty.uoit.ca/kay/papers/LOES_Student_2007.doc

432

Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007b). A systematic evaluation of learning objects for secondary school students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35 (4), 411-448. Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2007c). Evaluating the learning in learning objects. Open Learning, 22(1), 5-28. Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007d). Evaluating the use of learning objects for secondary school science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 261-289. Kay, R. H., & Knaack. L. (2008a). Appendix C: Secondary School Learning Objects. Retrieved Oct 19, 2008 from http://faculty.uoit.ca/kay/papers/AppendixC.html Kay, R. H. (2008b). Exploring gender differences in computer-related behaviour: Past, present, and future. In T .T. Kidd & I. Chen, Social Information Technology: Connecting Society and Cultural Issues (pp. 12-30). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Kay, R. H., & Knaack. L. (2008c). LORDEC Learning Object Collection. Retrieved Oct 19, 2008 from http://www.education.uoit.ca/lordec/ collections.html Kay, R. H., & Knaack. L. (2008c). LORDEC Training for Use of Learning Objects. Retrieved Oct 19, 2008 from http://www.education.uoit.ca/ lordec/lo_use.html King, J., Bond, T., & Blandford, S. (2002). An investigation of computer anxiety by gender and grade. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18, 69–84. Kong, S.C., & Kwok, L.F. (2005). A cognitive tool for teaching the addition/subtraction of common fractions: A model of affordances. Computers and Education, 45(2), 245-265. Koppi, T., Bogle, L., & Bogle, M. (2005). Learning objects, repositories, sharing and reusability. Open Learning, 20(1), 83-91.

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

Kubek, J. E., Miller-Albrecht, S. A., & Murphy, M. D. (1999). Finding information on the World Wide Web: Exploring older adults’ exploration. Educational Gerontology, 25(2), 167–183. Lim, C.P., Lee, S.L. & Richards, C. (2006). Developing interactive learning objects for a computing mathematics models. International Journal on E-Learning, 5 (2), 221-244. Liu, M., Hsieh, P., Cho, Y. & Schallert, D. (2006). Middle school students’ self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3), 225-242. Lopez-Morteo, G. & Lopez, G. (2007). Computer support for learning mathematics: A learning environment based on recreational learning objects. Computers and Education, 48 (4), 618-641. MacKinnon, G. (2001). A promising model for incorporating the computer in science learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(4), 395–404. Mason, R., Pegler, C., &Weller, M. (2005). A learning object success story. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1). Retreived June 1, 2007 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/ v9n1/v9n1_mason.asp Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a threestrikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. McCormick, R. & Li, N. (2005). An evaluation of European learning objects in use. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(3), 213-231. McRobbie, C. J., Ginns, I. S., & Stein, S. J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 81-101.

Metros, S. E. (2005). Visualizing knowledge in new educational environments: a course on learning objects. Open Learning, 20(1), 93-102. Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175-197. Muzio, J. A., Heins, T., & Mundell, R. (2002). Experiences with reusable e-learning objects from theory to practice. Internet and Higher Education, 2002 (5), 21-34. Nesbit, J., & Belfer, K. (2004). Collaborative evaluation of learning objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online Education Using Learning Objects, (pp. 138-153). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Nurmi, S., & Jaakkola, T. (2006a). Effectiveness of learning objects in various instructional settings. Learning, Media, and Technology, 31(3), 233-247. Nurmi, S., & Jaakkola, T. (2006b). Promises and pitfall of learning objects. Learning, Media, and Technology, 31(3), 269-285. Oliver, R. & McLoughlin, C. (1999). Curriculum and learning-resources issues arising from the use of Web-based course support systems. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 5 (4), 419-435. Parrish, P. E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52 (1), 49-67. Plante, J., & Beattie, D. (2004). Education, skills and learning – Research papers Connectivity and ICT integration in Canadian elementary and secondary schools: First results from the Information and Communications Technologies in Schools Survey, 2003-2004. Statistics Canada. Retrieved Aug 29, 2004 from http://www.schoolnet.ca/ home/documents/Report_EN.pdf

433

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

Poldoja, H., Leinonen, T., Valjataga, T., Ellonen, A. & Priha, M. (2006). Progressive inquiry learning object templates (PILOT). International Journal on E-Learning, 5 (1), 103-111.

Sosteric, M & Hesemeier, S. (2004). A first step towards a theory of learning objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects (pp. 43-58). London: Routledge Falmer.

Rehak, D. & Mason, R. (2003). Chapter 3: Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2003 (1). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www-jime.open. ac.uk/2003/1/reuse-05.html

Strudler, N., Archambault, L., Bendixen, L., Anderson, D., & Weiss, R. (2003). Project THREAD: Technology helping restructure educational access and delivery. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 39-54.

Reimer, K. & Moyer, P.S. (2005). Third-graders learning about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24 (1), 5-25.

Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 73-89.

Robertson, H. (2003). Toward a theory of negativity: Teacher education and information and communications technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 280-296.

Thorpe, M., Kubiak, C., & Thorpe, K. (2003). Designing for reuse and versioning. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources, (pp.116-120). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.

Torkzadeh, R., Pflughoeft, K., & Hall, L. (1999). Computer self-efficacy, training effectiveness and user attitudes: An empirical study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18(4), 299–309.

Sanders, J. (2006). Gender and technology: A research review. In C Skelton, B. Francis, and L. Smulyan (Eds.), Handbook of Gender and Education. London: Sage. Schoner, V., Buzza, D., Harrigan, K. & Strampel, K. (2005). Learning objects in use: ‘Lite’ assessment for field studies. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 1-18. Sedig, K & Liang, H (2006). Interactivity of visual mathematical representations: Factors affecting learning and cognitive processes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 17(2), 179-212. Siqueira, S. W. M., Melo, R. N., & Braz, M. H. L. B. (2004). Increasing the semantics of learning objects. International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 17(1), 27-39.

434

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 19942002. Retrieved August 30, 2004 from http://nces. ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt419.asp Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Waxman, H. C., Connell, M. L., & Gray, J. (2002). A quantitative synthesis of recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Laboratory. Wepner, S. B., Ziomek, N., & Tao L. (2003). Three teacher educators’ perspectives about the shifting responsibilities of infusing technology into the curriculum. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 53-63.

Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects

Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1-22. Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved July, 1, 2005, from http:// reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc Wiley, D., Waters, S., Dawson, D., Lambert, B., Barclay, M., & Wade, D. (2004). Overcoming the limitations of learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 507-521. Zhang, Y. (2005). Age, gender, and internet attitudes among employees in the business world. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 1–10.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Design: Layout, degree of personalization, quality of graphics, and emphasis of key concepts.

Engagement Construct: Student perceptions of how engaging a learning object is. Interactivity: Involves promoting constructive activity, providing a user with sufficient control, and certain degree of interaction. Learning Construct: Student perceptions of how much they learned as a result of using a learning object. Learning Object: Interactive Web-based tool that support the learning of specific concepts by enhancing, amplifying, and guiding the cognitive processes of learners. Quality Construct: Student perceptions of the overall quality of a learning objects after they used a learning object. Reusability: Permits learning objects to be useful for a large audience, particularly when the objects are placed in well organized, searchable databases. Self-Efficacy: Refers to the perceived confidence that one has in doing a specific set of tasks. Student Performance: The percent difference between post-test and pre-test scores.

Engagement: Refers to difficulty level, theme, aesthetic appeal, feedback, and inclusion of multimedia.

435

436

Chapter XXVIII

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices* Mark van‘t Hooft Kent State University, USA

AbstrAct This chapter describes the use of wireless mobile devices for teaching and learning, and their impact on digital literacy. Following a brief description of these digital tools for education, a sampling of short narratives is used to illustrate what types of educational activities are possible above and beyond what is possible without them, what pedagogical changes need to be made to effectively integrate wireless mobile devices in teaching and learning activities, how these devices can be adapted to harness their full potential as ubiquitous devices for teaching and learning, and how digital literacy skills influence and are being influenced by this technology. The ultimate goal of this chapter is to provide evidence of the potential that wireless mobile devices have for teaching and learning.

IntroductIon We live in a world in which change is a constant, especially when it comes to technology. New developments and inventions occur on a daily basis; think, for example, about developments in the use of alternative fuel sources, human cloning, and nanotechnology. Education is affected like any other field through the continuous introduction and integration of new tools such as digital imaging and video, the Internet, wireless technologies, and more recently, personal technologies like mobile

phones and handheld computers. These new tools have the potential to fundamentally change teaching and learning when integrated appropriately and under the right conditions. The development of wireless mobile devices can be traced back to the 1970s, starting with Xerox PARC’s research into the Dynabook concept, a highly mobile, notebook-sized computer with artificial intelligence capabilities. This was followed by the development of related devices such as the Psion I (1984), GRiDPaD (1988), Amstrad’s PenPad and Tandy’s Zoomer (1993),

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

the unsuccessful Apple Newton (1993-1995), and the eMate (1997-1998). However, while others struggled, US Robotics (bought in 1997 by 3Com) introduced the Palm Pilot in 1996, featuring a graphical user interface, text input using Graffiti handwriting recognition software, and a cradle for data exchange with a desktop computer. This device became the forerunner of several generations of devices powered by the Palm OS, ranging from the Palm Pilot 1000 to handhelds like the Tungsten TX (Bayus, Jain, & Rao, 1997; Williams, 2004), and a plethora of peripherals. During the same time, Microsoft also actively pursued the development of a portable device, modifying its Windows operating system to fit on handhelds produced by such companies as HP and Compaq. This development did not have a real impact on the mobile computing market until Microsoft’s release of Windows CE 2.0 in 1997, and the Handheld PC Professional and Windows Mobile 2003 Operating Systems (HPC Factor, 2004). New form factors and platforms constantly enter the market. The most recent ones can be categorized as either Ultra Mobile Personal Computers (UMPCs) or Mobile Internet Devices (MIDs). UMPCs are somewhat larger in size as previous devices, sporting a larger screen (usually a 7-inch touch screen) and providing productivity tools on top of Internet connectivity, communication, and entertainment. Examples include the Asus Eee PC, the OQO model 02, and the Samsung Q1. MIDs can be placed somewhere between a mobile phone and UMPC on the spectrum of wireless mobile devices, providing users with PC-like Internet connectivity, communication, and entertainment. It features a slightly larger touch screen (~ 5 inches) than a mobile phone or handheld computer. The first MIDs are expected to be released in 2008, using Intel’s Ultra Mobile Platform 2007. In addition to more “traditional” handheld computing devices, the last decade or so has also

seen the development of a plethora of small digital devices that serve a variety of purposes. For many devices the primary function is entertainment, media creation, or communication, including media players such as Apple iPods, portable gaming devices like the Sony PSP and the Nintendo DS, and, of course, wireless mobile phones. These types of devices are becoming increasingly multifunctional, with iPods being able to store and play music, pictures, and video; portable gaming devices sporting wireless capabilities for interaction between devices (and in the case of the PSP, Internet access); and mobile phones being used to shoot pictures and video, upload content to the Web or e-mail it elsewhere, do text messaging, and make phone calls. Whatever the device, convergence seems to be increasingly important, and growing numbers of young people are using mobile, digital, and connected tools whenever and wherever they need them. Even though mobile and digital technologies will continue to develop in ways that we cannot possibly predict, agreement exists that future tools will have some characteristics in common (see e.g. Roush, 2005; Stead, 2006; Thornburg, 2006; van ‘t Hooft & Vahey, 2007, p. 4). They will be: • • • • • •

•

•

Personal (one-to-one or one-to-many access); Mobile (always-on-you technology); Networked and connected to the Internet 24/7 (always-on technology); Accessible (cheap and easy to use); Flexible (users have choices); Social (collaboration and allowing for creating, sharing, aggregating, and connecting knowledge); Multi-modal (support the consumption AND creation of different media including text, image, sound, and video); and Contextual (context-awareness, but also context creating).

437

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

hAndheld And MobIle devIces For teAchIng And leArnIng Handheld and mobile computing enthusiasts have been advocating the use of small and portable devices for teaching and learning in an effort to get closer to a truly ubiquitous computing environment. The term “ubiquitous computing” was defined in 1991 by Mark Weiser from Xerox PARC as an environment in which “a new way of thinking about computers in the world … allows the computers themselves to vanish into the background” and become indistinguishable from everyday life (p. 94). Weiser emphasized that ubiquitous computing in this sense does not just mean portability, mobility, and instant connectivity, but the existence of an environment in which people use many computing devices of varying sizes (which he described as tabs, pads, and boards) that interact with each other, combined with the aforementioned change in human psychology to the point where users have learned to use the technology well enough that they are no longer consciously aware of its presence and do not have to be. While the change in our knowledge and use of a wide variety of digital devices is not yet at the level that Weiser envisioned more than a decade ago, we are much closer to reaching the technological requirements: “cheap, low-power computers that include equally convenient displays, a network that ties them all together, and software systems implementing ubiquitous applications” (Weiser, 1991, p. 99). Weiser’s concept of ubiquitous computing has been revisited by scholars who are trying to take his ideas to the next level. Rogers (2006) has proposed a modified version in which “UbiComp technologies are designed not to do things for people but to engage them more actively in what they currently do” (p. 418). Bell and Dourish (2007) have argued that ubiquitous computing is characterized by power-geometries (the ways in which spatial arrangements, access, and mobility reflect hierarchies of power and control);

438

heterogeneity (as opposed to standardization and consistency in technology, use, and regulation); and management of ubiquitous computing that is messy and that one could argue already exists in parts of the world. Weiser’s vision of ubiquitous computing (as well as revisions of his ideas) fits well with current visions of digital technology use in education and its potential impact on teaching and learning both inside and outside of the classroom. Academic research has shown that computer use and student learning gains inside of schools are closely related to computer access and use for all students in teachers’ own classrooms (Becker, Ravitz, & Wong 1999; Shin, Norris, & Soloway, 2007; Soloway et al., 2001). A 1:1 student-to-computer ratio is needed to make digital technology use in schools truly personal and meaningful, but for many school districts attaining this ratio is a financial impossibility when desktop or even laptop computers are considered (Shin, Norris, & Soloway, 2007). Mobile and handheld devices seem to provide a more realistic alternative for integrating technology into the classroom to create a ubiquitous computing environment and meeting the challenges of improving student achievement, because of their small size and comparatively low cost in acquisition and ownership (Hennessy, 2000; Robertson et al., 1996; Sharples, 2000a). As a result, wireless mobile devices have started to make their way into classrooms, often supplementing the existing technology infrastructure. Some scholars have defined the resulting learning environment as “handheld-centric”, with students having access to and actually using a variety of equipment besides mobile devices, including networked PCs, probeware, and digital cameras. The value of a handheld-centric classroom thus becomes “providing all students with access to valuable resources on a shared but timely basis,” where each tool has been earmarked for its intended use (Norris & Soloway, 2004; Tatar, Roschelle, Vahey, & Penuel, 2003).

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

Because they have the potential to create a truly ubiquitous computing environment and change the role of existing technology in classrooms, wireless mobile devices are also altering the nature of technology integration in teaching and learning, and can act as catalysts for radical changes in pedagogical practices. Fung, Hennessy, and O’Shea (1998) have described this changing role of technology as a paradigm shift, comparing it to the historic shift in reading from initially being done as an elitist activity in centers of learning such as monasteries and universities to an integral part of everyday life. In the case of handheld and mobile computing, the fundamental difference from the more traditional desktop computing environment lies in the fact that in addition to the more traditional uses, users “interacting with a mobile system interact with other users [and] interact with more than one computer or device at the same time” (Roth, 2002, p. 282; see also Cole & Stanton, 2003; Danesh, Inkpen, Lau, Shu, & Booth, 2001; Mandryk, Inkpen, Bilezkjian, Klemmer, & Landay, 2001; Rogers & Price, 2007). Therefore, mobile computers lend themselves well for both individual and collaborative learning if used appropriately. Roschelle and Pea (2002), for example, highlight three ways handheld devices have been used to increase learning collaboratively – classroom response systems, participatory simulations, and collaborative data gathering – and suggest there are many more such uses (see also Danesh et al., 2001; Mandryk et al., 2001; Rogers & Price, 2007; Roschelle, 2003; Roschelle, Penuel, & Abrahamson, 2004; Stead, 2006). Moreover, because of their small size, wireless mobile computing devices no longer constrain the user like desktops and laptops do. As such, they enable students to take the initiative and explore, allowing for a more authentic and deeper immersion in technology, not as a separate subject of study, but as an integrated part of the whole curriculum. Taking this idea beyond the classroom, handhelds encourage the use of technology in everyday activities and enable students

to understand the computer as a lifelong-learning tool anywhere, anytime (Inkpen, 2001; Sharples, 2000b). This will eventually lead to the type of ubiquitous computing that Weiser envisioned. In fact, researchers in the area of mobile learning have gone a step beyond mobile learning and have introduced the concept of learning while mobile. Learning while mobile takes into consideration aspects of mobile learning such as mobility of the technology and the learner, but it goes a step further by looking at the constant mobility of our society (and knowledge). It considers learning as personalized, learner-centered, situated in time and space, collaborative, ubiquitous, and lifelong. It sees learning as happening across contexts, people, and digital tools that are both mobile and static. It focuses not on learners and technologies, but on the interactions between them, emphasizing that learning is a social process. As such, two important aspects of learning while mobile are conversation and context (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2007). Given its characteristics, learning while mobile is more geared towards informal than formal learning, but it provides opportunities to address the tensions and challenges that schools are facing today (Sharples, 2007). For example, learning while mobile provides a bridge between schools and society, and between formal and informal learning. In addition, because learning while mobile involves the use of (personalized) digital tools as mediating devices, it is also an avenue of merging real and digital worlds, for example through physical environments that are augmented by easily accessible digital information and just-in-time access to information or people (Swan, Kratcoski, & van ‘t Hooft, 2007; van ‘t Hooft, Swan, Cook, & Lin, 2007; Winters, 2007). Examples are abound here, and include learning in museums, science centers, galleries, and the outdoors, as well as learning in which digital and real worlds are blended, such as is sometimes the case when the real is augmented with layers of digital information or when digital games are used

439

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

in real-life situations (see e.g. Faux, McFarlane, Roche, & Facer, 2006; McNeal & van ‘t Hooft, 2006; Roche, & Facer, 2006; Klopfer, 2007; Lin, 2007; RCET, 2006; Rogers & Price, 2007; Stead, 2006). Paired with the increasing use of mobile and other technologies in K-12 education is a need for expanded literacy skills for teachers and students. Traditionally, being literate meant that one could access, evaluate, and use information from a variety of sources. Therefore, an information literate person recognizes the need for accurate and complete information for decision making; decides what information is needed and where to obtain it; accesses, evaluates, and organizes this information; integrates new information into existing knowledge, and uses it for critical thinking and problem solving (Doyle, 1992; Langford, 1999). However, the introduction of technology in the classroom and beyond has put a virtual flood of information in the hands of teachers and students. It has also changed the ways in which we access, interact with, and (re)create information (see e.g. Horrigan, 2008). Literacy skills as originally defined without technology are still essential, but with the rising popularity of the Internet, mobile and wireless technologies, and the explosion in data collection, processing, and storage, there is a more pressing need for educators to teach students how to find, sift, process, and analyze data, and make meaning of it all. Therefore, it is now more important than ever for teachers to help students acquire the necessary literacy skills to deal independently and effectively with massive amounts of information (Fitzpatrick, 2000; Jenkins et al., 2006; Rice & Wilson, 1999; Risinger, 1998; Saye, 1998). These skills include learning how to use traditional literacy skills to deal with new forms of information, and new digital literacy skills to amplify existing skills with technology tools. For example, according to Gilster (1992), digital literacy skills address the fact that information is no longer limited to

440

text but also includes still images, video, sound, and interactive web pages. Second, information retrieval has changed from being mostly bookbased to being more Internet-based, requiring increased information construction from multiple sources. Third, digital literacy is interactive and multidimensional, and requires the ability to read, evaluate, integrate, reorganize and use resources from multiple sources and communicate these newly constructed pieces of knowledge to others (e.g. Breck, 2006, 2007; Jones-Kavalier & Flanagan, 2006). Finally, we live in an increasingly participatory culture, shifting the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community involvement. New literacies must include social skills, defined by Jenkins et al. (2006) as play, performance, simulation, appropriation, multitasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, transmedia navigation, networking, and negotiation (p. 4). In sum, wireless mobile devices possess certain characteristics that allow for frequent and immediate access to a wide variety of tools, networks of people, and information sources for teachers and students. This requires more and increasingly refined information and digital literacy skills, especially when considering Weiser’s vision of ubiquitous computing where the focus is no longer on the tools but on their use. Within this theoretical framework, let us now turn to some specific examples of handheld use for teaching and learning, in order to explore •

•

•

What types of educational activities wireless mobile devices make possible above and beyond what is currently possible with available technology to improve teaching and learning; What pedagogical changes need to be made to effectively integrate mobile technologies in K-12 classrooms and beyond; How wireless mobile devices can be used to harness their full potential as ubiquitous devices for teaching and learning; and

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

•

How literacy skills are influencing and being influenced by this new technology.

the gIngerbreAd vIllAge (by Karen Mcclain, stow, ohio, usA)

The narratives that follow are examples of the different uses of wireless mobile devices for teaching and learning in a variety of formal and informal environments such as schools, musea, and even just the outdoors. The stories come from around the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Taiwan. While the stories describe the use of mobile technologies at particular grade levels or for particular uses, these uses could easily be adapted for learners at different age levels and abilities, making them a good testimony for the flexibility of wireless mobile devices and their potential for teaching and learning. The first story was written by an elementary special needs teacher who integrates a variety of technology tools in her teaching, including desktops, laptops, handheld computers, and digital cameras. She has been working with the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET: http:// www.rcet.org) at Kent State University (Ohio, USA), a center that has been investigating the use of different types of wireless mobile devices in K-12 education and their impact on teaching and learning. RCET’s research has its origins in the Palm Education Pioneer project (http://www. palmgrants.sri.com/background.html) in 20012002 (see also Vahey & Crawford, 2002; van ‘t Hooft, Diáz, & Andrews, 2003; van ‘t Hooft, Diáz, & Swan, 2004). As she describes later, the main advantage of having a 1:1 student-device ratio for her and her students has been the ability for the technology to be adapted to individual students and their particular disabilities. She teaches grades 1-4 at a suburban elementary school; her class size ranges from 10-15 each year and includes students with a variety of socio-economic/ethnic backgrounds and learning disabilities.

Prior to the winter holiday, I always try to teach the geometry math unit. The shapes of holiday decorations easily lead to discussions about geometric shapes and figures. The children are interested in the holiday and a culminating activity which involves the creation of a decorated gingerbread house using geometric shapes and figures leaves an imprint on each child’s memory. I have found that my students easily recall the math concepts after the winter break, and believe that they are still able to recall the geometry unit when taking the state required assessments in math. To get started, the children drew a floor plan of their favorite room at home using handheld computers and the drawing application that is on the Print Boy menu. They estimated the actual length of each wall and each piece of furniture, and entered their estimates into the Memo Pad application on the handheld. The next day, each student took a six-foot tape measure home and measured the actual length of the walls, windows, doors, and furniture in their favorite room. I asked them to compare the actual size of each measurement with the estimates on their handheld sketches. From this discussion, they were able to better understand how a ratio is used to build from a blueprint. The second and third grade students then used the handheld calculator to calculate the perimeter of their rooms. The fourth graders calculated the perimeter and the square footage of their rooms. Next, my students used the Memo Pad application to list as many geometric shapes and figures as they could find in the classroom. They earned certificates for finding the most unusual figure, the most figures, congruent figures, symmetric figures, and so on. We played a form of “I Spy” to find shapes and figures around the school. I also encouraged the children to use a variety of senses to discover the shapes and figures. They

441

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

used their visual sense by just looking for a shape or figure. The tactile sense was used by tracing objects with their fingertips. The kinesthetic sense required tracing a larger object using their hands and arms. This usually involved a door, window, or a piece of furniture. Finally, my students used their auditory sense by listening for a sound that drew them to an object, such as the ticking of a clock. For some children, the aroma of dinner cooking led them to a shape in the kitchen. In this case, they were actually using the olfactory sense to discover more shapes and figures. After several lessons which centered on shapes and figures in and around the house, it was time to work on the culminating activity, which was to make a gingerbread house. I found pre-made houses made of a synthetic material which simulated gingerbread at a local craft store. I was able to get four different styles, so that we had a variety of homes when the activity was completed. I recruited my sister as an extra hand for this activity. First, students selected a house to decorate. They drew the footprint of the house on the drawing application on the handheld, then took digital pictures of their houses using the camera attachment. Next, students went back to their notes on the Memo Pad and determined a ratio that would be an appropriate scale for the gingerbread house to a real house. Each child was certain that his/her gingerbread house would be a ‘mansion’ if it were enlarged to the ratio they selected. They incorporated walls, doors, windows and eventually all of the furniture important to a child. Some drawings had fireplaces and others had entertainment centers complete with video games. All of the children had televisions (big screen!) and computers in their dream houses. Finally it was time to mix up the icing recipe used to cement the candy to the houses and begin adding real candy to each pre-fabricated house. We had strict rules about how much candy could be eaten during the project! We made sure we had a large variety of candy in many shapes and colors. During the decorating process the children took

442

lots of pictures, using either the handheld cameras or a regular digital camera. We saw lots of sharing of ideas and heard wonderful conversations. Without prompting, the children called the candy by shape. “I need a rectangular prism for my window,” said one child. Another student added a flat round piece of candy to his chimney and told me, “The circle on my roof is my satellite dish!” When we asked a second grader if we could help him stand up the snowman candy that was laying flat in front of his house, he promptly told us that his snowman was “making a snow angel!” That quickly led to a demonstration on the classroom floor and a discussion about symmetry. After the houses were complete and arranged on a table to represent a village, the children wrote stories about living in a gingerbread village. They completed the stories on Word-To-Go, the handhelds enabling them to take their stories and write outside of the classroom. Students shared their stories using the infrared beaming capabilities on the handhelds to beam them to each other. When they took their ‘mansions’ home for the winter break, they also took their handheld computers, containing fifteen stories written by their classmates to read during the holidays. The stories were rich with description. The vocabulary the children used included the math terms they had studied. The excitement they shared with each other was contagious.

MyArtspAce (contributed by giasemi vavoula, Mike sharples, paul rudman, peter lonsdale, and julia Meek, united Kingdom) MyArtSpace is a relatively new service for students to spread learning between schools and museums using a combination of mobile phones and personal web space (Vavoula et al., 2007). It provides children with meaningful, engaging,

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

and enjoyable experiences of museum visits, complete with tangible outcomes that they can take away with them and work with after the visit. MyArtSpace ran in three museums in the United Kingdom: the Urbis museum of urban life in Manchester (www.urbis.org.uk), the D-Day museum in Portsmouth (www.ddaymuseum. co.uk), and the Study Gallery in Poole (www. thestudygallery.org). The technology has now been developed as a commercial service (www. ookl.org.uk), which has been adopted for a number of venues, including Kew Gardens in London and the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. A day out at the museum becomes part of a sequence that includes setting a big question, exploring it through a museum visit, reflecting on the visit back in the classroom or at home, and presenting the results. The technology provides the essential link across the different settings. The teacher plans the museum visit by consulting the MyArtSpace Teacher’s Pack, posing an open-ended question for students to investigate during the museum visit as they selectively gather evidence. For example, students from a history class visited the D-Day Museum which interprets the Allied landings during World War II. Their task was to collect evidence on whether D-Day was a triumph or a disaster for Britain. Students are provided with multimedia mobile phones and key in a personal identifier. They can explore the museum in any way they choose and ‘collect’ exhibits of their choosing by typing a two-letter code (shown on a printed label beside it) into the handset. The code sends and plays a related multimedia presentation on the phone and also automatically sends an image and description of that exhibit back to their personal web space. Students are also prompted to record their reasons for collecting particular multimedia representations of the exhibits, encouraging them to reflect on what they see in the museum in relation to the big question they are trying to answer. They can also create their own interpretation of the visit by taking photos, recording sounds, or writing

text comments that can also be added to their personal web space. To enhance collaboration, students can see on their phones who else has collected the same exhibition(s) they have collected themselves, providing a prompt for face-to-face interaction. Following the museum visit students can view their personal collections online, including the exhibits they collected, the pictures they took, sounds they recorded, and notes they wrote. They can expand on their collections by adding items from fellow students or the museums online collection of digital artifacts. The collection is then organized into a personal, digital gallery that can be used for classroom presentations or shared with a larger audience outside of school via a secure and moderated web space. In sum, what makes MyArtSpace different from other multimedia museum guides is that it provides a solid context for a museum visit, so that this visit becomes part of a sequence of planning, engagement, learning, and reflection, rather than just a fun day out. Motivation for learning is increased, and the mobile technology of MyArtSpace bridges the children’s experiences of different contexts, media, and content, leading to an integrated learning experience across formal and informal settings.

WAdIng Into scIence WIth hAndheld coMputers (by shawn jones, Kent, ohio, usA) This fifth grade teacher started working with RCET in 2005. He teaches at a local elementary school that provides educational services to students from working class/university neighborhoods. As a result, the student population tends to be heterogeneous, with class sizes of about 20-25 students. Even though he was a novice when it came to handheld devices, he and his students became proficient in their use very quickly. Their story, as told by him here, is evidence of that: 443

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

As part of a water quality monitoring project of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR: http://www.ohiodnr.com/dnap/monitor/ default.htm), the County Soil and Water Conservation District, and Kent State University’s Desktop Video Conferencing Project, my fifth grade students have been monitoring the water quality in a local stream for almost two years. It has enabled me to provide students with authentic and meaningful learning experiences. Because of their small size and mobility, Palm OS based handheld devices and Pasco science probes have played a huge role in this project, especially with respect to on-site data collection, and the ability to carry digital data back to the classroom for immediate analysis and feedback. At the site, my students have been collecting information about the stream by turning over rocks in the water and catching the fleeing organisms in a waiting net. These organisms are then counted, recorded, and returned to the stream. The amount and variety of organisms found provides us with an indication of the quality of the water. In addition, students record characteristics of the water itself using probes attached to handheld computers. The devices and probes we are using allow us to measure up to three different variables at once, in this case water temperature, pH levels, and force of the water flow. Because the devices are small and easy to carry, even when the probes are connected to the handhelds, kids have been able to go wherever they needed to go to collect data, including the middle of the streambed. In addition, the data they have been collecting is recorded straight into Data Studio, a data analysis program on their handhelds, and can be viewed numerically or graphically as it is being collected or transferred to a desktop computer afterwards. While we really only needed the temperature and pH probes to measure the water quality, I decided to take the force meter as well. The reasoning behind this is that we were studying force in science and students were having a difficult

444

time understanding how much force a Newton really represents. In order to give students a real-life example, we connected a force meter to a handheld and tied a small parachute made out of string and plastic to the meter. Students took turns holding the parachute in the stream and letting the water drag it, while looking at the readings on the handheld. The students could actually feel and see at the same time how much force is exerted at varying amounts of Newton. Another nice feature about having the handheld computer was that if we had to do any calculations or conversions (like Newtons to grams to pounds), we had the calculator right there to help us with that. Back at school, we transferred the data to our desktops, and projected the graphs onto a large screen for collaborative analysis and discussion of our findings. We compared our findings from the fall to the spring then as well and created a double bar graph to compare the two trips. In addition, using IP-based videoconferencing we have been able to compare our findings with other classrooms in Ohio and the ODNR, as well as consult natural resource experts at Kent State University. Even though the water quality project is great in itself, the mobile technology has added another dimension to it. Students were excited to see how a piece of technology that they had mainly been using in the classroom like a desktop computer could be taken into the field to collect data and be used for scientific research. They were amazed at how our little handhelds could do so much and in so many different ways. I am excited about the fact that besides learning the science content, my students have developed new skills to collect and use a variety of data formats (text, graphs, images) from a variety of sources (science probes, handhelds, the Internet, videoconferencing, and email) in a variety of ways (data collection and analysis, making comparisons, understanding new concepts, communication with others).

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

MuseA And the outdoors As MobIle leArnIng spAces (contributed by yimei lin, chia yi, taiwan) Learning is a lifelong process; most of the learning we do happens outside of schools and classrooms. This type of learning is often defined as being informal. Musea provide great opportunities for informal learning that is flexible and self-paced in that they house all kinds of interesting collections of artifacts and records. Mobile devices such as wireless handheld computers and GPS-enabled mobile phones can increase the learning potential in museum spaces in that they provide spontaneous and ‘just-in-time’ access to relevant digital information and create opportunities for users to capture what they see, hear, and experience. The examples that follow were originally described in Lin (2007). One example of informal learning with mobile technology is the context-aware guiding service in the National Museum of Natural Science (NMNS; http://www.nmns.edu.tw/index_eng.html) in Taiwan. The service was developed around a knowledge-based mobile learning model proposed by Hsu, Ke, and Yang (2006) and launched for public use in 2005. Before visiting the NMNS, a visitor can login to its website, personalize a learning plan that fits individual needs and interests, and save his/her preferences in the museum’s database. When the visitor arrives at the NMNS, he/she is equipped with an Internet-ready wireless handheld device, and has three choices: following the previously prepared individual plan, accepting a learning tour recommended by the museum, or freely exploring exhibits. With the help of ZigBee/ IEEE 802.15.4 technology (a wireless technology developed as an open global standard to address needs of low-cost, low-power, wireless sensor networks, and running on unlicensed frequency

bands), the context-aware system automatically determines a visitor’s location and delivers corresponding content and relevant information to his/her mobile device. In this respect, the mobile technology provides content that is tailored to the visitor, above and beyond what is available in the exhibits themselves. Following their visit, learners can re-access the system through the museum’s website to retrieve additional learning content and further resources that are recommended according to the record of the individual’s on-site learning behavior and preferences. A second example of informal learning is the Outdoor Location-Aware Learning System (OLALS) project in Taiwan. The OLALS infrastructure includes Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and a wireless LAN network to support a platform that displays electronic maps, location information, and tour information, including a user’s current location. When learners, equipped with a wireless mobile device, enter a location that provides the OLALS service, they can access information related to the particular location (history, culture, geographical characteristics, and tour information). They can use the platform both online and offline to create their own tour guides and organize related and relevant information in a variety of formats, including text, images, video, and multimedia. In addition, users can manage their own tours, take notes, and record information while interacting with the environment through the use of the OLALS e-diary tool. Following the learning experience, users can upload their data files to the OLALS server to organize and reconstruct their experiences using the digital time stamps on their files. Learners can also share their information with others so that they can construct their own tour guides. Finally, learners can use the uploaded tour information to do further research (Chang, Sheu, & Chan, 2003).

445

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

Frequency 1550 (Waag society, Amsterdam, the netherlands) The Waag Society, located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, is a non-profit organization that specializes in research and development, as well as experimentation, in the area of new digital technologies, art, culture, and education. Its Creative Learning Lab focuses on innovation and modernization of education, emphasizing that learners have the smarts and creativity to produce media, not just consume it. Frequency 1550 (http://waag.org/project/frequentie) is one of the more successful educational projects of the Waag Society’s Creative Learning Lab. It is a mobile city game that uses GPS and Ultra Mobile Telephone System (UMTS) technology to let teenage learners actively learn about history instead of passively absorb knowledge, and is a good example of merging formal with informal learning and the real world with the digital. More specifically, Frequency 1550 takes learners out of the classroom to learn about the history of medieval Amsterdam. They take on the roles of listeners, historians, and characters in the story. They are listeners in that they receive parts of the story, historians in that they are asked to reconstruct part of the story, and characters in the story in that they are asked to play a group of pilgrims in medieval Amsterdam anno 1550, competing to find a special relic. Actively involving students in this way enables them to make connections between historical figures, artifacts, buildings, locations, and events. Small groups of students roam the city, using GPS-equipped cell phones to walk historical routes and visit historical locations, access related digital information, download challenges, complete location-based media assignments on the city’s history, and create their own knowledge. They are supported by other groups of students at a central location who can see the overall picture

446

and work out the team’s strategy in order to outwit their opponents. Their tasks include collecting the pilgrim’s multimedia artifacts, checking out historical references, providing players in the field with relevant information, and figuring out ways to slow down the other teams’ progress. Both street players and those at the central location complement each other in their activities; street players are focused on completing the challenges and creating historically accurate and original digital artifacts while students in the central location make sure that they are in control of the bigger picture. At the end of each day of playing, all teams gather to see not only who did the best, but to collectively reflect on the media produced, the answers given, and the strategic decisions taken during the game. Preliminary research has found that students tend to learn more history when participating in Frequency 1550 as compared to those who received a more traditional history lesson, and that the mobile learning game does not have to be complex to be effective (Waag Society, 2007).

dIscussIon In a nutshell, existing research in the area of ubiquitous and mobile computing indicates that wireless mobile devices provide immediate access to a variety of digital tools and resources in a portable and affordable package that allows for anywhere, anytime digital technology use and information access for all students. There is not a single device, application, or use that could be considered to be the “killer” application of wireless mobile integration, and each case study in this chapter exemplifies that in its own way. Instead, it is the nature of mobile technologies (small form factor, portability, wireless connectivity, ease-ofuse, versatility) that is causing them to already have a substantial impact on teaching and learn-

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

ing as we know it today, especially outside of the traditional educational establishment. A common thread in the case studies is that wireless mobile computing for teaching and learning requires new technology literacy on the part of students and teachers in order for it to become as ubiquitous and transparent as Weiser envisioned almost two decades ago. While schools are still a ways away from that kind of ubiquitous computing in teaching and learning, the case studies show that many teachers and learners are well on the way toward reaching this lofty goal, whether this is in the classroom, a museum, or anywhere else a learning opportunity arises. Let us return to the questions that have guided our investigation into mobile and ubiquitous computing in this chapter, and use them to put the individual case studies into the larger context of technology integration and digital literacy for teaching and learning.

What types of educational Activities do Wireless Mobile devices Make possible Above and beyond What is currently possible with Available technologies to Improve teaching and learning? It should be obvious by now that wireless mobile technology enables a wider variety of learning activities in a larger number of spaces than was previously possible. For one, while handheld devices offer students more personal and private spaces when using technology as evidenced in the MyArtSpace case study and the Taiwanese museum examples, the infrared or wireless capabilities built in to the hardware encourage more student collaboration through the sharing of work or the use of multiple interconnected devices to achieve a common learning goal. In this respect, a variety of grouping formats are possible, such as individuals forming ad hoc groups in MyArtSpace, small groups in Frequency 1550, and larger groups such as those illustrated in the Water Quality story. As the Frequency 1550 example illustrates, group

members don’t necessarily have to be in the same physical space in order to work together towards a common goal. Second, almost all of the examples of mobile technology use described in this chapter take learning beyond the classroom walls to places such as the school yard, a local stream, a museum, and home. The great advantage in this respect is that student learning can be made more active, authentic, and meaningful, as illustrated in one way or another by almost all of the case studies. Students were involved in a variety of activities that necessitated the use of technology outside of the classroom for capturing real-life data using probes and digital cameras (Water Quality unit, MyArtSpace, and Frequency 1550), accessing digital information to enhance the experience of a physical location (Musea and the Outdoors, and Frequency 1550), and comparing estimates to reality (Gingerbread Village unit). As many of the teachers noted, students seemed to reach a deeper understanding of the concepts learned by being more directly involved in their own learning. Third, because of the immediate availability of a variety of tools in one small package, students are now able to represent what they have learned in lots of different ways. One way in which this is illustrated is through either individual (MyArtSpace and Musea and the Outdoors) or group representations (Water Quality unit and Frequency 1550) of concepts learned. Another way in which multiple representations of learning can be demonstrated is seen in the Gingerbread Village unit. Students produced a sampling of digital sketches, images, lists, calculations, and stories as proof of their understanding of geometric shapes. Fourth, handheld technology enables students to collect and manipulate data using different tools and sources. In the Gingerbread Village unit students made digital sketches to create estimations of room dimensions which they used as the basis for measurements of the real thing later on. In MyArtSpace, students choose which artifacts and information to capture in order to answer a

447

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

larger question, such as “Was the D-Day invasion of Normandy a success or failure?” In the Water Quality unit students used several probes attached to handhelds to collect scientific data in numerical and graphical formats. Students playing the Frequency 1550 game used their mobile phones to capture information in a variety of media formats, including historical re-enactments in the exact location in which they took place more than 400 years ago. Learners in Musea and the Outdoors can collect, choose from, and reorganize a variety of content sources. In sum, mobile and affordable technologies that present all students with immediate access and connectivity allow opportunities for a wider range of learning activities. These activities involve both individual and collaborative learning which can take place inside and outside of the classroom; an assortment of representations of concepts across subject areas; and using a variety of data collection tools and sources. As a result, students tend to be more motivated for and engaged in learning tasks. Moreover, these types of activities lead to active and challenging learning that is meaningful and authentic, with the potential that wireless mobile devices will become lifelong learning tools for their users.

What pedagogical changes need to be Made to effectively Integrate Mobile technologies in K-12 classrooms and beyond? Integrating technology to the extent that wireless mobile devices make possible does require some changes in teacher pedagogy, the art and science of teaching, the activities of educating, and the strategies, techniques, and approaches that are used to foster learning. However, instead of encouraging teachers to completely rewrite their existing curricula, it is important to remember that promoting a radical change like this is often counterproductive. In our case, evolution, not revolution, is the key (Soloway, 2004).

448

The initial PEP research in 2001 already uncovered the great potential of mobile devices in educational settings. Teachers and students agreed that “accessibility of a computer for each student is the greatest benefit. Students are able to collect, store, and organize data. They can research, calculate, write, and share information ... [and the tools] enhance student collaboration and encourage students to use higher level thinking skills.” In addition, mobile devices enable learners to easily switch between learning individually and working together (Vahey, Tatar, & Roschelle, 2007). Mobile devices also enable students to take the initiative and explore, encouraging “the use of technology in everyday activities and enabling students to understand the computer as a tool” (van ‘t Hooft & Diáz, 2002; see also Vahey & Crawford, 2002). It is within this context that teachers and curriculum specialists in different types of educational settings (formal and informal) should approach pedagogical changes. These changes should be accompanied by an understanding that the focus of educating should shift from teaching to learning and from instructing to facilitating. Pedagogy can and should be customized with materials and strategies that are appropriate for individual learners as well as groups of learners. The role of the teacher is to support individual learning and blend this learning into a shared experience when appropriate (see e.g. Swan, Kratcoski, Schenker, Cook, & Lin, 2007). Research indicates that a more constructivist approach to teaching in which knowledge is constructed rather than transferred works better when using technology (see e.g. Cajas, 2001; Doolittle & Hicks, 2003; Jonassen, 2000a, 2000b; Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991; Saye, 1998). It has not been proven whether a constructivist (as opposed to a more traditional) approach leads to increased technology use. Instead, it seems that technology tends to be a catalyst to more constructivist ways of teaching (e.g. Rice & Wilson, 1998). Therefore, it is my belief and the belief of

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

many of the teachers I work with that a carefullythought-out influx of technology in the classroom and beyond will eventually lead to teaching and learning approaches that are more in step with the information that teachers and students have shared with us in previous research. All of the stories presented here should exemplify this as well. One area that has not been mentioned in the case studies but that will have a tremendous impact on teaching and learning is assessment. The immediacy and portability of a handheld device allows for a shift from summative to formative assessment. This type of assessment has added benefits in that it tends to be more precise and enables a teacher to make curriculum adjustments on the fly in order to address gaps in student learning. Finally, handheld-based assessment creates opportunities for self-assessment, peer assessment (e.g. peer editing of written work), and group assessment.

how can Wireless Mobile devices be Adapted to harness their Full potential as ubiquitous devices for teaching and learning? The initial PEP research studies (Vahey & Crawford, 2002; van ‘t Hooft, Diáz, & Andrews, 2003; van ‘t Hooft, Diáz, & Swan, 2004) also indicated that mobile devices still had a ways to go when it comes to seamless adaptation in K-12 classrooms and other learning environments. Teachers and students ran into a variety of hurdles when using their palmsized computers, including text input, issues of logistics, durability, and to a lesser extent screen size, availability of affordable software, and Internet access. Currently, the most pressing issue is text input. Without the use of an external keyboard (which decreases mobility), text input is limited to a keypad, onscreen keyboard, or handwriting recognition tools. For younger users, fine motor skills are often not far-enough developed for problem-free usage, while older users often get

frustrated because they cannot keep up when taking notes, for example. One way in which this matter has been resolved is through the introduction of slightly larger devices such as AlphaSmart’s DanaTM, a portable device that runs PalmOS and sports an integrated, full-size keyboard and more recently devices that are being called netbooks, that use the UMPC or MID format. The tradeoff is that the larger size decreases portability to some extent. A close second are issues related to the logistics of setting up and maintaining a set of mobile devices in a classroom. While 1:1 computing resolves issues of access, a teacher is now responsible for the successful implementation of 25-30 devices instead of the five desktop computers that are fairly standard in American elementary and secondary classrooms. High on the list are having enough chargers around to keep the batteries charged and getting students in the habit of remembering to charge their devices on a regular basis; finding ways to quickly and efficiently transfer and/or back up handheld data on classroom computers or online; and distributing handheld software and files. For most teachers 5-10 minutes of class time is simply not available on a regular basis. Instead, teachers have come up with a variety of often innovative syncing and beaming schemes which can be easily implemented and take up very little instructional time, or making it the responsibility of the learner to perform such tasks outside of class. Third, durability has been and still is an issue. While actual hardware failures of mobile devices have decreased over the years due to new product development and heightened user awareness, it still happens and seems to be more of an issue in an environment where 1:1 ratios of computers to students have become commonplace. Any time you hand technology to a bunch of children, stuff is going to break; the key seems to be to teach students some basic maintenance skills right from the start and to involve parents as well. Our experiences have been that teachers who spent

449

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

some time teaching students how to take care of the handhelds, and who have created parent awareness of handheld use by students, have dealt with far fewer hardware problems. Technical and administrative support play an important role here as well. Minor issues of screen size, affordable software, and Internet access should be mentioned as well. Interestingly enough, screen size seems to be mostly a problem for teachers. Students tend to be very comfortable with the handheld form factor, a phenomenon which I attribute to the fact that digital kids are growing up with ever-smaller mobile devices. The availability of affordable software has become an issue in that once teachers and learners realize the potential of mobile devices, they often push the envelope of handheld use. There is a long list of handheld software available on the Internet in a variety of formats: freeware, shareware, and commercial ware. It is often difficult to find good educational freeware, simply due to the sheer volume of what is downloadable, and not all of it is good. When it comes to shareware or commercially available products, financial resources are often an issue. Even though individual licenses for handheld products tend to be reasonable, one needs to remember that licenses for handheld software are often bought in bulk, and the price of a classroom set of 25-30 licenses is all of a sudden not so reasonable anymore. Internet access has become more of an issue as wireless capabilities such as Bluetooth and 802.11.b are now standard and more and more applications can be run online instead of locally. This creates the need for increased wireless network infrastructures with higher amounts of bandwidth and support in school buildings, as well as Internet sites that are reformatted to fit on smaller screens. While wireless capabilities are used quite a bit for printing and transferring data across devices in schools, wireless Internet use on mobile devices has substantially increased outside of schools in recent years (Horrigan, 2008).

450

Finally, there are some legal and ethical concerns that surface anytime you put technology into the hands of students, especially when this technology is pervasive and nearly invisible, as handhelds tend to be. Many critics of portable devices for students have argued that because of their size, handhelds are easily stolen or lost. Reality tends to prove them wrong. For example, out of the 280 handhelds that were issued to the teachers in our original handheld research project, four were either stolen or lost, and out of those four, three were eventually returned. Research projects in the United States comparable to ours have reported similar ratios. Different districts deal with this issue in their own ways, but for the most part parents sign some kind of form at the beginning of the year stating that their children will be using a handheld and that they are responsible for care and replacement if needed. This policy is no different from others with regards to use of school property by students, e.g. textbooks, music instruments, or athletic equipment. A second issue deals with student rights to privacy. Being in an environment with technology that is small yet has capabilities to capture images, create messages, and send them without anybody knowing can create problems in that students can and will find ways to use technology in inappropriate ways. The key to solving this problem has not been to punish, but to educate. Organizations like the International Society for Technology in Education have acknowledged that ethical use of technology is an area that should be addressed by educators, and have included it in their standards for teachers and students (ISTE, 2007, 2008). Our experience has been that unethical use of handheld technology has been sparse, definitely not higher than unethical uses of other types of technology, and that teachers have been able to effectively deal with issues on a case-by-case basis. A common example is students beaming or texting each other notes with inappropriate content, or posting inappropriate pictures to the Internet.

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

how are digital literacy skills Influencing and Being Influenced by this new technology? New technologies usually require new and/or improved literacy skills. In the case of handheld technology the traditional literacy skills as described by e.g. Doyle (1992; recognizing the need for accurate and complete information for decision making; deciding what information is needed and where to obtain it; accessing, evaluating, and organizing this information; integrating new information into existing knowledge, and using it for critical thinking and problem solving) are more important than ever before, because ubiquitous and mobile computing exposes more students to more information from more sources more often. Therefore, the increase of technology in classrooms and beyond requires more and more systematic teaching and learning about the process of dealing with vast amounts of information and digital technologies. Just because students may be adept at using digital technologies for entertainment, the literacy demands that are placed on them when using these same technologies for learning are very different (Jenkins et al., 2006; Tally, 2007). The latter is especially the case in our contemporary society that is heavily data driven and technology oriented. The use of technology as described in this chapter requires an additional (sub) set of literacy skills usually described as digital literacy skills. These skills include learning how to deal with information that is no longer limited to text but also includes still images, video, sound, and interactive web pages. Second, information retrieval has changed from being mostly bookbased to being more Internet-based or technology based (e.g. digital images, videos, texting, Voice over IP), requiring increased information construction from multiple sources. Third, digital literacy is interactive and multidimensional. It requires students to be able to find, read, evaluate, integrate, and (re)use and (re)organize resources

from multiple sources and communicate these newly constructed pieces of knowledge to others. Finally, and not to be overlooked, are the challenges young people face in learning to see the ways in which media shape their perceptions of the world. This is a tricky proposition in a world in which media use is increasingly aggressive and methods of advertising, news coverage, and distribution of information are biased. Wireless mobile devices such as mobile phones are a prime example in this respect.

conclusIon Today’s wireless mobile devices come in many shapes, sizes, and configurations. They have the potential to have a tremendous impact on teaching and learning given the right context. Through our research and daily interactions with teachers and learners we have seen the most successful implementations in educational environments where there is enough technical and administrative support to add mobile devices to the existing technology infrastructure; where teachers are willing to integrate this technology through a process of evolution; where students have room to explore; and where there is an increased focus on a wider spectrum of (digital) literacy skills. In addition, the case studies show that successful implementation does not necessarily equal high levels of technology use on a daily basis or in one location. In fact, digital technology works best when it is almost invisible yet available when appropriate and needed, and creates an environment of meaningful and authentic use. This, in return, increases learners’ levels of interest, motivation, and engagement, resulting in knowledge construction and a deeper understanding of concepts learned. Within the larger context of ubiquitous computing, that is the type of environment Weiser had in mind when he put forth his ideas in the early 1990s, with wireless mobile devices playing a

451

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

prominent role. Even though Weiser and his colleagues focused on the integration of ubiquitous devices for everyday applications, the leap to educational uses in all kinds of settings is not that difficult to make. It should also be easy to see why increased levels of literacy, including the digital variety, are so important in a society where technology is becoming more invisible, yet all the more important, especially in the things we do that we take for granted. Mobile computing should help us all to become more aware of that.

reFerences Bayus, B. L., Jain, S., & Rao, A. G. (1997). Too little, too late: Introduction timing and new product performance in the personal digital assistant industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (1), 50-63. Becker, H., Ravitz, J.L., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Report #3, Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national survey. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine. Bell, G., & Dourish, P. (2007). Yesterday’s tomorrows: Notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11(2), 133-143. Breck, J. (2007). Education’s intertwingled future. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 50-54. Breck, J. (2006). Why is education not in the ubiquitous Web world picture? Educational Technology, 46 (4), 43-46. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://goldenswamp.com/articles/ edTech8.06/edTechP1.html Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 715-729.

452

Chang, C. Y., Sheu, J. P., & Chan, T. W. (2003). Concept and design of ad hoc and mobile classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 336-346. Cole, H., & Stanton, D. (2003). Designing mobile technologies to support co-present collaboration. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7, 365-371. Danesh, A., Inkpen, K., Lau, F., Shu, K., & Booth, K. (2001). GeneyTM: Designing a collaborative activity for the PalmTM handheld computer. Proceedings of CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seattle: WA. Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31, 72-104. Doyle, C. (1992). Outcome measures for information literacy within the national education goals of 1990. Final report to the National Forum of Information Literacy: Summary of findings. (Eric Document Reproduction Service, ED 351 033). Faux, F., McFarlane, A., Roche, N., & Facer, K. (2006). Learning with handheld technologies: A handbook from FutureLab. Bristol, UK: FutureLab. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http:// www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/ handbooks/handhelds_handbook.pdf Fitzpatrick, C. (2000). Navigating a new information landscape. Social Education, 64, 33-34. Fung, P., Hennessy, S., & O’Shea, T. (1998). Pocketbook computing: A paradigm shift? Computers in the Schools, 14, 109-118. Gilster, P. (1992). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing Co. Hennessy, S. (2000). Graphing investigations using portable (palmtop) technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 243-258.

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

Horrigan, J. (2008). Mobile access to data and information. Data memo. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/244/ report_display.asp HPC Factor (2004). A brief history of Windows CE: The beginning is always a very good place to start. Retrieved October 12, 2004 from http:// www.hpcfactor.com/support/windowsce/ Hsu, T. Y., Ke, H. R., & Yang, W. P. (2006). Knowledge-based mobile learning framework for museums. The Electronic Library, 25(5), 635-648. Inkpen, K. (2001). Designing handheld technologies for kids. Personal Technologies Journal, 3, 81-89. Proceedings of CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA. International Society for Technology in Education (2000). National Education Technology Standards for students. Retrieved, March 18, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ NETS/ForTeachers/NETS_for_Teachers.htm International Society for Technology in Education (2008). National Education Technology Standards for teachers. Retrieved, August 8, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/content/navigationmenu/ nets/forteachers/2008standards/nets_for_teachers_2008.htm Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robinson, A. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.projectnml.org/files/working/ NMLWhitePaper.pdf Jonassen, D. H. (2000a). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Jonassen, D. H. (2000b). Transforming learning with technology: Beyond modernism and postmodernism or whoever controls the technology

creates the reality. Educational Technology, 40 (2), 21-25. Jones-Kavalier, B. R., & Flanagan, S. L. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. Educause Quarterly, 29 (2), 8-10. Klopfer, E. (2007). Blurring lines with mobile games. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 43-46. Langford, L. (1999). Information literacy? Seeking clarification. School Libraries Worldwide, 4 (1), 59-72. Lin, Y. (2007). In and beyond the classroom: Making informal learning truly ubiquitous with highly mobile devices. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 37-40. Mandryk, R. L., Inkpen, K. M., Bilezkjian, M., Klemmer, S. R., & Landay, J. A. (2001). Supporting children’s collaboration across handheld computers. Proceedings of CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA. McNeal, T., & van ‘t Hooft, M. (2006, Winter). Anywhere, anytime: Using mobile phones for learning. Journal for the Research Center for Educational Technology. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http:// www.rcetj.org/?type=art&id=79575& Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2004). Envisioning the handheld-centric classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30 (4), 281-294. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for Social Studies. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Ohio Department of Education (2002). Social Studies Academic Content Standards. Columbus, OH: State Board of Education. Research Center for Educational Technology (2006). Ubiquitous computing: How anytime, anywhere, anyone technology is changing education. Kent, OH: Author.

453

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

Rice, M. L., & Wilson, E. K. (1999). How technology aids constructivism in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 90, 28-33. Risinger, F. C. (1998). Separating wheat from chaff: Why dirty pictures are not the real dilemma in using the Internet to teach social studies. Social Education, 62, 148-150. Robertson, S. I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O’Shea, T., & Lambrechts, G. (1996). Pupils, teachers, and palmtop computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12, 194-204. Rogers, Y. (2006). Moving on from Weiser’s vision of calm computing: Engaging ubicomp experiences. In P. Dourish & A. Friday (Eds.), Ubicomp, LNCS 4206 (pp. 404–421). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2007). Using ubiquitous computing to extend and enhance learning experiences. In M. van ‘t Hooft, & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 460-488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 260-272. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1 (1), 145-168. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61 (5), 50-53. Ross, E. W. (2000). The promise and perils of e-learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28, 482-492. Roth, J. (2002). Patterns of mobile interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 282-289.

454

Roush, W. (2005). Social machines. Technology Review, 108 (8), 45-53. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20 (3), 2-9. Saye, J. W. (1998). Creating time to develop student thinking: Team-teaching with technology. Social Education, 62, 356-362. Sharples, M. (2007). How can we address the conflicts between personal informal learning & traditional classroom education? In M. Sharples (Ed.), Big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative (pp. 2325). Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham Learning Sciences Research Institute. Sharples, M. (2000a). Disruptive devices: Personal technologies and education. (Educational Technology Research Paper Series 11). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham. Sharples, M. (2000b). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers and Education, 34, 177-193. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007) A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews and C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of elearning research (pp. 221-47). London: Sage. Shin, N., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2007). Findings from early research on one-to-one handheld use in K-12 education. In M. van ‘t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 19-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Soloway, E. (2004, May). Why handhelds? Keynote at the America’s Future Classroom: Advancing Learning with Handhelds Conference. Oklahoma City, OK.

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2001). Log on to education: Handheld devices are ready-at-hand. Communications of the ACM, 44 (6), 15-20. Stead, G. (2006). Mobile technologies: Transforming the future of learning. In Emerging technologies for learning (pp. 6-15). Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://partners.becta.org. uk/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies.pdf Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Schenker, J., Cook, D., & Lin, Y. (2007). The ubiquitous classroom: A glimpse of the future today. In M. van ‘t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 362-402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Swan, K., Kratcoski, K., & van ‘t Hooft, M. (2007). Highly mobile devices, pedagogical possibilities, and how teaching needs to be reconceptualized to realize them. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 10-12. Tally, B. (2007). Digital technology and the end of social studies education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 305-321. Tatar, D., Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., & Penuel, W. R. (2003). Handhelds go to school: Lessons learned. IEEE Computer, 36 (9), 30-37. Thornburg, D. D. (2006). Emerging trends in educational computing. Educational Technology, 46 (2), 62-63. Vahey, P., & Crawford, V. (2002). Palm Education Pioneers: Final Evaluation Report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Vahey, P., Tatar, D., & Roschelle, J. (2007). Using handheld technology to move between the private and public in the classroom. In M. van ‘t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 273-302). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., & Diáz, S. (2002). Palm Education Pioneers: Final Report (Unpublished Report, Kent State University, Kent, OH). van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., Diáz, S., Andrews, S. (2003). Byte-sized learning: Handhelds in K-12 classrooms. Learning Technology, 5 (2), 37-38. van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., Diáz, S., Swan, K. (2004). Examining the potential of handheld computers: Findings from the Ohio PEP project. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30 (4), 295311. van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., & Kelly, J. (2004). Macro or micro: Teaching fifth-grade economics using handheld computers. Social Education, 68 (2), 165-168. van ‘t Hooft, M., Swan, K., Cook, D., & Lin, Y. (2007). What is ubiquitous computing? In M. van ‘t Hooft, & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 3-17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., & Vahey, P. (2007). Introduction to special issue on mobile computing. Educational Technology, 47(3), 3-5. Vavoula, G., Sharples, M., Rudman, P., Lonsdale, P., & Meek, J. (2007). Learning bridges: A role for mobile technology in education. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 33-37. Waag Society (2007). Het effect van mobiel onderwijs met multimedia: Een onderzoek naar de leereffecten van het mobiele stadspel Frequency 1550 [The effect of mobile education with multimedia: An investigation of the learning effects of the mobile city-game Frequency 1550]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Waag Society. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://waag.org/ download/32736 Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265 (3), 94-95, 98-102.

455

Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices

Williams, B. (2004). We’re getting wired, we’re going mobile, what’s next? Eugene, OR: ISTE Publications. Winters, N. (2007). What is mobile learning? In M. Sharples (Ed.), Big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative (pp. 7-10). Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham Learning Sciences Research Institute.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Digital Literacy: Literacy that uses digital technologies to amplify existing literacy skills. Digital literacy deals with a wide variety of digital texts, is Internet-based, multidimensional, and participatory. Educational Technology Research: Research on the impact of digital technologies on teaching and learning. Educational Technology: Digital technologies used for teaching and learning. Educational Technology Integration: The process of utilizing digital technologies for teaching and learning. Emerging Technologies: Digital tools which represent new and significant developments within a particular field. Learning While Mobile: Goes beyond mobile learning (mobility of technology and learner) by considering the constant mobility of our society

456

and knowledge. It sees learning as personalized, learner-centered, situated in time and space, collaborative, ubiquitous, and lifelong. It happens across contexts, people and digital tools. Real-World Learning: Learning that happens outside of the classroom in a real-world setting, such as the outdoors or a museum. Wireless Mobile Devices: Digital technologies that are highly mobile, have a small footprint, the computational and display capabilities to view, collect, or otherwise use representations and/or large amounts of data, and the ability to support collaboration and/or data sharing.

endnote *

Parts of this research have been funded by Palm Inc., through the Palm Education Pioneer Project, and the friendly folks at GoKnow who provided us with PAAM, Rubberneck, and HLE. The MyArtSpace story was kindly contributed by Giasemi Vavoula, Mike Sharples, Paul Rudman, Peter Lonsdale, and Julia Meek, who hail from various institutions in the United Kingdom. The stories about the use of mobile wireless devices in Taiwan came to me by way of my colleague and friend Yimei Lin, a professor at National Chung-Cheng University in Chia-Yi, Taiwan. I would also like to thank all the teachers and students with whom I’ve worked for the past eight years and who generously shared their time, stories, classrooms, and mobile devices!

457

Chapter XXIX

Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool Fotis Lazarinis University of Teesside, UK

AbstrAct Internet as a new medium offers unlimited opportunities to education and knowledge sharing but it can also shape specific improper attitudes and cultivate erroneous and potentially dangerous ideas. As more kids go online worldwide so do the concern increases about the safeness of the websites they visit. In this chapter a list of potential online risks is presented. Then, the safeness of the favorite Web sites of 270 Greek high school students is assessed in connection with these online risks. Inappropriate content was found in more than 30% of the evaluated Web pages, although specific security policies apply to computer labs of Greek schools. Last, a filtering tool for analyzing and restricting the access to improper Web sites is presented and evaluated.

1. IntroductIon According to new research from Nielsen/NetRatings (www.nielsen-netratings.com) the number of children online in Europe has grown by three million during the last years. There are now 13.1 million kids online; four million under 12 years old, and nine million between 12 and 17 year olds. Analogous figures are true for the other continents as well. Some recent statistics showed that for a

growing portion of the online teen population, schools have become an important venue for Internet use for a significant number of teens (Rainee & Hitlin, 2005). More than three in five online teens who use the internet from multiple locations list school as the location where they go online most often. The aforementioned statistics prove that Internet has penetrated the everyday school life. Several teachers re-engineer their courses to be

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Towards Safer Internet for Students wth the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

technology based (Roblyer, 2005). Teachers ask and encourage their students to go online for additional resources and to search for specific information, in an attempt to help them gaining extra knowledge and understanding (Nachmias & Gilad, 2002; Lazarinis, 2007a). It has been observed that when students navigate the Internet without supervision they often visit sites with inappropriate and potentially dangerous content (Dreyfus, 1999; Hope, 2006). Various tools prohibit access to sites related primary to adult material but restrictions are based mainly on the visited URL (i.e. internet address). Also these tools are not customizable and this may cause problems especially in non-English sites as they cannot identify the awkward and inappropriate terms found in the text. Initiatives like “Safer Internet” (www.saferinternet.org - ec.europa.eu/information_ society/ activities/sip/index_en.htm) aim to promote safer use of the Internet and new online technologies, particularly for children, and to fight against illegal content and content unwanted by the end-user, as part of a coherent approach by various government and social organizations. As students and adults become addicted to Internet (Chou & Hsiao, 2000; Young, 2004) we need to identify and classify the direct and indirect online risks and to discuss potential workarounds. The basic aim of this chapter is to promote the discussion of safer Internet in the school environment and to discuss how some of the unsafe content can be mechanically recognized. At first relevant papers are reviewed and then a class of potential online risks is developed and analyzed. Then the Internet access log files of a school’s lab are analyzed to identify the students’ favorite sites. A percentage of these sites was randomly selected and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to realize if they undermine safe internet access. Finally, a customizable tool is presented which rates Websites according to their content and prevents access to the Websites which are below a specific limit. Rating of sites is based on the frequency of the inappropriate contents. 458

2. bAcKground As the use of the Internet in schools increases, so too do anxieties over inappropriate access, often fueled by a popular media focus upon the dangers of children’s exposure to pornographic or extremist material (Lawson & Comber, 2000). Teachers and school managers, attempting to weigh such hazards against the education potential of access to global information sources, are caught in the crossfire between those who call for rigid controls and those who argue for freedom and access. The paper of Lawson and Comber (2000) concludes that there is a need to educate students to become more responsible users because simply preventing them from viewing specific sites might cause the opposite results. The misuse of the Internet by paedophiles is a problem from the early Internet days (Durkin, 1997). The author discusses the various ways in which paedophiles utilize the Internet and present their messages in chats or Web pages and also discusses the implications that these deviant activities have for law enforcement and probation practice. In (Arnaldo, 2001) the problem of child abuse on the Internet is discussed and the legal implications and some technologies for reducing the problems are presented. Young (2004) takes a closer look at how the Internet can create marital, academic, and jobrelated problems to adult users. This article outlines a workable definition of Internet addiction and as a clinical new phenomenon, explores the major consequences created by Internet addiction, including online affairs, student Internet abuse, and employee Internet abuse. Hope (2006) discusses the introduction of Web access into UK schools and argues that a new dimension to the hazards that might exist in schools was added. It mentions that students can now access pornography, be the subject of online harassment, learn how to make bombs/ drugs or be influenced by hate groups all through the medium of the Internet. This discussion was

Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

first initiated by Britton (1998). Risk arising from school Internet use is a largely neglected issue that needs urgent attention. Understanding the risks surrounding school Internet use will clarify the problems that exist for educators, provide a sound basis for considering amelioration policies and inform wider public debate on the issue (Hope, 2006). Another study mentions that the increasing utilization of the Internet by extremists promoting hateful attitudes and harmful action against ethnic, religious and same-sex oriented groups is a cause for concern School Internet use, youth and risk (Whine, 1997). Other online risks for students relate to drug usage and bomb making. Hope (2006) presents specific cases of head masters and ICT managers who express their anxiety about drug related sites and about weapon making sites. Although the educators mention that some of the sites their students visited were educational, they still express fear that the knowledge gained could be wrongly used. Therefore access to these sites should be prohibited to students under a specific age limit. Correia and Teixeira (2003) discuss how information literacy in higher education can be promoted. But they also conclude by pointing the need to expand the debate on information literacy and how to raise ethical and moral concerns in the use of the Internet and the new technologies. They also explore the potential role that the European Commission eSafe (2002) programme can play to encourage research and practice on information literacy in its widest sense, as an intrinsic competency in the fight against the effects of disseminating illegal and harmful content through online and other new technologies. Another study, focus on adolescent gambling and how it is influenced by new technologies and the Internet (Griffiths & Wood, 2004). It is argued that technologically advanced forms of gambling may be highly appealing to adolescents.

Initiatives like “Safer Internet” (http://www. saferinternet.org, http://ec.europa.eu/ saferinternet) and their national nodes provide examples of the factors which compromise safe internet access and provide leaflets and warnings to make both parents and students aware of the problems. The aforementioned research studies and initiatives show that there is a growing concern on the inappropriate use of Internet in the educational institutes and by children more general. Several researchers from various disciplines currently join forces to discuss and to propose techniques and tools to reduce the online dangers in unsupervised Web access by students. Towards this direction in the rest of the chapter a number of potential online risks are discussed and solutions for improving the existing situation are presented.

3. onlIne rIsKs In Web sItes Internet offers a number of services ranging from email to WWW (World Wide Web) to FTP (file transfer protocol) to CHATs. Among the most widely used services is the Web or WWW. Since its conception in 1992 (Berners Lee et al., 1992) the World Wide Web has rapidly become one of the most widely used services of the Internet along with email. Its friendly interface and its hypermedia features attract a significant number of users around the globe. As a result, the Web has become a pool of various types of data, dispensed in a measureless number of locations. Users of different cultural backgrounds, different interests and diversified aims visit daily various Web locations either in their natural language or most often in English. Students are among the most literate computer users and they can usually access the Web through their schools. Although several studies and books have been published on the quality of Web pages and information systems (Alexander & Tate, 1999; Calero, Moraga & Piattini, 2008) most of them focus on the accuracy and on the freshness

459

Towards Safer Internet for Students wth the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

of the presented information or they focus on

specific domains. However, the information presented in Web sites may be accurate, well presented and up to date but it may be harmful to students. A summary of the risks which may arise for students in Web pages is given as follows. This collection of risks is gathered from the online sites and the studies which discuss online risks and safer internet surfing for children and adolescents. •

•

•

460

Profanities: Coarse language is a common phenomenon and problem in schools which is usually reported to head masters and teachers (Dupper, 1998). Web pages and blogs are under no control and they may use certain vulgarities or phrases which are insulting to special groups. Adult material: Although proxy servers and security policies may prohibit access to sites containing adult material there is still a high possibility that adult content may be found in Websites with sport material or jokes. This material may include images or textual descriptions. Further, search engines provide such facilities through their image searching service and although restrictions based on the search terms may apply, these is not always possible to prevent students to discover images of sexual content. Especially in non-English languages where search engines are relatively weaker (Lazarinis, 2007b), students may bypass the restrictions by using search terms which are not identified as inappropriate terms by the search engines. Sexual discrimination or favouritism: During the last years there is a growing concern among researchers about how technology has influenced women or other sexual orientation groups (Webster, 1996; Wang & Ross, 2002; Ahuja, 2002). Unlike in these papers, the present study focuses on how

•

•

sexual discriminations are promoted in Web sites. That is we care about the existence of text, images, jokes which might talk against women or other sex oriented groups or might prejudicially present specific sexual attitudes (pedophilia, homosexuality, homophobia) as being the most suitable alternative or as being something that is fashionable and stylish. Cyberbullying: According to www.stopcyberbullying.org, cyberbullying is the situation where a child, preteen or teen is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones. It has to have a minor on both sides, or at least have been instigated by a minor against another minor. In the context of this chapter cyberbullying could be identified if traces of personal attacks are found in Web pages frequented by students. If these personal attacks regard children or adolescents then they are considered as a problem for safer internet surfing by students. Online gaming & gambling: In 2005, 30% of first time calls to the Telephone HelpLine of www.gamcare.org.uk (an organization dedicated to counseling of people affected by gambling problems) came from young people. Many more calls were taken from concerned parents, carers, teachers and support workers. A 2006 national survey carried out by the International Gaming and Research Unit at Nottingham Trent University, in cooperation with other organizations, with the participation of 8017 young people aged between 12 and 15, identified that 77% of boys and 68% of girls had gambled (NCL, 2006). Gambling through the Internet, via a mobile handset of through Interactive TV has made gambling more accessible than ever. There are an estimated 2500 Websites

Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

•

•

•

offering gambling services now globally (www.gamcare.org.uk). The convenience of gambling remotely, the ease of setting up a gambling account and the variety of forms of gambling - from traditional betting, to casino gambling, bingo and lotteries - makes online gambling very appealing. Several Websites which are dedicated to sports, jokes, fashion, actors and singers offer free games and sometimes offer the possibility to gamble and win virtual money. These sites are accessible by students and frequent use of them might direct them in becoming addicted. Racism: Several Websites are dedicated to promoting dangerous ideas related to racism and xenophobia. These Websites are easily traceable. However in a number of totally legitimate Websites targeting at a young audience there might exist racist jokes or images or other text which promote unconsciously these unacceptable ideas. Bomb making or illegal substances usage and making: As already discussed Hope (2006) mentions about the existence of bomb making or drug usage Websites which as it has been observed they are visited by children. Some of these sites are educational, nevertheless the techniques they present can be very dangerous for children and their access should be prohibited. Access could be denied on a number of these sites based on their content. Presentation of specific stereotypes: Sites dedicated to fashion or other youth related topics may present specific stereotypes as the most appropriate way of life. For example, slender girl models may be presented as a modern stereotype for women and this may influence children and adolescent girls and cause them anorexia or even force them to medical operations in order to improve their appearance. Discovering promotion of specific stereotypes is more difficult than

•

discovering traces related to the previous online risks. However, as it will be shown later specific diets, images of slender models, and negative comments about overweight persons can be found in virtually any site dedicated to jokes or related topics. Improper advertisements: This category deals with advertisements which concern illegal substances (drug buying) or illegal actions (download of copyrighted software). It is different from the previous classes as the previous cases concern Websites which are dedicated to informing users about illegitimate materials. In this case we care about advertisements which point to the sites dealing with some of the previous issues. These advertisements are usually in the form of animated gifs and they are difficult to be automatically identified.

The previous list presented a number of online risks and analyzed how these problems can be identified in Websites and how they could affect high school or younger students. In the next part of the chapter an analysis of the Websites visited by approximately 270 students is presented in light of the previous class of online risks. Then the principles of a hypermedia tool are presented. This tool filters the content of the requested internet locations and either prohibits or allows the access to the student.

4. students’ FAvorIte sItes To identify the potential online risks existing in student Websites we first need to study the students’ favorite sites. In other words, there is a need to record which sites students prefer and then to inspect them for identifying potential risks. For this reason, the access logs of 2 computer labs of a Greek high school were studied. In Greece, secondary education is divided in gymnasiums (7th – 9th grade) and lyceums (10th – 12th grade).

461

Towards Safer Internet for Students wth the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

High schools are the lyceums and the students are between 15 and 18 years old. The data collected concern a week’s Web access sessions during April 2007. The two labs are used by approximately 270 students every week. Each student uses the lab for two hours every week. During the study period, 263 students utilized the 2 labs. More specifically, 83 students were in the 10th grade, 95 students in the 11th grade and the rest 85 student were in the 12th grade. During the study students were able to navigate the Web freely. The only restriction applied, concerned the surfing of sites with URLs which clearly refer to adult content (e.g. www.sex.com or www.sex.gr). Navigation to these sites is automatically prohibited by the proxy server of the lab. The access logs contain information about the domain (e.g. www.jokes.gr), the duration of the visit, the specific page of the domain which was visited and a number of other attributes related to technical issued. After the analysis of the log files, 142 unique internet addresses were identified. These Websites were visited 795 times by the population of the study. The distribution of the topics of these 142 unique internet addresses is shown in Table

1. Table 2 shows the number of visits of each category. As it was expected, Websites dedicated to games or mobile phones are the most popular ones. In these Web locations, students can either play a game or download ring tones, games, and screensavers for their cellular phones. Sites with jokes, sports and music were highly visited as well. As far as it concerns educational sites, only 4 of them were visited during the study and they were viewed for 6 times in total. Another result, which seems surprising, is that search engines were sporadically used. They are mostly used for finding images and not for finding Web pages. This observation, lead us to the conclusion that students know the addresses of the sites they wish to view prior to entering the Internet. They might know them through advertisements or by discussing them with other students. Another conclusion drawn from these results is that the students of the study do not visit Websites which concern illegal substances or drug or bomb. The problem of narcotics or physical violence is, fortunately, in very low levels among Greek students (http://www.ektepn.gr/research/). Therefore some of the online risks discussed in

Table 1. Topics of the unique internet addresses

Table 2. Number of visits per category of Website

Topic

462

Frequency

Actor/singer/sport player personal page

35

Games

%

Topic

Frequency

%

Actor/singer/sport player personal page

112

24,65% 42

29,58%

Games

147

18,49%

Sports

15

10,56%

Sports

106

13,33%

Music

12

8,45%

Music

89

11,19%

Jokes

9

6,34%

Jokes

96

12,08%

Mobiles

9

6,34%

Mobiles

118

14,84%

Webgates

5

3,52%

Webgates

18

2,26%

Newspapers

4

2,82%

Newspapers

8

1,01%

Educational

3

2,11%

Educational

6

0,75%

Local interest

3

2,11%

Local interest

29

3,65%

Search engines

2

1,41%

Search engines

59

7,42%

Other

3

2,11%

Other

7

0,88%

142

100%

795

100%

14,09%

Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

the previous section probably cannot be observed in our study group. The access logs were further examined to find out whether the visitors access the initial page only or if they go into the next levels of the Web sites. For example, if a log file points to “www.example. gr” only, then only the homepage (1st level) was visited. If the access log mentions “www.example. gr/research” then this means that a second level page of the “www.example.gr” site was visited. The information on how deep students dive into a Website can be utilized in the analysis of the content of the Web sites. If the students visit more than one page of a Website then the content of the second and third level pages should be inspected as well for potential online risks. As seen in Table 3 most of the students go beyond the homepage of Websites. Therefore for the purposes of this study the 2nd and 3rd level pages should also be inspected as well because it might be the case the harmful content is hidden inside the next level pages.

studying the content of students’ Favorite sites The next stage of the study dealt with the analysis of the content of the students’ favorite Websites. This analysis is based on the classification of risks presented in the previous section.

internet addresses visited by the participants of our study 42 Websites falling into various categories were selected. As seen in Table 4, it was attempted to balance the selection of sites among various categories according to their visits (see Table 2). Next, 11 pages of the first 41 Websites were randomly selected to be analyzed. For each Website, these pages consist of the first level page (home page), 5 second level pages and 5 third level pages. In total, 451 Web pages were selected to be analyzed and were subsequently downloaded locally so as to avoid major changes between the time theses pages were visited by the students and the time they were analyzed. These pages were then studied with the aid of three colleagues. The author of the chapter participated in the study as well. Each page was examined for text or images which suggest any of the online risks presented previously in the chapter. Each Website and Webpage had to be reviewed by two evaluators and thus the estimations were the combined estimate of the evaluators. Each evaluator had to review 21 Table 4. Number of websites selected for analysis from each category of websites Topic

Number of websites per topic frequency

Methodology To study the content of the most popular Websites, a number of sites contained in the lab’s access logs were randomly selected. Of the total 142 unique Table 3. Depth of visit in Web sites

%

Actor/singer/sport player personal page

5

Games

5

11,90%

Sports

5

11,90%

Music

5

11,90%

Jokes

5

11,90%

Mobiles

5

11,90%

Webgates

2

4,76%

11,90%

Frequency

%

Newspapers

2

4,76%

1st level only (homepage)

23

16,20%

Educational

2

4,76%

2nd level only

78

54,93%

Local interest

2

4,76%

3rd level only

21

15,49%

Other

3

7,14%

>= 4 level

17

13,38%

Search engines (Google)

1

2,38%

142

100%

42

100%

Level of a site

th

463

Towards Safer Internet for Students wth the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

Websites and 231 Web pages in total and to document the text or the images found in these files which refer to censurable or harmful content. The last Website presented in Table 4 is Google (http://www.google.gr and http://images.google. gr). Evidently this site cannot be analyzed by simply inspecting it. To realize whether Google was used inappropriately by the students, all their 31 unique searches existing in the log files were selected and run in http://www.google.gr and http://images.google.gr. The search terms and the top 10 results of these runs were then inspected and evaluated.

Results of the evaluation Table 5 presents statistics about the number of Web pages which contain unsafe content. The first two columns present the number and percentage of internet pages which have unsafe content and the second group of columns refers to the form of the unsafe content. In some Web pages both text and images were found presenting harmful content. These statistics were not applicable (N/A) in a few cases. As seen, almost all of the online risks analyzed previously were identified in the Web pages reviewed by the evaluation team.

Profanities exist in more than 30% of the total 451 reviewed Web pages. These inappropriate terms vary from words which are common among the youth to terms which are quite repulsive and very insulting. These terms were discovered mostly in textual form, but they were also identified in some images. More specifically, vulgarities were found in textual form in 139 internet pages and in image form in 12 pages. Joke related pages contained most of these swear words. 49 of the total 55 joke pages contained text and/or images with profanities. Mobile, music and sport dedicated sites included also several profanities. The security policy is applied globally to the Greek labs by the internet providers. These security restrictions control the access to adult sites based on the sites’ internet addresses. However as it can be concluded by Table 5 students can still find several Web pages which contain adult material. This material is usually in image format but a number of quite bald sex stories were also discovered. The textual content can be easily identified and mechanically filtered out as it contains words such as sex, porno, etc. The multimedia material is difficult to be mechanically identified as special image processing software is needed.

Table 5. Number of Web pages which contain unsafe content Online risk

N/A: Not applicable

464

Number of Web pages with problems

Format of the unsafe content

frequency

% in the 451 evaluated pages

Text

Images/video

Profanities

139

30.82%

139

12

Adult material

165

36.59%

57

143

Sexual discrimination or favouritism

115

25.50%

112

5

Cyberbullying

22

4.88%

16

6

Online gaming & gambling

193

42.79%

N/A

N/A

Racism

48

10.64%

48

0

Bomb making or illegal substances usage and making

0

0.00%

N/A

N/A

Presentation of specific stereotypes

37

8.20%

9

35

Improper advertisements

49

10.86%

9

42

Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

The adult content was discovered in the pages with jokes, sports and online games. In 25.50% of the total 451 Web pages the evaluators discovered jokes or other stories which speak against women or same sex groups. Mainly these pages disregard the social and professional contribution of women, defining maternity and housekeeping as the ideal role for women. Also some messages were extremely hostile against homosexual people. In general, these jokes or messages undermine the individuality and diversity of specific groups and sexes and unconsciously lead young students to being intolerable and creating specific stereotypes which are difficult to be overcome in the future and might lead them to personal or professional problems. In 22 Web pages (4.88%) a number of personal comments about students were found. These sites contain funny stuff (jokes, amusing stories) but they also contain some quite personal and insulting comments. Fortunately, no names were mentioned but it is quite possible that students from these schools could be able to identify the persons who are being under the attack. In 6 pages apart from the textual offences some revealing mobile taken images and videos were discovered as well. Most of the assessed Web pages (42.79%) contain online games (e.g. packman, football, Tetris) and quite a few of them allow students to gamble with virtual money. The gambling games were actually very popular and took most of the hits. Several students were trying a number of times to win the quizzes or the virtual betting machines, as the log files indicate. Here we should mention that during the unrestricted Web navigation we observed, without any intervention, that when someone was gambling online some of the other students were gathered around them creating a team of supporters. This behaviour shows that gambling sites are very popular among students and other students participate as well in addition to the main player. The gambling games are embedded in the Web pages as Java or Flash

Although none of the students visited any Website dedicated purely to racism or similar ideas, the evaluators discovered some traces of racist comments in jokes and stories in 48 internet pages. These comments concerned some ethnical minorities who usually do low level jobs in Greece. Although none of the students intentionally visited or searched for these kinds of comments, the fact remains that unacceptable ideas are passed indirectly to the students in some Web locations. Sites devoted to bomb making or drug and illegal substances usage were not discovered in our sample. Nevertheless, in a larger sample coming from different student population from different cities and countries this problem might be encountered and thus administrators of educational institutes and educational policy makers should consider how to deal with it. Text and images presenting specific stereotypes were found in Web sites of actor and other artists. Slender women, well built young men, successful sportsmen and businessmen are some of the images that dominated these sites. These images along with their textual counterparts virtually impose specific attitudes to students in order to become successful too. Comparing fashion magazines and Web presences it could be argued that the hypermedia features of the Web (e.g. animations, realism, 3-D representations) are stronger in forcing students to idealize these stereotypes. Improper advertisements in textual and image format were found in 10.86% of the sample. These commercial messages concern primarily the illegal download of movies, music and software. The advertisements appear periodically as animated or static images in order to excite the interest of students. After having inspected the 451 Web pages the evaluators examined the keywords the students used in their 31 searches. These terms were mostly related to adult content or download of music. Search terms related to adult content were

465

Towards Safer Internet for Students wth the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

mostly run by the students in the image service of Google while the music related terms were run in the regular searching interface. The visual inspection of the image results showed that indeed students get a number of adult images through the image searching mechanism of Google. The same applies in the case of Yahoo. The inspection of the Web pages returned in text queries showed similar problems to the ones mentioned earlier, i.e. improper advertisements, adult material, online games, etc. The aforementioned analysis shows that sites that hypothetically are suitable for students contain information which is directly or indirectly harmful to them. Adult content, racist comments, vulgarities are common in sites with youthful content. Further, search engines make the discovery of inappropriate data quite straightforward to students. The Internet as a new medium offers unlimited opportunities to education and knowledge sharing but it can also shape specific attitudes and cultivate erroneous and potentially dangerous ideas. Such content cannot be easily distributed through traditional media with well established control mechanisms. Creating Web pages with questionable content is quite easy and

inexpensive and therefore several people maintain Web sites. However, Web content which is accessible to children should be thoroughly checked and qualitatively analyzed.

5. A FIlterIng tool For sAFer Internet Access To improve the existing situation, in addition to the critical need to educate the students to be more selective and careful when surfing online, special software to prohibit or to restrict the access to sites with unsafe content is needed. Figures 1 and 2 present the interface of a filtering software application developed in Java. This application allows educational administrators to define which keywords point to unsafe content (see Figure 1). Each keyword may be assigned to various categories and keywords may be in any natural language or in a combination of natural languages. These keywords are then searched in Web pages and in the alternative text of images and other multimedia files. Finally, Web pages are ranked according to the instances of the unsafe terms found in them.

Figure 1. Definition of keywords which point to unsafe internet content

466

Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

Each page is assessed using a simple statistical model based on the combined frequency of these keywords. The score is normalized and a percentage is then calculated and graphically and textually depicted (see Figure 2). The dark part of the graphs refers to problematic content. In Web pages with several instances of prohibiting terms the darker parts are larger. The main aim of this application is to become a useful tool for administrators and educational practitioners for identifying pages with unsafe content. It allows them to define which text they consider dangerous and then, the tool analyzes, and possibly ban, access to specific pages. It can also produce reports for specific Web pages or Web sites. This tool can be considered as a special case of a proxy server. However it is customizable and aware of specific content which indicate unsafe internet access for students. Its data and categories are stored in XML and they are dynamically loaded and projected to the user. So, it is extensible as new classes of unsafe content and new keywords can be added virtually at anytime. It is easy to use it and requires minimum user effort so it is ideal for educational staff with medium computer

handling abilities who often act as administrators, especially in Greece. The tool is currently under development so its functionality is limited but it is our intention to extend it with more features which will make the identification and classification of unsafe Web pages easier and more balanced. For example, keywords will be weighted according to their importance; Web pages will be rated and will be automatically banned if specific criteria are met; the tool will be coupled with the lab’s main proxy server to automatically scan and restrict the access to Web pages with inappropriate content. Even though is still under development a number of randomly selected Web pages were analyzed with the aid of the tool. Half of the selected 50 pages which were analyzed with the aid of our tool were also analyzed previously by the human evaluators. Our intention was to see how well our system performs in identifying sites with harmful content and categorizing them. In 29 of the 50 Web pages (58%) inappropriate terms were found. Profanities were found in 29 Web pages, adult material in 11 Web pages and the other categories were sporadically identified. The main conclusion of this evaluation is that the

Figure 2. Graphical and text illustration of the problems of specific web pages

467

Towards Safer Internet for Students wth the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

system’s performance is on par with the human evaluations when unsafe content appears in text format. Images, video and other multimedia material which portray censurable material cannot be identified unless the Web pages have rich metadata and alternative text descriptions for these images. Further, the colleagues who helped us with the previous evaluations suggested a set of improvements to the system. First, they asked for more thorough reports. They also suggested that the tool should provide statistics for the Web access so the administrators would be able to pick which sites to analyze first. They also asked for a more analytic textual report as graphs are harder to be interpreted.

6. synopsIs This chapter presented a number of online risks which students might encounter in Web sites. Then the student favourite Web sites were studied with reference to this class of online risks. It was found that, although security policies apply, students can still access a mass of Web pages with unsafe content. Profanities, adult images, bald sex stories, racist jokes, presentation of specific stereotypes and contempt towards women and certain sex orientation groups were identified in more than 30% of the evaluated pages. The harmful content is usually in text form which makes identification and exclusion of improper Web pages easier. However, some of the unsafe ideas presented (e.g. sexual discrimination or presentation of specific stereotypes) are more difficult to be identified because the terms and the phrases used are spread across several lines. In other words it is the meaning of the whole paragraph which points to unsafe material and not simply some terms. The initial evaluation of a filtering tool was very encouraging towards the automatic identification of unsafe content in Web pages. The software tool was developed in Java and its data are stored in

468

XML. Thus it is customizable and extensible. The filtering application could be considered as a special case of a proxy server which is aware of unsafe content and it can analyze Web pages searching for specific terms which refer to harmful text. The automated analysis of Web pages showed that a high percentage of pages with improper terms are identified correctly. Content which is in multimedia form can be identified as harmful based on its alternative text or the page’s metadata. The findings of the present work and other related studies prove that although the Internet is unquestionably a very important medium for knowledge sharing and dissemination of information, it has several disadvantages. Harmful content and objectively erroneous ideas can be easily and massively developed and presented. New tools and technologies are needed to make the access to Web sites safer for children. Parents and teachers should be alerted of the new online problems which the overuse of Internet might cause to children. Students should be educated properly in order to self defend against the Web risks. All together we need to build a better Web, more democratic, more informational and less dangerous.

reFerences Ahuja, M. K. (2002). Women in the information technology profession: a literature review, synthesis and research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 20-34. Alexander, J., Tate, A. M. (1999). Web Wisdom: How to Evaluate and Create Information Quality on the Web. London: CRC Press. Arnaldo, C. (2001). Child Abuse on the Internet: Breaking the Silence. Oxford, UK: Bergbagn Books & UNESCO. Berners Lee, T., Caillau, R., Groff, J., Pollermann, B. (1992). World Wide Web: the information

Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

universe. Electronic Networking: Research, Applications and Policy, 2(1), 52-58. Calero, C., Moraga, M. A., Piattini, M. (2008). Handbook of Research on Web Information Systems Quality. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Chou, C., Hsiao, M.-C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure experience: the Taiwan college students’ case. Computers and Education, 35(1), 65-80. Correia, A. M., Teixeira, J. C. (2003). Information literacy: an integrated concept for a safer Internet. Online Information Review, 27(5) 311 – 320. Dreyfus, H. L. (1999). Anonymity versus commitment: The dangers of education on the internet. Ethics and Information Technology 1(1), 15-20. Dupper, D. (1998). An Alternative to Suspension for Middle School Youths With Behavior Problems: Findings From a “School Survival” Group. Research on Social Work Practice, 8(3), 354-366. Durkin, K. (1997). Misuse of the Internet by pedophiles: Implications for law enforcement and probation practice. Federal Probation, 61, 14-18. European Commission (2002). eSafe Directions 2003-2004: Discussion Document. Presented at the eSafe Public Hearing. Retrieved from www.saferinternet.org/downloads/eSafe-Directions-2003-2004.pdf Griffiths, M., Wood, R. (2004). Risk Factors in Adolescence: The Case of Gambling, Videogame Playing, and the Internet. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(2-3) 199-225. Hope, A (2006). School Internet use, youth and risk: a social-cultural study of the relation between staff views of online dangers and students’ ages in UK schools. British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 307–329.

Lawson, T., Comber, C. (2000). Censorship, the Internet and schools: a new moral panic? The Curriculum Journal, 11(2), 273–285. Lazarinis, F. (2007a). Forming an instructional approach to teach Web searching skills to nonEnglish users. Program: electronic library and information systems, 41(2), 170 – 179. Lazarinis, F. (2007b). Web retrieval systems and the Greek language: Do they have an understanding? Journal of Information Science, 33(5), 622-636. Nachmias, R., Gilad, A. (2002). Needle in a hyper stack: Searching for information on the World Wide Web. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 475-486. NCL Report (2006). Under 16s and the National Lottery. Retrieved from http://www.gamcare.com/ pdfs/NLCreport.pdf Roblyer, M. D. (2005), Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rainie, L., Hitlin, P., (2005, August 2). The Internet at School.Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet. org/PPF/r/163/report_display.asp Wang, Q., Ross, M. W. (2002), Differences between Chat Room and E-mail Sampling Approaches in Chinese Men Who Have Sex with Men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 14(5), 361-366. Webster, J. (1996), Shaping Women’s Work: Gender Employment and Information Technology. London: Longman. Whine, M. (1997), The Far right on the Internet. In B. Loader (Ed.) The Governance of Cyberspace (pp. 209–227). London: Routledge. Young, K. (2004), Internet Addiction: A New Clinical Phenomenon and Its Consequences. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(4), 402-415.

469

Towards Safer Internet for Students wth the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool

Key terMs And deFInItIons Cyberbullying: Cyberbullying is the situation where a child, preteen or teen is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones. Filtering Software: Filter systems are applications which regulate access to information or services on the internet according to defined criteria. They can be installed on the user’s PC (and nowadays on mobile phones too), on a central internet computer belonging to an institution (e.g. on a proxy server in a school) or on the computers

470

of an internet access provider and trigger a variety of different reactions: They can warn against problematic Websites, record the user’s path through the internet in detail, block incriminated sites or even turn off a computer altogether. Online Gambling: Gambling is an activity where one bets money or other valuables online through the Internet of mobiles phones on the outcome of some event, either an external one or one within the gambler’s control. Safer Internet: Safer Internet aims to promote safer use of the Internet and new online technologies, particularly for children, and to fight against illegal content and content unwanted by the end-user.

471

Chapter XXX

Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies Virginia E. Garland The University of New Hampshire, USA

AbstrAct In this chapter, the author analyses advances in wireless technologies and the associated pedagogical shift from traditional to multimedia literacies in K-12 education internationally. The premise is that multimedia, made more accessible with mobile devices, gives students and teachers greater access to the Internet and interactive software for research, communication, and presentations. In particular, the planner, voice, color, graphics, video and text messaging features of smart phones and ultramobile computers, which have been used socially by students of the “Net Generation,” are now being used educationally by administrators and teachers to create media rich schools. With multimedia literacies, the focus is on inquiry, collaboration and project based learning. However, effective integration of wireless technologies in the literacy-based curriculum is dependent on adequate resources and appropriate professional development opportunities for teachers in both economically developed and developing nations.

overvIeW In 2006, Garland asserted that “Language acquisition and mathematics skills are the core elements of traditional views of literacy. In the new millennium, technology has become another basic skill for K-12 students across the globe” (p 308). The use of information and communication technologies in learning is commonly referred to as digital literacy. The European Union e-

Learning Program is evaluated by Uzunboylu (2006), Chair of the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies at Near East University in Cyprus, who further defines digital literacy as “the knowledge and skill that all persons need for professional development and for active participation in a technological-based society” (205-206). Changes in social uses of technology, such as the proliferation of hand held wireless devices in both economically advanced

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies

and developing nations, are preceeding the use of these tools for instructional purposes. In 2008, the concept of digital literacies were further defined by the co-editors of the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy (JAAL) as “…digital media, new technologies, new literacies, or New Literacy Studies (popularly abbreviated to NLS); or things that digitally literate people produce (blogs, wikis, podcasts); or activities that digitally literate people can engage in such as digital storytelling, social networking, and webpage creation.” (O‘Brien and Scharber, p 66-67). However, the achievement of digital literacy skills may be more problematic than the attainment of linguistic or mathematical literacies because of the need for access to multimodal applications specific to the newer wireless technologies. Teachers and school administrators are beginning to use emerging wireless technologies in ways that the author of this chapter defines as multimedia literacies. Educators in the United States have been using digital data to measure student achievement in standardized tests for a number of years. With the inception of digital portfolios, teachers are becoming skilled in using the latest hardware and educational software to facilitate student learning on levels beyond traditional ideas of paper and pencil tools for literacy (Garland, 2006). In 2007, the editors of Education Week reported in “A Digital Decade” that American schools are engaged in this shift from digital to multimedia literacies, “Today, nearly all schools can get online, and the percentage of instructional computers with high-speed access hovers around 95 percent…Interactive software applications such as blogs, podcasts, and socialnetworking sites are letting students and teachers easily post their own writings and multimedia presentations on the web” (p 8). Virtual education is expanding to include not only online courses for students, but also professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators in the more technologically advanced schools.

Until about 2004, people across the globe were accessing the Internet mainly through desktop personal computers and early laptop and Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) models. The mobile Internet access devices (MIADs) which have proliferated the public market since then have given rise to other multimedia literacies in educational institutions. According to the University of Barcelona‘s Gos (2007), today‘s youth is comfortable in the “virtual world” of wireless technologies, and their interactions with new MIADs are changing ways of socializing and learning. Educators, especially those in Europe, are designing learning environments with user-centered, interactive multimedias in order to improve learning for the “Net Generation” (Skiba and Barton, 2007).

AdvAnces In WIreless technologIes In 2006, Garland stated that PCs were vital to the educational market, especially the Compaq Tablet PC TC from Hewlett Packard and the Acer TravelMate c110 convertible Tablet PC. This is no longer the case because of the increase in Apple‘s more user friendly laptops and the surge in smart phones with PC, PDA, and Internet capabilities. Until the 1990s, Apples were the main computers used in United States schools, until they were surpassed by the cheaper Dell computers. By March, 2008, Fisher-Cox reported that Apple exceeded Dell as the biggest supplier of portables to educational institutions in 2007, possibly because of its more “user-friendly,” interactive capabilities and professional training opportunities for teachers. Apple‘s iPod, iPod Touch and iPhones are popular wireless devices in K-12 schools with educational applications central to this discussion.

hardware There are still two types of wireless technology: “RF” and “Bluetooth.” “Radio frequency (RF) is

472

Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies

used as another term for 802.22a and b, which need a wired base station. Wireless does not work in RF unless there is a wireless access point in the near area… Wireless is for a short period of time, then a power source is needed for charging. Some school campuses use 802.11b Wi-Fi wireless LAN for wireless laptops. With the second type of wireless technology, Bluetooth,‘ adapters and USB ports are used. Popularized since 2000, the primary uses of Bluetooth are for PDAs and combination cell phone/planners, the Palm Zire 71, printers, keyboards and mouse, and headsets” (Garland, 2006, p 309). RF is commonly used in schools with wireless laptops on wheels and Bluetooth is essential to smart phones and other handhelds which have built in Bluetooth receivers. In the Charles County Public Schools, full implementation of these technologies has resulted in universal wireless capability, including data and voice services (Hoffman, 2007). There are Wi-Fi advances in educational and social services for some developing countries. In Brazil, Intel Corporation “plans to invest more than $1 billion over the next five years to create a wireless, high speed network for residents and provide computers to healthcare centers, public schools, and universities” (Free Wi-Fi, 2006, p 58). Two years ago, Intel had installed a network for a small city on an Amazon River island. These efforts to supply free networks to underserved, diverse populations is an effort to bridge the digital divide between developed and developing nations. Smart phones have largely replaced PDAs. By 2005 connected (to the Internet) devices outsold non-connected versions of Palm products, the latter suffering a steady decline in sales. Although schools continue to buy PDAs, smart phones are becoming more of an alternative. In 2006, Garland discussed the ban on cell phone use by many schools. The photographic capabilities of cell phones are still considered to be dangerous in relation to privacy issues in the schools. However, teachers and students, like the general public, only

want to carry one device; and, they are now giving up the unconnected PDAs for converged wireless devices such as smart phones with built in PDA functions and Internet access. Smart phones and other converged handhelds generally have these functions: voice, messaging, web browsing, extensibility, and the personal information management tools common to non-connected PDAs. Most have touchscreens with handwriting recognition, including those with Palm recognition, or miniature keyboards, for instance, the Blackberry messaging applications (Livingston, 2008). The popular Palm Treo 700p smart phone runs on the Sprint broadband network and includes live television, mobile email, MP3 player, web browsing, camera, camcorder, Palm operating system, and is enabled by Bluetooth. The Treo 750 has a full keyboard and a hands-free speaker. Apple‘s iPhone has even more smart phone features, with enhanced touch screens for texting and colorful, user friendly graphics, photos, and video streaming. School administrators generally now have in place policies regarding appropriate cell phone use or non-use in the classroom. Apple has other innovative, wireless multimedia products such as the iPod, for podcasting, and streaming video, which is now available to schools who are able to afford it. These two technologies, once installed, can create low cost options for tutorials in which teachers can create demonstrations in the classroom and produce them in a few hours. Apple‘s video streaming backbone solution delivers video over the school‘s network and the Internet. According to an article, “Build Your Own Video Streaming Backbone,” on Apple‘s education web site (2008), “The solution includes the server and storage for streaming class lectures, educational programming, student work and live school events” (p 1). Curricular and extra curricular activities can thus be enhanced with students‘, parents‘ and teachers‘ access to classroom events and schoolwide functions anytime, anywhere. Smaller laptops, sometimes referred to as ultramobile PCs, are making some inroads in the 473

Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies

public schools. It is a “…device that filled the gap between smart phones and full size notebooks, with a clamshell design and a screen measuring 7 to 10 inches diagonally; running Microsoft Windows or Linux; capable of supporting thirdparty applications; and possessing a keyboard and wireless broadband connectivity. The cost was sub-$500.” (Schaffhauser, 2008, p 21). The Fresno Unified School District put these miniature computers in sixteen schools as part of a pilot project implemented in 2007. Initial reports indicate increased student engagement and a disctrict wide decision to expand the program during the current school year (Schaffhauser, 2008). On a cautionary note, the recent economic recession and rising costs of fuel for school heating and transportation mean that taxpayers and school administrators are raising questions about the sustainability of wireless devices in schools. There are high costs for initial hardware and software purchases, Internet connectivity and data transferral with standardized test results.

software Airport wireless local area network (WLAN) technology gives wireless access to schools where hardwiring is difficult. Virginia‘s Fairfax County Public Schools, the twelfth largest in the United States, provides wireless broadband access to every classroom, but it is the software that makes it work. The district‘s 7,500 access points in their 245 schools are supported by WLAN and administered by the Airwave Management Platform software application, installed on multiple servers (Waters, 2007). This is a prime example of administrative software which makes Internet access possible in schools. In those classrooms with Internet availability, software portfolio packages are now being implemented. The terms are “digital portfolio” in the United States and “electronic portfolios” or “ePortfolios” in Australia, where the first national Learning Futures symposium met in

474

2007. K-12 educators in Australia described using wiki software in primary schools and schoolwide software portfolio packages in high schools. In addition, the Australian educators debated privacy issues involved with “the amount of content and information kids and teenagers are sharing on the Internet, from detailed profiles on MySpace through to video clips about their after-school activities posted on YouTube” (Leaver, 2007, p 75). In one Australian primary school, teachers were using Web 2.0 tools to teach students and parents about privacy issues, such as cyber stalking, by contributions to a classroom blog. Thus, effective Internet use policies are necessary to ensure that appropriate learning is conducted in schools internationally. More recently, digital learning software for handhelds is being marketed by Wiley, the publisher of Cliffs Notes, and Workman, the publisher of Brain Quest. According to Ramaswami (2008), these educational media giants are now selling software packages for iPods, which include easily downloaded text, audio, video, and images for students and teachers.

net generAtIon There is a new generation of students who are challenging traditional ways of teaching, referred to as the “Net Generation” (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2006). They are a networked society, who rely on their connectivity, primarily via smartphones and laptops, to communicate quickly and efficiently, “They live in a 24 X 7 X 365 world. They expect instant access and instant responses. Email is‚ ‘so yesterday’ when you can IM (instant message) or text message someone immediately. Net geners are multitaskers and used to being bombarded by multiple processes at twitch speed. They are mobile nomads who are always connected” (Skiba and Barton, 2007, p 15). The researchers recommend that faculty members interact with their students through email, IM, message boards, chat rooms,

Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies

wikis and webcasts. These communication tools, more commonly used in higher education, are also components of emerging multimedia literacy curricula for students in K-12 schools. In a study of the Net Generation, Oblinger and Oblinger (2006) found that teenagers are likely to use more than one media simultaneously, with 94% of secondary level students using the web for school research and 70% using instant messaging with their friends. Online communities are formed in high schools, report these researchers, with nearly half of the teenagers using e-mail to contact teachers or other students about their school assignments. Today’s secondary level students are less likely to use the library or the telephone than prior generations, “The Net Gen are more visually literate than previous generations; many express themselves using images. They are able to weave together images, text, and sound in a natural way. Their ability to move between the real and the virtual is instantaneous. Because of the availablitiy of visual media, their text literacy may be less well developed than previous cohorts” (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2006, p 10). Long reading assignments and the written instructions common to traditional, text based literacy are difficult for the multimedia using Net Generation. Technology is advancing so rapidly that these researchers report girls outpacing boys in web site activity and younger students being more adroit in multimedia literacies than their older siblings. That computer “geeks” are only male is also a concept challenged in the United Kingdom by the authors of the “Cyber girls” article, “The sterotypical image of techies as male will soon be an anachronism. A digital literacy survey by regulator Ofcom found that Britain‘s youth are a nation of blogging, texting, mobile phone and PDA-owning girls….they‘re also more likely to use the web as a reference when doing homework” (2006, p 67). The gender bias that typified early computer clubs in secondary schools as primarily comprised of boys is being challenged by this new generation of “Cyber girls.”

Learners of both genders are clearly using wireless technologies for social and educational purposes, but some educators are still using outmoded instructional and student management techniques. Ramaswami (2008) critiques some current policies on wireless use in schools as ineffective, “How many students are told at the beginning of each school year, ‘Leave your cell phone in your locker; turn off the phone?’ asks June St. Clair Atkinson in a recent blog entry. While we give students paper planners at the beginning of the year, what about students who want to use a cell phone, a BlackBerry, or an MP3 player as a time manager, a note-taking device, and as a way of assessing one’s own learning through text messaging?” (p 32). Although Internet safety policies are necessary, there are potential educational benefits to these mobile devices in K-12 schools.

MultIMedIA lIterAcIes The social uses of wireless technologies described in prior sections can be positive contributions to the interactive, constuctivist learning typical of the new multimedia literacies. Tierney, Bond, and Bresler describe the context of wireless technology use by students in Canada and the United States, “In North America, today‘s students have grown up with a variety of multimodal literacies, including new genres of texts that are mulilayered and image rich, as well as various forms of text messaging, blogging, podcasting, gaming, and Web environments for purposes of research, documentation, analysis, and presentation” (2006, p 359). JAAL editors hold the view that digital literacies include the reading of multimedia texts, “In multimodal composing and reading, ideas and concepts are represented with print texts, visual texts (photographs, videos, animations), audio texts (music, audio narration, sound effects), and even dramatic or other artistic performances (drama, dance, spoken word).” (O‘Brien & Scharber, 2008, p 67). Additional

475

Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies

researchers believe that the social uses of multimedia literacies are easily adapted to learning activities in the classroom. Snyder, an Australian professor of education, and Prinsloo, a Republic of South Africa professor of education, studied the “use of new technologies for literacy purposes in educational settings. Our starting assumption is that communicative activities, including those associated with the new electronic media, are shaped by immediate interactive dynamics and by wider social practices” (2007, p 172). They conclude that “new literacies” are the outcomes of “digital practices” that are “enculturated” outside the classroom. In a globalized world, literacy is newly defined for urban, ethnically diverse children. Canadian educators Lotherington and Chow give their definition of “mulitliteracies in action,” “21stcentury literacies that engage multiculturalism, multilingualism, and multimodalism in complex interplay” (2006, p 242). Their project on digital narratives in an elementary school is a modern, culturally sensitive update on “Goldilocks.” Unfortunately, most schools do not support the potential use of new social literacies because of lack of funding for professional development of teachers in the use of new wireless hardware and accompanying software.

eXeMplAry prActIces A partnership between the Philadelphia public schools and Microsoft, the world‘s leading software-maker, resulted in the School of the Future, built in 2006. Wireless technologies are clearly the tools for implementing the multimedia curricula of this new school, “Students’ will benefit from one-to-one wireless computing with Gateway laptops; Smartboards; ‘smart’ cards for everything from the cafeteria to an Interactive Learning Center or virtual library; and digital resources, with access to the Libaray of Congress or the Louvre” (Pascopella, 2006, p 37). In the

476

$63 million facility for only 750 students, mostly minority and below the poverty level, there is an underground performance center with two rotating lecture halls, and a Flex Center for training teachers in the use of learning software applications on a high speed wireless network. There are other exciting new projects in schools which are using the variety of wireless technologies for multimedia literacies. Four North Carolina high schools are making use of smart phones in Project K-Nect. According to Laney (2008), the cell phones which are banned in most schools are “an integral component of ninth-grade Algebra curriculum …students…wanted access to multimedia -- didn‘t want to be reliant on textbooks and wanted access any time anywhere” (p 2). Project K-Nect surveyed students in initial assessments and found that 97% had access to cell phones when the project started in 2006. “Using the phone, students can access supplementary problems in addition to online resources, including blogs and videos posted by students from other participating high schools that provide examples of how to solve the equations being studied” (Laney, 2008, p 3). Collaboration between participating K-Nect North Carolina schools, students, and teachers is resulting in increased student achievement in mathematics. Laney (2008) reports that formerly average mathematics students now have “A” grades, due primarily to the effective use of smart phones as instructional tools. Apple‘s iPod Touch, a precurser to the iPhone, has Wi-Fi capability which allows the user to surf the web, send email, listen to music, watch movies, and upload and review photos. It can be an efficient, expedient, and helpful administrative tool in teacher supervision. One of the author’s graduate students at the University of New Hampshire, Christine Martin, also the Fine Arts Director of the Manchester, New Hampshire public schools, uses her iPod Touch’s multi-touch screen to text supervisory comments for elementary and secondary level teachers in her daily classroom walk throughs. At the end of the day in her of-

Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies

fice, Martin downloads observational data from her iPod Touch to her Mac computer and emails them to her music and art teachers. The data is part of a collaborative effort between Martin and her teachers to improve classroom instruction. Martin also used her iPod Touch to download the agenda while waiting for a school board meeting to begin; unfortunately, one administrative colleague suggested that she stop “playing with that toy” until the Fine Arts Director explained the technology and its purpose. In some cases, those unfamiliar with the new wireless technologies may challenge those who are skilled in their use. Without school district support for new technologies, some educational leaders are on their own. Martin purchased her iPod Touch and her smart phone, both used extensively in her professional work, from her personal funds.

Future Issues Social interactions and economic practices in developed as well as developing nations have been transformed by the surge in wireless technology use during the past five years. There is a debate over the value of globalization, but it is occuring at all levels of social, governmental, business and educational institutions. Educational leaders across the world are realizing that learners in K-12 schools can greatly benefit from the multimedia literacy applications of wireless technologies such as smart phones, other handhelds, and laptops. When the author was a visiting lecturer on computer use at the Beijing Institute of Education in 1992, there was only one small personal computer lab to serve thousands of students and faculty members and no wireless technology. In March, 2008, Beijing Normal University was the the host of the 5th International Workshop on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education. Chinese scholars met with colleagues across the world to explore the future role of wireless technologies in teacher education.

Today, nearly all schools in developed countries have access to high speed Internet connections. Initiatives such as the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) project in Africa is assisting students in developing nations such as Uganda to keep pace. The goal of OLPC is to encourage donors to donate one connected, local language supported, XO laptop to every school age child. The greatest potential for emerging wireless educational tools is their capability to engage the learner. For instance, students can be urged to use MP3 players not only for music, but also for backing up classroom notes or, with a microphone accessory, for recording teacher lectures. Groups of students can combine files for joint multimedia presentations. Wireless or online testing systems can be used for both formative and summative student assessment. Easier and faster access to the Internet, through wireless devices such as miniature computers, laptops, and smart phones, is necessary to keep pace with multimedia literacies in the digital age. Educators of the future are now embedding wireless devices in curriculum planning, student assessment, and teacher training in order to move schools into the twenty first century.

conclusIon Less than a decade into the new millenium, digital literacy is moving in the direction of mulitmedia literacies, due to the explosion of wireless technologies such as enhanced smart phones, ultramobile computers and laptops. Ramaswami (2008) presents a practical approach for K-12 schools, “What to do with all those cell phones, PDAs, and iPods tucked away in students‘ backpacks? Forward-thinking administrators have found a ‚smart‘ solution: Load them with educational content and welcome them into instruction.” (p 32). There are still many challenges in achieving the promise of multimedia literacy for all students,

477

Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies

such as Internet access, hardware and software availability, and professional development opportunities for teachers. The allocation of resources for more technology infrastructure and teacher training are essential to bridging the digital divide between property poor and property rich districts in the United States and between economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged countries internationally. Educational researchers who are cited in this study are from the following nations: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, the People‘s Republic of China, the Republic of South Africa, Spain, Uganda, the United States, and the United Kingdom. They are also technology leaders who are taking positive steps to ensure that students in K-12 schools across the world are benefiting from the learning opportunities offered by the digital age. The new classroom is international, crosscultural, virtual, and interactive. In the future, global interconnections provided by the educational advances in wireless technology give hope and opportunity for increased communication, understanding, productivity, and learning.

reFerences A digital decade. (2007, March 29). Education Week, 26(30), 8-9. Build your own video streaming backbone (2008). Retrieved March 13, 2008 from http://education. apple.com/streaming/backbone/ Cyber girls.(2006). Accountancy, 137(1354), 67. Fisher-Cox, A. (2008). Apple surpasses Dell to first place in education sales. Retrieved March 13, 2008 from http://technorati.com

cell phones for K- 12 education. In L. Hin & R. Subramaniam, (Eds.), Literacy in Technology at the K-12 level: Issues and Challenges. (pp. 308321). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Gos, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23-38. Hoffman, R. (2007). A wireless world: Charles County Public Schools makes wireless universal. Technology & Learning, 27(8), 27. Laney, K. (2008). Smartphones used in North Carolina high schools. Retrieved March 13, 2008 from http://www.convergemag.com/story. php?catid=231&storyid=106747 Leaver, T. (2007). A broad band of ideas: Web 2.0@ the Learning Futures Symposium. Screen Education, (48), 74-77. Livingston, A. (2008). Smartphones and other mobile devices: The Swiss army knives of the 21st Century. Retrieved March 13, 2008 from http:// connect.educause.edu Lotherington, H. & Chow, S. (2006). Rewriting, Goldilocks” in the urban, multicultural elementary school. The Reading Teacher 60(3) 242-252. O‘Brien, D. & Scharber, C. (2008). Digital literacies go to school: Potholes and possibilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 52(1), 66-68. Oblinger D. & Oblinger, J. (2006). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the net generation. CSLA Journal, 29(2), 8-16. Pascopella, A. (2006). School of the future arrives. District Administration, 42 (9), 36-37.

Free Wi-Fi may close the digital divide. (2006). BizEd 5(7), 58.

Ramaswami, R. (2008). Fill ’er up! T H E Journal, 35(5), 32-38.

Garland, V. E. (2006). Digital literacy and the use of wireless portable computers, planners, and

Schaffhauser, D. (2008). Small device, big appeal. T H E Journal, 35(9), 20-22.

478

Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies

Skiba, D. & Barton, A. (2007). Adapting your teaching to accommodate the net generation of learners. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11(2), 15. Snyder, I. & Prinsloo, M. (2007). Young people’s engagement with digital literacies in marginalContexts in a globalised world. Language and Education, 21(3), 171-179. Tierney, R., Bond, E. & Bresler, J. (2006). Examining literate lives as students engage with multiple literacies. Theory Into Practice, 45(4) 359-367. Uzunboylu, H. (2006). A review of two mainline e-Learning projects in the European Union. International Review, 54(2), 201-219. Waters, J. (2007). Classroom collaborators. THE Journal, 34(2), 44-45.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Digital Learning Software: Educational applications for handheld wireless devices such as iPods.

Digital Portfolio: Electronic evidence of student academic work, including text, multimedia presentations, files, and hyperlinks. Multimedia Literacies: Use of print (books and hardcopy texts) and non-print media (technology-based audio, voice, video, graphics, and text) for writing, reading, communication, research, and presentations. Net Generation: Young people, usually under 25 years of age, who rely on Internet connectivity through wireless technology to communicate quickly and efficiently both socially and educationally. Smart Phones: Converged cellular telephones with full keyboards and planner, voice, color, graphics, video, text messaging, and Internet access. Ultramobile Computers: Small laptops, a cross between smart phones and notebooks, with screens measuring seven to ten inches diagonally and broadband connectivity. Wireless Technologies: Mobile devices unattached by electrical conductors or “wires,” such as smart phones and laptops.

Digital Literacy: The use of information and telecommunication technologies in learning, particularly in reading and writing.

479

480

Chapter XXXI

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential Pavel Samsonov University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA

AbstrAct Though extremely popular with school teachers, PowerPoint is almost never used as an interactive tool of teaching and learning. The following chapter describes how to create interactive and fun projects in PowerPoint: reviews, interactive maps and games. The chapter is of a practical rather than of research or theoretical character. It targets in-service teachers of schools and colleges. The described techniques require only basic computer skills. A case study on the effectiveness of the techniques is described at the end of the chapter. Multiple internet resources on PowerPoint use in education are offered.

InterActIvIty Is Key Now that there are multiple software and hardware especially designed or customized for education, PowerPoint seems like yesterday’s news. In fact, what is new about it? Almost all (if not all) teachers have been using PowerPoint with some degree of success and effectiveness. PowerPoint has become a very-well accepted and established tool of teaching, almost ubiquitous and taken for granted. Answering the question “Do you use computer technology in teaching?” most teachers normally say: “Sure, I do PowerPoint presentations”. If a school has a single computer, make no mistake:

it will have some version of MS PowerPoint installed. Teachers’ home computers also have PowerPoint, as long as they have MS Office. The author has taught PowerPoint to pre-service and in-service teachers for quite a number of years. The way many teachers are using PowerPoint is exactly how PowerPoint should not be used. Normally, PowerPoint is used as a linear, one-way presentation created by the teacher to inform the students on a selected subject without any interactivity. Besides, teachers and most presenters of other walks of life think that placing a text on a slide enhances their presentation. Garr Reynolds in his excellent book “Presentation Zen: Simple

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery” notes that no person can listen and read at the same time (Reynolds, 2007). Much less school students! Most literature on PowerPoint clearly suggests that using PowerPoint in the wrong way (by simply copying and pasting text on slides and projecting them to the audience) is actually more harmful than using no PowerPoint at all (Atkinson, 2005; Finkelstein and Samsonov, 2008; Altman, 2007; Weissman, 2006; and many others). Many teachers, according to our observations, use PowerPoint simply because their administration requires that they “use technology in the classroom”. Uninspiring, boring and unnecessary presentations, unfortunately, are what most school students see in the use of PowerPoint. Teaching in-service and future teachers new techniques in PowerPoint changes their attitude, quite negative at times, to this great software and provides them with new ideas on their teaching at large. The applications and projects described later support the constructivist approach, which suggests that students construct their knowledge through active participation in project-based and problem-based activities, through interaction with the teacher and their peers. To follow is the description of how to create interactive projects: reviews, images and games. Used in class on a regular basis, most PowerPoint presentations contain parts of text, some short or contracted sentences and some graphics, bullets and digits to support the content. As a rule, presenters use some slide design templates, mostly from MS Office, or as downloaded from the internet. Some sound, animation and images reveal a seasoned PowerPoint user. However, the presentation itself does not interact with the audience. The audience remains passive recipients of the information presented with a help of PowerPoint. No one in the audience is expected to change the sequence of the slide show, which goes in a linear way from the first to the last slide as designed and presented by its creator. According to the survey conducted by Indiana University in 2007 with over 81,000 high school

students, 75% of American high school students “are bored in class” and consider dropping out. The researchers who conducted the survey believe that the reason for such attitude is that “students are not being involved in interactive ways in the teaching and learning” (High School Students Bored, risk dropping out: Survey, 2007). Though being one of the most popular programs used in the schools, PowerPoint is rarely recognized as a means of interactivity. However, the interactive potential of PowerPoint is powerful and easy to apply. The idea of nonlinearity and interactivity in PowerPoint is not new (Cavanaugh, T. & Cavanaugh, C. , 2000). The technique of creating quizzes in PowerPoint has been described by a number of authors (Marcovitz, D. 2003, 2004; Bajaj, 2004; Finkelstein, 2005). Marcovitz (2003, 2004) and Finkelstein (2005) offer an interesting and powerful method of creating interactive projects in PowerPoint using scripting in Visual Basics for Applications (VPA). This method is extremely powerful and offers a lot of options; however, it is not always realistic to expect a school teacher to learn scripting. Given the most basic computer skills even among the most devoted computerusing teachers, the mere idea of “scripting” may sound like a deterrent. The following text suggests a simple and effective technique of creating interactivity by hyperlinking several slides. Normally, such technique involves clicking a hyperlinked word or another object on a slide. For example, a slide offers a question with a set of responses in a form of a multiple choice. Each word is linked to a slide. The wrong choices are hyperlinked to the slide(s) with a negative feedback (something like “Sorry, try again”), and the right choices are linked to the slide(s) with a positive feedback (“something like “Yes, that’s correct”. The technique proposed later also allows clickable mapping of images with multiple “hotspots” of different sizes. Both methodologies are designed for teachers and students who have

481

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

most rudimentary knowledge of PowerPoint and computer skills in general. The only skills that these teachers will have to have are copy-pastesave skills. 3.

creAtIng An InterActIve revIew (QuIz) In PowerPoInt A small quiz with multiple choice questions at the end of a large project or a small presentation is always a great idea: it enhances understanding and internalizing of the material covered, provides the teacher with immediate feedback from the students and adds fun. In this sense, a quiz of this kind is actually a review of the material covered, rather than a rigorous test of knowledge. At the end of the presentation/project the teacher (or any PowerPoint user, including students) creates a number of slides with questions combined with multiple-choice type answers. A wrong choice leads to negative feedback (“Try again!” or “Do it again!”), and the right choice leads to positive feedback (“Great job!” “Excellent!”, etc.). First, the teacher needs to decide what issues of the project should be covered in the quiz. Generally, the most important points should be covered. For example, it is not so important to memorize at exactly what age whales begin to reproduce; it is more important to check if the students understand what causes the population of whales to decline. Here are the steps to create a review: You can add your review to an existing PowerPoint presentation, or create a project consisting of a review only, in order to cover some large topic. Follow these instructions: 1. 2.

482

Create a question slide. Write the question and several possible answers (choices). For example: Question 1. Which of the following countries has the largest area? The choices are: Canada USA China Russia Brazil. It is advisable that you write the question within the title space holder (in

4.

5.

6.

the “Normal View” this is the space that says “Click to add title”). It makes it easier to hyperlink the negative response slides to the question slide. See Fig. 1. Create a negative feedback slide. Write something like “Try again!” or “Sorry, you need to do it again”. It is a good idea to have some kind of an image suggesting a negative response, for example, a stop sign, a crying baby face, a hand with a thumb pointing down. Create a positive feedback slide. It should have some positive reinforcement message, like “Good job!” or “Excellent!” and also an instruction to go to the next question. An appropriate image can be placed, for example, of a smiling face, a hand with the thumb up or fireworks. Some sound will be a good idea too: from the sound of clapping hands available in the sound effects collection of MS PowerPoint to audio files available on the Web. You can record your own voice, insert a midi or a wave audio file. Create a next question slide with a question and multiple-choice answers as described earlier. Select the right choice (Russia) on the first question slide and insert a hyperlink to the positive feedback slide. Select each of the wrong choices separately and hyperlink

Figure 1. Writing questions and choices

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

7.

8.

them individually to the negative feedback slide. Hyperlink the positive feedback slide to the next question slide. Place instructions like “Click on the arrow to go to the next question”. The arrow image should be hyperlinked to the next question slide. It is a good idea to uncheck On Mouse Click from the Advance Slide selection in Slide Transition dialog box. This way the user will only use the hyperlinks to navigate through the presentation. You can also make the entire slide clickable if you place a rectangle from the Drawing toolbar on the entire slide, hyperlink it to the next question slide and make the rectangle transparent. Create a back hyperlink from the negative feedback slide to the question slide. You can use a phrase like “Go back to the question” as a hyperlink, or similarly to procedure on the positive feedback slide, place a rectangle, cover the entire slide, hyperlink it to the question slide and make the rectangle invisible. To do so, double-click the rectangle, and in the Format Auto Shape select Colors and Lines – Color. In the fall-down menu select No Fill.

will respond to an instruction to click a country. This may be a class activity, or a teaching aid for students to brush up their knowledge. Creating a geography review or any other interactive image is slightly more challenging than creating a simple multiple-choice quiz. However, once you have mastered the technique, things become simple. Follow these instructions: 1.

2.

3.

Additional tips: there must be at least one negative feedback slide for each question. You can create an individual negative feedback slide with different messages for each wrong choice of answers, or link all wrong answers of the same question to one negative feedback slide. A common mistake is attempting to use only one negative feedback slide for all wrong answers. In this case the negative feedback slide will always lead the presentation to the first question.

creAtIng A geogrAPhy revIew You can create an interactive map for your students to test their knowledge of geography. Students

4.

Find a map of a continent, for example, Europe on the Web. The map should not have names of the countries. Save it. Insert the picture into a slide, or just paste it. Make multiple copies of the slide (the number depends on the number of countries you want to include in the project. You can always add a copy or delete those slides that you don’t need). It is very important not to change the size or location of the picture on the slides, because the visual effect on the slides will be lost. If you have 100% copies throughout the entire project, it will produce a visual effect of everything happening on a single slide. Write on the first slide “Click Spain”. You can use either a text box, or a callout. However, the best way is to use the title space holder, because it will assign titles to the slides, which makes it easier to hyperlink slides. To be able to use the title space holder, you will need to send the picture to the back. To do so right-click on the picture and select Order – Bring to Back. Now you can use the space holder to write messages within it. Position the title space holder, a text box or callout on the picture outside of the map of Europe (on the ocean). You can resize and move the space holder, the text box or callout by dragging it by the corners. We recommend that you get rid of the text space holder, by clicking and deleting, because it may create problems when drawing “hotspots”. Now let’s create a “hotspot”, which is an area of the slide that will be hyperlinked to a cor-

483

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

484

responding feedback slide. Go to the Drawing toolbar and select AutoShapes – Lines. In Lines select Freeform. The cursor will turn into a pencil. Click and plot a contour line along the borders of Spain. Make sure to connect the line. You will get a shape in the form of the map of Spain (see Fig. 2). Create a positive feedback/next question slide. To do so, select any of the copies of the original slide with the picture of the map. Write “Correct! Now, click Italy” in the title space holder or on a callout or other auto shape. Notice, this is both a positive response and next question slide. On the first question slide (“Click Spain”) select (if it is not selected) the free shape in the form of the map of Spain and hyperlink it to the positive feedback/next question slide. Create a negative feedback slide, using another copy of the original slide. Write “Sorry, this is not Spain! Click to try again” using either a text box or a callout. As described earlier in “Creating an interactive review (quiz) in PowerPoint”, place a rectangle from the drawing toolbar over the negative feedback slide, hyperlink it to the first question slide, remove fill and line. Using the Freeform line, draw the line around the rest of Europe, excluding Spain, and connect it, forming another free shape (Fig. 3). Hyperlink it to the negative response slide, remove the line and fill (if any). This is the “not Spain” choice. Follow the same technique with the positive feedback/next question slide: create a positive feedback/next question slide and a negative feedback slides. Draw the shapes covering the maps of Italy, and “everything else, but Italy”, and hyperlink them to the corresponding positive and negative feedback slides. Continue creating questions this way.

Figure 2. Drawing the hotspot for the right choice

Tips for more fun: add sound. As described earlier, it can be some popular wave clips from cartoons or movies, easily found on the Web. You can also record your own voice, or your students’ voices for the feedback slides. Important tip: when creating text for questions and feedback, it is very convenient to use the title space holders, this way it will be easier to hyperlink the correct slide accurately, because the text in the title space holder becomes the title of the slides, and it is easy to find them in the Edit Hyperlink dialogue box. You can avoid the step of “clicking to try again”, if you copy and paste the first question Figure 3. Drawing the hotspot for the wrong choice(s)

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

slide with the “hotspots” for both negative feedback slide and positive feedback/next question slide. Hyperlink the wrong choice’s “hotspot” on the question slide to this slide. This slide will become your negative feedback slide and also the first question slide. Instead of the words “Click on Spain” in the title space holder or callout, type “This is not Spain! Try again!” On this feedback slide hyperlink the “everything but not Spain” hotspot to its own slide, in other words, hyperlink the slide to itself using the “not Spain” hotspot. In this case any click on this hotspot (which is a wrong choice) will make the user stay on the same slide. It is very effective to use a wave file for an audio feedback, if you add it as a part of slide transition. In this case every wrong click will produce a negative audio feedback. The hotspot responsible for the right choice should be linked to a next question slide. In other words, the wrong choice on the first question slide will be linked to the negative feedback slide, which looks absolutely the same except for the feedback written and audio message. Any wrong choice on this slide will keep the user on the same slide with the repeated audio message, while the right choice will lead to a new question slide. If the user clicks on the right choice on the question slide, it will also lead to the same new question slide. This technique is a bit more complicated, but it allows to avoid clicking back to the question slide. You can further improve this technique by creating multiple hotspots covering the maps of different countries and linking them to the negative feedback slides with messages like “This is not Spain, this is Portugal!” or “No, Spain is further to the west!” Once you create your first clickable map, further improvements will be easier. Other possible variations of this idea: creating interactive maps, on which the name of the country appears when the user clicks on its map. Other ideas for this type of technique: you can make interactive images pertaining to biology (structure of a plant or animal cell), science

(structure of the human heart, brain), foreign languages (click on the eyes, click on the nose, etc.) and other subjects and topics involving some complex structure. A very important thing to remember: do not move, resize or do any other manipulations with the image (here it is a map of Europe). The whole effect is based on the premise that slides are 100% copies of the first slide, and there is no transition, so the visual impression is that everything occurs on one slide. If there is a slight change in the image, this impression will be lost.

gAmes In PowerPoInt When you want to brush up some vast material with multiple questions, a game in PowerPoint is a good idea. A game involves an entire class, and it is fun! We suggest a PowerPoint game based on the famous “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” television program. You can divide your class into teams, or have a student or two play it similarly to the way the original game is played on TV. When you have devised all the necessary questions and choices, you will need to create the first slide, which will serve as a template for other slides. We suggest the following easy-tocreate technique.

Figure 4. First slide for “Who wants to be a millionaire?” class game

485

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

486

Use the text space holder to type the amount of points (dollars) from bottom to the top on the right-hand part of the slide, beginning with $100 and ending with $1mln. (See Fig. 5). The amounts of money will indicate the number of questions left and the degree of their difficulty. In other words, you need to devise your questions first, and than write the amounts according to the number of the questions and their difficulty. Use the title text holder to write your first question. Double-click on its line to format it. It will turn into an auto shape. Add fill and line. It is important, because it will make it easier to hyperlink: although it is an auto shape, it will show as a title in the Edit Hyperlink dialog box. Go to AutoShapes – Basic Shapes and select Rounded Rectangle. Insert the rounded rectangle below the question and stretch it to form an elongated shape, large enough for a word. (See Fig 4). Select it and paste it three times to make three copies. This is important because we need to have four identical copies of the same shape. Position the four shapes as shown on Fig 4. Copy and paste this slide to make at least five copies. Write your first question on the larger rectangle (which is also the title space holder) and the correct and incorrect choices inside the four smaller shapes. Select $100 and change the color into red. If you use a dark blue background (as in the original TV game), use the white color for the amounts of money (or points), other than the amount for the question, which is red. Copy and paste this slide to make a negative feedback slide (which will also be hyperlinked to the second question slide). Create hyperlinks from the shapes with wrong choices to the negative feedback slide. Notice that you should hyperlink the shapes, not the words inside them.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

On the negative feedback slide remove the first question from it; instead, type the message “Sorry, try again!” Hyperlink the negative choices of the negative feedback slide to the negative feedback slide (to “itself”). Take a next unused copy of the original slide and write a next question with right and wrong choices. Hyperlink the right choices on the first question slide and the negative feedback slides to the second question slide. Select $300 and change the color into red on the second question slide. Go back to the first question slide and test the links. (As you know, links only work in the Show mode). Click on the wrong choice shape. You will see the message “Sorry, try again”. If you click on another wrong choice shape, the message will stay, and nothing else will happen. If you click on the right choice, question 2 will appear, and the amount of $300 will be highlighted. Because the slides are identical copies except for the questions, “Sorry” messages and highlighted amounts of money or points, the visual effect will be that everything occurs on the same slide. Repeat the same procedure for Question 2 slide. A common mistake is using the “Sorry…” slide for the wrong choices on all question slides. Each question slide should have an individual “Sorry…” slide.

In our practice this game proved to be both effective and educational. It creates an atmosphere of competition and fun among students, which is extremely conducive to learning and enhancing the previously covered material. It is also a great tool to prepare students for a major formal test or examination. For more detailed explanations and various versions of PowerPoint (for both platforms) see “PowerPoint for Teachers” by Ellen Finkelstein and Pavel Samsonov (Finkelstein and Samsonov, 2008).

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

creAtIng sImIlAr InterActIve Projects usIng other ProgrAms Similar effects can be achieved with HTML editors like MS FrontPage and Dreamweaver using hyperlinks. The simple interactive quiz with multiple choices can be created even in Netscape Composer 7.2 or lower. In case of HTML editors you will use hyperlinks between multiple files, or anchors and hyperlinks in a single file. Using Dreamweaver you can create hotspots on pictures and design interactive images similar to those described earlier. However, HTML editors are not readily available in the schools; in fact, the author has never seen any of such software installed on school computers. Creating interactive projects with such software requires certain advanced computer skills and knowledge of HTML editors. Most teachers, even those enthusiastic about computer use, have very little or no experience with Web editors. PowerPoint, in contrast, is without any doubt the most popular software used by teachers, and, most probably, will be for years to come. Mastering simple interactivity techniques in PowerPoint is easy and effective for any teacher.

Twelve participants of the project attended the workshops offered on the premises of their school and implemented the skills and knowledge obtained at the workshop in their teaching for the following three semesters. During the implementation stage the participants stayed in close contact with the investigators, they were interviewed and observed regularly. By the end of the project (May 2008, end of school year), the participants submitted their electronic portfolios to the investigators. PowerPoint projects were an important part of the portfolios. PowerPoint projects had to be interactive, at least some of their parts. Besides, the participants submitted their reports on the use of PowerPoint and other computer applications in their classrooms as well as lesson plans, which included the use of interactive PowerPoint. For lack of space, detailed description of the project is not feasible. However, here are some most important results of the project pertaining to the use of interactive PowerPoint, based on the observations, interviews and the participants’ reports. 1.

APPlyIng InterActIvIty In the clAssroom The author has taught PowerPoint to middle school students when he was a school teacher; now he teaches PowerPoint among other programs to practicing and future teachers. Some of the ideas described earlier actually came from his students. In 2006-2008 the author taught PowerPoint to in-service teachers as part of their on-site professional development at a middle school in a middle-size city in the South. The project also included follow-up research on the sustainability of the professional development.

2.

The most popular kind of interactivity in PowerPoint was “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” – type game. The teachers devised them to prepare their students for tests and to review large material. One of the advantages of this type of PowerPoint projects is that once one project has been created, it can be used as a template for projects on different material. All the participants agreed that the interactive PowerPoint projects made their teaching more involving. As one teacher noted, as middle school students often become bored and defiant, “fun” projects increase their involvement. “Fun” projects include humor, funny audio files and, certainly, game activities. Middle school children are always ready to play. According to the teachers, student involvement increased many times. As one

487

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

3.

4.

5.

student testified: “I have never seen such a great PowerPoint presentation! What I had seen before was a bunch of words!” According to the participant teachers, using interactive projects actually increased their students’ respect toward them. While today’s students are quite familiar with computers, the interactive effects with fun and humor suggested that their teachers were not as “computer-illiterate” as the students had expected. In fact, many students admitted that they did not know how to create such projects and asked the teachers to explain the technique. One of the participants, a computer literacy teacher, taught her students interactive aspects of PowerPoint. In collaboration with the teachers of other subjects, the students created their own interactive projects in PowerPoint as joint assignments for both classes. Several students volunteered to develop their projects in PowerPoint with elements of interactivity for their annual science fair. According to some research, student test scores may not be directly related to the use of computers in the classroom (Cuban, 2000). However, according to the participants, a certain improvement of student achievement was observed in some subjects, especially after large projects like “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”. While such suggestions require extensive research to be proven as true, they reflect teachers’ enthusiasm about the use of interactive PowerPoint in their classroom.

Internet resources on PowerPoInt There is a plethora of useful material for teachers and other PowerPoint users. Many of them have links to other similar Websites. Some sites have collections of games, some contain PowerPoint

488

projects created by teachers of school districts, some offer tutorials and tips, and others simply have large selections of PowerPoint presentations Some sites offer interactive projects and tips to develop them.

tutorials, tips, guides and rubrics www.ellenfinkelstein.com/powerpointforteachers.html The site contains tutorials, sample presentations, tips and downloadable templates. The site is interactive: you can ask questions, and will receive responses from specialists. www.microsoft.com/education/tutorials.mspx This is a homepage created by Microsoft for teachers on all Microsoft products including PowerPoint of all versions. www.microsoft.com/education/howto.mspx The site includes four articles written specifically for educators using Microsoft products. www.e-learningcentre.co.uk/eclipse/Resources/ usingms.htm#powerpoint is similar to the previous two Websites, it contains multiple tips and tutorials on PowerPoint and other Microsoft products. www.saskschools.ca/~qvss/technology/powerpoint_module.htm This site is called “Using PowerPoint in the Classroom”, offering a wide variety of ways to use PowerPoint in the schools, including interactive projects, with a very detailed step-by-step tutorial. www.west.asu.edu/achristie/powerpoint is an excellent site developed by a renowned university professor, offering a large number of tutorials, tips and articles. www.internet4classrooms.com/on-line_ powerpoint.htm is another excellent site offering tutorials, project ideas for the classroom (vocabulary review, spelling activities), and a large number of downloadable presentations on different topics.

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

www.ppt4teachers.com/ is a most comprehensive source of tips and tutorials on PowerPoint, including games, tests and rubrics. Besides, it has a lot of free downloadable materials to be used in PowerPoint projects, like backgrounds, sound files etc. An excellent resource for educators! http://www.actden.com/pp/ This is one of the best online tutorials on PowerPoint, with clever explanations and lots of humor. http://presentationsoft.about.com/od/classrooms This great site has tips for making classroom presentations and lesson plans. There are some excellent ideas for ways to integrate technology into the classroom, such as making a family tree, developing story writing and storytelling skills, and more. www.pptfaq.com The site is called “The PowerPoint FAQ”, and here you can have all your questions about PowerPoint answered by specialists. www.ellenfinkelstein.com/powerpoint_tip.html The site was created by one of the world’s most recognized authorities on PowerPoint Ellen Finkelstein, who has written an enviable number of books on PowerPoint, including her “PowerPoint for Teachers”. It contains great tips on writing and organizing your presentation, design and graphics, delivery and others. The site has a free monthly PowerPoint Tips newsletter. http://ctl.conncoll.edu/ppt/pdfs.html. This site contains excellent guidelines on the use of PowerPoint in the classroom. Developed and maintained by the Center for Teaching and Learning at Connecticut College. www.cgu.edu/pages/762.asp The Claremont McKenna College Teaching Resource Center has created this site to offer a comprehensive rubric on how to evaluate students’ and teachers’ PowerPoint projects. A great assessment tool!

www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/pptrubric.html Good rubric for evaluating PowerPoint projects, developed by the University of Wisconsin.

games http://facstaff.uww.edu/jonesd/games/index.html. The site contains quite and extensive list of games developed by the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater, including Buzz - Word Bingo, Flash Cards, Scavenger Hunt, and Trivia. Each game is provided with a downloadable sample game and a template. http://pptheaven.mvps.org An awesome collection of PowerPoint movies, samples, games, animations and animated tutorials. Some animation examples are simply fantastic. http://www.hardin.k12.ky.us/res_techn/countyjeopardygames.htm . The site contains several dozens of Jeopardy – like games and quizzes, created by Elizabethtown, Kentucky, Hardin County School. Another site offering a number of Jeopardy-like PowerPoint games is: www.powerpointmagician.com/downloads.htm It is a great resource of PowerPoint-based games and other interactive projects.

Downloadable Presentations www.nebo.edu/misc/learning_resources/ppt is a site created by Nebo school district in Spanish Fork, Utah. It has posted hundreds of PowerPoint presentations, organized by class levels and subjects. A most extensive resource! www.pppst.com/index.html Pete’s Power Point Station contains downloadable presentations on all subjects, including even ancient history. Hundreds upon hundreds of excellent projects!

489

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

http://jc-schools.net/ppt.html This is one of the most extensive sites on PowerPoint, containing hundreds of presentations organized by age and discipline. It is offered by Tennessee’s Jefferson Country school district. Here are some discipline - specific pages: • Performing and visual arts: jc-schools.net/ PPTs - art.html • Language arts: c-schools.net/PPTs la.html • Library: jc-schools.net/ppts - library.html • Math: jc-schools.net/PPTs - math.html • Science: jc-schools.net/PPTs - science. html • Social studies: jc-schools.net/PPTs - socst. html

conclusIon: zen AnD the Art of PowerPoInt Today, as the complexity and sophistication of educational technology increase exponentially, it is easy to overlook the simple but still powerful teaching tools available to us all. The good old PowerPoint can be a powerful, creative, and userfriendly interactive teaching tool readily available to teachers in schools and other educational organizations. “A classic book of the 1970s, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance told the story of a guy riding a motorcycle. By the end of the story, you realize it never was about the motorcycle after all, but the rider’s attitude toward life. Will there come a day when our presentations are not about bullet points, but our attitude toward our audiences, and ourselves? The day that happens, we will all be on a high-octane journey toward positive change”, wrote Cliff Atkinson, one of the most famous PowerPoint specialists (Atkinson, 2005a). The use of PowerPoint described earlier is not about certain aspects of PowerPoint that can be used in the classroom. It is about making teaching more interactive and involving. It is about the

490

techniques and practices that are easy, effective and tested by teachers.

references Altman, R. (2007). Why Most PowerPoint Presentations Suck and How to Make Them Better. Fort Washington, PA: Harvest Books. Atkinson, C. (2005). Beyond Bullet Points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to Create Presentations That Inform, Motivate, and Inspire. Buffalo, NY: Microsoft Press Atkinson, C. (2005a). Zen and the Art of PowerPoint. Retrieved June 13, 2008 from http://www. beyondbullets.com/2005/01/story.html Bajaj, G. (2004). Simple Quizzes in PowerPoint. Computer Companion. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from http://www.computorcompanion.com/ LPMArticle.asp?ID=210 Cavanaugh, T. & Cavanaugh, C. (2000). Interactive PowerPoint for Teachers and Students. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2000 (pp. 496-499). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Cuban, L. (2000). Oversold and Underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Finkelstein, E. (2005). Creative Techniques: Easily create a quiz in PowerPoint using Visual Basic for Applications. Presentations, January. Finkelstein, E. & Samsonov, P. (2008). PowerPoint for Teachers: Dynamic Presentations and Interactive Classroom Projects. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. High School Students Bored, risk dropping out: Survey, 2007. (2007). Retrieved March 24, 2008 from http://www.reuters.com/ article/newsOne/idUSL2654590220070228 Marcovitz, D. (2003). Making PowerPoint Powerful Using VBA To Add Interactivity. In C.

Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential

Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 2765-2767). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Interactivity (Interactive Projects, Presentations): Involving students in your PowerPoint presentation using multiple-choice quizzes, reviews, games.

Marcovitz, D. (2004). Powerful PowerPoint for Educators: Using Visual Basic for Application to Make PowerPoint Interactive. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Midi File: Audio file created with a help of a special program, it is not a reproduction of a real sound; rather, it is artificially created music based on a real musical score.

Reynolds, G. (2008). Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery (Voices That Matter). Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press.

Nonlinearity (Nonlinear Projects, Presentations) in PowerPoint: Projects that have nonlinear navigation, that is, when the slides are not shown in their usual sequence (from A to Z), but in various directions (for example, from A to H, from H to K and back).

Weissman, J. (2006). Presenting to Win: The Art of Telling Your Story. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Hotspot: A place on a slide (normally a part of a picture) that is hyperlinked to another slide. Hyperlink (Hyperlinking, Hyperlinked): Link, connection between slides, which enables easy navigation throughout a presentation. It is used to create interactive projects.

Space Holder: Special place on a slide marked by a lines forming a box and designated for entering a title, text or a picture. Wave File: Audio file format, created by Microsoft, that has become a standard PC audio file format for everything from system and game sounds to CD-quality audio. Unlike Midi files, wave files reproduce real sounds (voices, nature sounds, etc.).

491

492

Chapter XXXII

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy Beverly Plester Coventry University, UK Clare Wood Coventry University, UK Samantha Bowyer Coventry University, UK

AbstrAct The authors present three investigations into pre-teen children’s text message language and measures of their standard literacy abilities. The children translated sentences, from standard English into text, and from text into standard English , and wrote text messages appropriate to a set of scenarios. They categorised text abbreviations used and calculated the proportion of abbreviations to total words. The children completed a questionnaire about their mobile phone use. Text messaging facility was positively associated with verbal reasoning, vocabulary, school achievement in English, and reading ability across the three studies. Texting provides opportunity for children to communicate in writing without the constraints of standard English, and we propose that the playful variants on words that they use in texting, and their ability to encode spoken slang graphically, show not a lack of knowledge of English, but a light hearted use of phonological and alphabetic decoding principles that also underpin standard English.

bAcKgrounD Computer mediated communication (CMC) technologies have become a central aspect of modern living, forming a ubiquitous foundation of every-

day interactions. Mobile phones have become such an important tool for both children and adults to communicate and interact, that some 92% of respondents acknowledged their mobile phones as essential to their daily lives (Mobile Life Report

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

2006). However, whilst the expanding availability and accessibility of these new technologies is clearly apparent, the effects of this significant and universal network infrastructure upon the individuals who readily engage in these technological exchanges are not as clear. Only some aspects have been subject to serious investigation, such as the social relationship functions of perpetual accessibility (e.g. Reid and Reid 2005; Katz and Aakhus 2002), and linguistic aspects (Crystal, 2006a, b; 2008; Ling and Baron, 2007). Questions have been raised about others, for instance, about the effect of text message language on standard literacy, and answered largely through speculation and anecdote (Thurlow, 2006). Detailed, objective answers to this particular question have important implications for young people who stand on a bridge between a paper model of written communication and the growing CMC model. There may also be important implications for children who encounter CMC functions such as text messaging (sometimes referred to as Short Message Service, SMS), as they are also encountering standard written English intensively for the first time. The work we report here begins to investigate the relationship between texting and children’s standard literacy. The fastest growing market of mobile phone users has been reported to be pre-teen children (Davies, 2004) and the Ofcom Media Literacy Audit (2006) of over 1500 UK children between eight and fifteen reported that 49% of 8-11 year olds had their own mobile phone, compared with 82% of 12-15 year olds. Our own research (Plester, Wood and Bell, in 2008) found 78.5% of 11 and 12 year olds had regular or exclusive use of a mobile phone. The younger group in the Ofcom report reported making an average of six calls per week, but sending 16 text messages in the same time span. The older group made an average of nine calls per week, but sent 31 texts. Texting was the primary use of the mobile phones for both groups, with 82% of the younger group texting, and 93% of the older group. In our research, we found 62.7%

used texting as their preferred mobile phone use. Ofcom stated that 15% of 8-11 year olds and 42% of 12-15 year olds reported paying for the use of the phone without parental help, suggesting that the use of the phones was deemed worth the cost. Young people as a group have been defined by others in terms of their computer mediated communication, e.g. “Generation Txt?” (Thurlow, 2003) “The Net Generation” (Rosen 2007) and the youngest as “Digikids” (Marsh 2005). There has been much media speculation regarding the effect that texting may have upon children’s literacy. Many have commented on the unintentional intrusions of abbreviations used in texting in inappropriate contexts, an issue particularly cited in relation to children’s school work (BBC, 2005). Thurlow (2006) reported a critical discourse analysis of over 100 media articles focused on texting, drawing out several themes of high profile concern to the journalists. The flavour appeared decidedly negative and often exaggerated, published with little regard to the actual uses of text messaging, and often in the face of evidence to the contrary. We read of reported intrusions of text language forms, or “textisms”, in standard English writing, and anecdotes are cited to show other forms of apparent decline in written English, in coursework and examinations (e.g. Associated Press, 2007; Sutherland, 2002). CMC has been enthusiastically adopted by the educational establishment for use within learning contexts, although much of it is only indirectly concerned with traditional literacy (Leu 2002), and there has been research within those settings to evaluate digital contributions to learning. A range of research designs has been called for (Selwyn 1997), investigating social and qualitative aspects of children’s ICT (Information and Communication Technology) experiences in learning. Early studies of e-learning in schools seemed positive (e.g. Kulik and Kulik 1989), but recent analyses are more measured and inconclusive about the effects of educational technology overall (e.g. Abrami et al 2005). 493

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

There is little empirical research, however, relating children’s school literacy to their nonschool literacies, although educators have pointed out the need to acknowledge children’s non-school literacy experiences well before they reach school age (e.g. Marsh 2005; Stephen et al. 2008), that the skills learned might be better built upon in school. Stephen et al. reported that children they interviewed often seemed to see traditional literacy, i.e. learning to read, as a school concern, where using ICT was a family concern, and was not about “learning”. One study explicitly has attempted to use mobile phones to elicit parental engagement with pre-schoolers’ literacy learning (Revelle et al. 2007). The text messages central to the study did not involve the children directly, but the children did learn how to use the phones to find and play video files about the letter of the day, which were sent to their parents’ phones, and they were aware that there were written messages to their parents on the phones. The work referred to earlier has focused on young children, with concern that children be prepared for the ICT based learning they would encounter at school, but these young children are, by and large, not independent users of CMC. We have chosen UK pre-teen children’s mobile phone text messaging (SMS) as the focus for our research because they are independent users of CMC, and because of wide media concern that text language is a serious threat to traditional literacy (Thurlow 2006), and because very high proportions of pre-teens have only recently had access to mobile phones. We have opted for quantitatively measurable outcomes in these early studies, in an attempt to demonstrate clear attainment measures, which media commentary has suggested could be under threat, although we recognize that there is a wider context in which children’s texting takes place. Media alarm gives cause for concern in that influential media articles could be used to inform educational policy decisions in the absence of empirical evidence. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a framework and relative context to

494

the empirical research that has been conducted so far with a particular focus on three recent studies that investigate texting and literacy development in the UK pre-teen population. Texting allows children to experiment with language in an informal and playful manner. Indeed, Crystal (2006a) describes this light hearted use of language as ‘ludic’: language play freed from heavy constraints of standard language. Experimentation may enhance children’s awareness and developing knowledge of key factors involved in the development of literacy skills. Texting sees children explicitly demonstrating an understanding of how words can be manipulated, segmented and blended to allow for brief, successful and effective communication. Indeed, many of the abbreviations that children use when texting are phonological reductions, such as ‘wot’ and ‘nite’. This form of abbreviation suggests the role that phonological awareness may play in mastering text language. Furthermore, established literacy theory presents the importance of the successful development of phonological awareness to be consistently associated with success in literacy development, particularly reading acquisition (Adams, 1990).

factors in children’s literacy Development It is important to review briefly some key information we already know about children’s literacy development. Researchers have shown that children who are given training focused on improving phonological awareness perform significantly better on reading tests than those who do not receive such training (Blachman, et al, 1994; Bradley and Bryant, 1983). Arguably, the word play that children have in texting offers a rudimentary and informal learning platform from which they can develop sensitivity, confidence and flexibility with this phonetic language. The sophisticated manipulation of language as achieved through functional practice and active experience

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

gained through texting, may provide a transferable skill encouraging the ready application of enhanced phonological knowledge to standard literacy development. Orthographic decoding skill, the ability to see the written form and convert it into meaningful sounds, is another skill that is essential to literacy in any language. Text language also plays with orthography, in abbreviations such as ‘w8 4 me’ or ‘2moro’. The abbreviations using numbers as part of the graphical form require both the recognition of the numerals and playful substitution of the sound of the numerals for the homophones representing the intended meaning. However, whilst text language is an inappropriate written communication form in school work, pre-teens’ text language is still interpretable, understandable and effective at conveying intention and meaning, in defiance of Sutherland’s (2002) edict that “The dialect has a few hieroglyphs (codes comprehensible only to initiates) and a range of face symbols. …”. The reader’s main decoding task, in deciphering the pre-teen text messages we have seen, requires largely the activation of his or her own phonological skills. If text messages were not readily comprehensible, the recipients would be unable to “get the message”, within the remit of a brief written exchange and within specific contexts. Many children, even though familiar with both a text register and a formal written register, are capable of great flexibility as they demonstrate metalinguistic awareness of the appropriateness of register to context and situation. Thus, rather than offering a clumsy and rudimentary form of communication, as media speculation would suggest, this mode of communication may involve a more sophisticated comprehension and command of the English language than some might think. A further factor with bearing on literacy attainment is exposure to the written word. Cipielewski and Stanovich (1992) demonstrated that children’s reading ability in fifth grade was predicted strongly by their measure of text exposure, an Author

Recognition Test, after earlier reading ability and orthographic decoding skill were accounted for. Stainthorp (1997) produced a Children’s Author Recognition Test as a British equivalent, which was also shown to predict reading. Stanovich (1986) documented a reciprocal relationship between skills of phonology, orthographic decoding, word recognition, vocabulary, and ability to free attentional resources for the engagement with the meaning of text, and so increase the likelihood of further meaningful exposure to print. It is possible that the freedom from regulated orthographic and spelling conventions, and default to phonological coding that is one characteristic of text abbreviations, could yield an increase in exposure to text for poorer readers, and improve motivation to engage with written communication without the constraints of school expectations. In terms of spelling, although the textisms may be orthographically unconventional in one sense, they do demonstrate an awareness of alternative legitimate orthographic spellings within English (e.g. ‘ite’ is pronounced the same as ‘ight’). Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that exposure to misspellings may not have a negative effect on the subsequent learning of correct spellings in children (Ehri, Gibbs & Underwood, 1988; Dixon & Kaminska, 2007). Although textisms are ‘misspellings’ in a conventional sense, they are phonologically and orthographically ‘acceptable’ forms of written English, and for children there is no evidence that knowledge or use of them would cause interference with their learning of conventional written English.

reseArch study one The first study we present here (Plester, Wood and Bell, 2008) was the first to explore, through controlled empirical research, the presence of any relationships that may exist between texting be-

495

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

haviours and literacy development, with a specific focus upon pre-teen mobile phone users. Previous research study has typically focused on the texting habits of adolescents and young adults. In order to reflect the increased use of mobile phones in the pre-teen population, this study involved 65, 11-12 year olds in the UK and investigated the comparison of high text users to low text users’ performance on the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT), of verbal and non verbal reasoning. This verbal reasoning test correlates highly with UK Key Stage II and III English measures (Strand 2006). The sample was divided into groups in terms of the frequency in which they engaged in text communication. This was classified by the median number of texts children sent per day. The high text users were those sending three or more texts per day, those sending one or two were the low use group and those sending none were the no text user group. This would place the high text users at or above the level of use reported in the Ofcom (2006) audit for 8-11 year olds. A main feature of mobile phone texting is the use of abbreviations within these exchanges, many of which have phonological roots. As a result, children’s knowledge of these abbreviations was investigated. This allowed the possible impact that an explicit knowledge of different abbreviations may have upon performance on verbal and non verbal reasoning tests to be assessed. In order to measure the children’s knowledge of textisms, a translation task was designed that accessed this information through encouraging the active language manipulation of two sentences. Children were asked to translate one of these sentences from standard English into text language and another from text language into standard English. Children’s responses concerning the translation of text to standard English were then analysed for errors of grammar, spelling and punctuation, whilst the sentence in translation from standard English to text was scored according to the ratio of textisms to total words. There were two main considerations to be made concerning the examination of children’s texting 496

habits; these were the number of text messages sent during a typical day and the use of textisms in the elicited text language communications. The findings of this study revealed a negative relationship between performance on the CAT and text message frequency. Post hoc tests revealed the high text use group scored significantly lower in the CAT than the no text user group, whilst the level of text message use was not found to be associated with the use of textisms in the translation task. Indeed, the ratio of textisms to real words was similar across all groups, about 58%. Furthermore, there was no evidence that texting group had an effect on the errors that children made when they translated from text language to standard English. Further analysis explored any associations there may have been between the results of the text translation task and the children’s CAT performance. A significant positive correlation was found between the proportion of textisms that children used and children’s verbal reasoning scores. That is, those children who were using a higher proportion of textisms were those with higher scores on the verbal reasoning tasks. Following the identification of such patterns, further analysis was conducted through hierarchical regression to examine whether the ratio of textisms to real words was able to explain individual differences in the verbal CAT scores, whilst controlling for the influence that the number of texts sent per day might have upon this. The number of texts that children were sending each day was not able to account for a significant proportion of a variance in children’s verbal scores. Interestingly however, the ratio of textisms to standard words that children used in translation into text language was found to account for 12.4% of the variance in verbal CAT scores. Whilst offering an initial platform from which to consider the influences of texting upon children’s literacy, the findings of this investigation are somewhat mixed. Indeed, the findings initially appear to support the negative view of

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

mobile phones and texting that has been voiced by media and public discourses, as the high text users were found with significantly lower scores on verbal and non verbal reasoning measures. However, further analysis revealed that the proportion of textisms children used was positively associated with performance on the CAT verbal reasoning measure. When children create texts, they are using textisms to convey intention and meaning to another individual. The benefits of exposure to phonologically based abbreviations, active engagement in communicative media, and functional practice of word manipulation, may be visibly demonstrated in the positive association identified between textism use and the success of children’s performance on verbal reasoning. However, it is important to recognise that this first study has limitations. Indeed, the design of this study means that causation cannot be implied. Frequent texting cannot be suggested as causative of lower verbal and non verbal reasoning scores, nor can density of textism use be suggested as causative of higher verbal reasoning scores. It would be more probable that higher verbal reasoning might inform other verbal skills such as forming textisms. We also acknowledge that the high proportion of textisms used by all groups is unlikely to be representative of naturalistic text messages. The children were instructed to translate standard English into text language, which would have primed them to use textisms when they saw opportunities.

study two Furthermore, the CAT verbal and non verbal reasoning scores are not a direct measurement of literacy ability or school literacy achievement. As a result, instead of Cognitive Ability Test scores, the second study reported by Plester et al. (2008) used UK Key Stage II assessment scores, which were able to reveal a more specific reflection of spelling and writing ability. This allowed for greater indication of the child’s literacy

skills in a school context., and greater scrutiny of the positive association identified between cognitive ability and textism use, and whether these positive associations are maintained when investigated in relation to performance in specific literacy skills. In addition, following the report that children appear to be using phones at an increasingly younger age, (Mobile Life Report 2006), the following research work lowered the age of participants from 11 and 12 year olds to 10 and 11 year olds. In view of the fact that children use a number of different categories of textism in their texts, it is important to gauge which categories are most commonly used. This will allow a more focused investigation of textism categories relevant to aspects of literacy attainment. The coding of the textisms that children used was more detailed than in the first study. The translation tasks were also longer than the single sentences used in the first study. Textisms that children used in the text translation task were organised into five categories. These were, rebus, or letter/number homophones ( C U L8R), other phonological reductions (nite, wot, wuz), symbols (& @ +), acronyms (WUU2, what you up to), and the register labelled ‘youth code’ (wanna, gonna, hafta, me bro, da), a phonetic rendering of casual language style. These are a subset of the categories identified by Thurlow (2003), used because of a relatively smaller number of elicited text messages which we could code. The most popular categories reflected phonological representation; these were the rebus abbreviations and the phonological reductions. This was not a surprising finding considering what we know about the development of children’s reading acquisition and the role that phonological awareness plays in the facilitation of this skill, as previously acknowledged. The fact that children would appear to be experimenting and ‘playing’ with language on a phonological level suggests sophisticated language skill, alongside an appreciation of the expectations of text messaging

497

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

among their peers. We suggest that the active manipulation of words apparent in the abbreviations children used that were phonologically based could offer children help and advantage concerning the formal development of literacy skills, via this informal medium. Whilst the children appeared to select the use of certain forms of textism over others, this filtering of text language and the interpretive aspect of this communication, may present implications for children’s spelling abilities. In order to investigate this, in further analysis the category of textisms that children were using in their texts was investigated concerning any possible associations with spelling attainment. There were two categories that were found to be significantly related to spelling performance, both positively; these were phonological reductions and ‘youth code’ abbreviations. A multiple regression analysis was then performed to investigate the amount of variance in spelling ability that could be accounted for by these two factors. These two factors were found to account for 32.9% of the variance in spelling ability. In addition, there was a significant positive correlation identified between spelling performance and the proportion of textisms to real words that children used. Spelling ability and the number of interpretation errors that children made in the translation task also showed a significant negative relationship, that is, as children’s performance in the spelling task increased their number of interpretation errors decreased. As spelling ability was revealed to have a beneficial association with the children’s ability to interpret text language, we also investigated children’s writing performance with regard to their proportion of textism use. A one-way analysis of variance showed that there were differences between the children in the top two levels of UK Key Stage II English measures in their use of textisms and interpretation errors. These were fairly high scoring children, scoring either Level 4 or 5 in the UK Key Stage II English measures.

498

Those children who scored at Key Stage II Level 5 made a lower number of interpretation errors than those with Level 4 scores. Those children at Level 5 were also found to show a higher ratio of textisms to real words in the English to text translation task and showed more frequent use of phonological reductions and acronyms. Again we have seen a positive relationship between children’s use of text abbreviations and their verbal skills, this time with their Key Stage II English scores. These children also demonstrated metalinguistic knowledge in that they could slip between standard school English when it was required in the Key Stage II tests, and casual register text language when that was appropriate. Informally, the children often commented that of course they would not use text language in their school work, that was silly. The negative media and public speculation surrounding mobile phone use and texting, is not supported in the current research findings. The direction of the relationships identified between knowledge of textisms and language competence showed there to be no suggestion of any negative association. Such findings reflect the positive views of writers such as O’Connor (2005), and Crystal (2006a, 2006b, 2008).

study three Building on the associations identified in the work outlined earlier, a further study was conducted to explore these associations in more detail (Plester, Wood and Joshi, 2009). This involved exploring further the relationships found between literacy and knowledge of textisms. In addition, the possible relationship between children’s reading ability and texting was also investigated, and measures of word and non-word reading were taken. A series of measurements were taken to allow for the control of individual difference factors such as phonological awareness, vocabulary and short term memory, so that their influence may be partialled out, in order to isolate the effect of any relationship identified.

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

The next investigation tested 88 UK children from year 6 and year 7, with a mean age of 10.6 years. Children were tested individually on the following measures: The British Picture Vocabulary Scales II, (Dunn, Dunn, Whetton and Burley, 1997), The Forward and Backward Digit Span Subtests from the British Ability Scales II (Elliot, Smith & McCulloh, 1996). Because of the importance of phonological awareness in literacy skills, children’s phonological awareness was measured by the Spoonerisms subtest from the Phonological Assessment Battery (Frederickson, Frith & Reason, 1997) and the Elision subtest from the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Wagner, Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1999). The Non-Word Reading subtest from the Phonological Assessment Battery (Frederickson et al., 1997) provided a measure of alphabetic decoding ability. As texting has features similar to both writing and speaking (Crystal 2006a), the Word Reading and Spelling subtests of the British Ability Scales II (Elliot et al., 1996) were also used. Thurlow (2003) has conducted research that investigates the ‘sociolinguistics of young people’s text messaging’, Thurlow (2003:1). The investigation examined over 500 older teenager’s text messages, for linguistic and communicative form and function. Thurlow reported that his investigation revealed none of the corruption and pollution to language that has been presented by many media and public discourses, but rather highlighted the flexible and adept skill of the teenage text users. Thurlow’s classification system was adapted and applied to the current analysis, thus providing more textism categories than in previous studies. In total there were 12 categories used: shortenings (bro, sis, tues), contractions (txt, plz, hmwrk), Gclippings (swimmin, goin, comin), other clippings (hav, wil, couldn), omitted apostrophes (cant, wont dads), acronyms (BBC, UK), initialisms (ttfn, lol, tb), symbols, (@, &, :-o ), letter/number homophones (2moro, 18r), misspellings (comming, are [for our], where [for were], nonconventional spellings (fone, rite, skool), accent stylisation (wiv,

elp [help], anuva). This offered a more detailed means of classification from which to assess the use of these specific forms of texting relative to performance in literacy tasks. Children use a variety of unique abbreviations in their day to day texting. It is important to access these texts and their abbreviations in the most naturalistic method possible. This was achieved by asking the children to write down the text message they would send if they found themselves in certain scenarios. For example: You are on your way to meet your friend, waiting at the bus stop, and the bus has just gone by and not stopped, so you are going to be late. The responses to these scenarios were then scored for types of textism used, and the ratio of textisms to real words. This more naturalistic textism measure, that invited children to create their own text relative to a given scenario resulted in a lower level of textism use, however, this is indeed arguably more realistic owing to the more naturalistic method in which the texts were obtained, than in the previous studies that supplied a pre-phrased selection of standard English to translate. Thus, the findings are likely to reflect more closely the proportion of textisms the children might use in spontaneous texts. Further analysis was conducted through the calculation of Pearson correlation coefficients between the measures of text knowledge, the age at which children received their first mobile phone, and the other cognitive and literacy measures. Word reading ability and performance on the spoonerism test were found to be significantly associated with the age at which children received their first mobile phone, and the proportion of textisms used in their text messages. In addition, vocabulary was also found to be associated with the proportion of textisms used. However, no significant associations were identified between the textism measures and the children’s performance in the spelling test in this investigation. The effect of individual differences is an important consideration, as we know differences in

499

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

children’s abilities can be affected by proficiencies or deficiencies in other areas. To assess the contribution that children’s vocabulary, short term memory, phonological awareness and the amount of time owning a mobile phone may have to the relationship identified between word reading ability and children’s use of textisms, a structured multiple regression analysis was conducted. The children’s knowledge of textisms was able to account for 2.9% of variance in word reading scores, a significant amount in this analysis, in addition to that accounted for by the previous analysis that identified the contribution made by vocabulary, phonological awareness, non-word reading (alphabetic decoding), short term memory and the age at which children got their first mobile phone. A parallel analysis, substituting age at testing for age of first phone, showed that textism knowledge was able to account for 3.7% of variance in word reading scores. Knowledge of textisms, demonstrated in the proportion of textisms to words used, contributes independently to word reading in this analysis. There were twelve types of textism used by the participants when completing the text scenario task, the most frequently used text abbreviations were found to be contractions, letter/ number homophones, non-conventional spellings and accent stylisations, all of which use phonological reductions. As children demonstrated variation in the forms of textisms they used and the frequency of these textisms, non-parametric correlation coefficients were calculated between the use of these different forms of textism and the word and spelling measures. Word reading ability showed the strongest relationship with homophones, a clearly playful use of the sound of letters and numbers. The ability to create a variety of interpretable graphic representations of the same word can be linked to the skills that have been consistently identified as facilitating successful literacy development. It is important that children’s textism use was able to predict significant variance in

500

word reading ability, even after controlling for individual differences such as short term memory, vocabulary, phonological awareness, non-word reading ability and the age at which children received their mobile phone. This suggests that children’s use of text language may be not only of benefit to reading ability, but this suggests there may be an impact upon reading development that goes further than the benefits suggested by phonologically based explanations, thus inviting the need for greater research using broader cognitive and literacy measures, across a wider scope of abilities. Without the constraints of standard English conventions and rules, children are able to experiment and play with language, allowing their phonological skills to guide their experimentations without restriction. Children are in control of this text language and are free to adapt these graphical representations to express meaning how they wish. Their texting may be seen as additional exposure to written language, which has been associated with greater literacy skills by other researchers (Cipielewski and Stanovich 1992; Stanovich 1986; Stanovich and West 1989).

conclusIons AnD further reseArch The research conducted so far has begun to explore in some detail the relationship between texting and children’s literacy development and has revealed some interesting findings. However, the findings also expose gaps in our understanding. There are many factors that require further investigation, for example, the effect of socioeconomic status, culture, and more specific cognitive abilities. Whether children who have mobile phones are from a more privileged background, and perhaps receive more literacy related attention at home, or have extra tuition, or have parents with a higher level of education, these cultural factors demand further attention. The Ofcom 2006 Media Literacy Audit reported that children from

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

lower socioeconomic status homes, and children from ethnic minority homes, were less likely to own their own mobile phone. If the use of these phones for texting provides increased exposure to the written word, particularly exposure that is characterised by playful fun with words, children without them may be at a relative disadvantage to their peers who use mobile phones to text. However, research is currently underway to investigate the influence that children’s cognitive abilities, such as I.Q., may have upon the relationships identified. This will reveal whether more specific cognitive factors may account for some degree of the variance in children’s knowledge of textisms and literacy skills. The investigation in process will also take measures at two times during a school year, in order to track individual progress, which can also be related to text language skill and experience, and bring us closer to being able to draw conclusions of cause and effect. A further current study investigates the impact of mobile phone texting on spelling and word reading measures, comparing 8-9 year old non-text users who are given a phone to use for texting at the weekends, with their peer non-texters who are not, and with peers who are already texters. These studies also are collecting naturalistic text messages for analysis, something we had not been able to do previously. Other work in progress asks small groups of pre-teens to talk freely about their mobile phone experiences and the language they use in texting. The themes drawn out of the children’s own discourse about texting will be contrasted with those of media and adult discourse. We acknowledge that the age at which children receive their first mobile phone would appear to be falling, The Ofcom audit (2006) reported that 62% of the 8-11 year old children had received their phone within the previous year, but those children four years older had received theirs on average only three years before, older than the 8-11s had been. In the third study reported here there was a significant decrease in the age

of obtaining a first mobile phone over only two school year cohorts. A few of the children had had their own mobile phone since the age of six, and the younger the children were at testing, the earlier they had received their own phone These youngest children are still beginning to explore the English language in its written form, developing their own literacy skills. It is of great importance to understand and continue to assess any possible associations between texting behaviours and children’s literacy skills. If there is advantage to be gained through texting, it will be useful to establish that clearly; thus far we have only established clearly that there is no disadvantage, and a possible advantage. But we have also not studied the youngest of mobile phone users, those who may be only learning to read and write standard English. We need to establish the relationship between texting and the foundation period of their written English development if children as young as six are being given mobile phones with increasing frequency. Authorities concerned over possible health damage from the use of mobile phones have suggested that young children should text rather than talk (BBC 2001) so the use of texting by the very young phone users may grow for that reason. An important aim of this chapter is to inform those involved in educational and technological spheres, of the positive effects upon literacy development that may accrue from children’s use of mobile phone technology, and at the very least, to relieve concerns about possible negative effects that have been trumpeted through the media. We call for further research to explore the potential benefits of mobile phone texting in a variety of literacy contexts. As we establish the relationships between texting and various cognitive abilities and various aspects of literacy, we can set about harnessing the use and availability of this technological provision, to support progression and confidence in literacy. Whilst the positive associations identified in the research work presented here may go some way to rectifying the

501

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

negative discourse that children’s use of texting has received in the press, the research presented here is by no means an exhaustive or definitive presentation of the effects and impacts of the use of mobile phone technology on children’s literacy development. However, the outlined research has begun to expose important areas for future exploration whilst offering a tentative suggestion as to the nature and direction of the effects examined so far.

references Abrami, P. C., Savage, R., Wade, C. A., Hipps, G. and Lopez, M. (2008). Using technology to assist children learning to read and write. In T. Willoughby and E. Wood (Eds.), Children’s Learning in a Digital World, (pp. 130-172). Oxford: Blackwell. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Associated Press (2007, 26 April). Irish Government Blames Text Messaging for Teen Illiteracy. Fox News.com. Retrieved 26 April 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/ story/0,2933,268733,00.html?sPage=fnc.technology/personaltechnology BBC, (2001). Text Message Warning. Retrieved 7 January 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ health/1346511.stm BBC, (2005). Slang creeps into English exams. Retrieved 25 October 2007 from http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/education/4252108.stm Blachman, B. A. , Ball, E. W. , Black, R. S. , & Tangel, D. M. (1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner city classrooms. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-18.

502

Bradley, L. , & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read-a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421. Cipielewski, J & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children’s exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74-89. Crystal, D. (2006a). Language and the Internet (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2006b). The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot and Left. Oxford: University Press. Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The gr8 Db8. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Davies, R., Pantling, C., & Charlton, T. (2004). Mobile phone ownership and usage among preadolescents. Telematics and Informatics, 21, 359-373. Dixon, M. and Kaminska, Z. (2007). Does exposure to orthography affect children’s spelling accuracy? Journal of Research in Reading, 30 (2), 184–197. Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (2nd Ed). London: NFER-Nelson. Ehri, L. C., Gibbs, A. L. & Underwood, T. L. (1988). Influence of Errors on Learning the Spellings of English Words. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 236-253. Elliot, C. D. , Smith, P. , & McCulloh (1996). British Ability Scales II (BASII). , Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson. Frederickson, N., Frith, U., & Reason, R. (1997). Phonological Assessment Battery. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

Hale, C. & Scanlon, J. (1999). Wired Style: Principles of English Usage in the Digital Age. New York: Broadway Books. Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. A. (Eds.). (2002). Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kulik, J. A. and Kulik, C.-L. C. (Eds.). (1989). Instructional systems [Special Issue]. International Journal of Educational Research: Meta-Analysis in Education, 13(3), 277-289. Leu, D. J., Jr. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the internet. In Farstrup, A. E. and Samuels, S. J. (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd Ed.), 310-336. Ling, R. & Baron, N. S. (2007). Text Messaging and IM: Linguistic Comparison of American College Data. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26, (3) 291-298 Marsh, J. (2005). Digikids: Young children, popular culture and media. In N. Yelland (Ed.) Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education, (pp. 181-196). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Mobile Life Report. (2006). Retrieved 10 October 2006 from http://www.mobilelife2006.co.uk O’Connor, A. (2005). Instant Messaging: Friend or Foe of Student Writing. Seattle, WA: New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved 10 October 2006 from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/ literacy/oconnor.htm. Ofcom (2006). Media Literacy Audit: Report on media literacy amongst children. Retrieve January 2 2008 from http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/ children/ Plester, B., Wood, C. & Bell, V. (2008). Txt msg n school literacy: does mobile phone use adversely

affect children’s written language attainment? Literacy, 42 (3). Plester, B., Wood, C. & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the Relationship between Children’s Knowledge of Text Message Abbreviations and School Literacy Outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27 (1), 145-161. Reid, D. J. & Reid, F. J. M. (2005). Textmates and text circles: Insights into the social ecology of SMS text messaging. In A. Lasen and L. Hamill (Eds.), Mobile World: Past, Present and Future, (pp.105-118). London: Springer Verlag. Revelle, B. Reardon, E., Green. M. M., Betancourt, J. & Kotler, J. (2007). The use of mobile phones to support children’s literacy learning. In Y. deKort, et al. (Eds.) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4744, (pp 253-258). Berlin: Springer. Rosen, L. D. (2007). Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generation. New York: Palgrave. Selwyn, N. (1997). The continuing weakness of educational computing research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (4), 305-307. Stainthorp, R. (1997) A Children’s Author Recognition Test: a useful tool in reading research. Journal of Research in Reading, 20 (2), 148-158.. Stanovich, K. E. (1986) Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407. Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1989) Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 400-433. Stephen, C., McPake, J., Plowman, L. & BerchHeyman, S. (2008). Learning from the children: Exploring preschool children’s encounters with ICT at home. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6(2), 99-117. Strand, S. (2006). Comparing the predictive validity of reasoning tests and national end of Key

503

Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy

Stage 2 tests: which tests are the ‘best’?. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 209-225. Sutherland, J. (2002, 11 Nov). Cn u txt? Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved 31 May 2007 from www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2002/nov/11/ mobilephones2 Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s textmessaging. Discourse Analysis Online, 1 (1). Retrieved 24 March 2006 from http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/ n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html

504

Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), article 1. Retrieved 16 April 2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/ issue3/thurlow.html Wagner, R. K. , Torgeson, J. K. , & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

505

Chapter XXXIII

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning Gregory MacKinnon Acadia University, Canada

AbstrAct This chapter on electronic concept mapping introduces a specific example of a learning technology that has potential for serving and promoting an emerging set of identified literacies in today’s youth. The chapter begins with a discussion of the nature of the modern student and the literacies that are most likely to serve them well as they integrate into an increasingly technological information-based society. A discussion of the historical development of the concept map and its defining characteristics will follow. The range of applications of concept maps in K-12 classrooms will then be discussed with additional comments regarding teacher development both in preservice and inservice settings. The chapter will close with a discussion of the particular literacies served by electronic concept mapping.

IntroDuctIon It is a popular belief that technology has shaped the nature of teaching and learning. McLuhan (1967) and Postman(1993) have long proposed that technology has ingratiated itself into our society in sometimes subtle, pervasive and arguably insidious ways. One hesitates to personify technology in that humankind must take some responsibility for shaping our world. It is a visible trend that human nature is to fix old technologies with new ones. Technology by definition is a way of adapting or

making the human world an easier place to live. It isn’t surprising then that homo sapiens refuse to reverse technology and make life more difficult for themselves (Erhlick & Erhlick, 2004). Recently researchers have defined the modern student in terms of their relationship to technology and its impact on who they are from a sociological perspective (Hartman, J., Moskal, P. & Dziuban, C., 2005). Students have been coined as “millenials” (Howe & Strauss, 2000) or are said to belong to the “Net Generation” (Dobbins, 2005). These students have certain inherent characteristics that

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

make them different from the last generation; different in ways that pose new challenges to educators. Dede (2005) has suggested that these students have a learned capacity to multitask while immersed in technology; in fact they tend to thrive on a myriad of technologies that constitute their social world. This conjures up visions of students’ online chatting while listening to mp3 players whilst problem solving at their desk on paper. This ability to engage several dimensions of interaction, while maintaining a measure of productivity is part of a skill set that will be increasingly useful much less demanded in the working world to which most children aspire. If this is to become the norm, if not already firmly entrenched, then teachers must prepare students with a new set of literacies.

lIterAcIes for the 21st century

•

•

•

• •

Given the preponderance of information available to students through the advent of the internet, the notion of “information literacy” has become important. Rockman (2004) has suggested that “an information-literate individual is able to

Dede (2007) cites Jenkins et al (2006) who has identified literacies associated with student engaging new types of media:

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

506

“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; judgment, 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; and negotiation, the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms.” (p. 23)

•

• • •

Determine the extent of information needed Access the needed information effectively and efficiently Evaluate information and its sources critically Incorporate selected information into his or her knowledge base Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally” (p. 3)

Within the realm of strictly computer literacy skills, a case can be made for students being competent in use of email, word processing, databases, spreadsheets, multimedia including audio-visual software and digital peripherals, electronic discussion, principles of design including webpage and

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

presentation software and finally the topic of this chapter, electronic concept mapping. While beyond the scope of this chapter, there are emergent literacies on the horizon that make use of advanced communication. Chat rooms and MSN are already a regular part of the milieu and progressive lifestyle of today’s youth. The nature of these interactions offers a unique connectedness between peers but also invokes certain skills as they arrange their busy lives around the presumption that the technology exists to serve their lifestyles. Perhaps most exciting is the influence and potential of gaming in education (Jones & Fraistat, 2004) and the advent of virtual worlds which again initiate and activate a whole collage of literacy skills. (Dede, 2007).

concePt mAPPIng: theoretIcAl unDerPInnIngs A concept map as defined by Novak (1981) is a hierarchal graphic organizer that places the most

inclusive concepts in boxes or circles at the top and the less inclusive or more specific concepts near the bottom. Between the concepts boxes are lines or arrows which are labeled with informational descriptors called propositions. These labels are critical for defining the relationships between concepts (Novak & Gowin, 1984). The best concept maps tend to read downward through concepts and links as complete ideas in loosely structured sentences (Figure 1) It is important to note that by definition concept maps are quite different from mind maps and webs, examples of graphic organizers where there is not necessarily hierarchy nor are there necessarily propositional phrases. The literature nonetheless continues to be littered with misnomers and synonymous descriptions (Åhlberg, 2004). The concept map has its roots in several educational theories. Ausubel (1960, 1963, 1978) alludes to the importance of graphic organizers in a student’s process of constructing meaning. Meaningful learning, in his theory, amounts to an interaction between prior knowledge, the nature

Figure 1. A grade 5 concept map created using Inspiration® software

507

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

of learner and their interaction with the outside world. Ausubel proposes that so called “advanced graphic organizers” vary from overviews which tend to simply emphasize main ideas. Organizers act as a subsuming link between new learning material and existing related ideas. When powerful and relevant anchoring ideas, whether they are images, symbols, concepts or relation between concepts, are incorporated in her/his cognitive structure (Ausubel calls these “subsumers”) and she/he has an affective commitment to relate new knowledge to prior learning, she/he transforms the logical meaning of new knowledge into psychological meaning, learning meaningfully (Valaderes, Fonseca & Soares, 2004, p1) The notion of building conceptual frameworks through accommodation of new ideas into existing schema has strong links to Piaget and more

particularly, conceptual change theory (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). Further, constructivist theory (Brooks & Brooks, 1993) suggests meaningful learning contexts (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1998) and privately–held symbols (Blumer, 1969: Charon, 1998) are vital components in knowledge construction. From its inception, the concept map was intended to be a promising component of collaborative learning (Cañas & Novak, 2005) and therefore has obvious foundations in social constructivism (Lave, 1991), distributed cognition (Salomon, 1993; Karasavvidis, 2002), and socio-cultural learning (Vygotsky, 1978).

utIlIty of concePt mAPs: eArly worK In the 1980’s there was a plethora of work surrounding concept mapping. In a special issue of

Figure 2. Student drawn concept map of thermodynamics .(adapted by permission from Valaderes, Fonseca & Soares, 2004)

508

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

Figure 3a. Student concept map on acids and bases during preliminary teaching (adapted by permission from Gouveia & Valdadares,2004)

the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, AlKunifed and Wandersee (1990) boast 100 research references in the area. Much of the early work posed the concept map as a diagnostic tool for teachers as they scaffolded conceptual development in their classrooms. More specifically, The disclosure of the pupil’s “secrets of the mind”, that externalization of her/his cognitive structure with the concept map, allows the teacher to make sense of the pupils misconceptions, how he/she establishes the hierarchy of the concepts, differentiates, relates , discriminates and integrates them. (Valaderes, Fonseca & Soares, 2004, p1) Halford (1993) insists that the student’s ability to prepare a map provides two indicators of understanding, the representation and the organi-

Figure 3b. The same student expresses their understanding after instruction (adapted by permission from Gouveia & Valdadares,2004)

509

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

zation of ideas. He further suggests that the map is a reflection of the student’s perceptions, prior knowledge, experiences, beliefs and biases. Probing the author’s rationale has great potential for “unpacking” the author’s conceptual understanding. As an example, the thermodynamics concept map (Figure 2) was very useful to a physics teacher for diagnosing in this student, the traditional confusion between temperature and heat. According to Gouveia and Valdadares (2004), “concept mapping is a technique that exposes the concepts and assertions hidden within the

cognitive structure of each student and it is of great importance since it shows the changes occurring in this cognitive structure…”p2 It is clear in Figure 3(a)(b) that this chemistry student has a much better developed understanding of the concepts related to acids and bases. Furthermore a concept map can help the teacher diagnose teaching deficiencies and make pedagogical adjustments. In a chemistry class, a teacher used the concept map in Figure 4 to detect deficiencies in their teaching namely: 1) poor distinction between the concepts of body

Figure 4. Teaching deficiencies diagnosed in student’s universes concept map (adapted by permission from Gouveia & Valdadares,2004)

510

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

and material and 2) teacher neglect of the topic molecular crystals.

electronIc concePt mAPPIng: A rAnge of APPlIcAtIons With an evolving world comes a challenge for educators to prepare their students to integrate into society effectively. There is evidence that as educators we have actually fallen behind in this task because of the sheer speed with which technology has overtaken us. Our own students seem to be adapting to the technology changes more quickly if not more effectively than we as teachers. It is nonetheless incumbent on educators to model risk-taking behaviors in the classroom and examine the potential that technology holds for technology to empower education. In particular, this section explores the categories of classroom practice around electronic concept mapping.

electronic concept mapping: An Assessment tool In the classroom concept maps can be developed in different ways. The student can select concepts and create maps alone or with their peers or moreover the teacher can have some measure of influence that ranges from negotiating new ideas together to dictating to the student what concepts the map should contain. Clearly each approach has its advantages in terms of framing the curriculum (Bolte, 2006). Teacher-selected concepts tend to focus the students, the collaborative approach builds social learning networks around a common body of knowledge, while the individual mapping offers the most information about personal construction of meaning. It is this lone effort that offers the teacher the greatest potential for diagnosing conceptual change and to this end considerable research has gone into evaluating concept maps. At one end of the spectrum, scoring schemes(

Novak & Gowin, 1984; Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson, 1994; Soares & Valadares, 2006) and even software(Conlon, 2004a) have been developed in an effort to quantitatively track changes in the construction of the map. Generally these scoring rubrics concentrate on the most problematic areas of map construction and that is, hierarchal ordering and the use of quality propositional phrases (Rice, Ryan & Samson, 1998; Ruiz-Primo, 2004; Poveda,& Oneca, 2006; Oneca, Sanzol & Poveda, 2006). Embedded in many of these schemes is a score attributed to the actual number of nodes or links and the nature of the branching between concepts. In a related strategy, Kinchin and Hay (2000) have suggested a more qualitative assessment focusing on recognizable structural features of maps resembling spokes, chains and nets. Gouveia and Valadares(2004) articulate very nicely what a teacher might look for in assessing a concept map. “An overall analysis of the concept map is performed to verify if it is: •

•

primarily linear, exclusively or almost exclusively from top to bottom, which manifest a poorly defined cognitive structure, with problems regarding the links between the concepts; or extensively branched out, which may indicate a rich cognitive structure, if concepts are well linked, progressively defined and integrally interlinked.

A detailed analysis is then performed to check; • •

•

if the links between the various concepts are correct or if they show misconceptions: if the map is well laid out, that is, if it shows a progressive differentiation in a correct and effective manner; if there are valid and meaningful crosslinks, that is, if it shows correct integrative reconciliation; 511

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

•

if there are valid examples along the bottom (with an hierarchy from top to bottom) or on the outer edges (with an hierarchy from the center out).” p2

Given that there are quantitative and qualitative ways of addressing the content within a concept map, it is not difficult to envisage a scenario where the teacher might sample the students’ prior knowledge as a starting point in a unit of study and then resample the students’ understanding via a student’s concept map at the end of the unit. An analysis of the map and a subsequent discussion with the map’s author has great potential for revealing depth of understanding and embedded misconceptions. The process of creating an electronic concept map; an expression of one’s cognitive frameworks, formulating and

substantiating one’s ideas and accommodating new ideas through discussions with the teacher, is a powerful form of literacy that will be discussed in the later part of this chapter. Figure 5a&b provide an example of a pre and post concept map. Note that the initial map represents more than a brainstorming activity; the student formally commits to prior knowledge including their understanding of conceptual relationships. In the pre-concept map it is evident that the hierarchy of concepts is unclear and the propositional phrases are weak (lacking richness of relational information). The post-concept map indicates that teaching has improved student conceptual understanding. In this context, the concept mapping serves as an effective mechanism for both teacher and student feedback (Angelo & Cross, 1993).

Figure 5a. Sampling prior knowledge of light: Student in grade 10 science

512

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

Figure 5b. Light unit concept map after instruction (by the same grade 10 student)

children mapping as an organizational tool The potential for framing concepts and ideas using advanced organizers has long been recognized (Ausubel, 1960). What is now better understood is the nature of learning styles (Gardner, 1993; Sternberg, 1989) and the power of facile electronic concept mapping to activate particular learning modes through formalizing a graphic of the student’s mental schema. Teachers themselves will remember a written examination where their

personal mental block was suddenly released with the simplest of scribbled diagrams. There exists an inherent quality in concept maps through the process of putting “mind to paper”, a certain recall of existing ideas and innovation in thought just because its drawn and not merely spoken or thought of. This realization has prompted teachers to initiate activities in which students create maps as a planning or organizational process. Rojas-Drummond and Azures (2006) have studied a primary school classroom in which students used concept mapping to plan a writing

513

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

project in which children accessed a range of cultural artifacts. In secondary education, Valadares, Fonseca and Soares (2004) have studied concept mapping in physics laboratories where students have mapped their planning, processes and conceptual conclusions. Pictorial concept maps are now easily constructed using Inspiration® and CMap® software. Early elementary school studies (Mancinelli, Priori & Valitutti, 2004; Mancinelli, 2006) of pictorial maps have demonstrated that this is a vital tool for accessing the conceptual development and planning styles of even the youngest students who have yet to achieve writing skills; the pictures taking the place of conceptual terms. Concept mapping involving the teacher and/or peers is a natural extension of use focused on the individual student.

students and teachers mapping together It is widely accepted (Vygotsky, 1978) that social interaction during knowledge building contributes to a richer understanding of a concept. Cañas and Novak (2005) have endorsed this in suggesting a classroom environment of “concept map-centered ”learning. Modern technology has allowed for a wide range of possibilities for capitalizing upon the ideal of collaborative concept mapping (Basque & Lavoie, 2006; Stoyanova & Kommers, 2002). Take for example the advent of SmartBoard® technology. At the simplest level the teacher can project electronic concept maps on a screen. These could be teacher-constructed as a summary of a unit. Students can hand-draw concept maps on a SmartBoard®. The compiled and collab-

Figure 6. A SmartBoard® concept mapping activity regarding hierarchy

514

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

orative work of the students can be saved from the SmartBoard® to be analyzed or added to in later classes. This allows the teacher to gather prior knowledge at the beginning of the unit of study and reflect on conceptual change later. The teacher can pose incomplete concept maps and ask students to interact at the SmartBoard® to move concepts to their logical place in a hierarchy of ideas (see Figure 6).

The ease with which SmartBoard® maps and electronic concept maps can be edited, offers a facile approach for the teacher and students to continually modify a map as they accommodate new knowledge in existing knowledge frameworks. Figure 7 is an example of a concept map that was “built up” by a chemistry teacher teaching a unit on acid-base theory (Forsythe & MacKinnon, 2005). In this 8-week unit, the teacher allotted the last

Figure 7. A concept map of acid-base theory: Iterative & cooperative construction

515

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

day of each week to identify with students new concepts and discuss and build some consensus regarding where the new concept would fit in their existing electronic concept map. An ensuing discussion of the propositional phrases linking and cross-linking the concepts was useful to the teacher for identify common and shared misconceptions about the relationship of ideas in the curriculum. A survey of these students indicated that they found the electronic concept map to be very useful for studying for their examination in that it posed a one page graphic summary. Furthermore they indicated that the map was much better than a typical summary because it was not sequential; they could see the relationship of later topics in the course to introductory topics and their meaningful relationships. •

516

The latest technological advances put communications at the forefront. It is possible to create “local area networks”(LAN) within classrooms thus empowering the sharing of electronic concept maps. Technology now allows the teacher to employ the following strategy for social constructivism in their classroom. Students are assigned groups and tasked with developing concept maps for a particular content area. Each group assembles their map on a LAN computer. The teacher then uses networking software and digital projection to capture the group’s map and put the map on the screen at the front of the classroom. The maps of each group (for the same content) are compared and the students/teacher negotiate/substantiate their hierarchy and propositional phrases. Through a discussion of the rationale for each map, the class attempts to build consensus on the “nature” of the curriculum. The added advantages are the emergent student misconceptions and teaching deficiencies which arise in the negotiation and graphical articulation of meaning (MacKinnon, 2002; MacKinnon & Keppel, 2005).

Communication advances have allowed for electronic concept maps to be constructed by a group synchronously or asynchronously. In this strategy, a concept map is housed on a server where students can visit at any time and modify an existing map (with obvious administrative controls) as an individual. The most advanced of these mapping models, allows students to visit the same site, at the same time and, in real time, build up and modify a concept map together (IHMC, 2008). Efforts to map content in collaborative communities is part of a concerted research focus on “knowledge building” led by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994, 2003a; 2003b).

hyperlinking: the Advent of two-Dimensional concept mapping Inspiration® and IHMC’s CMap® allow for hyperlinking of content to concept map components. This has been used by teachers in several different ways examples of which follow. The teacher can assign a particular “ground level” concept map and ask students to make links to resources and references as they relate to the concepts. In this capacity the concept map is used as a research organizer with the resources on the second level. This strategy has connections to effective planning for student projects as well as extended course readings if students were to engage in a collective effort to read about a content area for instance. In one study (MacKinnon & Provencal, 2009), students were asked to use course themes surrounding Greek mythology to account for the nature of genealogical relationships. In this model, the ground level map (Figure 8a) presented the familial relationships between Greek gods while the second dimension linked textual elaboration on the nature of each of the relationships as they related to identified themes (Figure 8b). In another student project capacity, the student could be charged with developing the concept map themselves and adding 2nd dimension content

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

to substantiate both concepts and propositional phrases in the ground level map. Clearly the possibilities are endless in terms of the type of content that could provide underpinnings for student’s understanding. The hyperlinking is by no means restricted to internet resources; students can create html-based documents, capture electronic discussion or produce graphics to supplement and demonstrate their understanding (MacKinnon, 2006). These files can be saved locally and therefore the typical url is replaced by a file structure path. In this way, students can submit entire concept map projects on a CD ROM. These approaches can access open-source software and so the technology is not a barrier to typical public school use.

concept mapping and teacher Development Electronic concept mapping has become increasingly accessible to teachers and schools in recent years. Despite the introduction of open-source software (IHMC’s CMap®), teachers to continue to struggle with a myriad of factors (Groff & Mouza, 2008) that impede integration of concept mapping into school curriculum (Conlon, 2004b).

Nonetheless, significant efforts are being made at both preservice and inservice levels of teacher development to implement electronic concept mapping in innovative and very practical ways. In preservice training, Ferry, Hedberg and Harper (1998) reported use of concept mapping to collaboratively build up elementary science curriculum. Colli, Rossi and Montagna (2004) report the use of concept mapping to prepare Italian science teacher candidates in areas of curriculum development, diagnosing misconceptions and developing teaching–learning itineraries. Teacher educators have been using electronic concept maps for tracking teacher intern’s understanding of pedagogy for many years (Beyerbach & Smith, 1990). As an example, the concept map in Figure 9 was negotiated between interns and professor regarding the nature of science teaching (MacKinnon, 2002). Components of teacher training are now becoming available online. This opens opportunities to use electronic concept mapping in a new setting. Research on a new online teacher education program (at State University of New York and Empire State College) by Iuli, Wagle and Voetterl (2006) suggests that concept mapping online has benefits of: guiding

Figure 8a. A Truncated map of familial relations amongst greek gods

517

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

Figure 8b. Hyperlinked thematic consideration of relationships from Figure 8a

program development, facilitating faculty communication, facilitating online teaching, assessing teacher candidate progress and guiding program evaluation. Inservice teachers continue to get education in the use of electronic concept mapping. Collaborative curriculum development is an area where

518

educators have long-found concept mapping to be useful (Starr & Krajcik, 1990). Baer, Parchmann, Demuth, Gräsel & Puhl (2004) have reported a workshop model across several German schools for using collaborative concept mapping to develop high school chemistry curriculum. Similarly in the United States, Caldwell, Al-Rubaee, Lipkin,

Figure 9. Teacher Intern Map Regarding Teaching Science

Figure 9 Teacher Intern Map Regarding Teaching Science

new online teacher education program (at State University of New York and Empire State College) by Iuli, Wagle and Voetterl (2006) suggests that concept mapping online has benefits of: guiding program development, facilitating faculty communication, facilitating online teaching, assessing teacher candidate progress and guiding program evaluation.

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

Caldwell & Campese (2006) have described a mathematics workshop model for improving concept map integration and planning middle school mathematics curriculum using IHMC’s CMap®. Vilela, Austrilino and Costa (2004) posit

that electronic concept mapping for collaborative curriculum development assists in identifying: missing links, inconsistencies, false assumptions and previously unrecognized relationships.

519

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

the PotentIAl for electronIc concePt mAPPIng to Promote lIterAcIes The range of the aforementioned applications of electronic concept maps spanning personal and collaborative use, promotes many information literacies including multitasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, networking and negotiating. It is useful however, to look deeper into the nature of learning, the overlay of technology and the uniqueness of concept mapping to promote these and other literacies. Regardless of the technological tools available, teachers in promoting learning have been encouraged to root their classroom practice in constructivist strategies (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). It is worthwhile considering the constructivist framework as a template before we consider how concept mapping has potential to empower good teaching. The constructivist notion of learning has practical implications for teaching (Hoover, 1996; Keengwe, Onchwari & Wachira, 2008): •

•

•

520

The role of teachers has to change-teachers will act as guides or facilitators to provide students with opportunities to test their current understanding of concepts taught. Teachers should not assume that all children understand the same way. Rather, they may need different experiences to advance to different levels of understanding. This is critical in order to exploit inconsistencies between learners’ current understandings and new experiences before them. Teachers should provide learning experiences that incorporate problems that are important to students, not those that are primarily important to teachers and the educational system. Group interaction should be encouraged for better understanding of concepts and give students opportunities to compare their own understanding to that of their peers.

•

Teachers should give students ample time to facilitate student reflection of the new experiences for concrete knowledge building based on past and current undertstandings.”p87

As students are exposed to new knowledge, Reigeluth (1999) suggests learning will only happen if the student sees the knowledge as meaningful and is able to link the knowledge to prior understandings. Salomon (2000) makes a distinction between information and knowledge by suggesting that while information can be transmitted knowledge must be compiled as a web of meaningful connections. Technology has an emerging role in accomplishing this task especially when we consider students’ predisposition to technology. Hartman et al (2005) have characterized the modern multitasking students as being immersed in communication technology. This allows us to tap into unique opportunities for learning. Jonassen (1999) posits that teachers and technology do not teach students moreover students only learn through knowledge construction and thinking that involves experience. He further suggests that technology promotes higher order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Jonassen, 2000). Reeves (1998) extends the potential of technology to include skills such as higher order thinking , creativity and research. Jonassen (2003) recommends that “computers can be used to support meaningful learning when technologies engage learners in five ways: (a) knowledge construction, not reproduction; (b) conversations, not reception; (c) articulation, not repetition; (d) collaboration, not competition; and, (e) reflection, not prescription” p15 . The idea of higher order learning through concept mapping is addressed by Gagné (1985). He suggests that problem solving process results in two types of learning. “One newly learned entity is a higher order rule, which enables the individual to solve other problems of a similar type. The other aspect of new learning may be

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

ways of solving problems in general-in other words cognitive strategies that can guide learner’s subsequent thinking behavior” p178. Young (1997) explains this further; “Typically when people speak of cognitive strategies today, they are referring to those strategies that support the information processing stages of attending and selective perceiving, rehearsal, encoding and retrieval.” p38. It is in the process of encoding, that concept maps have their greatest impact in problem solving. In this capacity the map serves as a so-called ”mindtool” (Jonassen, 2000); “a close correspondence between psychological constructs and their external mode of representation” (Stoyanova & Kommers, 2002) “a novel form of conceptual or creative space for quality exploratory behaviour”(Riley & Åhlberg, 2004). The power of concept mapping goes beyond information visualization (Tergan & Keller, 2005) and the personal constructing of meaning through reflection, assimilation and decisionmaking processes. The following definition of digital literacy (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004) points to the importance of social learning with technology “In light of the rapid and continual development of digital technology, individuals are required to use a growing variety of technical, cognitive and sociological skills in order to perform tasks and solve problems in digital environments. These skills are referred to in the literature as digital literacy” p 93. In response to this challenge, it is clear that the social construction of knowledge in classrooms is an important avenue to pursue when integrating technology into learning. In using collaborative concept mapping between students as well as teachers, we encourage shared meaning, a means of compromising, building consensus and a respectful interaction that promotes values and critical thinking. Stoyanova (2000) recommends that certain features of concept mapping make it an effective technique for collaboration namely:

•

•

•

“Concept mapping is a unique technique for externalizing the cognitive structure of the students. While using concept mapping students communicate based upon the whole picture of the problem space; it represents their prior knowledge and vision. Elaborations of the various perspectives based on concept mapping are much more comprehensive. Meanings of the concepts and ideas are clearly defined by the position of the concept in the whole picture and its interrelations with other concepts. This facilitates negotiation of meaning and promotes a deeper understanding between collaborators. It is supposed that the process of group negotiation should trigger internal negotiations for the students and the meaningful integration of the new concepts in the cognitive structure of learners. While interacting by concept mapping, students have the possibilities to take a look at the whole problem space as visualised by other group members. It should enhance the process of critical reflection as well as creative thinking” p114

The concept map as an organization of thought from a social learning group implies an exploratory dialogue including, substantiation, justification and reflection.(Rojas-Drummond & Anzures, 2006) These are clearly important literacies to develop given that team work, leadership and articulate communication are life skills. In this regard, collaborative or negotiative concept maps serve as mediators of knowledge building for both students and teachers. The research of Gouveia and Valadares (2004) has identified the following positive outcomes for collaborative concept mapping: •

Concept maps are excellent for accessing prior knowledge.

521

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

•

• • •

Inherent discussions promote self-esteem and confidence; an increased willingness to debate Greater tendency to rethink and analyze before they verbalize their ideas Students self-identify discrepancies in the map and personal misconceptions Students are motivated to learn.

Gregório and Freire (2006) have noted improvements in reading comprehension in environmental education and make reference to tracking individual conceptual growth within the social learning group. The idea of sharing externalized knowledge and the process of learning itself relates directly to the concept of metacognition. Concept maps have been referred to as metacognitive tools. In collaborative mapping students witness the change in their own thinking and the thinking of the group helping them to better understand their own knowledge building strategies and structures. In building maps, students make important planning decisions about the centrality of concepts and the logical links. They think out loud by externalizing their choices and get immediate feedback from peers, thereby offering multiple perspectives and the opportunity to modify, correct or abandon formal schemes. If one accepts the definition of critical thinking as the “art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it”, it is clear students use the concept map as a facilitator or mediator of critical thinking. Improvements have been noted in self-reflection and strategic action following concept mapping exercises in studies of both elementary (Stow, 1997) and high school settings (Chularut & Debacker, 2004). The IARE (Institute for the Advancement of Research in Education, 2003) has published a research review on the impact of graphic organizers in schools. They have documented improvement in student performance in the areas of reading comprehension, student achievement in learning content, thinking and learning skills and retention. 522

how teAchers mIght stArt to exPlore the PotentIAl of concePt mAPPIng Hand drawn concept maps have been around for a long time and continue to be an effective starting place for teachers and students because they are simple and do not require technology beyond the pencil and paper!. The novice teacher-user should consider having their students draw concept webs as an introduction. In other words, have the students simply draw a web of related ideas around a central idea. This is a very good starting point for assessing prior knowledge when the teacher begins a new curricular topic. The teacher should then introduce the idea of a hierarchy of concepts using simple classification examples (see Figure 1). Many students today are more “tech-savvy” than we give them credit for. It is not technically difficult for even young children to use diagram drawing programs such as Inspiration®, Kidspiration®, Microsoft Word® or free programs such as CMAP®. It is important to give students practice organizing hierarchy of concepts and a simple way is to provide them with a premade list of concepts and work with them organizing the ideas in a a meaningful structure, scaffolding the process with questions and requests for substantiation of map organization. Because the technology integration is both trivial and facile for today’s pupil, teachers can learn a lot about student knowledge structures as they create electronic maps and move to more elaborate feedback mechanisms as alluded to in this chapter.

reflectIons Students typically find concept mapping software easy to use. As a tool it allows them to express their ideas and organization of ideas in simple diagrams that allow for a global overview of concepts. Using software to organize ideas for planning or communications is a powerful capability.

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

Technology has made it possible to extend this individual tool to cooperative and collaborative knowledge building settings which serves greater goals of team work, creativity and innovation. The aforementioned research has demonstrated a plethora of personal and social growth literacies that emerge from negotiating meaning using the electronic concept map as a mediator of ideas. Of the literacies suggested earlier in the chapter, (Dede, 2007) electronic concept mapping promotes multitasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, networking and negotiating. Future research should examine teaching strategies for communicating the nature of hierarchy and quality propositional phrases in teaching children how to capitalize on the potential of electronic concept maps. There is little doubt that the power of electronic concept mapping both in face-to-face and online settings is as a communication and conceptual negotiation tool. Research that examines efficient and innovative models for social construction of knowledge will help to develop literacies for this technological age.

references Åhlberg, M. (2004) Varieties of concept maps. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Al-Kunifed, A. & Wandersee, J. (1990). One hundred references related to concept mapping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1069-1075. Angelo, T. A. & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pub. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in learning and retention of meaningful

information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 26. Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton. Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research, 48, 251-257. Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Baer, A., Parchmann, I., Demuth, R., Gräsel, C., & Puhl, T. (2004). Concept mapping as a tool to facilitate goal-oriented communication and cooperation among teachers. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Basque, J. & Lavoie, M. (2006).Collaborative concept mapping in education: Major research trends. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bolte, L. (2006) Reflections on using concept maps in teaching mathematics. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

523

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

Brown, J., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

nology and faculty. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.)Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE

Caldwell, W., Al-Rubaee, F. & Lipkin, L. (2006). Developing a concept mapping approach to mathematics achievement in middle school. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica.

Dede, C. (2007). Introduction: A sea of change in thinking, knowing, learning & teaching In Salaway, G. & Borreson Caruso, J. The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE

Cañas, A. ., & Novak, J. (2005). A concept mapcentered learning environment. Paper presented at the Symposium at the Eleventh Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Cyprus, 2005. Charon, J. M. (1998). Symbolic interactionism (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chularut, P. & DeBacker, T. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, selfregulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248-263. Conlon, T. (2004a). But is our concept map any good?: Classroom experiences with the reasonable fallible analyzer. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Conlon, T. (2004b). Not yet within the mainstream: Concept mapping in a Scottish high school. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillenial learning styles: Implications for investments in tech-

524

Dobbins, K. (2005). Getting ready for the net generation. EDUCAUSE Review 40(5), 8-9. Ehrlich, p. & Ehrlich,A. (2004). One with nineveh: Politics, consumption and the human future. Washington, DC: Island Press Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 13(1), 93-106. Ferry, B., Hedberg, J. & Harper, B. (1997). How do preservice teachers use concept maps to organize their curriculum knowledge? Paper presented at ASCILITE conference, Perth, Australia. Forsythe, T. & MacKinnon, G. (2005) Technology & cooperative learning: The IIT model for teaching authentic chemistry curriculum. In R. Yager, Exemplary science in grades 9-12: Standardsbased success stories (pp. 11-23.). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic. Gouveia, V. & Valadares, J. (2004). Concept maps and the didactic role of assessment.. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

Gregório, R. & Freire, A. (2006). Reading and environmental education. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Groff, J. & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46 Halford, G. (1993). Children’s understanding: The development of mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hartman, J., Moskal, P. & Dziuban, C. (2005). Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. In D. Oblinger (Ed.) Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Hoover, W. (1996). The practice implications of constructivism. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Newsletter 10(3). Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next greatest generation. New York: Vintage Books. IHMC (2008). IHMC CMap Tools. Retrieved on March 6, 2008 from: http://cmap.ihmc.us/ IARE (Institute for the Advancement of Research in Education) (2003). Graphic organizers: A review of scientifically based research. Charleston, WV: IARE Jenkins, H. Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking(2nd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 35(3), 362-381.

Jonassen, D., Peck, K. & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jones, S. & Fraistat, N. (2004). The MOO as an arcade: Minimalism and interpretive literary games. Text Technology, 2, 19-26. Karasavvidis, I. (2002). Distributed cognition and educational practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(1/2), 11-29. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G. & Wachira, P. (2008). The use of computer tools to support meaningful learning. AACE Journal, 16(1), 77-92. Kinchin, I. & Hay, D. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43-57. Lave, J. (1991). Socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association MacKinnon, G. (2002).Negotiative concept mapping. In D. Willis, J. Price & N. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, (pp. 2124-2125). Charlottesville, VA: AACE. MacKinnon, G. (2006). Contentious issues in science education: Building critical thinking patterns through two-dimensional concept mapping. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 15 (4), pp. 433-445. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. MacKinnon, G. & Keppell (2005). Concept mapping: A unique means for negotiating meaning in professional studies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 14 (3), 291-315. MacKinnon, G. & Provencal, V. (2009) Concept mapping as a means to stimultae thematic analysis in higher education: A study of greek gods. Ac-

525

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

cepted for publication in the International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society. Mancinelli, C. (2006). Learning while having fun: Conceptualization itineraries in kindergarten children experiences with c-maps in an Italian school. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Mancinelli, C., Gentili, M., Priori, G. & Valitutti, G. (2004).Concept maps in kindergarten. . In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. McLuhan, M. & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the message. New York: Random House. Novak, J. (1981) Applying learning psychology and philosophy to biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher 43(1) 12-20. Novak, J. & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Oneca, M. & Poveda, M. (2006). Is it possible to improve meaningful learning in math in primary school learners? In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 221-227. Postman, N. (1993) Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vantage Books.

526

Poveda, M., Sanzol, n. & Oneca, M. (2006).A study of links in concept maps constructed by primary school learners. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Reeves, T. (1998). The impact of media and technology in schools. Retrieved January 10, 2008 from http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/edit6900/ BertelsmannReeves98.pdf Reigeluth, M. (1999). Principles for learning meaningful knowledge. Retrieved January 10, 2008 from http://www.indiana.edu/~idtheory/ methods/m6c.html Rice, D., Ryan, J. & Samson, S. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(10), 1103-1127. Riley, N. & Åhlberg, M. (2004). Investigating the use of ICT-based concept mapping techniques on creativity in literacy tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20(4), 244-256. Rockman, I. (2004). Integrating information literacy into the higher education curriculum. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Rojas-Drummond, S. & Anzures, A. (2006). Oracy, literacy and concept maps as mediators of the social construction of knowledge among peers. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Ruiz-Primo, M., & Shavelson, R. (1996). Problems and issues in the iuse of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(6), 569-600.

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

Ruiz-Primo, M. (2004). Examining concept maps as an assessment tool. . In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G. (2000). It’s not just the tool, but the educational rationale that counts. Keynote address at Ed-Media, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http://www.aace.org/ conf/edmedia/00/salomonkeynote.htm Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Scardamalia, K. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 987-1000. Sternberg, R.J. (1989). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Stow, W. (1997). Concept mapping: A tool for self-assessment? Primary Science Review, 49, 12-15. Stoyanova , N. (2000). Group interaction as a predictor of learning effectiveness in a computer supported collaborative problem solving design. Proceedings of Ed-Media 2000 Montreal, Canada, (pp 1716-1717). Charlottesville,VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Stoyanova, N. & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13 (1/2), 111-133.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003a). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.) (pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.

Tergan, S. & Keller, T. (2005). Knowledge and information visualization: Searching for synergies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003b). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. Distefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Valadares, J.,Fonseca, F., & Soares, M. (2004). Using concept maps in physics classes. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.

Soares, M. & Valadares, J. (2006). Using concept maps to teach physics, in particular the topic of acoustics. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Starr, M. & Krajcik, J. (1990). Concept map as a heuristic for science curriculum development: Toward improvement in process and product.

Vilela, R. Austrilino, L. & Costa, A. (2004). Using concept maps for collaborative curriculum development. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

527

Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning

Young, A. (1997). Higher-order learning and thinking: What is it and how is it taught? Educational Technology, 37(4), 38-41.

Constructing Meaning: Accommodating new knowledge within existing cognitive structures.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons

Digital Literacy: Ability to use the tools of the digital age in order to communicate and problem solve effectively.

Collaborative Learning: A process of students and/or teachers addressing a common task in which they are mutually accountable. Concept Map: A hierarchal picture of a mental map of knowledge. Conceptual Change: The notion that constructing meaning involves not only assimilation but also accommodation in order to change one’s preexisting ideas.

528

Externalizing: A process by which the student shares their private meanings or prior knowledge by preparing a picture. Millenials: A term coined to describe the emerging generation of learners who tend to access a range of technological tools seamlessly.

529

Chapter XXXIV

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School for Secondary Students with Special Needs Katherine Mitchem California University of Pennsylvania, USA Gail Fitzgerald University of Missouri, USA Kevin Koury California University of Pennsylvania, USA

AbstrAct This chapter introduces the use of electronic performance support systems (EPSS) as an assistive technology for students with mild disabilities, especially those with special learning and behavioral needs. This approach is a new development to use technology to support students in educational environments. In this chapter, the authors describe the need, rationale and technical development process of an electronic performance support system (EPSS), StrategyTools, a software program designed to support the successful integration of secondary students with mild disabilities in inclusive classrooms. In addition, they report the results from two federally funded projects related to research-based social and behavioral outcomes for secondary students and discuss recommendations for implementation of EPSS tool approaches. The authors hope this information on the innovative use of EPSS to support students with mild disabilities will improve success at school through the innovative use of technology.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

IntroDuctIon A relatively new field in technology—electronic performance support systems (EPSS) offers tremendous potential for addressing needs of secondary students who are at-risk for failure or who encounter challenges in school due to mild disabilities (Fitzgerald, 2004). The goal of an EPSS is to provide whatever supports are necessary to ensure performance and learning at the moment of need in a seamless activity (Gery, 1991; Gustafson, 2000; Laffey, 1995; Schaff, BannanRitland, Behrmann, & Ok, 2005). EPSS tools can be designed for these students that integrate the main components of an EPSS—information, user guidance, procedural tools, and feedback—with technological enhancements for effective use. The end of the 20th century saw a paradigm shift in beliefs and practices about how best to educate and support students with special needs in secondary schools (Gersten, 1998). Programming moved from remedial, pull-out classes to integrated models where students remain in general education environments and receive support and modifications as needed. Those students with special needs who are included in high school general education settings are typically those with high incidence learning disabilities and/or emotional/ behavioral disorders as well as those at-risk for school failure. These students typically exhibit problems such as disorganization, poor study skills, ineffective learning strategies, difficulty with classroom behavior and social interactions, impulsive behaviors, and failure to plan ahead and engage in self-control (Bryant, Bryant, & Raskind, 1998; Edyburn, 2000; Okolo, 2000). To be successful in integrated general education classrooms with their heavy focus on mastery of content and independent, self-guided work habits, all students have increased needs for self-regulation and learning and problem solving strategies. Because technology applications for students with special needs have primarily focused on literacy and academics (Fitzgerald

530

& Koury, 1996; Fitzgerald, Koury, & Mitchem, 2008; Woodward & Rieth, 1997), little attention has been placed to date on the use of technologies for improving self-regulation and strategies for school success (Fitzgerald, 2004). The instructional design, development, implementation, and outcomes of an EPSS for secondary students with special needs are herein described, along with practical recommendations to support the adoption of EPSS in school settings. One resource web site to aid readers in understanding the application of EPSS to students with special needs is found at: http://strategytools.org.

revIew of relevAnt lIterAture Computer-based training and support mechanisms are an innovative approach for helping children/ youth gain control over personal behaviors. Although there are limited data on the use of computer-based instruction to support behavior change in children, research results are promising. Fitzgerald and Werner (1996) reported success with a computerized verbal mediation essay as a cognitive retraining procedure to assist a student with significant behavioral disorders in changing his behavior. In this case study utilizing a single subject research design, the computerized essay provided consistent practice and focused the child’s attention and thoughts on behavioral choices and consequences. In another case study, the same researchers reported a procedure in which software templates were developed for a student to create self-monitoring materials to guide his behaviors (Fitzgerald & Werner, 1996). In a recent study with high school students, Hartley (2001) found students could learn strategies from hypermedia computer programs, but learning of these strategies did not impact performance. Hartley hypothesized that better outcomes might occur if instruction in learning strategies was integrated with opportunities to

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

utilize the strategies in realistic settings. His conclusion with secondary students, that the use of strategies ultimately depends on the decision for usage, lends support to the EPSS approach by providing the tools to support strategy use, thus building self-responsibility for the student’s performance. Researchers have found that hypermedia (a nonlinear, learner-control type of software) offers benefits of personalizing instruction and encouraging strategic learning (Hartley, 2001). While there were early concerns about navigation difficulties in hypermedia, research findings indicate that in well-designed hypermedia, experience has little impact (Fitzgerald & Semrau, 1998) and that the menu format is preferred in terms of achievement and attitudes (Farrell & Moore, 2000). A cognitive tool that is appropriately designed extends abilities without increasing the cognitive load (Brown, Hedberg, & Harper, 1994). Recent federally funded projects in the United States for students with learning disabilities using the computer as a study tool (electronic studying, electronic note-taking, learning study strategies) assert that technology tools provide bridges to support students in learning (not remediation). Technology is effective because it provides direct instruction and scaffolds learning. Authors describe the computer as a cognitive tool for implementing computer-based study strategies but caution that technology is only successful when students assume responsibility for learning (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1997; AndersonInman, Knox-Quinn & Szymanski, 1999; Lewis, 2005). EPSS software packages typically integrate references, guidance, and tools to support performance. Electronic supports primarily include computer and Internet resources (Harmon, 1999) or connections to outside experts with opportunities for guidance and feedback (Means, 2000). EPSS systems have four basic components: 1) easily accessible information, 2) user guidance, 3) information/skills tutorials, and 4) tools to carry

out the task (Gery, 1991). As more experience has been gained with EPSS, tools have become more sophisticated and tutorials now incorporate multimedia instruction and contextualized practice (Gustafson, 2000; Wilson & Myers, 2000). These functionalities are likely to increase the role that an EPSS plays in meeting training and performance needs. Although EPSS components are being included in some general education software, they are only starting to emerge in special education to support students with mild cognitive and behavioral disabilities. Initial developments with EPSS in special education were limited to tools related to academic learning, primarily for literacy and story writing (Schaff, Bannan-Ritland, Behrmann, & Ok, 2005). These programs built on earlier uses of reading supports provided in hypermedia texts (Higgins & Boone, 1990a; Higgins &Boone, 1990b; Higgins, Boone, & Lovitt, 2002). Such efforts led developers to conclude that “Children and their reading facilitators benefit greatly from access to higher-level strategies and visual, text, and motivational supports as well as engagement with reading content. The philosophy and structure of EPSS programs hold great potential for those with special needs” (Schaff, Bannan-Ritland, Behrmann, & Ok, 2005, p. 505). Recognizing the potential of EPSS to support students with special education needs, the U.S. Department of Education has funded a series of projects to produce EPSS software aimed at enabling students to take control of their own behaviors: KidTools™ (U.S. Department of Education Project #H029K70089, 1998-2000); an EPSS to support students with organizational and learning strategies: KidSkills™ (U.S. Department of Education Project #H327A00005, 2001-2002); and an EPSS for secondary-level students to support behavioral self-control, problem solving, learning, and transition planning: StrategyTools™ (U.S. Department of Education Project #H0327A030044, 2004-2005). Ongoing work and research with the secondary-level system by the EPSS developers

531

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

will be described in this chapter based on a U. S. Department of Education-funded research project (Fitzgerald, Mitchem, &, Koury, 2006-2007).

DescrIPtIon of An ePss for seconDAry stuDents wIth sPecIAl neeDs The StrategyTools Support System™ is a multicomponent system involving special template software and web site supports for students with special needs in integrated high school settings. StrategyTools contains 39 tools organized into 6 categories. The software uses a school building as a metaphor and theme-related tools can be found within various rooms in the building. The design of the metaphor was created in a 3-D authoring environment and was rendered with bright colors to appeal to secondary-age students. A non-gender graphical figure named “Tran” serves

as a coach for students by providing directions and tips throughout the program (see Figure 1). Each tool creates a “card” or form that can be printed for use. The tools are organized into categories that are linked to classroom types where such tools would typically be used. Thus, “getting organized” tools are provided in the library room, “learning new information” tools are accessed in the study hall, “demonstrating learning” tools are found in the classroom, “working on projects” are provided in the computer lab, “solving personal problems” are found in the conference rooms, and “moving into the future” tools are placed in the information center. In addition to this navigation format, tools can be viewed and selected from a one-stop “quick view” screen. Examples of two of the tools are the “Study Guide” and the “Self-Awareness Tool.” Figure 2 displays the Study Guide that students can use as a learning aid to organize content material.

Figure 1. School building metaphor in StrategyTools. (© 2007 The Curators of the University of Missouri, a public corporation. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

532

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

Figure 2. The study guide tool in StrategyTools. (© 2007 The Curators of the University of Missouri, a public corporation. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

Figure 3 displays the Self-Awareness Tool that students can use to prepare for a transition planning conference. The transition tool can be used

as a self-assessment tool as well as a discussion guide for a meeting.

Figure 3. The self-awareness tool in StrategyTools. (© 2007 The Curators of the University of Missouri, a public corporation. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

533

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

DesIgn moDel for strAtegytools The conceptual framework (Figure 4) provides a research-based model to integrate cognitivebehavioral approaches to assist students in developing self-regulation, learning strategies, and transition planning. This system is operationalized through the computerized template tools for students and resources for others who support the student in using the tools.

learning strategies Metacognition involves knowledge of self-learning and understanding. Students with learning disabilities and/or emotional/behavioral disorders lack metacognition influencing their ability to self-regulate and monitor (Harris,Wong, & Keogh, 1985). The effectiveness of learning strategy usage incorporating metacognition for students with learning disabilities has been established in two major meta-analyses, one by Swanson and Hoskyn (1998) involving re-analysis of 180

intervention studies, and the other, a summary of 18 meta-analyses by Lloyd, Forness, and Kavale (1998). Swanson and Hoskyn reported a “combined direct instruction and strategy instruction model is an effective procedure for remediating learning disabilities relative to other instruction models” (p. 303). In this combination, the components that increased effectiveness included information segmentation, technology, directed questioning/responding, and strategy cuing. The top two interventions ranked by Lloyd, Forness, and Kavale (1998) were mnemonic training (effect size of 1.6) and comprehension instruction (effect size of 1.15). Identifying the necessary instructional elements for learning strategy instruction is a complex task. Garner (1990) cites four reasons why learners do not use strategies: 1) poor cognitive monitoring, 2) lack of knowledge of the strategies, 3) insufficient classroom instruction to support strategy use, and 4) difficulty transferring strategies to new, related situations. The longstanding approach has been to provide explicit instruction by direct instruction, including examples

Figure 4. Conceptual framework for strategytools support system © 2009 Gail Fitzgerald. Used with permission.

534

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

and models, guided practice, and independent practice with feedback in multiple settings. It appears, however, that changes are needed in the instructional approach to move from this direct instruction model to one that helps students use strategies in general education settings (Gersten, 1998). Instruction needs to re-focus on independent development and usage of strategies across settings so students “approach tasks in a problem solving manner and flexibly select, implement, evaluate, and adapt task-appropriate strategies as required” (Butler, 1995, p. 170). This approach requires students to take an active role in developing and individualizing strategies. As Scruggs and Mastropieri (1998) note, the “diversity of learning outcomes, all of which may be necessary in special education, argues against the use of one conceptual model (or metaphor) to explain all instructional interactions” (p. 407). Strategy instruction is more difficult to carry out in inclusive classrooms (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998). “The demands facing inclusive content-area teachers may serve as a barrier to full and effective implementation of strategic instruction” (Scanlon, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1996, p. 56). However, in order to reach a goal of students as independent learners and thinkers, tools for learning selfinstruction, self-monitoring, self-questioning, and self-reinforcement must be taught and generalized (Mastropieri & Scruggs; 2007).

cognitive-behavioral Interventions for self-regulation The StrategyTools program consists of computerized templates providing structure for students to design cognitive-behavioral interventions. Cognitive-behavioral modification (CBM) programs for children have increased in popularity during the last two decades as research documented their effectiveness (Butler, 1995; Gresham, 1985; Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971; Gumpel, 2000; Novaco, 1975; Reid, 1996; Walen, DiGiuseppe, & Dryden, 1992) and curriculum developers

produced teachable programs for educators to implement (Anderson, 1981; Camp & Bash, 1981; Goldstein & Glick, 1987; McGinnis & Goldstein, 1984; Mitchem, Young, West & Benyo, 2001; Mitchem & Young, 2001; Nichols,1999; Shure, 1992; Spivak, Platt, & Shure, 1976). CBM approaches dovetail with the current emphasis on proactive behavior support strategies, as well as learning strategies because they focus on: 1) teaching thinking skills, 2) utilizing positive approaches, 3) providing practice, 4) facilitating individual usage, and 5) monitoring with goal setting and feedback (Lenz & Deshler, 2004). There are five common elements found in most CBM procedures. First, the child has responsibility for his/her strategy plan. Second, self-talk is used to change thinking and guide action. Third, the child uses a step-by-step, problem-solving approach in planning. Fourth, assistance is provided through instruction or scaffolding until the child is successful. Last, the focus of the strategy is self-control, a critical component of secondary transitions (Kaplan & Carter, 1995). The CBM procedures followed in StrategyTools provide a range of tools to support steps in behavior change as defined by Good and Beitman (2006). These are to 1) handle an immediate crisis, 2) change a dysfunctional pattern, and 3) learn how to change without direction by a therapist. As stated by Burns and Spangler (2000), “Cognitive therapy is problem-oriented, present-focused, and psychoeducational.” The EPSS approach fully implements these processes and offers extended implementation when coordinated with school, home, and other community providers.

transition Planning Emphasis on transition programming increased with amendments to U.S. special education law. The 2004 IDEA Amendments mandate a transition plan as a component of the IEP and begin when students with disabilities reach age 16. Schools are required to provide opportunities

535

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

for further education as well as “to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education” (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Transition is a long-term collaborative and formative activity that could last many years and should consider the students’ changing desires and possible new or adjusted outcomes (Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006; Grigal, Test, Beqattie, & Wood, 1997; Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 1998; Zhang & Benz, 2006). IDEA 2004 states that a student may participate in their IEP as appropriate. For students to participate in their IEP meetings they need skills in self-determination (Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 1998). Responsibility for post-secondary assessment, programming, advocacy, and decision-making should lie with the young adult (Brinckerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1992). Practice in self-determining behaviors must start early and occur frequently (Carter et al., 2006; Doll, Sands, Wehmeyer, & Palmer, 1998). To express desires and set goals, students need to understand assessment of their interests, aptitudes, abilities, and preferences and they must relate results to goals, creating and evaluating plans over time. These goals must include behavioral, communicative, functional, and academic skills in order to live independently. IDEA 2004 suggests that a transition plan begin with outcomes established for the student considering the areas of post-secondary education, post-secondary employment, independent living, community involvement, and recreation and leisure activities. Courses taken early in the secondary years should provide the basic knowledge to support intended outcomes in the community or integrated work-study program, including recreation activities (Furney, Hasazi, & Destefano, 1997). It is important for students to become familiar and learn to interact effectively with agencies serving as postsecondary supports.

536

Important skills for post-school performance include self-scheduling, self-instruction, plans for goal attainment, and self-monitoring (Fore & Riser, 2005; Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 2000). The academic and behavioral tools in StrategyTools address these aforementioned practical implications for self-determination. The long-term outcomes are expected to be improvement in secondary transition programs as well as student academic and behavioral outcomes.

resource AnD guIDAnce comPonents The StrategyTools Support System includes numerous resources, supports and training materials. Recognizing the importance of ecological variables surrounding an innovation, the materials include resources for parents and educators who support the student (Biemiller & Meichenbaum, 1998; Luca & Oliver, 2001) and self-instructional training materials for students to use while learning or using the system.

strategy coach™ web site Strategy Coach, http://strategytools.org, is an interactive web site for secondary students as shown in Figure 5. It is designed specifically for students for training, practice, and building motivation for use of the tools. Information includes resources for students to learn about the EPSS approach, tool overviews, and tips for success for all the tools. The web site has an interactive, problem-solving section where students can select the “best tool” to use to solve problems presented in sample scenarios and then create and evaluate the tools they construct. The web site also has a section where students who have used the tools describe their uses and perceived benefits of using the tools in audio clips. This web site also provides free downloads for the StrategyTools software programs. All of the tools in this system can be viewed at this web site.

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

Figure 5. StrategyTools coach home screen. (© 2007 The Curators of the University of Missouri, a public corporation. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

strategytools resources™ This infobase program provides information for parents and educators who support the students in

learning and using the tools. Information includes a description and rationale for each of the strategies behind the tools, examples of each tool, and tips to support successful use of the tools.

Figure 6. StrategyTools infobase home screen. (© 2007 The Curators of the University of Missouri, a public corporation. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

537

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

records viewer™ The Records Viewer program provides a level of confidentiality protection over student records. Records that contain the content of tools created by students are encrypted to prevent casual access to the information. The Records Viewer is a program for educators and approved facilitators to use that enables them to search and view the content records of tools created by students. The program is password protected.

technIcAl DeveloPment of strAtegytools The software was originally created and maintained using Macromedia Authorware through 2007. The programs are now being redesigned using the more versatile and contemporary combination of Adobe AIR, ActionScript 3.0, Flex, and Flash technologies. This migration prevents

the programs from being orphaned as hardware and operating environments advance, offers the ability to improve and refine existing functionality, and allows development of new features. Previously the software was only available for the Windows and Macintosh platforms, whereas the new versions may be deployed to the web and Unix/Linux environments.

reseArch on ePss ImPlementAtIon usIng strAtegytools Results are available regarding the use of EPSS for students with special needs from a series of studies using StrategyTools in multiple secondary schools. Research questions focused on implementation, acceptability and response to tool usage, and feasibility issues in schools. Research studies utilized mixed methods with teacher ratings of outcomes and qualitative interviews with

Figure 7. Records viewer home screen (© 2005 The Curators of the University of Missouri, a public corporation. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

538

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

students and teachers. Recommendations for implementation of EPSS in secondary schools are an outgrowth of these findings and recommendations by EPSS users. Are students with special needs able to learn and use the tools in special and general education classrooms? In an implementation study by the authors in three school districts, 7 high school teachers and 35 students with mild learning and behavior disabilities utilized the tools in three phases: baseline, teacher-guided use, and independent use with teacher prompting (Fitzgerald, Mitchem, & Koury, 2006-2007). Data were collected on acquisition, fluency, and generalization of tool usage; classroom behavior in comparison to peers; and teacher and student ratings on a social competence scale. After baseline data were collected, students learned and used the tools over a six-month period of time and post data were collected. Students were divided into two groups with a first intervention group and a second replication group. There were 22 students in the first group and 13 students in the replication group. Twenty-two different tools were used by students from the following categories: 86.4% learning tools, 4.5% problem solving tools, 4.5 % transition tools, 4.2% organization tools, and 1% project planning tools. Acquisition, fluency, and generalization of tool usage were scored using Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) rubrics applied to tool usage. The GAS evaluation procedure grew out of the mental health field and is widely used in treatment pro-

grams where individually determined outcomes are used in evaluating progress (Gordon, Powell, & Rockwood, 1999). GAS offers a standardized scoring procedure to be used across all students, yet allows different goals to be identified for different students. Goal Attainment Scales were scored from 1 to 5 on four dimensions: acquisition, fluency, generalization, and maintenance. A score of 3 indicates that the student performed at the “expected level”, 1 or 2 indicates that the student performed below expectations, and a score of 4 or 5 indicates a student performed above expectations. Goal scales were scored by the teacher and a research staff member at three points in the research project. See Appendix A for a copy of the Goal Attainment Scale. Table 1 displays the Goal Attainment Scale results for acquisition, fluency, and generalization; too few students completed the follow-up maintenance phase to report those data. Results demonstrated that students were successful in learning and using the tools at or near expected levels (mean = 2.91 for acquisition and 3.34 for fluency). Their success exceeded expectations when they generalized tool usage to new goals or to new settings (mean = 4.04). There were no significant performance differences between treatment and replication groups. Does tool usage improve students’behavioral and academic success in school? Behavioral data were collected on the students in this study by trained observers using a standardized behavior coding procedure. Students

Table 1. Goal attainment scale scores for treatment and replication groups © 2009 Gail Fitzgerald. Used with permission. Goals in Treatment Phases

Acquisition Goals

Initial Treatment Group

Replication Group

Overall

n

Mean

n

Mean

n

Mean

22

2.86

13

3.00

35

2.91

Fluency Goals

22

3.50

13

3.08

35

3.34

Generalization Goals

19

3.89

7

4.43

26

4.04

539

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

were observed in the classroom where training and support were provided on the use of tools, and in a second classroom where training and support on use of the tools were not provided. Peers were also observed in one of these settings to establish behavioral “norms” for the student being observed. Table 2 displays the percentages of positive behavior for the students in the training setting and the second classroom, and peers in one of the settings selected for each student. Students demonstrated a significant level of behavioral improvement in the training setting from baseline to the end of the independent use phase (t(10)=6.13, sig.=.001). In comparison, the levels of positive behavior remained stable in the second classroom setting for the treatment students and for peers in the selected settings. Whereas behavior levels were comparable to peers in the training setting at baseline, these students showed significant levels of improvement compared to peers in the independent use phase (t(10)= 4.91 , sig.<.001). Student and teacher ratings were gathered and analyzed on the social competence of students using the Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Overall, students demonstrated a significant level of improvement based on teacher ratings from a baseline mean of 85.46 to a mean of 92.53 following the independent use phase (t(29)=4.132, sig=.001). Similarly, students rated themselves as having a significant level of improvement from a baseline mean of 93.71 to a mean of 102.78 following the independent use phase (t(26)=2.167, sig=.04). These perceptions of change of behaviors comprising social competence were consistent with observed changes in behavior

observed within training setting classrooms across the intervention phases. What do teachers say about use of EPSS with students? Seven secondary teachers who implemented the tools in their classrooms were interviewed following two semesters of tool use. All teachers were supportive of tool use and felt there were benefits for their students. Tools were most frequently used for academic support. Teachers noted students were able to create and use vocabulary lists and study guides for content learning and use graphical organizers and note-taking tools for organizing new information. Outcomes that were cited included improved grades and success in general education classes. Teachers expressed a belief that the benefits would be lasting, for example, “It helps train them so hopefully next year they will carry over and remember how things were set up.” The learning strategy tools were viewed as a “good learning skills curriculum as far as being able to supplement what we were doing in class” but they felt teachers had to make good choices of tools to match what was going on in class work. Teachers also implemented some of the personal behavior change tools, particularly the behavioral contracting tools. These were seen as helpful by providing structure and motivation for students to work on behaviors. Several teachers commented on the need for students to “buy into the tools and actually see them work.” One commented, “The actual tools were very effective. Getting the kids to do it

Table 2. Positive behavior of students and peers in training and second classrooms © 2009 Gail Fitzgerland. Used with permission. Positive Behavior

540

Training Setting

Second Classroom

Comparison Peers

n

Mean %

n

Mean %

n

Mean %

Baseline Phase

32

78.43

26

84.67

27

79.66

Guided Use Phase

32

76.76

32

72.91

32

74.45

Independent Use Phase

11

89.93

25

86.27

28

80.73

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

everyday was the challenge. When they did do it, they seemed to like it and got used to using them.” Some teachers reported that students took on independent use of tools, for example using the tools during computer lab time to assist with assignments or during other general education classrooms. The use of the computer appeared to motivate some students to use the tools, as one teacher stated, “I was surprised at the students who wanted to do the stuff. They just don’t want to do anything in class, but when you put them in front of the computer, they really wanted to do that.” Another teacher recommended “Just make them more available to the students and keep encouraging them to use them.” All teachers cited computer availability as the greatest challenge to tool usage. Several teachers had only one computer in the classroom and attempted to use tools by printing them off and having students fill them in. Another strategy they used was to model a particular tool on a SmartBoard with the entire class, pass out a hard copy for the students to fill in, and then provide time in the computer lab the next day for independent tool construction. When using the computer lab, teachers faced other issues, particularly equipment that would not work, the software being deleted by others, and losing scheduled computer lab time for other demands in the school. One teacher summed this up by stating,” I did not have a problem with the program, but with the fact in trying to use the program the way we wanted…we had a lot of problems with the computer lab.” In spite of these challenges, most teachers felt the tools were effective additions to their curriculum and “look forward to using them next school year.”

what do students say about Independent use of ePss in school? In a qualitative study investigating the usability and perceived effectiveness of StrategyTools, two teachers each used the software with four high school students with disabilities for a period of

one semester (Mitchem, Kight, Fitzgerald, & Koury, 2007). Three students were identified with behavior disorders and exhibited difficulties complying with directions, managing aggression, and solving problems appropriately. One student was identified with Asperger’s Syndrome and had difficulties interacting socially and responding appropriately to teacher direction and student initiations. Interviews were conducted with the two teachers who implemented the software and four students with disabilities. Interview responses were analyzed inductively for themes related to benefits, concerns, and usability. Students noted benefits in academic, behavior, and transition areas. Two students indicated in the interviews that the tools completed under the solving personal problems category had assisted them in recognizing and managing their behaviors. For example, one student noted that completing the problemsolving card served as an alternative behavior for him that replaced his more typical verbal or physical lashing out when another student made him angry. He spent a few minutes typing in the responses in the card about what was bothering him and what he should do instead. When asked how it helped, he said, “after I calmed down and read everything that I wrote, [I] thought I made some pretty good decisions towards what I did.” With regards to transition planning, these tools facilitated more active engagement in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) process in special education. One student said, “They were useful especially for my IEP. I typed out my career thing for it and then I printed it and I took it to my IEP and my mom read it and everything, so it was a help...She [mom] thought that I did a good job of what I wanted to do for a career and how much I’ve already thought out about it.” Students also suggested that the tools would be useful for all students. One student said, “I think all the students in schools could use them, not just in behavior disorders.” Another student

541

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

suggested they would be useful for “people who like don’t care about like their school work and stuff. Like, I think if they had this stuff, it would probably make them think about it more.” Students identified some concerns with using the tools. Although the instructor felt that a behavior commitment card was a good way for students to take responsibility for their behaviors, the students indicated in their interviews that they were embarrassed taking these forms up to the teachers for signing and wished that the teacher review of student performance could be completed via email to prevent the student being singled out in the classroom. One student explained, “Well, if people saw it they’ll know like you’re in like special classes and like special needs stuff. It sort of ruins your reputation of like how cool you are and everything and like if they see that you have a check sheet or something like that then they start picking on you and everything.” In addition to this concern, while students thought the tools would be useful in other classes and subjects, few had taken advantage of them in situations other than those directed by their teachers.

what factors support successful Implementation in schools? Three factors emerge from studies of tool implementation that are common to both elementary and secondary settings. The most frequently cited problem is not having adequate access to computers within classrooms to enable students to use the tool software as designed. For teachers to provide instruction and guidance in selecting and using tools, students need to be using tools in instructional settings. If only one or two computers are available within a class of 25-30 students, it is obvious that students cannot use the tools dynamically during instruction. One possible solution is to have students utilize tools while working in computer labs or instructional

542

materials centers; however, adequate instruction and coaching are generally not available in these settings. When students reach a level of successful independent use, tool usage in non-classroom settings or at home are possible alternatives. However, as reported in the Hartley study, students do not necessarily choose to use strategies (2001). Relationships with mentors or teachers who encourage tool usage may be necessary for students’ continued success. Second, finding time in the curriculum to teach tool strategies, spend time problem solving with students, and to monitor tool use are concerns for teachers. With increased emphasis in the schools on meeting standards and annual yearly progress, some teachers question whether teaching-the-tools is an appropriate use of their instructional time. This is a reasonable concern in the political environment of today’s schools. From field-testing we know that students with disabilities need instruction and ongoing supports for tool use. It may be helpful to involve others in providing needed supports, such as parents, school counselors, mentors, or classroom aides. Third, successful implementation will be improved through preparation and support of teachers. Teachers report that orientation sessions are helpful to get started and to learn how tools can be used. However, because the tools are viewed as intuitive and easy to use, teachers feel that time to play around and explore them is the best way to learn the tools. Having printouts of the tools helps in tool selection by remembering what tools are available in each of the categories. Some teachers would like to be able to observe other classes using the tools and to have support from fellow teachers for help with assignments. It appears that teachers feel comfortable with the tools but desire some assistance with matching tools to instructional goals and knowing how best to introduce and integrate tools into the classroom.

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

conclusIon the emergence of ePss as an Assistive technology for students with special needs The application of assistive technologies for students with mild disabilities is a relatively recent development linked to the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA in the United States that requires IEP teams to consider assistive technology as part of educational planning (Edyburn, 2000). Defined legally as “Any item, piece of equipment or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability” (34 CFR 300.5), assistive technologies have been described as devices and services that enhance performance of individuals with disabilities by enabling them to complete tasks more effectively, efficiently, and independently than otherwise possible (Blackhurst, 1997). Indeed, Edyburn (2000) recommends re-conceptualizing assistive technologies for students with mild disabilities to include a focus on technologies that enhance cognitive performance and social/behavioral functioning. As such, EPSS represents an emerging technology for students with mild disabilities and particularly for those with learning and behavioral problems to acquire and practice the self-management, self-regulation, and selfadvocacy skills that often hinder them from obtaining optimal benefit from the general education curriculum. Evidence to date supports the potential of EPSS to facilitate the success of students with special needs in secondary schools. Findings document that these students can learn to make and use tools, that they can generalize tool use to new settings with support, that tool usage improves perceptions of social competence and social skills, and that

students show significant behavioral improvements in classrooms. Additional research on effectiveness of such assistive technologies to improve learning and academic functioning is critically needed. recommendations for Implementation and support of ePss Based on teacher and student feedback, several recommendations for using an EPSS such as StrategyTools are noteworthy. First, an orientation for teachers in which different examples of tool usage are modeled across content areas is helpful for teachers to identify opportunities for use in their classrooms. In addition, providing teachers with opportunities to brainstorm together appropriate tools for different students or problems encourages innovative and creative uses of the tools. Second, when using an EPSS in a setting with a limited number of computers, it is critical to plan for student access to computers. Teachers using StrategyTools identified interactive presentation of a tool using a SmartBoard as an effective method for introducing new tools to students. Providing students with opportunities to make tools two to three times a week in the computer lab was also recommended to encourage students’ independent use of the tools. Third, it is important to remember that the tools will not substitute for instruction in the strategies supported by the tools. Although it would be ideal to simply provide the student with the software and have them independently learn to select, use, and apply the strategies across content areas, students with disabilities lack precisely these self-monitoring and self-regulation skills. Just as teachers need an orientation to EPSS and practice with feedback using the EPSS tools, teachers need to provide direct instruction and guided practice with the strategies and tools to their students. Furthermore, teachers should offer opportunities for students to use these strate-

543

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

gies for a variety of problems and contexts, and prompt the use of strategies to promote transfer. EPSS tools can and do provide information and scaffolding to support subsequent use in a variety of settings; however, students must still be introduced to the strategies, tools, and system supports, and have instruction in the strategies in a training setting. Once students have seen the potential of a number of tools, it is likely that they will begin to independently identify opportunities and select tools for use in untrained settings. During implementation, teachers should monitor and occasionally check students on tool usage, and enlist assistance from parents and other educational mentors in supporting tool usage wherever appropriate. In addition, teachers might consider options for allowing students to submit their tools to and from teachers electronically to reduce embarrassment in classrooms and allow students to maintain “non-special ed” status in high school. It is recommended that EPSS such as StrategyTools be integrated into inclusive classroom settings across content areas. These tools support skills for all students; these are the skills that are needed for success in high school and in transition to adult life.

references Anderson, J. (1981). Thinking, changing, rearranging. Eugene, OR: Timberline Press.

Stone’s “The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 365-369. Blackhurst, A. E. (1997). Perspectives on technology in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(5), 41-48. Brinckerhoff, L.B., Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J.M. (1992). Promoting access, accommodations, and independence for college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 417-429. Brown, C., Hedberg, J., & Harper, B. (1994). Metacognition as a basis for learning support software. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(2), 3-26. Burns, D.D., & Spangler, D.L. (2000). Does psychotherapy homework lead to improvement in depression in cognitive-behavioral therapy or does improvement lead to increased homework compliance? Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 59, 305-311. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Raskind, M. H. (1998). Using assistive technology to enhance the skills of students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(1), 53-58. Butler, D. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 170-189.

Anderson-Inman, L. & Horney, M. (1997). Electronic books for secondary students. Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, 40, 486-491.

Camp, B., & Bash, M. (1981). Think aloud: Increasing social cognitive skills: A problemsolving program for children. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Szymanski, M. (1999). Computer-supported studying: Stories of successful transition to postsecondary education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22, 185-212.

Carter, E.W., Lane, K.L., Pierson, M.R., & Glaeser, B. (2006). Self-determination skills and opportunities of transition-age youth with emotional disturbance and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 333-246

Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1998). The consequences of negative scaffolding for students who learn slowly— A commentary on C. Addison

Doll, B., Sands, D.J, Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S. (1998). Promoting the development and acquisition of self-determined behavior. In D. J. Sands & M.

544

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

L. Wehmeyer (Eds.) Self-determination across the life span. Baltimore: Brookes. Edyburn, D. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1-23. Farrell, I., & Moore, D. (2000). The effects of navigation tools on learner’s achievement and attitude in a hypermedia environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 29, 169-181. Fitzgerald, G. (2004). Using technologies to meet the unique needs of students with emotional/ behavioral disorders: Findings and directions. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice, (p. 335-354). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc. Fitzgerald, G., & Koury, K. (1996). Empirical advances in technology-assisted instruction for students with mild and moderate disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 526-553. Fitzgerald, G., & Koury, K. (2001-2002). The KidTools Support System (Project #H327A000005). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. Fitzgerald, G., & Koury, K. (2004-2005). The StrategyTools Support System (Project #H327A030044). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. Fitzgerald, G., Koury, K., & Mitchem, K. (2008). Current research and directions for technologyassisted instruction for students with disabilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research 38(2). Fitzgerald, G., Mitchem, K., & Koury, K. (20062007). Implementation of Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools for Students with Mild Disabilities (Field-based Research Project #H327A050066). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.

Fitzgerald, G., & Semrau, L. (2000). The development of KidTools. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3). Fitzgerald, G., & Semrau, L. (1998-2000). Virtual Resource Center in Behavioral Disorders (Project #H029K70089). Washington, D.C.:United States Department of Education. Fitzgerald, G., & Werner, J. (1996). The use of the computer to support cognitive-behavioral interventions for students with behavioral disorders. Journal of Computing in Childhood, 7, 127-148. Fore, C. III, & Riser, S.E. (2005). Promoting maintenance and generalization through cognitive decision making training. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32, 127-135. Furney, K.S., Hasazi, S.B., & Destefano, L. (1997). Transition policies, practices, and promises: Lessons from three states. Exceptional Children, 63, 343-355. Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 5171-529. Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 162-170. Gery, G. (1991). Electronic performance support systems. Cambridge, MA: Ziff Institute. Goldstein, A., & Glick, B (1987). Aggression in replacement training: A comprehensive intervention for aggression youth. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Good, G., & Beitman, B. (2006). Counseling and psychotherapy essentials. New York: Norton. Gordon, J., Powell, C., & Rockwood, K. (1999). Goal attainment scaling as a measure of clinically important change in nursing-home patients. British Geriatrics Society, 28, 275-281.

545

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

Gresham, F. (1985). Utility of cognitive-behavioral procedures for social skills training with children: A critical review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 411-423. Gresham, F. M. & Elliott, S.N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Grigal, M., Test, D.W., Beqattie, J., & Wood, W.M. (1997). An evaluation of transition components of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 63, 357-372. Gumpel, T. P. & David, S. (2000). Exploring the efficacy of self-regulatory training as a possible alternative to social skills training. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 131-141. Gustafson, K. (2000). Designing technologybased performance support. Educational Technology, 40, 38-44.

Higgins, K., Boone, R, & Lovitt, T.C. (2002). Adapting challenging textbooks to improve content area learning. In M. Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 755-790). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Kaplan, J., & Carter, J. (1995). Beyond behavior modification: A cognitive-behavioral approach to behavior management in the school, (3rd Ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Laffey, J. (1995). Dynamism in electronic performance support systems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8, 31-46. Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.

Harmon, S. (1999). The second “S”: Putting the system back in performance support. Retrieved from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper36/ html.

Lewis, R. (2005). Classroom technology for students with learning disabilities. In Edyburn, D., Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (Eds.) The handbook of special education technology research and practice, 325-334.

Harris, H., Wong, B., & Keogh, B.E. (1985). Cognitive-behavior modification with children: A critical review of the state of the art. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 329-476

Lloyd, J., Forness, S., & Kavale, K. (1998). Some methods are more effective than others. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 195-200.

Hartley, K. (2001). Learning strategies and hypermedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 285-395. Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1990a). Hypertext: A new vehicle for computer use in reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 26(1), 26-31. Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1990b). Hypertext computer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and regular education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(9), 629-540.

546

Luca, J. & Oliver, R. (2001). Developing generic skills through online courses. Proceedings of EdMedia 2001 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Charlottesville, VA: AACE. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2007). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. McGinnis, E., & Goldstein, A. (1984). Skillstreaming the elementary school child: A guide for training prosocial skills. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

Means, B. (2001). Technology use in tomorrow’s schools. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 57-61. Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 115-126. Mitchem, K., Kight, J., Fitzgerald, G., & Koury, K. (2007). Electronic performance support systems: An assistive technology for secondary students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(2), 1-14. Mitchem, K.J. & Young, K.R. (2001). Adapting self-management programs for classwide use: Acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness. Remedial and Special Education, 22(2), 75-88. Mitchem, K.J., Young, K.R., West, R.P., & Benyo, J. (2001). CWPASM: A classwide peer-assisted, self-management program for general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 111-140. Nichols, P. (1999). Clear thinking- talking back to whispering shadows: A psychoeducational treatment. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Novoco, R. (1975). Anger control: The development and evaluation of an experimental treatment. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Okolo, C. M. (2000). Technology for individuals with mild disabilities. In J.D. Lindsey (Ed.), Technology and exceptional individuals, (3rd Ed.) (pp. 243-301). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Reid, R. (1996). Research in self-monitoring with students with learning disabilities: The present, the prospects, the pitfalls. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 89-103. Scanlon, D., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(1), 41-57.

Schaff, J., Bannan-Ritland, B., Behrmann, M., & Ok, S. (2005). Electronic performance support systems. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 493-506). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design. Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1998). What happens during instruction: Is any metaphor necessary? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 404-408. Shure, M. (1992). I can problem solve: An interpersonal cognitive problem-solving program. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Spivak, G., Platt, J., & Shure. M. (1976). The problem solving approach to adjustment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Swanson, H. & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277-321. U.S. Department of Education (2004). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twenty-sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Walen, S., DiGiuseppe, R., & Dryden, W. (1992). A practitioner’s guide to rational-emotive therapy. New York: Oxford University Press Wehmeyer, M.L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Teaching self-determination to students with disabilities: Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore: Brookes. Wilson, B., & Myers, K. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

547

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

Woodward, J., & Rieth, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 503-556. Zhang, D., & Benz, M.R. (2006). Enhancing selfdetermination of culturally diverse students with disabilities: Current status and future directions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 38(9), 1-12.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Assistive Technology: Any item used to increase or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. Cognitive Behavioral Modification: Process that integrates cognitive restructuring with

548

behavior modification to support change of a dysfunctional pattern of behavior. Electronic Performance Support Systems: Tools that include information, user guidance, procedural tools, and feedback. Learning Strategies: Techniques that facilitate the acquisition, integration, manipulation, and retrieval of information across situations and settings. Self-Regulation: The ability to set goals, selfmonitor use of goals, and self-evaluate. Students with Mild Disabilities: Students who have mild learning or behavioral disabilities that impact their educational performance and require specially designed instruction.

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School

APPenDIx A © 2009 gAIl fItzgerAlD. useD wIth PermIssIon. goal Attainment scale nAme: _______________ teAcher: ___________ school:_______________ Goals for Use of EPSS Tools Most unfavorable outcome thought likely

Goal 1 Acquisition

Goal 2 Fluency

Goal 3 Generalization

Goal 4 Maintenance

Resists making and trying out tools.

Fails to implement tool usage.

Fails to transfer tool usage to an additional setting or goal area.

Fails to use tools even when prompted.

Makes one or more tools but doesn’t try out.

Implements tool usage with little impact on goal area.

Transfers tool usage to additional setting or goal area with little impact on a goal area.

With prompts, uses tools as appropriate.

With guidance, makes and tries out one or more tools related to a goal area.

Implements tool usage and improves functioning in a goal area.

Transfers tool usage to additional setting or goal area and improves functioning in a goal area.

Independently uses tools as appropriate.

Independently makes and tries out one appropriate tool related to a goal area.

Implements tool usage and fully meets progress criterion in a goal area.

With guidance, selects and uses one or more new tools for new settings or goal areas.

In interview situation, describes benefits from previous tool usage.

Independently makes and tries out more than one appropriate tools related to a goal area.

Implements tool usage and exceeds progress criterion in a goal area.

Independently selects and uses one or more new tools for new settings or goal areas.

In interview situation, describes possible potential usage in future.

(score = -2) Less than expected success

(score = -1) Expected success

(score = 0) More than expected success

(score = +1) Most favorable outcome thought likely

(score = +2)

549

Section III

Case Studies

551

Chapter XXXV

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom Rebecca Brent Education Designs, Inc., USA Catherine E. Brawner Research Triangle Educational Consultants, USA

AbstrAct Two elementary schools received large three-year grants to support the integration of technology into their curricula. They each followed the same prescribed integration model but made substantially different implementation decisions. The differences are reflected in their responses to two questions: 1. 2.

How should limited resources be spent for technology equipment and how should the equipment be deployed in the schools? How can teachers be persuaded to integrate technology into their classes and throughout the curriculum?

The authors applied standard qualitative analysis techniques to data that include transcripts of focus groups and interviews with teachers and administrators, field notes from classroom observations, training sessions, and grade level collaborative planning sessions, and responses to three teacher surveys. The contrasting outcomes in each school provide a basis for conclusions and recommendations regarding best practices in technology integration. Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

IntroDuctIon Technology holds tremendous promise for improving teaching and learning by engaging students in more learner-centered activities (Rice & Wilson, 2002) and enhancing communication, collaboration, and creative problem-solving (Dias & Atkinson, 2001), and many studies have demonstrated connections between appropriate use of technology and student achievement (Earle, 2002). Nevertheless, despite years of expenditures on equipment and professional development, technology has not fundamentally changed teaching practice in most schools. Even as access to computers, the Internet, and other high-tech tools has increased dramatically throughout the world (OECD, 2003), technology has failed to achieve widespread integration into daily instruction (Earle, 2002; Fishman, 2006). Though technology is becoming a widespread presence, it is not for the most part central to the curriculum of schools. It is primarily used as an adjunct or add-on, broadly underutilized in terms of its potential, and certainly in terms of the investment. (Fishman, 2006, p. 1) What happens in most classrooms with access to technology is that the teachers use the new tools primarily to do the same things they have always done. For instance, a teacher may use a projector and interactive whiteboard instead of a traditional chalkboard to present material and for practice and review activities. When teachers use technology in less traditional ways, they do it by sending students to the computer lab as a supplement to “regular” instruction rather than making the technology an integral part of the curriculum. So, what is keeping teachers from fully engaging with and making use of the powerful technological tools to which they have access? A number of barriers have been identified in the literature, including inadequate equipment, funding,

552

administrative support, time, and training, as well as teachers’ pedagogical beliefs that inhibit their ability to make effective use of technology (Rice & Wilson, 2001; US Dept. of Education, 1999). Other barriers are excessive curricular and administrative demands, classroom management issues, and general resistance to change (Shamburg, 2004; Earle, 2002; Pelgrum, 2001). In a major statewide study in Massachusetts, O’Dwyer, Russell, and Bebell (2004) found that teachers were “much more likely to use technology to deliver instruction…when they teach in schools…that emphasize professional development around technology integration, pressure teachers to use technology, ensure availability of and access to technology, and limit…restrictive policies” (p. 5). Ottestad (2008) defines the “digitally competent school” as one that promotes technological skills of teachers and a culture of sharing of knowledge, systematic technology planning with pedagogy at the center, and strategic investment in resources. Programs such as Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (Apple Classrooms, n.d.) have been developed to help teachers integrate technology effectively. In 2005, an entire issue of Human Technology was devoted to pedagogically innovative uses of information and communication technologies (Kankaanranta, ed., 2005). The authors of the special issue were all participants in the Second Information Technology in Education Study (SITES), a 2000-2002 multinational comparative study of technology applications in education. The U.S. Department of Education has encouraged integration efforts with its Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) state block grants offered each year since 2003 to improve student achievement through the use of technology (US DOE, n.d.). Levin and Wadmany (2008) note that the factors affecting integration of technology are interrelated and that more qualitative studies are needed to fully explore those relationships. Qualitative studies can be used to fully explore the context in which integration takes place and

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

to inform attempts to improve it. The qualitative study to be described suggests answers to two important questions that are fundamental to technology integration: 1.

2.

How should limited resources be spent for technology equipment and how should the equipment be deployed in the schools? How can teachers be persuaded to integrate technology into their classes and throughout the curriculum?

From 2003 to 2006, we were site evaluators at two elementary schools that received sizeable EETT grants and made very different decisions regarding both of these questions. Each Title I school district (defined as a district with a high level of poverty) in the state was invited to nominate one school to compete for the EEET funds, and 11 schools—including the two in our study—were chosen to receive $1.5 million each over a threeyear period. The grant recipients were charged with implementing a prescribed integrated technology and media model (henceforth referred to as the integration model) with the following components: (1) a technology-enriched teaching and learning environment, (2) staff development, (3) a full-time technology facilitator and a separate full-time media coordinator, (4) flexible access to the computer laboratory and media center, (5) allocated time for collaborative instructional planning, (6) strong leadership, and (7) an adequate budget. The schools were required to have highspeed Internet service, hire a technology facilitator to aid faculty in implementing technology, spend 25% of their budget on staff development, provide on-site technical support services, and pay for program evaluation services. They could decide for themselves how they would spend the balance of the money to achieve their goals. As evaluators, we were able to track every aspect of the two schools’ programs over three academic years, including personnel hiring and management, staff development, policies and

activities of the principals and technology facilitators, and expenditures on equipment and software. We observed classrooms, attended collaborative planning meetings of grade-level and resource teachers, interviewed school administrators and teachers, and surveyed the teachers on their classroom practices and attitudes. Because the schools made different decisions about how they implemented the model components, we were able to assess the outcomes of contrasting choices as we observed the successes and challenges facing the schools through the life of the grant. In the sections that follow, we will briefly describe our methodology and data analysis methods, summarize the approaches taken in each school, offer our conclusions for each focus question, and make recommendations regarding best practices for integrating technology into school curricula.

methoDology AnD DAtA AnAlysIs Data collected at monthly site visits to two schools throughout the school year included classroom observations; observations of meetings, training sessions, and collaborative planning sessions; collection of artifacts (schedules, minutes of meetings, and newsletters); and multiple interviews with the principals, technology facilitators, media coordinators, teachers, technicians, and technology assistants. We made a total of 174 classroom observations in the three years of the study: 42 observations of complete lessons lasting 30-60 minutes and 132 short drop-in visits to monitor technology use school-wide. In each of those visits we took extensive field notes and recorded the type of lesson and technology used and other key information on a checklist. During the second year of the study, we developed a survey of instructional technology use that was given to all classroom and special teachers at both schools three times—in the spring

553

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

of the second year and in the fall and spring of the third year. The survey asked teachers about their use and their students’ use of various media and technology resources (equipment, software, and personnel) as well as open-ended questions about how they were using technology and about their feelings about technology and the integration model. The response rate for five of the six administrations was over 90%. A software glitch reduced the response rate of the sixth one to just over 70%. Each year we conducted focus groups with small groups of teachers so that by the end of the study period, nearly all of the teachers at each school had participated. The first year we had two groups at each school—one with teachers from each grade identified by their principals and technology facilitators as “technology stars,” and the other with teachers identified as non-users of technology. The second year we conducted one focus group at each school with one teacher from each grade level who had not participated in the first year’s groups. The third year, we held one focus group at each school with all of the teachers at one grade level (1st grade at one school; 3rd grade at the other). Included in both of these groups were teachers who had been at their respective schools for a long period of time as well as teachers who arrived during the study period. At the end of each school year, we conducted qualitative responsive interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 2005) of the principal, technology facilitator, and media coordinator. We adopted a qualitative analytical approach formulated by Patton (2002) supplemented by data display techniques developed by Miles and Huberman (1994) for comparative analysis. Throughout each school year we maintained detailed field notes of our site visits. We inductively developed preliminary codes for concepts, themes, events, and topical markers that were later refined and applied to the field note entries, transcripts of interviews and focus group sessions, and collected artifacts. These data were organized on a simpli-

554

fied role-ordered matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) that showed the different perceptions of the relative importance of the integration model components held by teachers, support personnel, and the principal. Data from observations of classroom technology activities were organized on a time-ordered checklist matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) that enabled cross-tabulation of our qualitative observations with the checklist items. Technology usage data were organized on spreadsheets, sorted by teacher and technology type, and displayed graphically for subsequent analysis. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and frequency distributions) were determined for survey responses and cross-checked with our observations. Throughout the analysis, data were coded and triangulated on emerging themes and member checks were conducted on key findings. In addition to analysis of each school, cross-case analysis was conducted on each key finding. Another valuable source of information was the state-administered Teacher Working Conditions Survey, given every two years to teachers in all public schools. Fortunately for our study, the survey was done in the spring in Year 1 and Year 3 of the grant. The response rate for each school was above 90%. Publicly available results show each school’s responses compared to averages for their school districts and the entire state.

the schools In the following descriptions and the remainder of the study, names and other attributes that could be used to identify the two schools have been changed.

howard elementary school Howard Elementary is a K-5 school with about 600 students that straddles the boundary between two neighborhoods in a city with a population of

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

roughly 50,000one neighborhood relatively affluent, the second much less so. The student body reflected this diversity during the years of the study, with about half of the students identified as economically disadvantaged (eligible for free or reduced-price lunch). Slightly less than half of the student body was African-American and an equal percentage was white, with very few children of mixed or other races. At the start of the grant, Howard was meeting its No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress goals and enjoyed a good reputation in the community. The school had out-of-date computers in its classrooms and lab and inadequate access to the Internet. Since the principal was interested in technology, she worked with the district technology coordinator and a small group of teachers to secure the state EETT grant to help Howard become a model school for technology usage. The principal’s strategy for getting teachers to buy in to technology integration was to support teachers willing to adopt new tools and to recognize the efforts of “stars” who were doing an excellent job, in the hope that their successes would spread. During the first year, the principal and the school district technology coordinator made most of the decisions about purchases and implementation of the integration model, with limited input from teachers. There was widespread staff resistance to some of the model components, including participating in staff development activities, planning collaboratively with grade-level colleagues, and working with flexible scheduling for the media center and computer lab, and the media center coordinator was not receptive to the idea of flexible scheduling. Fortunately, a small group of teachers was very enthusiastic about the grant and led the way in experimentation. The principal played a relatively low-profile role in the grant activities and worked behind the scenes to encourage the enthusiastic teachers. The technology facilitator conducted many lessons with students and was available to help teachers as they started to use unfamiliar hardware and software in their classes.

Student reaction to the technology was positive and applications of technology in classes not taught by the “stars” were undertaken at a relatively slow but increasing rate. In the second year, the media center coordinator retired and was replaced by one more committed to flexible scheduling and to the model as a whole. More teachers were on board with grant activities and comfortable with the technology, but nearly half of them were still somewhat resistant and rarely used the computer lab and classroom computers. Teachers got more involved in decisionmaking through a committee process that began to function more effectively. Staff development was still a problem for many teachers because of the amount of time it took them away from the classroom. The technology facilitator began to offer more staff development to grade-level groups based on their requests. In Year 3, the “stars” at Howard were doing spectacular things with technology in their classrooms but buy-in to technology integration remained spotty, with some teachers fully embracing the elements of the integration model, most teachers supporting at least some elements, and 5-6 teachers resisting technology use for the entire life of the grant.

Kennedy elementary school Kennedy Elementary is a PreK-5 school with about 600 students located in a low-income neighborhood in another city, also with a population of about 50,000. Nearly all of the students are African American and eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. During the study period, between 50 and 100 students in the school were recognized as homeless each year. Prior to the beginning of the grant, Kennedy had not met its NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress targets, which led to a transition in leadership. The principal who had been responsible for the grant proposal was transferred and a new principal came to the school. She had no input into the grant and was not particularly skilled herself in the integration

555

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

of technology. She was, however, an experienced and successful principal who came in with a clear vision about instruction. Early in Year 1, it was evident to the principal and technology facilitator that many teachers were fearful of and resistant to the demands of the grant and did not know very much about the integration model and what they were expected to do. In response, the principal and technology facilitator held a series of “town hall” meetings to encourage participation. Teachers had input into all staff development activities and purchasing decisions. Students were uniformly positive about the increased technology in the school. By the end of the first year, almost all teachers were positive about the grant and actively engaged in staff development and classroom technology activities. In Year 2, the technology facilitator left the school for another position and her duties were shared between an experienced technology assistant and the media coordinator. The school began longer collaborative planning sessions and conducted two school-wide technology-related projects. Staff development was targeted to teacher requests and needs. The principal continued to take a proactive role in encouraging teachers to integrate technology and required teachers to evaluate and reflect on their technology lessons. Teachers referred to the program as “our grant” and exhibited a strong team spirit. Most classes were using technology throughout the day and in a variety of subject areas. By Year 3, a new technology facilitator was on board and enthusiastically encouraged teachers to expand their horizons with blogging, podcasting, and video editing. An additional computer lab was added to the school along with additional computers in the media center. Two school-wide projects were again conducted with all teachers and classes participating. Technology use in classrooms and the computer lab continued to rise with little resistance from teachers.

556

In the next sections, we will examine each of the focus questions stated in the introduction to the chapter, comparing how each school addressed the questions and the outcomes of their decisions.

HOW SHOULD LIMITED RESOURCES BE SPENT FOR TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT AND HOW SHOULD THE EQuIPMENT BE DEPLOYED IN THE SCHOOLS? Is it Better to Place High-Tech Equipment in Teachers’ Classrooms or Should it be Shared? Before the grant was awarded, Howard had an outdated computer lab and did not have highspeed Internet access or a local networking infrastructure, so they were required to upgrade their facilities at the beginning of the grant period, while Kennedy had a recently updated computer lab and Internet access and so had greater flexibility in spending their Year 1 funds. Both schools had outdated computers in their classrooms that ran on a variety of operating systems and did not support the instructional software that was to be purchased. Howard’s leadership made a decision early in the grant period to concentrate on shared technology resources, keeping the old classroom computers, while Kennedy concentrated on placing resources including new computers in each classroom. The hardware resources available in each classroom or shared at each school are shown in the Appendix to this chapter. When asked in Years 2 and 3 to rank in order of importance several elements of the integration model, both Howard and Kennedy teachers ranked “equipment in my classroom” ahead of items such as “principal’s leadership,” “equipment in the building,” “staff development,” and “technology facilitator.” In surveys of equipment

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

use conducted in January and October 2005 and March 2006, teachers consistently reported more use of equipment in their classrooms (daily) than of the shared resources such as the computer lab, wireless laptop cart, or shared interactive whiteboards (averaging 4-6 times a month). Conclusion: Teachers were more likely to use equipment placed in their classrooms than shared equipment in labs or on carts. I don’t want to jockey with people over equipment use. I want the equipment every day in my room. (Howard teacher, Year 1) This finding is consistent with results from other studies. Becker and Ravitz (2001) studied more than 4100 teachers in over 1,100 schools across the United States and found that teachers with 5-8 classroom computers in their classroom were twice as likely to include frequent computer activities in their lessons than were teachers using a computer lab. Similarly, Sandholtz (2001) compared two large-scale professional development programs and found that teachers used classroom computers significantly more frequently than computer labs.

how many computers should be Placed in classrooms to maximize their use? In Year 1, each Howard classroom had only two older non-networked computers in place for student use plus a teacher laptop that was occasionally made available to students, and frequency of use was on average quite low. In Year 2, the old computers were replaced with two new ones on the school network. By Year 3, 91% of Howard teachers reported using classroom computers daily with use concentrated at the beginning and end of the school day, when students were doing independent reading and taking online tests. Drop-in observations revealed little use of

classroom computers during the regular school day (Table 1). Kennedy committed from the outset of the grant to increasing the number of computers in classrooms for student use. Classrooms in grades 2-5 started out with three new networked computers in Year 1 and added one each year to reach a total of five in Year 3, and grades PreK-1 started with two computers and ended with four in Year 3. In Year 2 all teachers received laptops. Drop-in observations in Years 2 and 3 indicated consistently greater use of student computers at Kennedy than at Howard (Table 1). By Year 3, 96% of Kennedy teachers reported daily student use of computers for a wide variety of applications, as contrasted with Howard, where computer applications were viewed more as add-ons to regular instruction or rewards to students who completed assigned work. Conclusion: Students in classrooms with 5-6 computers were much more likely to use the computers throughout the school day than were students in classrooms with 2-3 computers. This result again confirms the findings of Becker and Ravitz (2001), who observed in their study that 32% of secondary school teachers with 1-4 computers in their classroom reported using them frequently (weekly or more) while 62% of teachers with 5-8 computers did so.

what conditions Promote effective use of classroom computers? Students at Howard started out using classroom computers primarily for reading tests. Teachers Table 1. Drop-in observations in classrooms Lessons using student computers

Howard

Kennedy

9/29 (31%)

14/26 (74%)

17/42 (40%)

20/32 (63%)

in Year 2 Lessons using student computers in Year 3

Source: Evaluator observations

557

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

reported that they found it hard to use the computers for a full range of activities since there were only two computers in their classrooms (three if students also used the teacher’s laptop). The technology facilitator suggested uses for the classroom computers, but this topic was never a focus of staff development. By Year 3, teachers were using a wider range of software on the classroom computers but never reached the level attained at Kennedy (Table 2). At the beginning of Year 1, most Kennedy teachers struggled with how to use the classroom computers efficiently. During the fall, a second grade teacher devised a rotation schedule to allow all of his students to use the computers daily for skill development activities and projects. The system worked so well that he was asked to share it at a staff meeting, after which most of the teachers in the school began to do something similar. Teachers continued to share ideas about computer use throughout the grant period, and in some grades, they would share computers. If one class had a project requiring more computers

than it had, small groups of students would go to other teachers’ classrooms at the same grade level to use the computers there, effectively doubling or tripling the number of available computers without requiring a trip to the computer lab. By Year 3 of the grant, Kennedy teachers were using their classroom computers for a whole range of activities from word processing to Web research (Table 2) and as centers for group activities, and had fully integrated the computers into the entire school day. One teacher reported that she didn’t go to the lab nearly as often with her class since she discovered she could use the computers in her room more efficiently. Before I felt that I always had to schedule something in the computer lab, but this year it just seems easier to have the class doing something and pulling children to do projects in the classroom. I’ve gotten more done on the computers. Having the equipment in here has made me be more flexible. (Kennedy teacher, Year 3)

Table 2. Applications used on classroom computers in year 3 (N=Classes)

Software and Web Sites

Howard N=24 2005-06

Word processing

100%

96%

Skill development software (e.g., Study Island™, Orchard™)

100%

61%

Knowledge Box™

100%

NA

Web research

96%

57%

PowerPoint

96%

61%

Education games

91%

83%

Accelerated Reader™

87%

83%

Graphing Software

78%

39%

Kidspiration/Inspiration™

78%

35%

Academy of Reading/Academy of Math™

48%

NA

Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel™)

48%

17%

Keyboarding software

44%

26%

Movie Making software

NA

13%

PhotoJam™

NA

13%

Source: IT Usage Survey

558

Kennedy N=23 2005-06

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

Conclusion: Sharing ideas and classroom resources helped teachers overcome initial uncertainties about how best to use their computers and promoted widespread adoption of a broad range of applications. This finding is consistent with a “best practice” recommended by Casson and colleagues (1997). In a study of technology integration in over 200 exemplary schools in 18 US states, they found that “doing technology” was a social process for teachers in those schools, with the key resources for successful integration being peers rather than outside experts. While the technology has changed in the decade since these best practices were formulated, the essential process of incorporating technology into instruction has not.

what conditions Promote effective use of shared resources (e.g., media centers, computer labs, and laptop carts) and minimize Problems with scheduling those resources? In traditional scheduling, teachers have fixed times each week when their classes use the resource being scheduled, while with flexible scheduling the resources are scheduled on an as-needed basis. The American Library Association (2006) supports flexible scheduling as a tool to integrate information (library) skills into the curriculum. In a comprehensive study, McGregor (2006) found that flexible scheduling leads to improved acquisition of information skills by introducing them on a need-to-know basis in the context of material being taught in the classroom. She also found, however, that acceptance of flexible scheduling by teachers comes slowly and requires the strong support of school leaders. As McGregor might have predicted, one of the most difficult challenges of the grant was flexible scheduling of the media center and computer lab in each school. The teachers were accustomed to a system in which classes were assigned a

weekly time slot in the lab or media center and they would leave their students there and use the time for planning. With flexible scheduling, no specific times were allotted regularly; instead, teachers had to sign up for the times they wanted and were required to be present to lead activities jointly with the media coordinator or technology facilitator. At Howard, tension arose as teachers realized that they would have to plan ahead to schedule their lab and media times. Most scheduling was done in the collaborative planning sessions held every six weeks. Every grade-level group complained that they were the last ones to get to schedule their sessions, even though the system was completely equitable. Teachers in one Year-1 focus group complained vehemently: The way the rotation was, it seems like by the time 5th grade got in there, most of the times were gone and you found yourself changing—you planned to teach something one week and had to change it to another week because that was the week you could get into the lab. That got to be really frustrating spending so much time just trying to get into the lab. (Howard teacher, Year 1) Some teachers have just decided to forget it [flexible scheduling]. I just won’t sign up for anything. (Howard teacher, Year 1) By the spring of Year 1, the lab schedule was posted on the door and online so that teachers could find out what times were available. They still had to sign up in person or via email with the technology facilitator or media coordinator. Eventually, they became accustomed to the system but some remained resistant. By Year 3 there was major variation in the amount of time teachers spent in the lab with their classes. Out of 25 regular classroom teachers, six brought their students four or more times a month and eight averaged slightly less than twice a month.

559

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

At Kennedy, the teachers also began the grant with reservations about flexible scheduling. Some teachers signed up for the same time each week for the first few weeks, at which point the technology facilitator and other school leaders decided to place some boundaries on the use of the lab, including setting priorities. Classes planning project work in the lab could schedule first, and then teachers could sign their classes up for skill development work no more than three days in advance if time slots were available. One result of the decision to prioritize in this manner was a dramatic increase in the incidence of creative projects and research conducted in the lab at all grade levels. At the same time, teachers began to use their classroom computers more extensively for skill development activities. Later in Year 1, Kennedy transitioned to an online system that allowed teachers to sign up for the lab from any location, including home. Staff resistance to flexible scheduling dropped sharply with the addition of this system. Conclusion: Computer lab and media center use became more effective and there was less resistance to flexible scheduling when a fair priority system was introduced and scheduling was made as convenient as possible for the teachers.

how should lcD Projectors be Deployed to maximize their use? Howard technology leaders made the decision to use LCD projectors as shared resources in Year 1. Each grade level had one projector available for 3-4 teachers to share and a few individual teachers had them in their classrooms from other sources. Shared projectors were on rolling carts and came with a set of built-in difficulties. First, teachers had to get the equipment and set it up themselves. The carts had to be plugged into power outlets that were frequently across the room from where the projector needed to be set up, posing a tripping hazard. Connections also had to be made to a desktop or laptop computer, further complicating

560

the setup. The rolling carts had an unfortunate tendency to move when bumped and so required constant refocusing and aligning to function optimally. Presumably because of these problems, teachers used the projectors infrequently during Year 1 of the grant. By Year 2, all classrooms had projectors, which eliminated the difficulties of finding and retrieving the equipment, but since most classrooms still had the projectors on carts, some of the same setup problems remained. When I had to wheel [a projector] down the hall, I figured it wasn’t worth the time to go get it because I would lose the kids’ interest by the time I went and got it. Now [that I have one] I use it every day. (Teacher, Howard, Year 2) At Kennedy, LCD projectors were mounted in the ceiling of each classroom before the start of the grant, with several resulting benefits. Since the projectors were fixed, teachers only had to turn them on and they were ready to go, with no cords stretched across the classroom; once they were focused they remained focused; and students were unlikely to step into the light and block the screen. In focus groups in Year 1, many Kennedy teachers noted how helpful the projectors were for them. I don’t know what I would do without that projector anymore. I like having stuff to use and computers in my room that work now. We haven’t had that in the past. (Kennedy teacher, Year 1) We did not collect data on the use of the LCD projector in Year 1, but even in Year 2, the frequency of use of LCD projectors in the two schools mirrored the ease of use or lack of it. In Year 2, the first year of drop-in observations and the first year in which all classrooms at Howard had projectors, only 17% of lessons at Howard involved projectors compared to 58% at Kennedy. In Year 3, the percentage was 28% at Howard and 67% at Kennedy (Table 3). By March of Year

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

Table 3. Drop-in observations in classrooms Howard

Kennedy

Lessons using LCD projector-Year 2

5/29 (17%)

15/26 (58%)

Lessons using LCD projector-Year 3

12/42 (28%)

21/32 (67%)

Source: Evaluator observations

3, 78% of the Howard teachers reported using their projectors more than 10 times per month while 96% of Kennedy teachers reported doing so (survey data). Conclusion: LCD projectors were more likely to be used when permanently mounted in classrooms rather than being portable, especially if the portable projectors were shared among classrooms.

how should Interactive whiteboards be Deployed to maximize their use? In Year 1 of the grant, both Howard and Kennedy had two interactive whiteboards in the building that teachers could check out and use in their classrooms. Not much use was made of them in the fall. In January, K-2 teachers from both schools visited a model technology school that had installed interactive whiteboards in each classroom. The teachers were able to see how the boards were integrated into the day-to-day functioning of classrooms much like theirs, and they got excited about the possibilities they saw. Both sets of teachers returned to their schools and immediately told the technology facilitators and principals that they wanted whiteboards in their rooms. In an interview at the end of Year 1, both principals and technology facilitators identified the visit as a turning point in teacher interest in and understanding of the integration model. At Howard, there were challenges and delays in getting whiteboards ordered and installed so that teachers only received them at the beginning of Year 3. Interactive whiteboard use at Howard

was monitored starting in January 2005 (Year 2) when the three interactive whiteboards became available for checkout. Even though many teachers expressed interest in using the equipment, 75% reported not using it at all in January. In October 2005, whiteboards had been installed in most classrooms, and training was conducted for 30 teachers at mid-month. Half the teachers reported using the equipment more than 10 times during the month, but 10% were still not using it at all. By March 2005, all teachers were using the whiteboards to some extent and nearly 80% reported using them six or more times per month. At Kennedy, funds were found to purchase whiteboards for all teachers and install them by the middle of Year 2. There was also targeted training available throughout Year 2 to help teachers use the whiteboards effectively. In drop-in observations at both schools in Years 2 and 3, whiteboard use was found to be consistently higher at Kennedy than at Howard (Table 4). Conclusion: Interactive whiteboards were used much more frequently when installed in classrooms rather than being shared resources.

how cAn teAchers be PursuADeD to IntegrAte technology Into theIr clAsses AnD throughout the currIculum? A significant challenge for all the schools in the integration project was getting teacher buy-in. A few teachers at each school had been involved in

Table 4. Drop-in observations in classrooms Howard

Kennedy

Lessons using interactive whiteboards-Year 2

2/29 (7%)

13/26 (50%)

Lessons using interactive whiteboards-Year 3

12/42 (28%)

21/32 (67%)

Source: Evaluator observations

561

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

designing and writing the grant proposals, but most teachers had just begun to hear the details when each school received notification of their grants in the late spring prior to Year 1. It was then up to the principal and other leaders in the schools to bring the teachers into the project and to maintain their participation and enthusiasm throughout the three years. Three elements proved critical to obtaining teacher buy-in: (1) developing a shared vision for the integration of technology in the school, (2) involving teachers in the decision-making process, and (3) conducting technology-related school-wide projects. Three elements of the model implementation were particularly helpful in promoting broad integration of technology into the curriculum: facilitated grade-level collaborative planning sessions, a school-wide focus on the curriculum, and staff development.

how can a shared vision be Developed? Howard’s Story The principal at Howard began in Year 1 with the following vision for how technology would be integrated into the life of the school. She saw the media center as a hub for all applications of information technology, print, and media in the school, with students engaged in a variety of projects coming and going freely throughout the day. Her vision did not cover what would happen in individual classrooms or to the role computers and other technological resources would play in the technology integration process. In two focus groups at the end of Year 1, most teachers could not articulate the purpose of the grant or exactly what their goals were in using technology. The only time they talked about a vision was in discussing the lower grades’ trip to the model school. Several teachers reported that it was at that point that they “saw how things could be.” Many felt that technology integration was something being

562

imposed on them by others and were confused about what was expected of them, and they also did not have a sense of being guided in the effort by the principal. I don’t know if there’s a right or wrong. We don’t know what it should be. (Howard teacher, Year 1) We need to have guidelines for what they want to accomplish with the grant. (Howard teacher, Year 1) [The principal] probably has a big role but we don’t see it as much. She’s probably doing things back here but we’re not aware of it. I don’t see her in the meetings or that kind of thing but she’s doing something. (Howard teacher, Year 1) When asked about how she planned to involve teachers who were technology-resistant or lagging behind others in the school, the principal explained that she believed in supporting “stars”— teachers who were using a lot of technology and experimenting—and hoped that their success would spread to others in the school. We’re pushing the ones that really want it and hoping they prove it works and share it with those who are slower in coming along. When we iron out the wrinkles, we’ll bring it back to the others. (Howard principal, Year 2) Throughout the period of the grant, her vision remained global and focused on high-frequency users of technology. In a focus group at the end of Year 2, teachers reported a greater understanding of the grant. Last year when this was introduced a lot of people weren’t as excited about it. I’ve seen growth in everybody. I’ve seen a major improvement in the morale and attitude about the grant. (Howard teacher, Year 2)

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

While teachers’ attitudes continued to shift in the direction of support for the initiative, by the end of Year 3 half of them (15 out of 30) were still low-frequency users of the computer lab (less than twice a month) and remained resistant to technology integration in their classrooms. Of that group of 15, six teachers were highly resistant, using technology rarely and vocally opposing collaborative planning and flexible access to shared technology.

Kennedy’s Story Even though the principal at Kennedy was new to the school, had not been involved in writing the grant proposal, and had limited experience with technology integration, she provided a strong simple vision for the project from the very beginning of the school year. She asked teachers to focus on writing, reading, math, and technology (WRMT) each day and in their planning. WRMT signs were placed throughout the building and on the school website. [The principal] sets the focus for us every single day. “We are high achievers. We will be a school of excellence.” We’re focusing on WRMT – writing, reading, math, and tech. She sets that focus for us. (Kennedy teacher, Year 1) The principal, technology facilitator, and a consultant noted during Year 1 that teachers did not know much about the grant and seemed to feel that things were being done to them instead of having ownership. They developed a plan to actively involve teachers in planning for Year 2 while continuing to teach and encourage them in their use of technology. The consultant and technology facilitator held two meetings with teachers (K-2 teachers in one group, 3-5 teachers in another group) in late November to talk about where they started with the model, where they were then, and where they wanted to be. In December a town hall meeting of all staff was held to formally

report the results of the two previous meetings and to solicit ideas for the renewal application, and an additional town hall meeting was held in the spring. These meetings established a context for making decisions about the grant and writing the renewal proposal. They also gave teachers a sense of ownership and buy-in to the grant, something the teachers indicated had been lacking with the previous leadership team. We had a town hall meeting and we could communicate our needs, wants and dislikes. It was free and open and, to our surprise, a lot of those things are coming in that we voiced at that meeting. (Kennedy teacher, Year 1) This year, we know more about the grant—what goes into it, what is happening. [The principal] makes that possible. She keeps you in the loop. It’s not her school, it’s our school. (Kennedy teacher, Year 1) By the end of Year 1, the principal articulated her role in the grant: I see my role as being the person having the vision..the person responsible for the success of the grant and setting the vision for it…telling people the kinds of things that we would like to see resulting as this grant is implemented. You know, seeing the end before the curves. (Kennedy principal, Year 1) She also talked about actively bringing her staff on board with conversations and encouragement. I was talking to a teacher, Louise, who said, “Are you excited we got the grant for next year?” I said, “I certainly am.” And I said, “You know what, [Louise], your classroom looks like a classroom from 1950. Do you see what I’m talking about? One of the things I would love to see in your classroom is for you to have that room set up more to address the technological needs of the children.

563

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

I think you can do that.” So she and I sat down and we probably had a 2-hour conversation about the kinds of things she wanted to do next year. (Kennedy principal, Year 1) Teachers frequently mentioned the principal’s attention to the details of what they were doing in their classrooms and encouragement for all their efforts. Starting at the middle of the first year, teachers at Kennedy took ownership of the integration project. They began to talk about “our grant” and to express enthusiasm for what was happening at their school. In focus groups at the end of Year 1, teachers rated the principal’s leadership as the most important element of the integration model. In Year 2, the integration of technology continued to expand at Kennedy. The principal instituted a reflection mechanism for teachers by having them apply an evaluation rubric and make entries in reflection journals after technology lessons. She read the journals and commented on the issues teachers were grappling with as they sought to integrate technology into their teaching. The principal also began to keep a book of technology examples from teachers at the school. [The principal] has a book of technology resources and examples of things we’ve done. She was showing me how she kept one of my newsletters and put it in this bound book. Just the praise she gives always letting you know how much you are appreciated…that motivates you to keep going and working hard. (Kennedy teacher, Year 2) In Year 3, Kennedy’s principal continued to talk with the entire school community about her vision for technology and media integration, actively participating and guiding the decisionmaking process and encouraging teachers in their use of technology. [The principal’s] leadership was amazing. She moved obstacles out of the way. You have to have

564

someone to have the vision or to run with the vision. You have to have good leadership—someone steering the ship. (Kennedy teacher, Year 3) Conclusion: The principal played a major role in developing or failing to develop a shared vision for the integration of technology. Development was facilitated by the principal’s clear and constant articulation of the vision and by steady encouragement and support of the teachers as they acted on it. Other studies of best practices and lessons learned in efforts to integrate technology have reached the same conclusion. The principal’s leadership is seen as critical, particularly his or her role in the development of a shared vision among all the teachers and other staff members. (Byrom and Bingham, 2001; Casson et al., 1997; Holland, 2001)

what role Does teacher Input Into Decision-making Play in Achieving buy-In, and how can that Input be structured for maximum effect? Each school in the grant was required to have a Media and Technology Advisory Committee (MTAC) made up of teacher representatives and led by either the media coordinator or technology facilitator. In a well-functioning MTAC, the teacher representatives should solicit input from all teachers on decisions and bring teacher concerns to the attention of the committee. The MTAC was envisioned as the mechanism for teacher input into decisions and for general communication. At Howard, a technology assistant led the MTAC in Year 1, and its activities were focused on an after-school project related to the grant rather than the day-to-day operation of the entire project. At the end of the year, ten teachers in focus groups had no idea what the MTAC was or who their representatives were and indicated that they had little input into decisions about the grant. A corroborating source of information was

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

the administration of the Teacher Working Conditions Survey in Year 1 of the grant. In response to the statement, “Teachers have a role in deciding how the school budget will be spent,” only 9% of Howard teachers agreed. Teacher input into decisions improved somewhat in Year 2 and continued to improve through the life of the grant. The MTAC began to meet regularly to discuss a variety of issues related to the project and solicit teacher input. At the end of the year, the principal reported: Almost all the decisions now are coming as recommendations from MTAC to the faculty. We’re also gathering more data and information from the staff and using that in our discussions. There has been a lot more conversation…the grade level representatives have had discussions with their grade level. Teachers are more a part of decisions. (Howard principal, Year 2) Starting in Year 1 at Kennedy, the MTAC developed a fluid approach to decision-making for the grant, with some ideas coming from the leadership and moving through MTAC to the teachers for input and others coming from the teachers through their representative to the MTAC. Important items were often discussed and voted on by the entire teaching staff. In addition to making grant implementation decisions, teachers made recommendations and choices about how grant money would be spent. In the Teacher Working Conditions Survey in Year 1, 58% of the respondents agreed that teachers have a “role in deciding how the school budget will be spent.” Everybody has a voice. It’s messy, but worth it. Everybody feels like they’re valued. They have a part in decision-making. (Kennedy technology specialist, Year 3) Conclusion: Shared decision-making contributed to teacher buy-in and support for technology

integration. A standing committee with teacher representation was an effective way of structuring teacher input into decisions. Other published studies support the idea that teacher empowerment and shared decisionmaking promote successful technology integration (Byrom and Bingham, 2001; Casson et al., 1997; Holland, 2001).

what role can school-wide Projects Play in Achieving buy-In? Both schools used school-wide projects as a way to encourage teacher and student enthusiasm for technology and to communicate with the local community. An additional result was that the projects engendered team spirit and buy-in among the entire school staff. Howard did not have any school-wide projects until Year 3 of the grant, when “World Wide Howard” was implemented. In this project, each grade selected a country and completed activities related to it for several weeks, culminating in a day-long “celebration” in which teachers, students, and visiting district and state educational administrators toured the displays made by each class. The project involved all classes and staff and was strongly supported by the principal and technology facilitator. Even resistant teachers were persuaded to participate, since they did not want their students to miss out on the fun. The third grade activities were typical of those for each grade. Students designed costumes, created narration and sound effects for digital storytelling of their imaginary trip to Kenya, designed and wrote postcards from the trip, researched characteristics of African art using many online and print resources, used Google Earth to explore Kenya’s physical features and population centers, read books about Africa, and participated in a penny drive for a charitable cause in Kenya. The principal could see immediate value in the project:

565

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

[Our] biggest buy-in was with the big school-wide project. Once they got into that, particularly when we had the celebration and tours and everyone got to share and the students shared, I think the “light came on in the attic.” This is the direction we’re heading in—yes, it can be done, and it didn’t disrupt our normal teaching and learning. (Howard principal, Year 3) At Kennedy, the first school-wide project evolved from a teacher-led initiative in Year 1. The second grade had begun a technology-related project during Black History Month in which the students did research on-line and prepared PowerPoint slides about famous Black Americans. The technology facilitator posted a folder on the school desktop of research sites and clip art students might use in their slides. When the other teachers saw the folder, they started asking questions about it and saying that they wanted to be a part of the project, too. Within a few weeks, it became a school-wide project. Building on the lessons they learned with the Black History Month project in Year 1, Kennedy engaged in two school-wide projects in Year 2—“Holidays around the World” and “Heroes and She-roes.” Holidays Around the World took place in December and actively involved all the students, teachers, assistants, and support staff as well as parent volunteers. Each grade was assigned a country, did web and print research, developed a PowerPoint presentation, and created an interactive display for the entire school to see and participate in. The art teacher helped the students make seasonal decorations typical of that country; on the designated day, each student received a special passport with information about each country; and the technology specialist was their travel agent and introduced each class to the tour they were going to experience. Teacher assistants, an office assistant and the custodian (among others) led students through the tour. For each grade level, a teacher, a parent, and students staffed the display and led the activities. Student

566

visitors were told pertinent facts about the holiday celebration in the country, had a taste of a typical food, and had their passports stamped. In the Heroes and She-roes project, each class identified a local hero who had contributed to the school or community, researched their lives and contributions, and prepared a technologyenhanced presentation to honor the heroes at a school assembly. The project involved the entire school community as well as local community leaders and businesspersons. Both school-wide projects brought the whole school together around the use of technology. Two school-wide projects were again held during Year 3—“The World in Every Classroom” and a repeat of “Heroes and She-roes.” Based on feedback from teachers and other participants in the holiday project in Year 2, the “World” project was expanded to provide a half-day centered at each grade level to allow students a chance to engage in depth with their country and to complete activities in each classroom. Conclusion: School-wide projects served several functions in the integration project. They provided an excellent integrated learning opportunity for students. They also engendered excitement about technology integration throughout the school community, exerted enough peer pressure to induce participation from technology-resistant teachers, and were excellent vehicles for promoting the school in the broader community.

how can collaborative Planning Activities be structured to Promote technology Integration? An important element of the integration model was to regularly provide blocks of planning time to teachers at each grade level. The planning time provided opportunities for communication among teachers and technology specialists as well as a chance for informal staff development. Howard began in Year 1 with three-hour collaborative planning sessions every six weeks. In

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

the first year a consultant facilitated the sessions and had teachers complete charts of the skills and curriculum topics to be taught in the upcoming six weeks. The groups then brainstormed activities, shared ideas for integrating technology and information skills, and scheduled times in the computer lab and the media center. By Year 2, the technology facilitator led the collaborative planning sessions, and in Year 3 teachers took on the leadership themselves. The focus remained on sharing ideas and planning for technologyrelated projects. It has been good to hear what other people are doing and see how I can use it with my own situation. The sharing of technology has been more informal—done on a needs basis. (Howard teacher, Year 1) Kennedy started out with 45-minute weekly grade-level meetings. As teachers began to plan more grade-level projects in Year 1, they realized the need for more extended periods of time for planning and asked for them. We would like to have more time to collaborate as a group on all of this. The more we learn, the more we wish we had time to share what we know. (Kennedy teacher, Year 1) Starting in Year 2, each grade had a 3-hour planning session once a month led by the gradelevel leaders with active participation by the technology and media specialists. To promote the incorporation of technology into grade-level planning, the principal asked each grade to plan and implement one project per semester involving technology and information skills. Teachers began to take ownership of the collaborative planning time and even gave it a nickname (“collab”) when talking about it with each other. The planning began to spill over into other activities throughout the school day.

[The grant activity is] bringing us closer together. The students are working closer together on projects and teachers are collaborating. If somebody learns something new we will share it with each other. We will help each other after school and share ideas about how to use the [interactive whiteboard] or web sites or anything else we have found. (Kennedy teacher, Year 2) Conclusion: Regular facilitated collaborative planning sessions promoted technology integration by providing grade-level groups with an environment for sharing ideas and gave the teachers a sense of belonging to a learning community.

how can teachers be encouraged to view technology Integration as central to their mission and not just an Add-on? At Howard, since the school was already meeting its NCLB adequate yearly progress targets, the principal did not feel a need to change what teachers were doing regarding the curriculum. Unfortunately, some teachers got the idea that technology was just an add-on to what they were already doing and not an integral part of the curriculum. While some began to integrate technology effectively in the first two years of the grant, it was not until the school-wide projects in Year 3 that many of them were able to see the fundamental connection between technology and the curriculum. Since Kennedy had not met its AYP targets in the year prior to the grant, it was evident to the principal and the teachers that changes were needed. The school leaders realized that many teachers were not systematically using the statewide Standard Course of Study (i.e., the prescribed curriculum for each grade level) in their lesson planning. The principal, technology facilitator, technology specialist, and media coordinator all worked together in collaborative planning sessions

567

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

to encourage teachers to use the Course of Study as they planned all their lessons and to include technology in their plans. Software purchases were all keyed to the statewide curriculum, so teachers could immediately see how the technology fit into the bigger picture of what students needed to learn. A bulletin board in the main hall was dedicated to a matrix of skills being taught in each subject and grade level, including technology-related skills, and was updated each month. This visible reminder of the central role of technology in the school’s mission became a focal point for teachers, students and parents. Conclusion: Teachers were more open to integration efforts when the central role of technology in the required curriculum was made explicit.

what staff Development and support should be Provided to teachers as Integration Progresses? In Year 1 of the grant, Howard provided mainly formal whole-group staff development, supplemented by model lessons and materials development provided by the technology facilitator in response to teacher requests and interests. In Year 2, all classroom teachers went to Quality Teaching and Learning (QTL), a state-supported and centrally-administered series of day-long training sessions spread over a six-week period. The teachers were introduced to many different pieces of equipment and software applications along with strategies for using them in class. The training was hands-on, and the teachers were encouraged to complete projects with their students that they had planned during the QTL training. A follow-up session was held at which results were shared. At the end of Year 2, several half-day “Best Practices” sessions were held for grade-level teams by the technology facilitator. In Years 1 and 2, teachers had little input into staff development decisions, but that situation changed in Year 3 when, at the request of teachers, most formal staff development took place in a summer

568

session, and the Best Practices sessions provided training in teacher-specified software applications and technology-related pedagogy. Kennedy started in Year 1 with a variety of staff development formats. Formal whole-group sessions on software packages and equipment were offered, and 24 teachers went to QTL in the fall semester. Beginning in Year 1, teachers were asked what they would like to see in staff development and so had input into the training they received. A technology specialist or a teacher provided the requested training in weekly after-school sessions. Teachers did not attend all sessions but were required to attend a minimum number each year. The after-school sessions continued through the three years of the grant. In Year 2, 15 teachers went to QTL, the weekly training sessions continued with substantive input from teachers on the topics covered, all teachers received training on using of the interactive whiteboards, and a large number of teachers attended conferences to learn more about technology use and to present their own experiences. By Year 3, much of the staff development took place in collaborative planning sessions led by the technology specialist or technology facilitator, both of whom also conducted just-in-time training for individuals and continued to provide after-school training. The school sent 11 teachers to QTL. QTL was by far the most comprehensive staff development program in the grant and teachers from both schools were very positive about it in focus groups and interviews and credited it with positive changes in their teaching. The principal benefit of the QTL program seemed to be that it gave the teachers a holistic picture of technology integration. Instead of just learning about individual pieces of software or equipment, they saw how all the tools could be integrated to provide the best possible experience for students. I felt like I knew a lot of the skills, but I knew them individually. I learned how to implement them together at QTL. I learned how to do project-

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

based learning, which I thought I knew, but it was a lot clearer to me after I left. I could put all the skills together. I really enjoyed going to [QTL]. (Howard teacher, Year 2) For me a big change came when we went to [QTL]. We got to experience for ourselves, not ideas for use in the classroom but actually as a learner, what it felt like to do those project-based activities and how fun it was and how much we enjoyed working with each other. (Kennedy teacher, Year 3) A drawback of staff development to the teachers was the amount of time it took them away from their classrooms. Just being away from my class all day, I did not like that. It was very hard for me. The kids know you’re here and they know you’re out of the classroom. I like having the workshops, but the timing wasn’t good for me. (Howard teacher, Year 1) I like the staff development but I hate being taken out of my classroom. I have to figure out how to handle that time that I missed. I don’t know how to solve that. (Kennedy teacher, Year 2) Many of the Howard teachers saw most of their staff development (other than QTL) as not targeted to their level. It would have been nice if the workshops were leveled—beginner, intermediate, advanced. I know you have to do the hours and that isn’t a problem but we all come in at different points. Some of us are ready for different activities. It’s either overwhelming or boring. (Howard teacher, Year 1) A gratifying outcome of staff development at both schools was the shared learning that followed from it. We get very excited when one on our team learns something new. It’s just like I learned it. If Ms.

Jones learns it, then that’s so exciting and everyone passes it on. So it really is the relationships. (Kennedy teacher, Year 3) Conclusions: Effective staff development was closely tied to classroom activities, driven by teacher interests, and differentiated by teacher skill levels. Elements of this conclusion are supported by other studies. In a three-year case study of technology integration in a middle school, Holland (2001) found that the most effective staff development was based on best practices and targeted to teacher needs and interests. In their comparison of two large professional development programs, Sandholtz and Haymore (2001) found that two key components were teacher input into program design and activities that focused on classroom applications of technology.

summAry of conclusIons AnD recommenDAtIons Two elementary schools received major grants to support the integration of technology into their curricula. They each followed the same broad integration model but made substantially different decisions in how they implemented it. The contrasting outcomes in each school provide a basis for a number of conclusions and recommendations regarding best practices in technology integration. We have concluded that two broad goals must be met for successful integration of technology to be achieved: (1) Teachers must be persuaded to buy in to the idea that technology is central to their educational mission and not just an add-on to the things they do that are really important; and (2) they must be motivated and helped to incorporate technology appropriately into the full range of their instruction, and not just for a few specialized tasks.

569

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

Analysis of the data collected in this study led to the following conclusions: •

•

•

•

•

570

The principal played a major role in developing or failing to develop a shared vision for the integration of technology. Development was facilitated by the principal’s clear and constant articulation of the vision and by her steady encouragement and support of the teachers as they acted on it. Teachers were more open to integration efforts when the central role of technology in the required curriculum was made explicit. Shared decision-making also contributed to teacher buy-in and support for integration. A standing committee with teacher representation was an effective way of structuring teacher input into decisions. Regular facilitated collaborative planning sessions promoted technology integration by providing grade-level groups with an environment for sharing ideas and gave the teachers a sense of belonging to a learning community. Sharing ideas and classroom resources helped teachers overcome initial uncertainties about how best to use their computers and promoted widespread adoption of a broad range of applications. Teachers were more likely to use equipment (e.g., computers, LCD projectors, and interactive whiteboards) placed in their classrooms than shared equipment in labs or on carts. Students in classrooms with 5-6 computers were much more likely to use the computers throughout the school day than were students in classrooms with 2-3 computers. Computer lab and media center use became more effective and there was less resistance to flexible scheduling when a fair priority system was introduced and scheduling was made as convenient as possible for the teachers.

•

•

School-wide projects served several functions in the integration project. They provided an excellent integrated learning opportunity for students. They also engendered excitement about technology integration throughout the school community, created enough peer pressure to induce participation from technology-resistant teachers, and effectively promoted the school in the broader community. Effective staff development was closely tied to classroom activities, driven by teacher interests, and differentiated by teacher levels.

These conclusions in turn suggest that the following measures should promote effective technology integration in the K-5 curriculum: •

•

If you are the principal, establish and share a clear vision of the role of technology in the school, share that vision with the entire school staff frequently and enthusiastically, and constantly act as a coach, mentor, and cheerleader when working with the teachers to realize the vision. Teacher buy-in is unlikely to occur unless the teachers believe that their principal is fully committed to it. Involve teachers extensively in decisionmaking and solicit their input on every aspect of the integration process that involves them. Teachers bought in to technology and participated enthusiastically in its integration when they were asked about their equipment needs, their staff development program desires, their technology-related concerns, and their opinions about impending budgetary decisions, and they were given a clear sense that their input was being taken into account when decisions were made. Staff meetings, curriculum planning sessions, individual teacher-principal conferences, meetings of a technology advisory committee, and oc-

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

•

•

•

•

•

casional staff “town hall meetings” are all good forums for such communications to occur. Introduce technology in the context of the standard curriculum, and explicitly tie all elements of a technology integration program (equipment acquisition, staff development, course and curriculum planning, etc.) to that curriculum. When acquiring technology resources (e.g., computers, LCD projectors, and whiteboards), to the greatest possible extent mount them in fixed locations in individual classrooms rather than making them shared resources in central locations or on rolling carts. Set a goal of getting at least five computers into each classroom. Encourage voluntary sharing of classroom technology resources among teachers. Once all classrooms at Kennedy had an adequate number of computers, it became a common practice for teachers who temporarily needed more to send some students to a nearby classroom at a time when the computers there were not being used. These interchanges promoted a sense of community among the teachers and also gave the teachers new ideas about how they might use technology in their own classes. Use flexible scheduling for shared resources, such as a computer lab or a media center. Establish a priority system that is tied to a broad mission (e.g., give priority to project work that integrates technology), and make scheduling easy for teachers to do (e.g., enable them to do it on-line from their classrooms or homes). Provide blocks of time each month or more frequently to teachers and technology specialists for collaborative grade-level planning. These sessions can be productively used for both joint project planning and informal sharing of ideas.

•

•

•

Promote sharing of techniques, problems, and success stories among the teaching staff. Encourage teachers to bring up ways they have used technology at staff meetings, planning sessions, and staff development programs. Teachers may initially have limited vision about what they can do with technology in their classes, but as they are exposed to new ideas, they will start trying some of them and gradually broaden their repertoires. Also, they may be more receptive to ideas suggested by their successful peers than to methods proposed by technology specialists. Use school-wide technology-related projects to promote broad student learning, teaching staff and parent involvement and enthusiasm, and broad recognition and participation from the larger community. Provide technology-related staff development targeted to teachers’ needs and levels of expertise. Provide training in new equipment and how to apply it in class as soon as the equipment becomes available. The training should be practical, with numerous examples and opportunities for hands-on practice. As technology integration progresses and teachers become more sophisticated in the uses of technology, provide advanced training in a broader range of applications in both individual lessons and multi-class projects. Be sure to solicit input from the teachers about their training needs and desires.

Author notes The study described in this chapter was partially funded by a United States Department of Education Enhancing Education Through Technology state block grant. The authors would like to thank the principals, technology facilitators, media coordinators, and teachers at Howard and Ken-

571

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

nedy Elementary Schools for their tremendous openness and cooperation throughout the life of the project. We would also like to thank Dr. Richard Felder for substantive suggestions on the organization of the chapter and detailed critique of the manuscript.

references American Library Association. (2006). Position paper on flexible scheduling. Retrieved on May 4, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/ aaslproftools/positionstatements/aaslpositionstatement.cfm Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. (n.d.). Retrieved May 3, 2008, from http://www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/ Becker, H. J. & Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions correct? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http:// www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/conferences-pdf/ aera_2001.pdf Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors Influencing the Effective Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning: Lessons Learned from the SEIR*TEC Intensive Site Schools (2nd ed.). Greensboro, NC: Southeast Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno= ED471140 Casson, L., Bauman, J., Fisher, E., Sumpter, J., Tornatzky, L. et al. (1997). Making Technology Happen. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern Technology Council. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.southern.org/pubs/pubs_pdfs/ mthappen.pdf Dias, L. B. & Atkinson, S. (2001). Technology integration: Best practices—Where do teach572

ers stand? International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5 (10), ISSN 1206-9620. Retrieved August 21, 2001 from http://www. ucalgary.ca/~iejll Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology Magazine, 42 (1), 5-13. Fishman, B. J. (2006). It’s not about the technology. Teachers College Record. ID Number: 12584. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from http://www. tcrecord.org Holland, P. E. (2001). Professional development in technology: Catalyst for school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (2), 245-267. Kankaanranta, M., (2005). International perspectives on the pedagogically innovative uses of technology. Human Technology, 1(2), 111-116. 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), 233-263. McGregor, J. (2006). Flexible scheduling: Implementing an innovation. School Library Media Research, 9. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from http:// www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/ slmrcontents/volume9/ flexible.cfm Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. J. (2004, September 14). Identifying teacher, school and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ epaa/v12n48/

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

Ottestad, G. (2008). Schools as digital competent organizations: Developing organisational traits to strengthen the implementation of digital founded pedagogy. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 4(4). Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37(2), 163-178. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Programme for International Student Assessment: Paris, France. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Rice, M. L., Wilson, E. K., & Bagley, W. (2001). Transforming learning with technology: Lessons from the field. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (2), 211-230. Sandholtz, J. H. (2001). Learning to teach with technology: A comparison of teacher development programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (3), 349-374. Shamburg, C. (2004). Conditions that inhibit the integration of technology for urban early childhood teachers. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 227-244. US Department of Education. (n.d.). Enhancing Education through Technology (Ed-Tech) State Program. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from http:// www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/index.html

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A state’s measure of progress toward reaching the No Child Left Behind goal of 100% of students at or above a minimum competency level in reading/language arts and math. Collaborative Planning: Instructional planning and learning done by groups of teachers. Flexible Scheduling: A system of scheduling the media center or computer laboratory on an as-needed basis rather than classes or students coming at a fixed time each week. Integration Model: A plan to incorporate technology and media skills into classroom instruction through a technology enriched environment, staff development, a technology facilitator, flexible access to the computer laboratory and media center, collaborative instructional planning, strong leadership, and an adequate budget for technology. Media and Technology Advisory Committee (MTAC): A school committee of teachers and administrators charged with making decisions about media and technology in the school (e.g., hardware and software purchases, school-wide projects). No Child Left Behind: The main US federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school primarily known for its accountability provisions. Technology Facilitator: The primary technology specialist in a school who is an experienced educator with extensive knowledge about technology integration and able to train teachers, conduct model lessons, and generally provide instructional leadership as teachers integrate technology into their classes.

573

A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom

APPenDIx Charts showing equipment shared and in classrooms during each year Technological Resources (Year 1) Howard

Kennedy

Classroom

Teacher laptop computer Two older desktop computers Digital camera

LCD projector Three networked desktops (Grades 2-5) Two networked desktops (PreK-1st)

Shared

LCD projector (~1 per grade) Interactive whiteboard (2 in school) Lab of 30 networked computers Wireless laptop carts (2 in school) Four networked computers (Media Center)

Interactive whiteboards (2 in school) Lab of 30 networked computers Wireless laptop carts (2 in school) 60 word processing laptops on carts Five networked computers (Media Center)

Technological Resources (Year 2) Howard

Kennedy

Classroom

Teacher laptop computer LCD projector Two new networked desktop computers Digital camera VoIP telephone

Teacher laptop computer LCD projector Four networked desktops (Grades 2-5) Three networked desktops (PreK-1st) Interactive whiteboard Document camera Digital camera

Shared

Interactive whiteboard (2 in school) Lab of 30 networked computers Lab of 16 older non-networked computers Wireless laptop carts (2 in school) Four networked computers (Media Center) Document cameras (6 in school)

Lab of 30 networked computers Wireless laptop carts (2 in school) 60 word processing laptops on carts Four networked computers (Media Center)

Technological Resources (Year 3)

574

Howard

Kennedy

Classroom

Teacher laptop computer LCD projector Two networked desktop computers VoIP telephone Digital camera Interactive whiteboard Document camera 210 hand-held computers (Grades 4-5)

Teacher laptop computer Instructional assistant laptop computer LCD projector Five networked desktops (Grades 2-5) Four networked desktops (PreK-1st) Interactive whiteboard Document camera Digital camera

Shared

Lab of 30 networked computers Lab of 16 older non-networked computers Wireless laptop carts (2 in school) Four networked computers (Media Center) Classroom performance systems (15 in school)

Labs of 30 networked computers (2 in school) Wireless laptop carts (2 in school) 60 word processing laptops on carts Six networked computers (Media Center) 94 hand-held computers Class set of digital cameras Classroom performance systems (3 in school)

575

Chapter XXXVI

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes Lyn C. Howell Milligan College, USA

AbstrAct This chapter traces one K-8 school over the course of four and a half years as it went from very limited technology through a three year period of implementing a $300,000 technology grant, through the conclusion of that grant. It details the school’s use of technology before, during, and after receiving the grant. The study supports the suggestion that merely having technology available does not insure that it will be used. It makes recommendations for school-wide technology applications and points out both those things that were done well at this school and those things that might have been done better.

IntroDuctIon Is money and/or a dedicated technology coach enough to infuse technology into a school’s curriculum? Both elements are important, but, as this chapter concludes, other factors also need to be present if technology is to become an integral part of the teaching and learning taking place in a school. Johnson (2003) believes that when teachers have computers “wonderful, creative things can happen.” (p.7). While that may be true for some teachers, not everyone sees technology in the same way. Ansburg, Caruso, and Kuhlenschmidt (2004) suggest that teachers approach technology

in instruction in one of four ways: excitement, consideration, interest for student’s benefit, or rejection. Even for those who approach technology with excitement, other factors can affect its usefulness. Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor’s 2003 study suggests that teachers use computers several times a week to prepare lessons, but they are only used a couple of times a year for class instruction. This may be a result of teacher attitudes. Studies indicate that the teachers most willing to adapt and try new technologies are those who are most willing to reflect on their teaching and their beliefs about teaching and learning (Clark & Peterson, 1986). A study by Honey and Moeller (1990)

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

indicated that teachers with a student-centered philosophy toward teaching were more successful in integrating technology. Ullman (2005) found that many teachers view being asked to change their methods by incorporating technology as a criticism of their teaching. Several studies of teacher attitudes (MacArthur and Malouf, 1991; Marcinkiewicz, 1994; Albion, 1999) found that teachers’ attitudes such as self-confidence and willingness to try new things were key factors in technology integration. Another requirement for the use of new technology to be effective is adequate training. Ausubel et al. (1978) argues that instruction should help the learner link what he/she already knows to the new knowledge. However, research (Rosenfeld, Martinez-Pons, 2005; Clouse & Alexander, 1998) indicates that most technology training for teachers fails to do this. The training usually consists of a one-time training session with no follow-up and no discussion of integration. In addition to teacher attitude and appropriate training, support and leadership are necessary if technology use is to become an integral part of the classroom. Studies (Szabo, 2002; Hardy, 1998) indicate that a lack of ongoing support; ignorance of school needs; and poor leadership, knowledge and support will adversely affect the continued use of technology.

comPonents for successful technology IntegrAtIon Successfully incorporating technology into the curriculum requires more than the good intentions of a few teachers. Robyler (2006) points out that effective technology integration requires four components: a shared vision, the financing necessary to make that vision a reality, welltrained teachers, and the ability to stay current and flexible. This chapter examines these four components in a specific school that received a three-year, $300,000 technology grant.

576

The first requirement for successful technology integration is a shared vision. “Any lasting changes and reforms will need to be preceded by a vision of what future learning environments will be like.” (Forcier & Descy, 2008, p 118) It is important for all members of the school team to support the shared goals of integrating technology. This means that teachers must be aware of what others are using and be able to build on that foundation from year to year, and the administration needs to support this use of technology. In the school under study, the shared vision was initially present. Teachers themselves initiated the process of applying for a grant to improve their use of technology in the school. Teachers, with the support of the school principal and the district superintendent, researched the grant requirements, created and conducted a survey to determine the present level of technology knowledge and use in the school, and determined how funds from the grant could best be used to support student learning. Financing is the second requirement. Financing needs to be in place to purchase equipment and software as well as to keep it up-to-date and in good repair. A requirement for lasting change is “sufficient human, financial, and technical resources to launch systemic change with the knowledge that more resources will be required to sustain the effort” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007, p 213). Prior to receiving the grant, the school had limited money to spend on technology. Over half of the teachers had 21st Century Workstations which consisted of a large monitor, teacher computer, VCR/DVD player; a few rooms also had printers and overhead projectors, and the school was wired for Internet access. Technical support was available from a single technology director located at the district’s central office and charged with supporting all of the schools in the system. In general, technology and support were limited. Financing needed to pay for workshops and faculty incentives for learning and using the new tools was non-existent

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

The third requirement is well-trained teachers. As Morehead and LaBeau (2004-2005) point out, “merely placing computers in classrooms does not guarantee use” (p.14). According to Lever-Duffy, McDonald, and Mizell (2005), adding technology just because it is available can detract from the learning-teaching process. Without training and support, teachers are less likely to add anything new to their already full curriculums. The training needs to be on-going to give teachers the opportunity to work with computers and to continue to grow. The opportunity to talk with others and share successes and learn from mistakes is also key to the continued use of the technology. Although some technology workshops were available, there was little incentive for teachers to attend and less incentive for teachers to incorporate the information to integrate technology in their classrooms. Finally, a school needs the ability to stay current and flexible. Technology quickly becomes outdated. New and programs or different versions of current programs are constantly being developed. It is important to have someone who can devote time to finding and learning new technology and to introduce it to the school faculty. One of the ways that can be done is through a technology coach who is able to interact with the system’s IT department to keep equipment working and add new software and hardware as well as work with the faculty to arrange workshops, support teachers, and schedule the use of labs and other hardware. According to the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) Technology Facilitation standards, a technology facilitator should be able to “Assist teachers in the ongoing development of knowledge, skills and understanding of technology systems resources, and services that are aligned with district and state technology plans and provide assistance to teachers in identifying technology systems, resources, and services to meet specific learning needs” (Williamson and Redish, 2007, p 23). Training and support is important because most teachers will find that their enthusiasm grows and they begin

to develop their own ideas once they have had experience with different applications (Grabe & Grabe, 2007). Studies indicate that the human component is essential. This includes follow-up support in the form of a responsive technical staff, a group of people who can help the teacher understand and use technologies for his or her own classroom needs. The other key ingredient for continued use of technology is a supportive and informed administrative staff that encourages and rewards technology use. (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, Byers, 2002; Rosenfeld & Martinez-Pons, 2005; Clouse & Alexander, 1998; Gooler et al., 2000; and Harris, 2000)

Pre-grAnt conDItIons According to Newby, Stepich, Lehman, and Russell (2006), “The first task of any school’s technology committee is to develop a vision of education and to articulate a role for technology in that vision.” (p. 259). The technology committee, which consisted of teachers from a variety of grade levels and disciplines, the school principal, and a local college professor, looked at all aspects of the school’s use of technology to determine a cohesive vision. Prior to applying for a $300,000 Tennessee grant for enhancing education through technology, the technology committee evaluated the school’s present technology resources, conducted surveys to determine current conditions and needs, and asked all teachers to take the STaR (School Technology and Readiness) survey which evaluates schools and teachers in the technology areas of teaching and learning, educator preparation and development, administration and support services, and infrastructure for technology. The purpose of the STaR survey is to “assist in the measurement of the impact of state and local efforts to improve student learning through the use of technology as specified in No Child Left Behind, Title II, Part D. It can also identify needs

577

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

for on-going professional development and raise awareness of research-based instructional goals.” (Accessed August 3, 2007 from http://starchart. esc12.net/faqWhy.html) According to the STaR survey, the school rated Low Developing (level 2 of four levels) in three of the four areas: educator preparation and development, administration and support services, and infrastructure for technology. Teaching and learning, was only at the Early Tech level, the lowest of the four levels. This survey can be used by teachers to answer the following questions: 1.

2.

3.

4.

What is my current educational technology profile in the areas of Teaching and Learning and Educator Preparation and Development? What is my knowledge of online learning, technology resources, instructional support, and planning on my campus? What evidence can be provided to demonstrate my progress in meeting the goals of the Long Range Plan for Technology and No Child Left Behind, Title II, Part D? In what areas can I improve my level of technology integration to ensure the best possible teaching and learning for my students? (Accessed August 3 2007 from http:// starchart.esc12.net/history.html)

In addition to the StaR survey, the grant committee conducted its own survey to determine what teachers at the school knew about technology and where resources would be best spent. Fewer than 30% of the faculty indicated that they were comfortable with any Microsoft program. Less than half of the faculty was able to open and/or attach email files and sort them. Prior to receiving the grant, the school had one computer for every four students. The school is in a high poverty area in which 61% of the students qualify for free and reduced lunches. This means that very few students have access to a computer at home to supplement the school’s computers. There

578

were a limited number of printers and scanners; a few teachers had personal digital cameras, and there were no LCD projectors or Smartboards available. The school was wired for Internet access, but the Internet was seldom used.

use of the grAnt The goal of the grant was to move teachers from having ideas and knowledge, to applying the ideas and knowledge in the classroom. According to their application, “Our proposed program is designed to teach teachers the necessary technology skills, assist them in correlating those skills with the curriculum and classroom activity, and integrating appropriate technology into their instruction. Students will work in an environment that stresses inquiry, problem-solving, and exploratory activities to enable them to work toward their maximum potential.” The application specified that the money received from the grant would be used to purchase equipment, fund a technology coach, and train teachers in the use of the new hardware and software. Grant money was used to purchase 40 Dell Pentium IV PC computers with Microsoft Office in order to have at least four computers in each classroom in grades kindergarten through fifth and at least five computers in each classroom in grades six through eighth. In addition, a computer lab was established with 1) 15 student stations, 2) Microphones, head sets, Web cams, 3) one teacher computer, 4) one Smartboard, 5) One Sony digital video camera, 6) Digital recorder, 7) HP scanner, 8) 3 Lexmark E320 printers, 9) LCD projector, and 10) Mimio board. Three additional laptop computers were purchased to be used for teachers to check out for use at home or when attending conferences. In addition to computers, the school purchased a variety of other hardware. Three LCD projectors, a digital microscope, and nine video cameras were purchased to be used throughout the school.

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

Microphones and headsets were purchased for each computer. Each classroom received a wireless remote mouse, a scanner, and a Web cam. Twenty programmable TI83 plus calculators were purchased for use in math classes. Six 21st Century teacher stations were purchased in order to ensure that there was one available in each classroom. Software changes included purchasing Office 2000 for each computer in the building. Additional software acquisitions included Math Facts In a Flash, Star Reading upgrade, and Plato; some teachers also used their individual allowances to buy grading software to aid them in evaluating student work and managing assessment. Other school-wide software purchased was Inspiration/ Kidspiration, and Microsoft Frontpage. The school also bought a subscription to United Streaming which gave teachers access to a wide variety of educational videos. Anderson (1992) insists that educational videos are an excellent way to complement texts and lectures. Realizing that simply purchasing hardware and software does not ensure its use, a portion of the funding was designated for the salary for a technology coach. As the Marie C. Graham Elementary School in Garrison Township, Michigan discovered, “Having a support system in the school allowed the teachers to believe that ‘things’ will work” (Morehead & LaBeau, 2004-05, p 16). Another portion was set aside for training; Johnson (2003) indicates that it is important to provide quality staff development as well as make staff aware of software availability, and “Providing high-quality support materials can be critical to a software program’s success in the classroom” (p. 9). In addition, funds were earmarked for incentives to teachers to attend training and to implement the use of technology in their classrooms.

ImPlementAtIon The $300,000 grant was received in the spring of 2003. During the summer of 2003, the school

computer lab was set up and workshops were offered to train teachers in a variety of programs. Teachers received training on basic computer programs like Word and PowerPoint as well as on ways to incorporate technology through problem based learning and Web quests. Teachers could choose to take one, two, or three day workshops either in their new school computer lab or at sites off campus. They were required to attend five days of workshops and were paid a stipend for each day attended. Trainers were recruited from the school, the district, local colleges, and professional technology trainers. The technology coach and selected members of the technology team received funds to attend a three-day, state-wide conference designed to help teachers integrate technology into the classroom. Teachers began the 2003-2004 school year with new computers, other new hardware, and software in place. In addition, there was a welltrained technology coach on campus; each teacher had received training at the level he or she felt was needed, and the school had the support of both the building principal and the district office. The Parents-Teachers Association also supported technology use by setting aside funds to replace, repair, and/or supplement equipment and software.

grAnt In ActIon Over the course of the next two years, the use of technology was a focus of the school. In-service days included additional technology workshops. The school, together with a consultant, designed a set of goals for each grade level. Teachers in each grade level worked with the consultant to understand their students’ technology goals and how to reach those goals. In addition to in-service and summer workshops, each grade level was given specific training in the program or programs most suited to that grade level. The school arranged for enough

579

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

substitutes to teach each grade level for a day or two so that the teachers of that level could work together in the computer lab to learn and use specific applications. This was done not only to ensure well-trained teachers, but to aid in encouraging a shared vision. If the grade-level teachers were all learning and using the same applications, their students could move seamlessly from class to class. As these same students move up a grade, the next grade of teachers could be confident that all students had experience in the same applications instead of some students being proficient in some software and others being proficient in a different software. Teachers were required to submit five technology lesson plans each year. In addition to receiving a stipend for applying the technology used in their lessons, teachers received awards for “Best Practice” lessons. The technology coach and a consultant created a rubric designed to measure the appropriate use of technology in the classroom. Lesson plans were divided by upper and lower elementary grades and evaluated by a team of technology coaches and consultants from outside the school. Three lesson plans from each division were chosen as representing the best use of technology and the teachers who created those lesson plans received a cash award. Each year the school held a technology open house for parents in conjunction with a regularly scheduled Parents-Teachers Association meeting. Each classroom displayed the students’ use of technology for parents to see during the open house. This not only allowed the parents to see what their children had learned, but provided an additional incentive for teachers to use the available technology. The technology coach scheduled the school computer lab so that every class had the opportunity to use the lab a minimum of every two weeks. In addition, the school purchased a portable computer lab that could be checked out and used in the classroom to supplement the computers in each room. During the course of the 2003-2004

580

and 2004-2005 school years, one or both of the computer labs was in use almost all day, every day of the week.

results of the grAnt At the end of the 2004-2005 school year, there was an average of six computers in each classroom with some rooms having as many as eight computers with microphone and headphone sets. Each classroom had a Web cam and at least two printers. Math teachers had access to 20 programmable TI83 plus calculators. Almost all students regularly (two or three times a month) used Microsoft Word and PowerPoint and 90% of the teachers surveyed used United Streaming two or three times a month. Those teachers also reported that students in all classes used technology to work on individual projects in the classroom a minimum of once a grading period, and 40% of the students used technology at least once a week. At least 60% of classes reported having students using technology for cooperative projects at least once a month and all classes reported using it at least once a semester. Teachers surveyed felt that the school had benefited from the technology grant. As one teacher said, “The grant enabled Lamar to have technology training and allowed the teachers and students to integrate technology into their classrooms and curriculum. Computers have enhanced the tools that we teach with.” Almost all teachers self-reported being proficient or very proficient with a wide variety of computer software programs, and all reported using email and Internet resources at least once a week. Over half created their own Web page and used a digital camera at least once a week. The remaining 50% reported using a digital camera at least once a quarter. All used scanners or the Internet to download information. Sixty percent took their class to the computer lab or used the computer cart once a week during the last year of the grant. Thirty

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

percent used a computer lab at least once a month, and all used it at least once a quarter. All teachers reported attending at least four technology training classes during the past two years; 90% reported attending six or more such classes. The results of the use of the technology grant were primarily positive. One participant reported, “I am very proud of our accomplishments school-wide due to the opportunity to use the grant.” Teachers also reported receiving information about research-based, best practices that support student learning with technology. Workshops, inservice classes, and technology conferences were most often mentioned as the source of this information. But many teachers also sought out additional information through searching the Internet and reading educational journals. The teachers at the school often looked beyond the required workshops to find innovative ways to incorporate technology in their classes and to understand what research says about the best uses of technology.

Post-grAnt survey At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the grant money ran out and the school district decided not to continue to fund the position of technology coach. The coach moved out of the computer lab and back into the classroom. Although she still felt a responsibility to maintain the growth in technology use that came as a result of the grant, and although teachers still frequently called on her for help with a program new to them or with a computer malfunction, her primary responsibility was to the children in her classroom. The time she needed to work with teachers or computer problems was no longer available. The district maintained a technology coordinator, but his responsibilities were primarily for hardware for the district. His function was not intended to be that of a trainer or supporter of teachers in their use of technology. The stipends and rewards for

attending technology workshops or incorporating technology into lesson plans also ceased as did the availability of workshops in the school computer lab and the availability of substitute teachers to allow grade level teachers to learn and plan together. The principal who worked with the original grant committee moved to a different district and was replaced with one who, while supportive of technology use, did not necessarily consider it a priority and did not require teachers to use the programs or equipment. Thus, with the loss of the financing and the shared vision, teachers found it much more difficult to stay current. Training needs to be constant and on-going to allow teachers to remain flexible and make the best use of technology in their classes. Surveys conducted in the fall and spring immediately following the end of the grant indicated that, for most teachers, their use of technology ended or severely declined when the grant ended. The faculty members who were instrumental in writing the initial technology grant took advantage of most of the workshops and seminars offered and enthusiastically incorporated the new technology in their classrooms. These faculty members continued to use technology and learn new ways to incorporate it into their classrooms after the end of the grant. Some faculty members, while not involved in writing the grant, were willing to be active participants in learning and using technology. For the most part, these teachers, while not actively seeking new knowledge, did continue to use what was available as long as there were no problems with the equipment. Most faculty members, who Joyce et. al. (2004) defines as passive consumers, attended the required workshops and did what was necessary to integrate technology. They turned in the required technology lesson plans, but did not seek new ways to incorporate technology or introduce it to their students. When there were no longer requirements to demonstrate their use of technology, they used it infrequently. The last group, about ten percent according to Joyce (2004), were reticent consumers. These

581

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

faculty members were angry about being expected to learn and use new skills. In the September 2006 and May, 2007 surveys, they made comments such as “Sometimes I felt as if I was supposed to be a computer teacher instead of a ‘subject’ teacher,” and, “I feel that the use of technology is very much a crutch, akin to popping a movie into a VCR.” This group of teachers did only the minimum required during the time of the grant and rejected the use of technology when the grant expired. After three years of grant support and the services of an in-school technology coach, when the funding for the grant ended, the many of the teachers continued to use what they had learned, but few tried to keep up-to-date with the new technology. Some actively refused to continue to use any technology in their classroom when they were no longer forced to use it.

conclusIons Having money to purchase hardware and software is an important first step for integrating technology into the classroom, but computers and programs by themselves are not enough. Support, in the form of a technology coach, continued training, and incentives for the majority of teachers who are not enthusiastic about new techniques are necessary. Technology doesn’t stand still. In order to use technology, instructors have to keep learning and expanding their knowledge. In addition, things break or fail to function as expected, and so it is necessary to have someone available to correct problems as they occur. When technology becomes difficult to use or takes extra time because something doesn’t work correctly, teachers will abandon technology in favor of those techniques with which they are more familiar, those things that are certain to work. The school, under the guidance of the technology committee did several things well. They started with enough money to buy equipment at

582

one time so that everyone started with equipment and basic training. Purchases were made through the technology coach which meant that all programs worked together and students progressed from grade to grade working with the same programs instead of having to go through a learning curve with each new year. This allowed students to add to their knowledge of specific software instead of having to learn new software to accomplish the same goals. The number and variety of workshops offered gave teachers an opportunity to learn the software programs that they needed to learn at the level that was appropriate to the individual. The school offered a variety of workshops for a variety of skill levels. The fact that grade levels were able to work and learn together assured continuity for students. Time was provided for grade level teachers to train together during school time with substitutes provided so that teachers did not have to train after school or during the summer. Incentives were given to encourage teachers to attend training and monetary prizes were awarded for best practice lesson plans to encourage teachers to use the skills they learned. Studies (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997; Cradler & Cradler, 1995; Becker & Riel, 2000) indicate that time for teachers to learn collaboratively with colleagues and practice with technology builds teacher interest and confidence in technology. The practice of having the school provide substitute teachers so that grade level teachers could train together during the school day and arranging schedules so that their planning periods coincided supported best practices. Another success was in the area of parental involvement. Through newsletters and exhibits of students’ projects, parents were kept informed about the emphasis on technology. Teachers used email to contact parents. Each grade level had a separate Web page and all teachers were given the option to create a linked home page. This made it easy for parents to know, on a weekly or even a daily basis, what their students were doing in

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

class. This ability to access information about their children’s classes encouraged parents to support technology use. The parent association worked with the school to hold a yearly technology fair where parents were encouraged to visit classrooms and observe student-created technology projects. As a result, the Parents-Teachers association regularly set aside money to support technology needs. Continuous assessment is important in order to know if a program is having its intended results. As Eggen and Kauchak (2001) point out, “assessment accomplishes two . . . important goals: (a) increasing learning and (b) increasing motivation” (p. 594). The grant recipients did an excellent job of using frequent and varied assessments to monitor what teachers were learning and how they were applying technology in their classrooms. Frequent surveys kept the technology coach up-to-date on what teachers felt they knew or wanted to have workshops on as well as how technology was being applied. Records were kept of computer lab use. Teachers were required to turn in technology lesson plans for evaluation. Technology consultants from outside the district were invited to observe and report on technology use observed in the classrooms. All of the information gathered was relayed to the principal and teachers at the school so that everyone was aware of improvements in technology integration as well as additional ways that each individual could improve his/her performance. Although the increase in numbers and kinds of hardware and software improved dramatically as a result of receiving the technology grant, and although teachers learned and used a wider variety of programs and incorporated technology into their lessons in more ways than they had previously, the end of the grant saw a dramatic decrease in the use of technology in the classroom. A survey taken one year after the grant ended indicated that only 39% of teachers still took their classes to the computer lab or used the portable lab once a week, only 6% used it monthly, and

the rest used the lab once a semester or not at all. The computers in individual classrooms were also seldom used. Thirty-nine percent reported never having students use them for cooperative projects and forty-four percent reported never having students use the computers for individual projects. Although all teachers reported an increase in their skills in using both hardware and software, this did not translate into applying those skills with their students. The four important components Roybal (2006) identifies as necessary for technology integration: a shared vision, the financing necessary to make that vision a reality, well-trained teachers, and the ability to stay current and flexible, appeared to be present for the duration of the grant. Why didn’t the use of technology continue? What could have been done to ensure that teachers would continue to build on what had been started?

suggestIons There was no plan in place to support and extend technology integration when the grant funds expired. As a result, much of what had been accomplished faded away. With the end of financing, the position of technology coach was eliminated. Teachers had come to depend on her to solve their problems and make sure that everything ran correctly. In the May 2007 survey, one teacher said, “There is not enough time to get all the questions answered – nor anyone to ask!” Williamson and Redish (2007) believe that it is important to ensure that support is firmly embedded in the school culture and that there must be enough personnel to fully implement the standards. “For teachers to use technology appropriately, they need to have support and be encouraged to take risks” (Morehead & LaBeau, 2004-05, p. 17). More stakeholders should have been involved in understanding how technology was being used and how standards were being implemented. This means that, instead of rely-

583

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

ing on one individual, teachers should have been trained to troubleshoot their own problems. Another alternative would have been to designate a variety of people throughout the school to become experts in specific hardware and/or software so that there were multiple resources when teachers needed help with equipment. After initial training, there should have been a greater emphasis on growth and how to learn instead of on specific programs. With the emphasis on specific programs, when there is no coach, teachers don’t know how to address new information. McGrath (2003) suggests that teachers can actually benefit from having limited technology knowledge. When teachers are taught basic levels and then required to use the technology, they become comfortable in using it even though they are not expert. This gives teachers permission to give more authority to the students and results in a greater willingness to try new things. It also results in less reliance on a technology coach. Support at higher levels would also have encouraged the continuous growth in teachers’ use of technology. This includes, at the building level, a principal who not only allows technology use but insists on it. Teachers should continue to be recognized for exemplary use of technology even without monetary rewards. Teachers who use technology should be asked to demonstrate techniques in regular staff meetings and their contributions acknowledged. At the district level, technology use could be encouraged by allowing teachers time to observe integration of technology in other schools or including technology lesson plans in their regular district-wide bulletins. As has been noted, some teachers resist using new methods, especially new technology. To encourage those teachers who are not enthusiastic about using technology, it is important that they be helped to view it not as technology for technology’s sake, but simply as one of the tools at their fingertips for helping them teach and students learn. (Morehead & LaBeau, 2004-05) More studies of the impact of technology use on students’

584

attainment of state standards are needed. Cradler (2003) says that “Studies of organizational and technical resources available to support teachers’ integration of technology often do not link their analyses of context and teachers’ technology use to measures of student learning” (p. 56.). Although several means of studying teachers’ use of technology were conducted during the three-year period, none of the studies tied technology use to student scores. Even teachers resistant to using technology would be more likely to continue to incorporate it into their lessons if they knew that higher student scores resulted from its use. Tracking student scores over the life of the grant would have been easier and more effective if the school had spent more effort on vertical integration of technology. They did an excellent job of horizontal integration; teachers at each grade level trained together and planned together to integrate technology into their classes. However, there was very little discussion between grade levels so that teachers from each grade level knew what the students did in the preceding year. Understanding the experiences the students had the previous year and the knowledge they brought with them to the new grade would have allowed teachers to build on those experiences and knowledge, resulting in a smoother transition into new uses of technology. One of the most difficult elements of a teacher’s job is to be able to meet the needs of all students: those who have difficulty learning, those who are average, and those who are ahead of their peers. One of the most valuable roles of technology is its ability to individualize instruction whether through varying pace or overcoming disabilities. Although some programs (Plato, Math Facts in a Flash, Star Reading upgrade) are designed to individualize instruction, more emphasis in workshops and in practice should have been given to technology’s ability to help the teacher differentiate instruction for students and support learners with physical limitations. Recognizing this value of technology (Recesso & Orrill, 2008) is a key to encouraging teachers to use it.

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

Another technique for encouraging technology use is to share best practices, successful lesson plans. Teachers are more likely to use technology if they don’t have to continuously come up with their own new ideas. As Morehead and and LaBeau (2004-05) point out, “Success breeds success, and it is the nature of teachers to share their successes” (p.16). Teachers were required to submit their technology lesson plans and rewarded for doing so. Unfortunately, those plans were not routinely shared with others. There was no strategy to disseminate the information. Teachers worked in isolation, unaware of the ways in which others were using technology and, therefore, unaware of techniques and ideas that they could incorporate into their own classrooms. As The Intel Teach to the Future curriculum discovered, establishing collaborative groups of teachers “increased the likelihood that they would continue to share knowledge and support one another in the future” (Nudell, 2004-05, p. 53).

summAry Money to spend on technology and support in the initial phases of learning are vital to a school that wants to integrate technology into the classroom. However, money and training alone are not enough. It is important to develop a plan to continue teachers’ use of the current technology as well as support their enthusiasm for learning new ways to use technology and integrate it into the curriculum. For lasting success, teachers must be empowered to adapt to changing technologies and helped to feel comfortable enough to continue to learn on their own. This continued growth in the absence of required learning or a dedicated coach can best be accomplished by encouraging teachers to work together, developing a means to share ideas, challenges, and successes with the entire faculty. In addition, teachers need to see evidence that the time spent in learning and using technology pays off in improved learning for their students.

Infusing technology into a school’s curriculum over the long-term is a multifaceted process that involves money, training, and vision in the beginning as well as a plan that will enable teachers to continue to stay current and flexible with or without additional financial resources.

references Albion, R R. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs as an indicator of teachers’ preparednessfor teaching with technology. Society for Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1999. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Anderson, D.D. (1992).Using feature films as tools for analysis in a psychology and law course. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 155-157. Ansburg, P.I, Caruso, M., & Kuhlenschmidt, S. (2004). Getting started on the Web: Enhancing instruction in psychology. In Perlman, McMann, & McFadden (Ed.) Lessons learned: Practical advice for the teaching of psychology ( pp. 8190). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Society Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Becker, H.J., & Riel, M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist-compatible computer use (Report No.7). Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. Retrieved August 10, 2007 from http://www.crito. uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7/TEXT.html Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: MacMillan. Clouse, R. W., & Alexander, E. (1998). Classrooms of the 21st century: Teacher competence, confi585

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

dence and collaboration. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 26(2), 97-111. Coley, R.J.,Cradler, J. & Engel, R.K.(1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S schools (Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Cradler, J. (2003). Technology’s impact on teaching and learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, April, 54-57. Cradler, J. & Cradler, R. (1995). Prior studies for technology insertion. San Francisco, CA: Far West. Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational Psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Forcier, R.C. & Descy, D.E. (2008) The computer as an educational tool: Productivity and Problem Solving. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall. Gooler, D., Kautzer, K., & Knuth, R. (2000). Teacher competence in using technologies: The next big question (PREL Briefing Paper). Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452 175). Grabe, M.& Grabe, M. (2007), Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning, (5th Ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin, Co. Hardy, J,V. (1998), Teacher attitudes toward and knowledge of computer technology. Computers in the Schools, 4(3-4), 119-136. Harris, L. (2000). Patterns of promise. Charleston, WV: AEL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447808) Honey, M., & Moeller, B. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs and technology integration: Different values, different understandings (Technical Report 6). New York: Center for Technology in Education.

586

Johnson, J.M. (2003). From Lofty beginnings to the age of accountability. Learning and Leading with Technology, April, 7-13. Joyce, B., Weil, M. & Calhoun, E. (2004). Models of Teaching. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J.B., and Mizell, A.P. (2005) Teaching and Learning with Technology. Boston: Pearson, Allyn-Bacon. MacArthur, C. A., & Malouf, D. B. (1991). Teachers’ beliefs, plans, and decisions about computer -based instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 25(5), 44-72. Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors Influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-237. McGrath, Diane (April 2003) Developing a Community of learners: What will it look like and how will it work? Learning and Leading with Technology, 42-45. Morehead, P & LaBeau, B. (2005) Successful curriculum mapping: Fostering smooth technology integration. Learning and Leading with Technology , December/January, 12-17 Newby, T.J, Stepich D.A., Lehman, J.D., & Russell, J.D. (2006). Educational Technology for teaching and Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall. Nudell, H. (2004-05). Time to experiment: The role of exploration in professional development. Learning and Leading with Technology, December/January, 50-53. Recesso, A. & Orrill, C. (2008) Integrating Technology into Teaching: The technology and learning continuum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Reiser, R.A. & Dempsey, J.V. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes

Roblyer, M.D. (2006). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall. Rosenfeld, Barbara, Martinez-Pons, Manuel. (2005). Promoting Classroom Technology use. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, (6)2, 145-153. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310. Star Chart. (2007) Texas Education Agency. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://starchart. esc12.net/faqWhy.html Szabo. M. (2002). Ecducational reform through instructional technology: Part I. Development of a training system based on innovation diffusion theory. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta, Department of Educational Psychology. Ullman, Craig, (2005). Tech Monster in a Box. Distance Learning, 3(2), 36. Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2007). Building technology facilitators and leaders: A standards-based approach. Learning and Leading with Technology, August, 22-26.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Best Practices: Teaching techniques that are research based and proven to help students learn. Exploratory Activities: Learning activities that allow students to discover information for themselves. Students learning through exploration might be directed to sources of information, but they are responsible for using that information to develop their own ideas.

Faculty Incentives: Those things that encourage a person to attempt or continue an action. For teachers, this would include additional money, funds to buy equipment, opportunities to attend workshops or conferences, recognition by peers, opportunity to lead a workshop, opportunity to work with peers through having a substitute teacher hired to teach the class for a period of time. Horizontal Integration: Sharing of information and planning for progression among all teachers working with students at a particular grade level. Shared Vision: The faculty, staff, administration, parents, and school district officials agree on the school’s goals and on the methods for attaining those goals and agree to work together to achieve those goals. Teacher Attitude: In this chapter, teacher attitude refers specifically to the teacher’s approach to technology. An approach to technology that is eager or exploratory indicates a greater likelihood of technology use than one that is fearful or distrustful. Even being accepting does not indicate a willingness to do more than is required. Technology Director: A person responsible for purchasing, installing, and maintaining hardware and software for the entire school district. Technology Integration: Using technology in all aspects of student learning with the goal of achieving curriculum objectives. Integration implies that the use of technology is not a diversion, but an integral part of the classroom. Vertical Integration: Sharing of information and planning for progression among teachers in the grades above and below the students’ current grade.

587

588

Chapter XXXVII

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools Jennifer Way University of Sydney, Australia

AbstrAct The purpose of this chapter is to provide some insight into the technology related changes that are occurring in Australian primary schools, particularly regarding pedagogy. It argues that the ways in which the digital generation use new technologies outside their school classrooms, to access information, communicate and learn, contrasts markedly with the more traditional pedagogies within the majority of Australian primary schools. Application of a research-based framework that allows the monitoring and description of the complex technology-mediated changes in pedagogy, has revealed that a small, but growing proportion of teachers are creating new learning environments that reflect some of the characteristics of the e-learners outside school. It is the intention of the author to encourage further exploration of this topic by providing background on the scope of the issues underpinning the development of e-pedagogy in schools, and a tool that can be used to examine changes occurring in schools.

the DIgItAl generAtIon – reDefInIng leArnIng The current generation of school-aged children in the developed countries have been called ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001) because digital technologies are integral to their daily lives. Unlike their parents and grandparents, they have never known a world without instant communication and access to information through mobile phones and the Internet. However, young people do not all

use technology in the same ways. Four types of technology users have been identified in the report Their Space: Education for the digital generation (Green & Hannon, 2007) which draws on surveys and interviews of 600 parents and 60 children aged 7-18 years in England. While their findings cannot necessarily be generalised and not everyone fits neatly into a particular category, much of what they suggest is self-evident to anyone working with (or parenting) this age group. Awareness of the characteristics of the digital pioneers, cre-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

ative producers, everyday communicators and information gatherers is surely of interest when considering the educational needs of this digital generation. The four identified groups of digital natives are described as follows. •

•

•

•

Digital pioneers lead the way in the use of emerging technologies and were doing things like ‘blogging’ before there were even words to name these actions. This relatively small group are self-motivated, feel a sense of ownership for their purposeful, creative contributions to the cyber-world and learn rapidly through peer-to-peer exchanges. Part of their identity is established through public venues such as YouTube and MySpace, as well as through characters they develop in online ‘games’. Creative producers engage in ‘active content creation’ such as building websites, producing movies, manipulating images, displaying photos and creating music playlists. They usually participate in active communities of interest, sharing their creations with friends, family and beyond. As well as providing an audience for their creative efforts, these informal networks provide opportunities for critical reflection and learning. They enjoy the entertainment value of digital technologies and are often keen ‘online gamers’. Everyday communicators, the majority of young people view basic digital technologies as ubiquitous, almost mundane. They use mobile phones and computers for regular, repetitive tasks - for texting, talking on MSN and for basic information searches - simply to make their lives easier. Many will also engage in some of the activities of the Creative Producers, such as uploading photos and downloading music, but focus on strengthening their existing personal networks rather than widening them. Information gatherers are avid users of search engines and are typically Google and

Wikipedia addicts. They are skilled in the craft of ‘cutting and pasting’ information to build ‘answers to questions’ that may be self-generated but are more often school related. They expect to find what they are looking for quickly and do not always critically assess the reliability of the source or the content. While the adults and decision makers in society either worry about possible adverse effects of technology on childhood or get excited by the newness of technology itself, young people just quietly go about adopting technologies as basic tools and naturally using their own ways of acquiring knowledge and developing new skills, that is, e-learning. As a result, a new paradigm of learning is emerging, which Prensky (2007) says is based on the following principles Find information you think is worthwhile anywhere you can. Share it as early and often as possible. Verify it from multiple sources. Use the tools in your pocket – that’s what they’re there for. Search for meaning through discussion. Critical elements in such a technology-resourced, dynamic learning environment are the “speed and connectivity of multidirectional digital communication networks” (Wood & Ashfield, 2008). In other words, access to quality technology and infrastructure, such as high-speed Internet or reliable mobile phone networks, is essential.

learning Inside games An increasingly researched medium for e-learning is the complex digital game, particularly the multiple-player online game (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson & Gee, 2004). The significance of these games lies in the opportunities they create for thinking in new ways, and in the large numbers of the digital generation engaged in playing. Through inhabiting these virtual worlds, players

589

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

“learn by doing things that matter in the world on a massive scale” (Shaffer, 2006:191). Players practice their ‘profession’ by making judgements to solve problems and reflect on that action in collaboration with peers and mentors, and so learn and develop new skills. For example the ‘learning through doing’ that occurs in World of Warcraft, develops skills such as those needed for an effective ‘guildmaster’: attracting, evaluating and recruiting new members; creating apprenticeship programmes; orchestrating group strategy; and managing disputes (Brown & Thomas, 2006). What employer wouldn’t value these skills! According to Prensky (2001) the cognitive style of online game players is quite different to that of players in other games, or indeed, participants in conventional learning environments. Digital game-players operate at ‘twitch’ speed rather than conventional speed, deal with graphics first rather than text, engage in parallel processing and random access rather than linear or step-by-step processing and seek ‘payoff’ instead of developing patience. They are always active participants in a connected environment, not passive spectators in isolated or stand-alone situations. The experience is play and fantasy oriented rather than framed as work or reality. This whole context for learning does not sit comfortably with the typical school classroom scenario, as it conflicts with traditional teacher roles, pedagogical structures, resources and expected learner motivations. While the game-based approaches to learning may not be appropriate for the acquisition of the foundation skills needed by young learners, the fact that so many children and teenagers are game-players suggest that educators need to be aware of their learning approaches, if only in terms of why it is difficult to engage their attention in traditional learning environments.

A new economic environment Some people may question the value of these ICTbased ways of developing knowledge and skills.

590

While the digital generation’s approaches to learning and social interactions may not be compatible with the expectations of many schools, and indeed may not be relevant to all goals of education, such skills are in increasing demand in the workplace. As national-based manufacturing industries decrease in economic importance and the global knowledge economy grows, the job market is rapidly changing. The Australian Government defines ‘information economy’ as…. …the transformation of economic and social activities by information and communications technologies (ICT). An information economy is one where information, knowledge and education are major inputs to business and social activity. It is not a separate ‘new’ economy - it is an economy in which the rapid development and diffusion of ICT-based innovation is transforming all sectors and all aspects of society. (DCITA, 2004:5) Government imperatives such as this also inevitably impact on school curricula. Changing societal and economic environments mean changing workplace expectations and the desirable skills for employees are shifting towards rapid learning, problem solving and flexibility, rather than established knowledge and technical skill as in the past. A simple Internet search reveals advice from hundreds of employment agencies and an abundance of courses on ‘soft skills’, which provide convincing evidence of the shift in the nature of the job market. Creative, innovative people who both adapt to change and drive the change itself are increasingly needed (Green & Hannon, 2007).

new learning theory Extending the idea that the digital generation learn in new ways, Seimens (2004) released an online paper that has stimulated considerable interest and discussion. Seimens (2004) argues that learning theories developed prior to the in-

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

fluence of technology are no longer a sufficient basis for pedagogy. Dealing effectively with the flood of rapidly changing information requires different abilities than did dealing with a more static and less accessible body of information. Seimens proposes the theory of Connectivism, which is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, complexity and self-organization theories. Learning is explained as… a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing. (Seimens, 2004:4) Connectivism can be defined by the following principles: • • • • • • •

•

“Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. Learning may reside in non-human appliances. Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known. Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities. Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision”. (Seimens, 2004:4)

The efficacy of such a theory of learning and its relevance to the education of children is yet to be comprehensively researched and the imperative of acting upon the perceived learning styles of digital natives is debatable in terms of research evidence (Bennett, Marton, Kervin, 2008). However aspects of ‘connectivism’ can already be detected in emerging e-pedagogies in schools. As evidenced by the paper (Seimens, 2006) presented to the Australian governmentbased organization education.au, theories that seek to capture the e-learning phenomenon are of interest to educational leaders.

new wAys of teAchIng While the importance of children learning the skills of reading, writing and mathematics has certainly not diminished, it has become obvious that educational practices must now go beyond the traditional approaches based on the notion that there is a body of knowledge that needs to be delivered to students. Instead, the emphasis in education is shifting towards developing e-learning skills that equip students to cope with the transient nature of knowledge and maintain their learning trajectory throughout their lives. As the Internet is now at the heart of information exchange and communication processes, researchers and educators have been exploring ways of utilising the ‘affordances’ of computer technologies and the characteristics of e-learners to develop new e-pedagogies. ICT can enhance how children learn by supporting four fundamental characteristics of learning: active engagement, collaboration and participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connections to real-world contexts (Roschelle, Roy, Hoadley, Douglas, Gordin & Means, 2000). Although these characteristics are also achievable without technologies, the potential of connected digital technologies to create new learning environments and influence changes in teaching approaches has been well documented.

591

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

A body of research conducted around 2000 (for example; Barker, 1999; Goodyer, 1999; Hannifin, 1999; Hayes, Schuck, Segal, Dwyer & McEwen, 2001; Saye, 1997) identified the potential of computer-based technologies to transform pedagogy in the following ways: • • • •

A shift from ‘instructivist’ to constructivist education philosophies; A move from teacher-centred to studentcentred learning activities; A shift from a focus on local resources to global resources; and An increased complexity of tasks and use of multi-modal information.

In Australia, these findings are reflected in state education documents such as the Australian Capital Territory’s Learning Technologies Plan for ACT Government Schools & Preschools 2004-2006 which includes the following list statements: ICT encourages: • Student-centred learning; • Active, exploratory, inquiry-based learning; • Collaborative work; • Creativity, critical thinking and informed decision-making; • Involvement in authentic and real-life tasks; • The transfer of skills and knowledge. (ACT, 2004 p 3) The recurring notions of technology-mediated real-world contexts and student-centred activities as effective learning environments, are embodied in the authentic pedagogies approach, which has received considerable attention in Australian education (See for example Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study, 2001). Studies in the area of authentic pedagogy, particularly the work of Newmann and associates (1996) defined

592

learning as constructing knowledge and producing discourse, products, and performances that have meaning beyond school. Authentic learning includes the learning of not only basic skills, but incorporation of those skills into tasks requiring complex thinking and in-depth knowledge, which is then used to solve problems and create artefacts. These artefacts can be utilized in settings outside the classroom. For authentic learning to be present, three criteria must be achieved. These criteria are: construction of knowledge; disciplined inquiry; and value beyond school (Newmann, 1996). Herrington, Oliver & Reeves (2003) present ten characteristics of authentic activities in online learning environments, and these reflect both the principles of authentic pedagogies and a number of the characteristics of digital generation learning approaches discussed earlier, and hence relate to the characteristics of e-pedagogy. Authentic activities: • Have real world relevance - matching as nearly as possible the real world tasks of professionals in practice rather than decontextualised or classroom based tasks; • Are ill-defined, requiring students to define the tasks and sub-tasks needed to complete the activity; • Comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time and so require significant investment of time and intellectual resources; • Provide the opportunity for students to examine the task from different perspectives, using a variety of resources; • Provide the opportunity to collaborate; • Provide the opportunity to reflect; • Can be integrated and applied across different subject areas and lead beyond domain specific outcomes; • Are seamlessly integrated with assessment; • Create polished products valuable in their own right rather than as preparation for something else;

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

•

Allow competing solutions and diversity of outcome. (Herrington, Oliver & Reeves, 2003)

the role of schools The digital-native generation have developed ways of learning in their lives outside of school that differ from the more traditional learning modes expected inside most schools. There is growing opinion that this dislocation of learning environments may be a major contributor to the widespread disengagement of students as they move through into high school. Additionally, the skills that are being learned in the digital environment, particularly by ‘creative producers’ and ‘digital pioneers’ are increasingly valuable to the rapidly developing global knowledge economy, placing these young people at a distinct advantage over their peers who have not had similar e-learning experiences in cyberspace, and who lack the necessary supportive social and knowledge-sharing networks. The recently released Digital Futures Report (Ewing, Thomas & Schiessl, 2008) revealed that, although it has diminished over the past few years, the ‘digital divide’ still exists in Australia. With figures based on the survey of 1000 households, it was found that 27% of people were not using the Internet, with the dominant underlying reasons being low levels of income, education or employment. There exists an educational imperative for schools to adopt appropriate technology-rich curricula and pedagogies to provide all children with learning opportunities that prepare them for the future. As well as facilitating digital environments that stimulate purposeful creativity, experiential and peer-exchange learning, teachers have a key role in promoting critical thinking skills such as evaluating, questioning and prioritising information. However, several current researchers caution against the assumption that, simply introducing new technologies into classrooms, will bring about desirable changes. Although widely avail-

able in UK classrooms for a number of years, interactive whiteboards (IWB) have only recently made a substantial impact in Australian schools. The IWB technology is specifically designed as a whole-class teaching tool, which, if used in a traditional teaching style, can decrease the interaction and collaboration between pupils (Glover & Miller, 2001; Hall & Higgins, 2005). However, some recent studies (Wood & Ashfield, 2007; Gillen, Staarman, Littleton, Klein & Twiner, 2008) indicate that the affordances of the IWB, combined with some innovative pedagogy have the potential to create learning environments that support a more dynamic, spontaneous, faster-paced, creative approach to teaching, with increased dialogue amongst the participants, which more closely matches the needs of e-learners. All of these studies emphasise the importance of developing appropriate pedagogies to maximise the educational benefits of new technology resources. In 2000, the Australian Government set “School education goals for the information economy” which stated that…. All students will leave school as confident, creative and productive users of new technologies, including information and communication technologies, and understand the impact of those technologies on society. All schools will seek to integrate information and communication technologies into their operations, to improve student learning, to offer flexible learning opportunities and to improve the efficiency of their business practices. (DETYA, 2000:49) To what degree have these goals been achieved, particularly in the light of our emerging understanding of the e-learners?

Ict ADoPtIon In schools – slow but sure Although many teachers use technology in multidimensional ways, in and out of the classroom, 593

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

many more do not (Bebell, Russell & O’Dwyer, 2004; Jamieson-Proctor, Burnett, Finger & Watson, 2006; Smeets, 2004; Sugar, Crawley & Fine, 2004). The slow utilisation of the capabilities of technology in so many schools has been perplexing (Phelps, Graham & Kerr, 2004) and research has sought to define the obstacles (See, for example, BECTA, 2004; Jameison-Proctor, Burnett, Finger & Watson, 2006; Scrimshaw, 2004). However, the uniqueness of every teacher, the complexity of each school environment and the likely interaction between determining factors, has made a comprehensive picture of what is happening in schools across Australia elusive (Ainley, Banks & Flemming, 2002). One of the broadest Australian studies in recent years was the government commissioned report Making Better Connections (Downes, Fluck, Gibbons, Leonard, Matthews, Oliver, Vickers, Williams, 2001) which gathered information regarding ICT use in schools in relation to their educational goals and professional development needs. The report provided a classification of four types of ICT integration: ICT as an object of study; ICT as tool for learning, with pedagogy usually unchanged; ICT as integral to both subject matter and pedagogy; ICT as integral to reform of schooling, with changes to organization, structures and professional practice. However, the report was not able to provide a comprehensive description of the complex interaction of factors within schools that determined the type, nor an explanation of the nature of movement between the types of ICT use. So, although the differing

types of integration have been identified, there is much yet to explore regarding how and why schools achieve each type, and, if there is a hierarchy, how and why schools progress. The following research-based framework begins to bridge this gap in understanding.

A framework for monitoring Ict Adoption The introduction of a national e-learning grants scheme by the Commonwealth Bank (2002 to 2005) provided an extraordinary opportunity to gain a more comprehensive picture of ICT integration in Australian primary schools. Analysis of the 2002 grant applications allowed the development of a descriptive framework that accounts for the complexities of individual school environments and describes the nature of ICT integration (Way & Webb, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). With the eventual release of the 2005 data, the application of the framework as an analysis tool has allowed the changing levels of ICT adoption and associated pedagogies to be examined, and reported here for the first time. (Unfortunately, the grants program has ceased, so other avenues for collecting such rich data beyond 2005 must be pursued). Table 1 presents an overview of the Framework, consisting of three dimensions, each with several categories that define the differences between the nature of ICT use in primary schools for Literacy and/or Numeracy projects as described in their grant applications. An explanation of each category for each dimension follows.

Table 1. Three-dimensional analysis framework

594

Dimension

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Category 4

ICT Infrastructure

Disconnected environment

Initially connected environment

Established connected environment

Multifaceted connected environment

Motivation and ICT Use

Situational – Reactive

Skills Oriented

Proactive – Higher Order

Pedagogy and Innovation

ICT as an Innovative Object

ICT as a Curriculum Tool

New Learning Environment

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

Dimension 1: Ict Infrastructure levels in Primary schools. Schools were asked to describe in the applications the existing technology resources and how they were used. Most applications also explained how they would like to improve the school’s hardware, software and connectivity, thus pointing to what they considered to be ‘the next step’ in development. Four infrastructure levels were identified from this information. Level 1: The disconnected environment. The school’s ICT infrastructure is limited and composed of only a small number of computers and most of these are not connected to any type of network. In this environment there is an emphasis on increasing access to the technology, generally by providing more computers to reduce the ratio of computers to students and constructing a network. Level 2: The initially connected environment. The ICT infrastructure is slightly more developed and utilised, but descriptions of this environment recognise greater potential for the use of networked computers within the school environment and often focus on increasing the quantity and connectivity of computers. Level 3: The established connected environment. The ICT infrastructure is well established and a school’s local area network is in operation, together with reasonably efficient Internet access. Highdensity computer areas such as ‘computer labs’, technology centres’, ‘technology resource centres’ are created; and a concentration of expertise and competence is found in a small number of teachers, usually manifested in the form of a ‘computer teacher’. Multimedia resources are beginning to be used in teaching and learning. These schools often describe the desire to add additional resources to the infrastructure to expand its use.

Level 4: Multifaceted connected environment. In schools at this level the ICT infrastructure has matured to become an integral part of the school environment, with Broadband access to the Internet available on all computers, well established infrastructure, and communication mechanisms (Websites and email use) reaching beyond the school. The opportunities for teaching and learning provided by the infrastructure are beginning to change the operation of the school, classroom design and furniture, and how teachers conceptualise teaching and learning.

Dimension 2: teacher motivation & Ict use The motivation descriptions, that is, the explanations of ‘why’ the ICT projects are being proposed, reflect how teachers respond to the relative significance of the influencing forces in a particular context. Three types of motivation and ICT use were identified. Type 1: Situational – Reactive. The project motivation is based on the specific school context and the reason for the project is defined in terms of meeting the learning needs of students or specific groups of students. In this sense, the initiative is a reaction to the internal forces operating within the particular school. The motivation statements of schools in this type frequently refer to the pressures, deficits or disadvantages in their students, school, teachers and community and how they, as teachers, react to these pressures. A number of themes were woven into the motivation descriptions. The three dominant themes of motivation were; Teacher-centred, Student-centred, Resource-centred. Type 2: Skills Oriented. In this category, the motivation for the project is focused on students and staff acquiring technological skills and competencies related to the specific technologies available

595

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

within the school and how ICT can be used to support curriculum outcomes. Innovation in this type involves integrating the skills necessary to perform tasks embedded in curriculum areas; it is frequently described in terms of doing what is normally undertaken within the school but the innovation is that it will now be done using ICT. There were three identifiable sub-groupings of motivation according to whether focus was on developing student ICT skills, teacher ICT skills, or teacher skills in integrating ICT in the curriculum. Type 3: Proactive – Higher Order. This type of motivation is characterised by experimentation and exploration of new ways of teaching and learning, often for the promotion of new ways of thinking or higher order thinking skills; and so are clearly related to pedagogy. In this sense the projects are proactive because of the forwardlooking nature of the goals and the departure from previous methods. Innovation in this ‘type’ reflects the value that teachers place on a broader and more integrated curriculum, but it is also built on teacher and student competencies and an ICT infrastructure that can support such innovation. The descriptions include references to strategies such as personal construction of knowledge, critical reflection, open-ended outcomes, collaboration within and/or beyond the school, digital multimedia creation, global publication and critique.

Dimension 3: Pedagogy and Innovation Three modes of pedagogy emerged from the descriptions of projects provided by teachers in the applications. The teacher descriptions not only revealed how they perceive the relationship between ICT, their views on student learning and their approaches to teaching and degree of e-pedagogy, but also what they considered to be innovative about their projects.

596

Mode 1: ICT as Innovative Objects. This mode is characterised by an emphasis on the ‘newness’ of the technology itself and the project’s focus on ‘learning about the technology’ and bringing new technologies into the classroom. The rapid changes that appear to be inherent in hardware and software create a perception of constant ‘newness’. New technological objects are more likely to be used if the classroom practice of the teacher is not challenged by the new object because the teacher’s pedagogical approach can accommodate the ‘new’ technology, that is, new technology but not new pedagogy. Factors mentioned include increased confidence and ICT experience, skills in Literacy and Numeracy, efficiency of organization, time, access to information, planning, and motivation of reluctant learners. Mode 2: ICT as a Curriculum Tool. This mode is characterised by references to how the technology can improve educational outcomes such as those defined in curriculum documents. The technology becomes a teaching and learning tool. The increased efficiency presented by the technologies is perceived as the innovation. The project descriptions emphasise factors such as curriculum delivery enhancement, integrating ICT across learning areas, designing rich learning resources, development of descriptors for competencies, achievement and curriculum outcomes. Mode 3: New Learning Environment. In this category, shifts in pedagogy are integral to the innovation of the project. The technologies bring into question current approaches to teaching and learning and school organization. Innovation in this ‘mode’ allows or produces new or creative learning environments and new ways of teaching and learning that are learner-centred yet reach beyond the school. The features include learning styles or multiple intelligences, collaboration and co-operation, new ways of learning (personalised, realistic, self-paced, self-directed, non-linear,

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

self-assessed), collaborative, networked, global communities and e-learning spaces.

the Progress of Ict Integration in Australian schools The data from the first and last years of the E-Learning Grants data is reported here, with the purpose of illustrating the progress of ICT adoption in Australian primary schools. In the 2002 study, the 464 schools constituted 5.8% of the total number of primary schools across Australia, and in 2005 the 1084 schools constituted 16.4% of the schools (Based on statistics from MCEETYA 2001 and 2005). While these samples cannot be guaranteed to be fully representative of all Australian schools, the broad demographic, geographic and systemic diversity of the schools, plus the fact that this sample far surpasses those used in most other studies, provides reasonable confidence in making some generalisations. As can be seen in Table 2 and Figure 1, which compare the figures from 2002 and 2005, there has been change in the nature of ICT adoption that could be broadly described as upward shift in the three dimensions of the framework. Schools in 2005 generally have improved ICT infrastructure, with more established internal networking of computers, functional Internet connections, and access to a range of peripheral devices (such as printers, data projectors and digital cameras). However, alarmingly, 3% of the schools were still striving to establish a basic level of infrastructure. On the other end of the scale there was an increase

of 9% in the schools reporting multifaceted connected computer environments. The 2005 figures indicate a decline (13% to 4%) in the number of school projects motivated by a reaction to a specific need in the school and the perception that the presence of new technology in the school is the innovation. 2005 saw an increase (from 14% to 21%) in school projects that represented changes in pedagogy and school culture, with the creation of new learning environments that use technology to extend learning beyond the mandated curriculum and beyond the confines of the classroom, to embrace e-learning.

the typical Australian Primary school Despite the upward development of ICT adoption in schools, the majority (77% in 2002, 60% in 2005) of school projects in both 2002 and 2005 were characterised by the same mid-framework levels: ICT Infrastructure Level 2 (Initially connected environment) or Level 3 – (Established connected environment); Motivation & ICT Use Type 2 (Skills Oriented); and Pedagogy & Innovation Mode 2 (ICT as a Curriculum Tool). These schools typically had a computer to student ratio approaching the national average (1:6) and had most of their computers connected to the school network, as well as to the Internet. Many computers were distributed throughout the school, and classroom computers were commonly used in association with the computers located in computer labs and/or the library. Both students and teachers

Table 2. Percentages of schools for each category of each dimension – 2002 and 2005 Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Category 4

2002

2005

2002

2005

2002

2005

2002

2005

Infrastructure

6

3

34

32

57

53

3

12

Motivation

15

5

72

62

13

33

Pedagogy

13

4

73

75

14

21

2002 n=464 2005 n=1084

597

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

Figure 1. Percentages of schools for each category of each dimension – 2002 and 2005 Comparison of 2002 & 2005 Levels 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

4

50%

3 2

40%

1

30% 20% 10% 0% Infrastructure Infrastructure 2002 2005

Motivation 2002

Motivation 2005

Pedagogy 2002

Pedagogy 2005

2002 n=464 2005 n=1084

were focussed on developing the skills necessary to use the technology as tools for learning, teaching and communication. Though some new hardware and software appeared in 2005, such as interactive whiteboards and robotics programs, the approach to their adoption was similar. The opportunities presented by the technologies were perceived in terms of how the technologies could be used to enhance the curriculum priorities of the school. The technologies were described as ‘educational tools’, particularly effective when used in association with information processing and students using multimedia technologies to enhance literacy outcomes.

future Development The evidence suggests the 3D framework is hierarchical, and as the vast majority of Australia’s primary schools have reached a mid-point in the development of ICT integration, then perhaps, given time and continued support, they will move into the next phase. Baskin & Williams (2006), in their study of 18 schools, reported a

598

broad acceptance “that ICTs will at some stage of evolution provide accessible, flexible learning experiences, increased administrative efficiency, integration of functions, and improved processes across the school, despite the fact that few schools in this study have tangible experience of these advantages” and these schools expressed concern over the large gap between levels of ICT integration in schools (Baskin & Williams, 2006:466). However, the question of whether this development can be accelerated remains unanswered. Indeed, Cartwright & Hammond (2007) emphasise “the notion that all schools are somewhere along a path of ICT adoption that will ultimately lead to a transformation in teaching and learning is unrealistic” and that the shift to effective integration of technology by teachers is “a complex and long term enterprise” requiring strong intervention (p.405). Some of this complexity arises from the diversity that exists in Australian schools – diversity in language and cultural background, socioeconomic status, geographic location, educational philosophy and systemic-based infrastructure priorities. Another complexity lies in the teach-

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

ers themselves. Some teachers perceive ICT to be incompatible with their wider educational beliefs or the obstacles may be to do with the personal characteristics of some teachers, such as confidence in their abilities to utilise technology effectively (BECTA, 2004; Jameison-Proctor et. al., 2006; Scrimshaw, 2004). Perhaps the gradual progression of digital natives into the teaching profession and leadership positions will bring a faster pace of change to schools.

emergIng e-PeDAgogy – new teAchIng for new leArnIng With about one-fifth (21%) of Australian primary schools in 2005 reporting the development of new ICT-mediated learning environments (Pedagogy Mode 3), there is much information to be gained from examining the 229 project descriptions closely. Searching the project descriptions for commonalities and differences revealed some groupings in approaches to integrating curriculum, technology and pedagogy to engage children’s learning. Interestingly, these groupings also reflect some of the key characteristics of the digital-generation learners. The five major groupings are described later. Direct quotations from the project descriptions provide explanations of the emerging e-pedagogy in the ‘teacher’s voice’, and are presented with some key words identified to highlight connections to the digital generation learning preferences mentioned earlier in the chapter.

creation and Publication Some schools developed projects that integrated mathematics, literacy, visual/performing arts and ICT to create resources, performances and online learning environments. Various combinations of open-ended software, equipment and peripherals such as digital cameras, interactive whiteboards, school intranets were proposed. The projects not

only modelled some of the activities and products of the digital natives known as the Creative Producers, but also tended to reflect other characteristics of e-learning, such as collaboration, collective knowledge and skill building, and fantasy worlds. As can be seen in the following project extracts, the teachers recognise the immersion of the digital generation in ICT-based environments, but also recognise inequities in children’s experiences, and the school’s role in developing deeper understanding and critical awareness of the elements of digital environments for all students. •

•

(School 95) Teachers will develop fundamental skills to enable them to teach with these contemporary techniques, collaboratively building upon each other’s prior knowledge and understandings……. Students will work as a team to solve problems as they arise in a fresh and real life setting. This reinforces collaborative group skills and attitudes respecting every member of the group. All students will need to be able to interact with and support each other no matter what happens, in order to achieve their ultimate goal. (School 321) The students are using the World Wide Web more and more frequently to locate information and for entertainment. Our writing project has a two-fold purpose - (1) encouraging students to become educated and discerning users of the internet for recreational ‘reading’ by evaluating commercial e-zines for children and (2) providing students with the skills and knowledge to be able to produce a magazine online showcasing the creative work done by students at the school. ……. The students will become aware of the constructed nature of this medium (a website) and how it disadvantages and marginalises some users who lack the necessary prior knowledge to understand this mode of communication. In addition to written text and artwork, there will be op-

599

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

portunities to expand the students’ literacy repertoires to include the modes of audio, animation and video. Including suitable hyperlinks and the opportunity to provide for interactivity between authors and readers could be investigated.

gaming, role Play, robotics and Programming The availability of software packages and kits that facilitate the building and programming of robots and the creation of computer games, provided the support needed for teachers to instigate projects that actively engaged students in collaborative learning experiences that focus on learning by doing. The teachers justified the project’s place in the curriculum through the opportunities to enhance literacy, numeracy, science and ICT skills, but also acknowledged the importance of developing these as learning skills in their own right, together with other learning skills such as collaboration, role play, game making, organisation and problem solving. The following extracts from project descriptions illustrate how the teachers perceived the learning environment and the role of ICT in learning. •

600

(School 355) The e-learning initiative …. hopes to capture the imagination of students and actively engage them in meaningful challenges which focus on developing life skills such as problem solving, working collaboratively and cooperatively with others, organisational ability, persistence and the ability to improvise. Building robots and intelligent systems using Lego Mindstorm Kits is a positive and constructive teaching tool to create a stimulating and engrossing ICT environment which motivates students to enhance their literacy, numeracy and ICT skills. Two robo-adventures are contained within the package we hope to purchase. “The Alien Encounter” involves two lego-

•

astronauts who explore an unknown planet and learn how to communicate with the locals. ………To complete the activities the students will build real robots, program them to perform specific tasks, and identify examples of similar technology in the world outside the classroom. (School 812) During this year they have been able to create their own web sites on our schools Intranet. This background is an excellent launching pad for the children to embark on the exciting areas of programming for robotics and game making. The Robotics program is drag and drop and ranges from basic through to highly advanced thus catering for all levels of ability. The Gamemaker project is a similar drag and drop but also provides the children with the ability to use code in programming. …. The children’s literacy and numeracy skills are enhanced “by doing” which is often the best way for them to learn.

connection, Access and communication In other projects, the power of the technology for communication was particularly important for establishing collaborative learning environments and virtual classrooms, connecting to the world beyond the classroom, or for achieving access to resources for special needs children or remote and isolated communities. In their project descriptions, the teachers highlighted the role of social interactions in children’s learning. •

(School 157) This website will provide students, parents and the community with an insight into many areas across our curriculum, essentially taking our classrooms and our work out in to the ‘big wide world’. ……. bring my skills together with student skills in order to create a website that har-

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

•

•

nesses our skills collectively. If we were to work individually the website would not be created, however, through teamwork, students and teachers working together with professional assistance, we would be able to maximise the outcomes for everyone”. (School 604) The 2005 E-Learning programme will provide resources to improve our current Intranet system to build an online collaborative learning environment for all children across the school R-7. The new environment will incorporate instant messaging, chat rooms, collaborative virtual white boards, WIKI pages, on-line forums, video conferencing and music streaming and allow children to communicate, collaborate and share their work across the school from class to class. It will allow teachers to plan on line units of work quickly and easily and allow children to work through these units at their own pace. (School 1040) The isolation of our rural community means that communication via email and instant messaging is a viable form of communication for our students both at school and at home. Ongoing expert support, web cameras for all computers and the potential to establish video conferencing using a digital video camera would supplement the amount of technology hardware we currently have in the school and enable us to develop the social skills of our students. This is an area of need due to the isolation of the school/farms and small student population. Increased self-esteem and being confident in social situations are interpersonal skills that are applicable for all facets of the students’ lives, both now and in the future.

Authentic tasks, science and enquiry A number of projects applied scientific enquiry methods and made use of measurement tools and

peripheral devices such as cameras, pedometers, data-loggers and scales to explore environmental and sustainability issues such as energy, waste management, biodiversity and water. These projects often had a proactive goal such as creation of a habitat, reclamation of wasteland or a creek or improvement of practices in the school. The teachers clearly view authentic tasks as way to engage students in meaningful learning experiences as well as a vehicle for developing multi-literacies and numeracy, but there is also an underlying sense of the child, and the school, being part of a wider community. •

•

(School 43) Students will learn how to control a research grade telescope over the Internet …… In learning how to control the telescope students will learn about the Earth in Space …...make apparatus to measure the distance to the Moon and the diameter of the Sun, work with numbers greater than a million …. write about their experiences, debate the merits of the objects they wish to photograph, present their findings to their peers and parents, use information technology to control the telescope and to process the images that the telescope produces, conduct research on the internet on objects within the solar system, detail the procedures they employ to make contact with the telescope and process their images. (School 599) We are targeting these students as it is an area in which they have an interest outside school and is an issue within the community. Students have been active in a campaign to restore the …….. jetty which is largely closed. Demolishing the jetty will destroy the habitat and the colony of dragons underneath….The proposed technology will enhance their learning by improving skills in emailing, word processing, Internet research, web publishing, video production and provide a real purpose for their learning.

601

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

transforming schools, learning Philosophy, life long learning Some schools took the opportunity to communicate their recently developed philosophies of learning and teaching that suggest a deeper understanding of collaborative knowledge construction and a more holistic embracing of e-learning and e-pedagogy. •

•

•

602

(School 240) Two years ago we moved away from purchasing desktop computers to embrace the portability and convenience of laptop computers. The change in the school culture has been remarkable in such a short period of time. ….. teachers already engaged in professional dialogue as to how they could best utilise the technology. New ideas and new ways of thinking breathes life into a school … it has the potential to change the way we teach altogether. This style of teaching and learning encourages collaboration, peer tutoring and child-centred activities at an appropriate level. (School 238) The research tasks are community centred and students will establish links between the classroom, the school and the wider community using technology. They will be doing this via ichat, isight cameras, digital cameras, video recorders and the Internet. Learning will be internally controlled and mediated and be an active and reflective process. Knowledge will be constructed in multiple ways through the use of the aforementioned tools, resources, experiences and contexts. Social interaction will be through reflection, collaboration, negotiation and shared meaning. (School 1079) For the students their personal blog will allow them to develop their own content and online presence but it will also be their contribution to a team. As the content is added and the project progresses a sense of a virtual community and teamwork

•

will be achieved. …. Blogging ……. is about reading what is of interest to you: your culture, your community, your ideas. And it is about engaging with the content and with the authors of what you have read—reflecting, criticizing, questioning, reacting. If a student has nothing to blog about, it is not because he or she has nothing to write about or has a boring life. It is because the student has not yet stretched out to the larger world, has not yet learned to meaningfully engage in a community. For blogging in education to be a success, this teamwork first must be embraced and encouraged. Blogs emphasise shared meaning and understandings. Knowledge is acquired and shaped as a social process. (School 564) More than that, we believe the skills that students acquire through e-learning will assist them not just in the classroom, but also in any learning environment and in the broader community, including future workplace situations. In many instances, e-learning allows students to develop skills in accessing and selecting appropriate information, file management, problem identification, working with partners, negotiation, time management, goal setting, be creative in their choice of styles, format and visual impact in their work presentation and so on. These are transferable skills that they could apply in future learning. In addition, we believe that ICT enhances life long learning skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, research and analytical skills. The fact that it can cater for a wide range of learning abilities and styles means all students can benefit from it.

conclusIon As technology shapes the global information economy, the digital generation, through their

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

interactions within multi-direction connected digital environments, are redefining learning. Their preferred learning environments are dynamic, engaging, complex, collaborative and challenging. Social networks and virtual communities support the development of collective knowledge and skills. Their conversations and creative endeavours are shared in public venues. As researchers and educators analyse, explain and theorise about the characteristics of e-learning, compatible teaching strategies (e-pedagogies) are being defined. A mapping of ICT initiatives in primary schools across Australia (2002 to 2005) revealed that the typical school has adopted ICT as a resource to enhance curriculum-specified learning outcomes, but has largely maintained more traditional views of learning and teaching practice. There has been a gradual increase in the number of schools recognising the characteristics of e-learning and corresponding pedagogies, and responding by developing new learning environments. These progressive teachers, even though many of them would not be ‘digital natives’ themselves, have recognised the importance of providing all children with opportunities to develop the learning strategies needed to fully participate in our nation’s technology-shaped future. The dilemma of how to accelerate the change in pedagogy in our schools remains unsolved – but perhaps the leadership of the new generation of digital-native teachers will make a significant impact over next several years. ICT, today’s learning tool for our student’s futures. (School 631)

references Ainley, J., Banks, D., & Flemming, M. (2002). The influence of IT: perspectives from five Australian schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 395-404.

Barker, P. (1999) Using intranets to support teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 36(1), 3-10. Baskin, C. and Williams, M. (2006). ICT integration in schools: Where are we now and what comes next? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 455-473. Retrieved January 18, 2008 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/ baskin.html Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teacher’s technology uses: why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45-63. Bennett, S., Marton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775 – 786. BECTA. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Retrieved September 20, 2006 from http:// partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/ barriers.pdf Brown, J. S., (2002). Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. United States Distance Learning Association Journal, 16 (2), 15-27. Retrieved on March 22 2008 from http://www.usdla.org/html/ journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html Brown, J. S. & D Thomas, (2006). ‘You play World of Warcraft? You’re hired!’: Why multiplayer games may be the best kind of job training. Wired, Apr 14, 2006. Cartwright, V. & Hammond, M. (2007). ‘Fitting it in’: A study exploring ICT use in a UK primary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 390-407. Retrieved January 18, 2008 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ ajet23/cartwright.html

603

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). (2004). Australia’s Strategic Framework for the Information Economy 2004-2006: Opportunities and Challenges for the Information Age. Retrieved viewed March 31, 2008 from http://www.dcita.gov.au/ie/ framework at http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/20457/New_SFIE_July_2004_final. pdf

Gillen, J., Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N. & Twiner, A. (2008). A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256. Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.

Department of Education and the Arts, Queensland. (2001). School Reform Longitudinal Study: Final Report. Available at: http://education. qld.gov.au/public_media/reports/curriculumframework/qsrls/

Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: the pedagogical impact of the large scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(3) 257276.

Department of Education, Training & Youth Affairs (DETYA). (2000). Learning for the knowledge society. An education and training action plan for the information economy. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/ school_education/publications_resources/profiles/learning_for_the_knowledge_society.htm

Goodyer, A. (1999) Workshop on Information and Communication Technologies and the Curriculum. Sydney, Australia: Office of the Board of Studies NSW. Retrieved from www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/docs_general/occasionalp2_ict. html#heading2

Department of Education & Training, Australian Capital Territory. (2004). Learning Technologies Plan for ACT Government Schools and Preschools 2004-2006: Transforming the way we teach and learn. Retrieved from http://activated.decs.act. gov.au/admin/techplan/ Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, Oliver, et al. (2001). Making better connections: Models of teacher professional development for the integration of information and communication technology into classroom practice. Department of Education, Science and Technology. Ewing, S., Thomas, J. & Schiessl, J. (2008). CCi Digital Futures Report: The Internet in Australia. Kelvin Grove, Australia: Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation. Retrieved from www.cci. edu.au/projects/digital-futures

604

Green & Hannon, (2007). Their Space: Education for the digital generation. London: DEMOS. Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102117 Hannafin, R. D. (1999) Can teacher attitudes about learning be changed? Journal of Computer in Teacher Education, Winter, 15(2),7-13. Hayes, D., Schuck, S., Segal, G., Dwyer, J. & McEwen, C. (2001). Net Gain?: The integration of computer-based learning in six NSW government schools 2000. Sydney: Australia: The University of Technology, Sydney Faculty of Education Change and Education Research Group. Herrington, J., Oliver, R. & Reeves, T. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 19(1), 59-71.

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

Jamieson-Proctor, R. M., Burnett, P. C., Finger, G. and 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), 511530. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ ajet/ajet22/jamieson-proctor.html MCEETYA. (2002). The national report on schooling in Australia: 2001. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs. Retrieved August 22, 2007 from http:// cms.curriculum.edu.au/anr2001/ MCEETYA. (2005). The national report on schooling in Australia: 2005. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs. Retrieved from March 29 2008 http:// cms.curriculum.edu.au/anr2005/ Newmann, F.M. & Associates (Ed.) (1996.) Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Phelps, R., Graham, A. & Kerr, B. (2004). Teachers and ICT: Exploring a metacognitive approach to professional development. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 49-68. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. McGraw-Hill: New York. Prensky, M. (2007). Changing paradigms. Educational Technology, July-August.Retrieved March 20 2008 from http://www.marcprensky. com/writing/Prensky-ChangingParadigms-01EdTech.pdf Roschelle, J. M., Roy D. P, Hoadley, C.M., Douglas N. Gordin, D.N. & Means, B.M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2),76. Saye, J. (1997). Technology and Educational Empowerment: Students’ Perspectives, ETR&D, 45(2), 5-25.

Scrimshaw, P. (2004). Enabling teachers to make successful use of ICT. Coventry, UK: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). Retrieved September 30, 2006 from http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/ research/enablers.pdf Shaffer, D.W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Shaffer, D.W., Squire, K., Halverson, R. & Gee, J.P. (2004). Video games and the future of learning. Madison, WI: Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/gappspaper1.pdf Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace. Retrieved March 3 2008 from http://www.elearnspace.org/ Articles/connectivism.htm Seimens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning and Knowledge Today. Paper presented at Global Summit 2006: Technology Connected Futures, October, Sydney, Australia. Retrived August 19, 2008 from http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/ Jahia/pid/305 Smeets, E. (2004). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education, 44, 343-355. Sugar, W., Crawley, F., & Fine, B. (2004). Examining teachers’ decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology and Society, 7(4), 201-213. Way, J. & Webb, C. (2007a). A framework for analysing ICT adoption in Australian primary schools. Australian Journal for Educational Technology, 23(4), 559-582. Way, J. & Webb, C. (2007b). Innovation with e-Learning in Australian Primary Schools. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 3(5), 105-116.

605

Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools

Way, J. & Webb, C. (2007c) Pedagogy, Innovation and e-Learning in Primary Schools. Annual Conference of the Australian Association of Research in Education, Adelaide, Australia, November 2006. Retrieved from http://www.aare. edu.au/06pap/way06728.pdf Wood, R. & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard in literacy and maths: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Authentic Pedagogy: This is a teaching approach that facilitates ‘authentic learning’ through the initiation and management of student-centred ‘authentic tasks’. Such tasks require the application of critical inquiry, leading to the construction of knowledge, the solution of complex problems or the production of a meaningful ‘real-life’ outcome. Collaboration: In the ICT context, this general term encompasses a range of situations that involve varying degrees of knowledge-exchange, peer-coaching or evaluation, joint responsibility for problem-solving, teamwork, creative production and social networking – all supported through digital media.

606

Digital Generation: The generation of people that have grown up with easy access to digital information and communication technologies. E-Learning: Learning that is mediated or facilitated by inter-connected digital technologies such Internet-connected computers or mobile devices such phones, and is characterised by rapid knowledge-sharing through social networks or engagement with collaborative virtual learning environments. E-Pedagogy: Approaches to teaching that utilise the affordances of digital information and communication technologies and cater for the learning preferences of the digital generation. ICT Integration: This refers to the extent to which information and communication technologies have been adopted into the school environment and the degree of impact on the school’s organisation and pedagogies. The level of integration is determined by the interplay between infrastructure, teacher motivations, innovations and development of e-pedagogies. New Learning Environments: In context of ICT in schools, these involve the creation of nontraditional opportunities for learning that embrace the characteristics of e-learning and e-pedagogy, and therefore tend to extend learning beyond the limits of the standard curriculum and beyond the physical confines of the school.

607

Chapter XXXVIII

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District Amy S. C. Leh California State University, San Bernardino, USA Lee Grafton Palm Spring Unified School District, USA

AbstrAct This book chapter reports an Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant (EETT-C) project that was designed to improve student achievement and to promote new media literacy. During 2005-2006, the project served 30 sixth to eighth grade mathematics teachers and approximately 3,250 students in Palm Springs Unified School District, a medium-sized, high-poverty school district in Southern California. The research-based program consisted of a student program and faculty development. Strategies used for the student program included data-based decision making, cues, timely feedback, visual and contextualized learning, synthesis of learning for deeper understanding, and parental involvement. Strategies used for the faculty development involved coaching and mentoring to develop teacher expertise, assessment of instructional activities related to student achievement, access to differentiated professional development opportunities, and access to high quality curricular resources. The authors hope that the chapter will inform educators of a better design for professional development and program evaluation.

IntroDuctIon What is literacy? Does it just refer to an individual’s ability to read? How about math literacy, science literacy, visual literacy, health literacy etc.? The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 defined literacy

as “an individual’s ability to read, write, speak in English, compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job, in the family of the individual and in society.” As advanced technology has increasingly shaped our society, all types of literacy have been intercon-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

nected and cannot be separated from information technology literacy. In this article, information technology literacy, digital literacy and new media literacy refer to the same concept. Anderson and Bikson’s (1998) research focused on digital literacy requirements for citizen participation, and they suggested that generic, rather than applicationspecific, knowledge and skills should be the focus of media literacy. Why should generic, rather than applicationspecific, knowledge and skills be the focus of media literacy? The primary reason is that technology changes rapidly, and what is available for use today will be soon obsolete. Generic skills are broad and can equip people to carry out their roles as citizens under conditions in which technologies continue changes (National Research Council, 1997). What are “generic skills?” They are cognitive abilities like learning-to-learn, analysis and problem solving, application, innovation, and communication (Bikson & Law, 1995; Bikson, 1994). Such generic skills enable learners to learn new applications when they need them. Researchers (McArthur, 1987; Curley & Pyburn, 1982) suggested that learning the underlying principles is more important than learning specific features of an application. The “generic skills” well align with 21st century learning, promoted by The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2003), an alliance of education, business and government leaders working to fully address the educational needs and challenges of work and life in the 21st century. This organization identified six key elements of 21st century learning, and two of the six elements are “emphasizing learning skills” and “using 21st century tools to develop learning skills.” Learning skills (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007) referred to (1) critical thinking and problem solving skills, (2) creativity and innovation skills, (3) communication skills, (4) collaboration skills, and (5) information and media literacy. The partnership strongly advocated the use of technology to accomplish these learning skills.

608

To help students at Palm Spring Unified School District (PSUSD) obtain the 21st learning skills and to promote new media literacy, the district secured an Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant (EETT-C), a technology grant to offer teachers professional development and students a student program. This book chapter describes the district technology initiatives. It starts with an overview of the grant and the background of the school district. It then describes the student program and faculty development and followed by the project evaluation. Issues, challenges and lessons learned from their experience are presented to help professionals in the field.

bAcKgrounD The EETT-C grant supported the project “Step Up to Math Mastery Integrating Technology” (SUMMIT) of PSUSD. The primary goal of the grant was to improve access to technology and to provide technology integration training to teachers and students in grades four through eight to enhance teaching and to further learning of the state academic content standards. Eligibility is limited to high-need districts. A high-need district is a district that: Is among those in the state with the highest numbers or percentages of children from families with incomes below the poverty line and; Serves one or more schools identified as Program Improvement (PI) schools or; Has a substantial need for assistance in acquiring and using technology, defined as having an average of 10:1 student-to-multimedia computer ratio or greater in schools serving four through eighth grades in the district or an average of less than 50 percent of classrooms connected to the Internet in schools serving fourth through eighth grades in the district as determined by the

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

California School Technology Survey for the year prior to the grant award. (California Department of Education, 2007) PSUSD, located in southern California, United States, is one of the high-need districts with the characteristics stated before. Educational Demographics 2006-2007 at California Department of Education indicated that 20.5% of the students at the district were white/non-Hispanic, 69.9% of the students were Hispanic or Latino, and the rest of students were Asians, African Americans etc. The district received an EETT-C grant during 20052006 to train 30 math teachers at two schools. The district continued to secure the EETT-C grant during 2006-2008 to train additional 30 teachers at another two schools. The intent of the EETT-C program SUMMIT at PSUSD was to improve student achievement of California sixth to eighth grade math content standards and support the delivery of the district’s state-adopted math curriculum through the use of the new media in the 21st century. Twenty-first century technologies were acquired with EETT-C grant funds to foster teaching and learning of core curriculum content in a 21st century context and to facilitate the implementation of research-based strategies that improve student achievement.

eett-c stuDent ProgrAm The student program was delivered with new media that facilitated the implementation of research-based instructional strategies. These strategies identified by Marzano et al. (2001) and Schmoker (1999) included, but were not limited to, data-based decision making, cues, timely feedback, visual and contextualized learning, synthesis of learning for deeper understanding and retention, accessibility to instructional support, and parental involvement.

Data-based Decision making The school district used data generated from various electronic assessment tools to guide datadriven decision making to improve student math achievement. The tools were used to analyze each student’s 1) level of proficiency measured by the California Math Content Standards and district benchmarks, 2) learning styles and 3) level of technology proficiency. All math teachers at the school district belonged to a Site Data Team based on the grade level they taught, for example, all sixth-grade math teachers had their Site Data Team while all seventh-grade teachers had theirs. Working with teachers who taught the same grade, teachers analyzed the student data in Site Data Teams and collaborated to design instructional strategies that 1) differentiated instruction, 2) met individual student academic needs, and 3) encouraged students to reflect on teaching and learning strategies to adjust for improvement.

cues Wireless Interwrite SchoolPads drew students’ attention. Students were visually cued to conceptual content as engaging, reproducible, curricular resources were projected through a classroom projection station - an LCD projector/ Internetconnected multimedia computer with an audio system. Attention was focused with the use of electronic highlighters and drawing tools as students and teachers used Bluetooth compatible, wireless SchoolPads to extend the capability of the classroom projection system. The SchoolPads enabled the user (teacher or student) to access, highlight and draw on the screen from remote locations throughout the room to prompt students to attend to important material.

timely feedback Qwizdom, an interactive student response system, allowed students and teachers to receive instant

609

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

feedback. Students took mini-quizzes using Qwizdom. Using a Bluetooth, remote device, each student selected a multiple-choice or true-false answer to solve a series of problems, for example, two-step equations. Each student’s response was immediately recorded and accessible to both the student and teacher, providing instant feedback. Each student who had trouble with the concept could be immediately identified and retaught “on the spot”. Immediate feedback kept student learning on target.

Accessibility to Instructional support

visual and contextualized learning

Technology was used to facilitate communication with parents and students, plus to provide access to resources to support each student’s work beyond the classroom. Attendance records, homework assignments, and grades were accessible to parents and students through ParentConnection, an online portal to the District, accessible from school, home, city library or neighborhood center with Internet access. Students, parents, teachers and site administrators communicated via e-mail to enable each student to accomplish learning goals.

Visual media was used to extend student knowledge and facilitate recall. Digital video clips from Discovery’s unitedstreaming were used to motivate and engage students by providing visual representations of the concepts to be learned with contextual examples. The lessons were accessible to all students through the classroom projection station.

The SchoolPad enabled the teacher to access data files and resources and provide whole class instruction from anywhere in the room. This mobility was used to encourage students to stay on task, monitor student learning, and facilitate instructional support.

Parental Involvement

synthesis of learning for Deeper understanding and retention eett-c fAculty DeveloPment Technology was used to enable students to access information and construct multimedia projects that demonstrated a synthesis of knowledge. At the end of curricular strands, each student worked on an individual or group project. The purpose of the project was to demonstrate and explain a mathematical concept using a “real world” example. The student accessed information and resources through Internet resources, on-line experts, and on-line communities. The student selected appropriate software applications such as Inspiration to organize their presentations and Microsoft Office products to create and display their work. Each project was evaluated by the student’s teacher with a rubric developed with the Site Data Teams. Each project included a learning reflection.

610

According to research (Cradler, 2002; NCREL 2000), professional development for technology integration is most effective when the focus is on teaching and learning, rather than on technology itself. The faculty development strategies were designed to provide the teachers with the skills and aptitudes necessary to deliver the program for students. Strategies used in the program are described as follows.

coaching and mentoring to Develop teacher expertise Research (Cradler, 2002) indicates when teachers participate in coaching and mentoring programs, the teachers 1) practice the new strategies more

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

frequently, 2) develop greater skills, 3) use the strategies more appropriately, 4) retain the basic tenets over time, and 5) are more likely to discuss the new strategies with their students so the students understand what learning goals are expected. Coaching and mentoring have also been found to be an integral element in a constant improvement cycle focused on student achievement (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Therefore, each funded school had two math Coaches that attended a Coaching Academy, a partnership between California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP), the state’s regional development agency, and the district. The Coaching Academy prepared the Coaches to use peer- coaching methods to guide teachers in the effective use of technology to deliver the district’s state-adopted math curriculum to support student mastery of the California (CA) Academic Standards. The Coaches were trained 1) in classroom observation skills to monitor, assess and record each targeted teacher’s progress and 2) to provide meaningful feedback to facilitate improvement. The Coaching program was on-going and Coaches met regularly with the district program manager to provide feedback to improve the program and to receive support as needed. To ensure the Coaching Academy clearly supported the state and district standards, CTAP and the district collaborated with the CA Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program, a state program that was designed to support and to increase retention rate of beginning teachers. The collaboration ensured that the Coaching Academy and district training was consistent with and led to the attainment of the state’s BTSA’s Program Standards. In addition, CTAP, Coaches and the district program manager all attended AB 466 training to ensure the faculty development program was consistent with and clearly supported the district’s state-adopted curriculum materials.

Assessment of Instructional Activities related to student Achievement Research (Carter, 2000; Schmoker, 1999) shows that when teachers periodically assess instructional activities to improve instruction to increase student achievement, student academic performance improves. Therefore, each teacher, including the Coaches, developed Individual Learning Plans (ILP). With the support and instructional guidance of CTAP and the district program manager, the Coaches collaborated with the teachers to support the development of their individual plans. The ILP described the steps that teachers would take to improve their qualifications to use technology to improve student achievement and meet the goals of the program. Each teacher, including the Coaches, kept artifacts and records to document progress in meeting the goals of the ILP. All teachers also collaborated routinely in the analysis of student performance data in Site Data Teams to target the academic learning needs of each student and reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching strategies.

Access to Differentiated Professional Development opportunities The program was multifaceted with 1) training directly related to the teacher’s content area and instructional goals, 2) opportunities appropriate to teachers’ varying levels of knowledge and skills, 3) training in instructional and classroom management strategies to facilitate effective technology integration into the delivery of curriculum, 4) training planned with input from teaching peers, 5) training over multiple sessions, 6) just-in-time training and support, 7) training to enable teachers to assist students in the use of computers to learn higher-order concepts, 8) time to rethink instructional approaches, and 9)

611

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

opportunities to meaningfully engage with colleagues and materials. A variety of opportunities were available to enable the teachers to customize the training to fit their individual needs. Online, face-to-face and hands-on opportunities were offered from the district, Coaches and CTAP. All activities were: 1) focused on improving each student’s grade-level proficiency in mastering the CA Math Content Standards; 2) planned with input from teaching peers; 3) delivered and supported over time, as appropriate; 4) based on learner’s needs as determined by the Coaches and through a Technology Integration Proficiency Survey. Just-in-time support was provided by the Coaches, district program manager, district help desk technicians, and through on-line training opportunities. Time and the structure to rethink instructional strategies were facilitated with the development and sharing of the ILPs and collaborative planning opportunities. Collaboration with colleagues was available through the District’s network, Website, e-mail, and structured professional learning communities. Time for collaboration was paid through grant funds and was important for grant development. The teachers developed and shared standards-based lessons and curricular resources through these mediums.

Access to high Quality curricular resources When professional development programs include teacher access to high quality curricular resources that use technology to improve student achievement, teacher use of technology for teaching and learning will increase (ISTE, 2001). Teachers referred to the district Website for lessons and resources that were directly related to the curriculum materials and the CA math standards, such as resources compiled by the CTAP Region IV Middle School Math Project. Teachers also collaborated to share lessons and resources on the district network. 612

ProgrAm evAluAtIon An external evaluator, a university professor in Instructional Technology, conducted the program evaluation. Classroom is the core of K-12 education in our society and is also the place where content, professional development, and educational theories are intertwined and presented (Cohen & Ball, 1999; Lampert, 2001). Thus, the program evaluation mainly relied on data collected from classroom observations and interviews. This book chapter only reports on evaluation conducted during 2005-2006.

Data collection and Analysis The professor conducted two classroom observations: one at the end of January 2006 and the other at the end of May 2006. For each classroom observation, she randomly selected ten teachers from the grant participating teachers, five teachers from each school. To ensure that the evaluations were conducted at all grade levels (grade six, seven, and eight) and at classrooms of both male and female teachers, the professor randomly re-selected teachers when necessary. The teachers were informed ahead of time about the classroom observations and interviews. The classroom observation of each teacher lasted 40-50 minutes, depending on the time length of the class period. The evaluation was conducted using a mixed method, combining quantitative and qualitative components. The professor used a classroom observation method and instrument that was developed by the American Institute for Research and modified by the professor. During the classroom observation, the professor kept a narrative log documenting classroom activities with the clock time at each shift of activity. For example, when an activity (teacher presenting information) was shifted to another activity (teacher walking around and guiding student work), a new clock time was recorded. After the observation, she analyzed

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

Table 1. Classroom observation coding sheet

Table 1. continued

Organization, Engagement, and Technology Coding Sheet

TS2

26-50% student’s time using technology

Activity Organization

TS3

51-75% student’s time using technology

AO1

Teacher-led whole class

TS4

76-100% student’s time using technology

AO2

Student-led whole class

AO3

Small group or pair cooperative

AO4

Independent activity

Teacher Activities TA1

Presenting information

TA2

Leading student work

TA3

Supporting student work

TA4

Providing feedback for students

TA5

Evaluating progress

Student Focus SF1

Whole class lead by instructor

SF2

Whole class interactive

SF3

Student or group presentation

SF4

Individual reading or work

SF5

Pair work

SF6

Interactive group work on a project

Student Behavior SB1

No significant classroom disruptions

SB2

Small disruptions from multiple sources

SB3

Small number persistently disruptive

SB4

Large number disruptive throughout

Student Engagement SE1

0-25% exhibiting on on-task behavior

SE2

26-50% exhibiting on on-task behavior

SE3

51-75% exhibiting on on-task behavior

SE4

76-100% exhibiting on on-task behavior

Technology Use by Teachers TT1

0-25% teacher’s time using technology

TT2

26-50% teacher’s time using technology

TT3

51-75% teacher’s time using technology

TT4

76-100% teacher’s time using technology

Teacher’s Familiarity with Technology TFT1

0-25% familiarity

TFT2

26-50% familiarity

TFT3

51-75% familiarity

TFT4

76-100% familiarity

Technology Use by Students TS1

0-25% student’s time using technology

the data by sorting the narrative data according to eight categories and later converting it into numerical data. During the analysis process, only major activities were categorized. For example, an activity of a teacher checking student attendance was not considered to be significant and was not categorized. The eight categories were: Activity Organization, Teacher Activities, Student Focus, Student Behavior, Student Engagement, Technology Use by Teachers, Teacher’s Familiarity with Technology, and Technology Use by Students. Technology in the categories referred to technology covered in the EETT-C professional development activities. Within each category were subheadings (see Table 1). The professor conducted interviews after classroom observations. She asked the teachers to clarify information relevant to the classroom observations and to answer questions about their professional development. During the interviews in January, each interviewee described the impact of the professional development on their personal productivity and instruction. They also provided details on their most beneficial training and offered suggestions on making the EETT-C professional development better. During the interviews in May, each interviewee explained how the professional development impacted (1) his/her teaching, specifically on course preparation and instruction, (2) his/her students’ learning, specifically on how students learned, classroom behavior, and performance, and (3) his/her communication, specifically with his/her colleagues, students, and parents. In addition, the interviewees provided advice to teachers participating in the following year’s grant activities and gave suggestions on improving the professional development.

613

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

results The results gathered from the classroom observation during January indicated that the teachers either frequently used the technology throughout the entire class or used very little. Seventy-three percent of the teachers spent 76% to 100% time on using the technology in their instruction (see Table 2). These technologies were all new to the teachers, but through the training, the majority of the teachers became familiar with their use. Students showed high levels of engagement and low levels of class disruption (see Tables 3 and 4). The results revealed the success of the professional development strategies during the first stage of program implementation. When the results of the January evaluation were presented to the Coaches and program manager, many classroom activities were marked as “Whole class passive,” (“Whole class lead by Instructors” in the coding sheet). Some Coaches wondered why the whole class was considered to be passive while student engagement level was high Table 2. Technology use by teachers January 0-25% teacher’s time using technology

27%

76-100% teacher’s time using technology

73%

Table 3. Student engagement January 26-50% exhibiting on on-task behavior

0%

51-75% exhibiting on on-task behavior

14%

76-100% exhibiting on on-task behavior

86%

Table 4. Student behavior

and while teachers frequently used technology. The professor explained that during the observations a common practice appeared repeatedly: a teacher presented multiple-choice questions using the SchoolPad and students chose a response - 1, 2, 3, or 4. Although students were very engaged, they were passively responding to teachers’ questions. Such a common practice was also noted by a couple of Coaches during their observations. They found that instructional strategies that were previously used seemed to be significantly decreased or disappear from classroom. After an extensive discussion, the grant leadership team decided to bring the professional development to a higher level by emphasizing appropriate use of technology and its connection with other instructional strategies. This modification later contributed to a greater number of instructional activities in the classroom. Instructional activities increased from 22 for the ten classes in January to 36 in May (see Table 5). The variety of classroom activities also noticeably increased in May, for example, in January only one teacher had four major instructional activities while in May five teachers had four or more major instructional activities. The common practice, a teacher only presenting multiple-choice questions using the technology and students choosing an answer, that appeared in January was significantly decreased in May. Instead, the professor observed a variety of classroom activities, such as students teaching each other, constructing questions for other students, and presenting their work. This Table 5. Instructional activities and technology use # of activities

January

614

January

May

22 # of Activities: 1 2 3 4 # of Teachers: 1 4 3 1 Less variety

36 # of Activities: 1 2 3 4 5 # of Teachers: 1 0 4 2 3 More variety

No significant disruptions

86%

Small disruptions from multiple Sources

0%

Interwrite

89%

90%

Small number persistently disruptive

5%

Qwizdom

22%

50%

Large number disruptive throughout

9%

Video

0%

20%

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

Table 6. Student focus

Table 9. Student behavior January

May

68%

31%

Whole class lead by Instructors

January

May

No significant disruptions

86%

86%

0%

6%

Whole class interactive

14%

36%

Small disruptions from multiple Sources

Student presentation

0%

6%

Small number persistently disruptive

5%

6%

Individual work

14%

19%

Large number disruptive throughout

9%

2%

Pair work

0%

8%

Table 10. Technology use by students change resulted in a shift of students’ role from passive to active in learning (see Table 6): from 68% to 31% in the subheading of “whole class lead by instructors” (“whole class passive”). The results gathered from the classroom observations indicated that in the end (1) the teachers frequently used the technology introduced in the professional development (see Table 7), (2) students showed high level of engagement (see Table 8) and low level of class disruption (see Tables 9), (3) student use of technology increased noticeably (see Table 10), and (4) all of the teachers who utilized the technology were familiar with the use of such technology (see Table 11). The results indicated the success of the grant’s professional development strategies. During the interviews, all teachers in one form or another addressed the usefulness of the professional development. They reported that the professional development increased their personal

Table 7. Technology use by teachers January

May

0-25% teacher’s time using technology

27%

22%

76-100% teacher’s time using technology

73%

78%

January

May

26-50% exhibiting on on-task behavior

0%

3%

51-75% exhibiting on on-task behavior

14%

11%

76-100% exhibiting on on-task behavior

86%

86%

January

May

0-25% student’s time using technology

86%

53%

26-50% student’s time using technology

0%

8%

51-75% student’s time using technology

0%

11%

76-100% student’s time using technology

14%

28%

Table 11. Teacher’s familiarity with technology January

May

51-75% familiarity with technology

12%

0%

76-100% familiarity with technology

88%

100%

productivity, enhanced their instruction, and impacted their students’ learning and behavior. To them, the students were more “motivated,” “engaged,” “involved,” “focused,” “active,” and “excited.” The teachers interviewed stated it was difficult to say if the professional development made an impact on student academic performance; nevertheless, the teachers believed that the program “will” make an impact on student academic performance in the near future. Furthermore, the project fostered a rich professional learning community in which teachers frequently communicated with each other, exchanged their instructional material, and shared instructional resources via district network.

Table 8. Student engagement

DIscussIon First of all, the authors would like to draw the readers’ attention to the evaluation methods used

615

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

for the PSUSD project. The project evaluation was conducted using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Therefore, one should be cautious when s/he interprets the numbers presented in the tables in this book chapter. The numbers could only indicate trends and directions rather than significant difference. The PSUSD EETT-C project promoted new media literacy and focused on generic skills, rather than application-specific skills as Anderson and Bikson (1998) advocated. For instance, students did not learn PowerPoint for the sake of learning PowerPoint. They learned some PowerPoint features while they were constructing a project demonstrating their understanding of a math concept. This practice corresponded with the EETT-C faculty development that was designed and delivered focusing on teaching and learning rather than on technology itself, as supported by Cradler (2002) and NCREL (2000). The EETT-C project greatly affected the teachers and students in the math departments at the two 2005-2006 funded schools. Factors that contributed to the success of the program included, but were not limited to, (1) technology well-suited to the classroom, (2) well-thought out and well–planned faculty development, and (3) outstanding leadership. Teachers repeatedly praised the usefulness of the technology in classroom, for example, the mobility of the InterWrite SchoolPads, the power of receiving instant feedback provided by Qwizdom, and visual effects gained from unitedsteaming videoclips. Teachers said, “I can walk around and teach math using the SchoolPad. I walked to students who were not attentive and I could get his/her attention without embarrassing him/her;” “Using Qwizdom, I could immediately know how many students got it and who didn’t get it…;” “The video clips made math no longer abstract. Students could see concrete examples, for example, fraction . . . ;” “I could use unitedstreaming videos teaching not only math but also other subjects, e.g. social studies.”

616

The PSUSD EETT-C program was well thought-out and well planned. Teachers went through extensive one-week summer training and later were supported by Coaches and peers in ongoing meetings. Site Data Team meetings also provided excellent opportunities for teachers to learn from each other and to exchange ideas. Hard drives via district network served as central locations in which teachers could access considerable instructional material and resources. The core of the success of the program was the outstanding leadership team. With support from district administrators and school principals, the district program manager and her team were able to deliver outstanding professional development to teachers and to provide service, e.g. ParentConnection, to parents as well. PSUSD EETT-C project had many merits and could serve as a model for school district professional development. A word on issues or challenges that the project leadership team encountered might also be helpful to professionals in the field. One of the issues arose from the experience with delivering the faculty technology training was appropriate use of technology. As many educators, several grant participating teachers believed that teachers used technology in instruction could enhance student engagement. They also believed that when students were highly engaged in classroom activities, they were conducting active learning. Nevertheless, the results of the program evaluation indicated that student engagement could be independent from student active learning. As stated previously, it was found that the PSUSD teachers considerably used technology and that student engagement was high; however, students were not necessarily conducting active learning. Instead, they could just passively respond to teacher’s multiple-choice questions or true-false questions. Hence, whether or not technology could encourage and foster student active learning and high-order thinking really depend on how technology is used in classroom. Appropriate use of technology is closely

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

related to target audience. Technology use that is considered to be appropriate for one group is not necessarily to be appropriate for another. During the interviews, a teacher mentioned that she used Qwizdom more frequently in her regular classes than in her Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) classes because GATE students easily got bored with repeatedly practicing multi-choice questions while her regular students found the repeated practice to be beneficial. Another issue that arose from the experience with the PSUSD EETT-C project was the process of incorporating technology in classroom. The ACOT research of Apple (1995) reported that “teachers’ approach to the use of classroom technology evolves through a few orderly stages: entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention.” (p. 16) It was observed that PSUSD EETT-C teachers went through the same stages. During this process, it seemed to be natural for the teachers to overlook existing instructional strategies. As noted previously, the external evaluator of the project observed during the first classroom observations that there seemed to a common practice: A teacher repeatedly presented multiple-choice questions using the SchoolPad and students chose a response - 1, 2, 3, or 4. Few Coaches also noted that their commonly-used instructional strategies significantly decreased or disappeared from classroom after the introduction of SchoolPad or Qwizdom to their classroom. Although it was natural for teachers to evolve through the phases, “certain kinds of support help speed that evolution: mentors who are further along in the process, opportunities for reflection, and encouragement to question their beliefs about teaching and learning.” (p.16, Apple, 1995) Based on the classroom observations conducted in May, the PSUSD EETT-C project supported the fact that the evolution could be speeded up. With support, for instance Coaches and Site Data Teams, the project teachers were able to use technology and other teaching strategies interchangeably and successfully in classroom within a short period of time.

Building a learning community is essential for professional development. Site Data Teams and the hard drives via district network at PSUSD provided tremendous support to teachers. The ideas generated from the meetings and resources obtained from the drives also saved teachers considerable amount of time. It is recommended that faculty development should not only offer professional training but also build learning communities using new media to provide ongoing support to teachers.

conclusIon The Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant EETT-C program “Step Up to Math Mastery Integrating Technology“ was designed to improve student achievement of California sixth- to eighth-grade math content standards and support the delivery of the district’s state-adopted math curriculum through the use of 21st century technology tools. The project’s focus was on the effective integration of 21st century technologies into research-based instructional strategies to deliver the student program and faculty development. Instructional strategies used to deliver the student program included, but were not limited to, data-based decision making, cues, timely feedback, visual and contextualized learning, synthesis of learning for deeper understanding and retention, accessibility to instructional support, and parental involvement. Faculty development consisted of coaching and mentoring to develop teacher expertise, assessment of instructional activities related to student achievement, access to differentiated professional development opportunities, and access to high quality curricular resources. Classroom observations and interviews revealed that the program was successful. The program not only made a positive impact on the participating teachers and students but also could serve as a professional development model for the district as well as for other communities. 617

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

references Anderson, R. H., & Bikson, T. K. (1998). Focus on generic skills for information technology literacy. In Proceedings of the Computer Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Apple. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning & technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from: http://www.apple.com/education/ k12/leadership/acot/library.html Bikson, T. K. (1994). Organizational trends and electronic media. American Archivist, 57(1), 48-68. Bikson, T. K. & Law, S. A. (1995). Toward the borderless career: Corporate hiring in the ‘90s. International Educator, 4(2), 12-33. California Department of Education. (2007). EETT competitive: Eligibility criteria. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from: http:// www.21stcenturyskills.org.http://www.cde. ca.gov/fg/fo/r5/eettc07elig.asp Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. Cohen, D., & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 73–77. Cradler, J. (2002). Research implications for preparing teachers to use technology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30 (1) 50-54. Curley, K. F. & Pyburn, P. J. (1982). ‘Intellectual’ technologies: The key to improving white collar productivity. Sloan Management Review, 31- 39. ISTE. (2001). National educational standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: ISTE NETS Project.

618

Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching with problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. McArthur, D. (1987). Developing computer tools to support learning and performing complex cognitive tasks. In D. Berger and C. Pedzek (Eds.), Applications of Cognitive Psychology: Computing and Education (pp. 281-307). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. National Research Council. (1997). More than screen deep: Toward every--citizen interfaces to the nation’s information infrastructure. Washington DC: National Academy Press. NCREL, (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. Retrieved January 18, 2005, from NCREL Web Site: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/ methods/technlgy/te1000.htm Neufeld, B., and Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity. Washington, DC: Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21st century. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from Partnership for 21st Century Skills Web Site: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). The competitive edge: Equipping students with 21st century skills. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=270 &Itemid=140. Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District

Key terms AnD DefInItIons 21st Century Skills: Skills that are necessary for people to succeed in the 21st century, including (1) critical thinking and problem solving skills, (2) creativity and innovation skills, (3) communication skills, (4) collaboration skills, and (5) information and media literacy. Coaching: Experienced teachers mentor inexperienced teachers. Data-Based Decision Making: Educators use data to inform instruction or/and to foster decision-making process.

Mobility: Teachers are able to deliver instruction while walking around classroom using modern technology. New Media Literacy: An individual’s ability to use new media tools, e.g. digital technology, to read, write, speak in English, compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job, in the family of the individual and in society. Student Engagement: Students stay on-task and concentrate on learning without much distraction.

EETT: Enhancing Education Through Technology Competitive Grant offered by Bush administration to support teachers’ use of technology to enhance student learning.

619

620

Chapter XXXIX

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community Linda R. Lisowski Elizabeth City State University, USA Claudia C. Twiford Elizabeth City State University, USA Joseph A. Lisowski Elizabeth City State University, USA Quintin Q. Davis Christa McAuliffe Middle School, USA Rebecca F. Kirtley JC Sawyer Elementary School, USA

AbstrAct Public schools need to address issues of 21st century literacy, which go beyond reading and mathematics to include teamwork and technological proficiency. The authors have worked collaboratively to develop K-20 technology partnerships that provide 21st century learning to benefit all stakeholders. In this chapter, the authors discuss three of these partnerships and the benefits and barriers associated with them. Lessons learned included the need for: 1) immediately available technological and pedagogical support; 2) formalized roles and responsibilities between K-12 and university partners; 3) personnel who can take over a role or responsibility in emergencies; and 4) opportunities to plan ahead together. The authors hope that their lessons learned can inform other K-20 collaborations as they develop innovative 21st century partnerships through the use of technology.

IntroDuctIon How is technology integration conceptualized and what does it look like in the 21st century? As costs

have come down and availability has gone up, why aren’t digital inequities disappearing? Now that we have integrated technology into teacher preparation programs, are we seeing an impact

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

in K-12 education? These are questions faculty in the School of Education at Elizabeth City State University grapple with in our daily work. One response to these questions has been to increase our K-20 collaborations in technology. Any discussion of technology integration has to begin with the more basic issue of student learning. What do students need to learn to be successful citizens in the 21st century? In other words, what constitutes 21st century literacy? Various authors have different ideas, but most educators agree that communicating effectively, collaborating with others, and evaluating information and ideas will be essential. Technologically, proficiency in applications such as word processing, spreadsheets, data bases, and presentation programs is a necessary but insufficient condition for the 21st century. As machines become more and more essential in our daily lives, Prensky (2008) suggests that programming will be become the essential literacy skill—the future will belong to those who can control the machines. We do not presume to know the future, but as we once again call our 14-year old to help us use our television and telephone, we suspect that Prensky may be right. Certainly, as Alvin Toffler (as cited by Salpeter, 2003) stated, the ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn has become a critical literacy skill. As teachers and teacher educators, we are always concerned about issues of educational equity. Access to not only technological resources, but all educational resources is impacted by race and socio-economic status (Kozol, 1991; Leigh, 1999; Rebell, 2008). As No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the current federal accountability system, focuses almost solely on basic skills in reading and math, our schools have responded by increasing the resources devoted to these basic skills. This narrowing of the curriculum has had a host of unintended negative consequences (see Jones, Jones, & Hargrove, 2003; Orfield & Kornhaber, 2001). Perhaps the most insidious is learner disengagement (Nichols & Berliner, 2008). Unfortunately, this reallocation of resources is most likely to

occur in high-poverty, predominately minority schools. Ironically, even though schools have limited their educational focus to basic reading and mathematics instruction in response to NCLB, evidence suggests that the reading and math skills of children are not improving (Lee, 2006, Nichols & Berliner, 2008). Meanwhile, the children in these schools are the same children who are least likely to have other opportunities to learn the kinds of skills that they will need to become productive 21st century citizens. In addition to our concerns about educational equity for groups of children, we are also concerned about educational equity as it relates to individual children. We believe all children have a right to learn. This requires that we provide an education that is appropriately challenging to them. Along with the reallocation of resources to focus on basic skills in reading and math, we have seen reductions in funding for services to children with disabilities and children with academic gifts and talents (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). This has resulted in classroom practices that attempt to address the needs of students in the low-average to average range, but neglect the critical learning needs of children at the high and low ends of the ability spectrum. However, these basic skills are neither the traditional foci of American education that they are proclaimed to be nor are they the only skills that stakeholders value (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006). Critical thinking, problem solving, computer and technology skills, social skills, teamwork, innovation, and creativity are also considered to be important educational outcomes (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). These skills and attributes are best attained when students are active, collaborative participants in the educational process (Lisowski, Lisowski, & Nicolia, 2006). We believe that the innovative use of type II technology can help us to overcome some of the challenges that current teaching realities present to us. We envision classrooms where technology is used to infuse and transform the learning process,

621

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

as opposed to technology used to increase the efficiency of teaching and administration (Maddox & Johnson, 2005). Our beliefs and concerns have led us to collaborate on several K-20 technology initiatives designed to increase the integration of type II technology in our classrooms. As suggested by Nichols, Spang, & Padron (2005/2006), in order to increase the success of our initiatives, we insured they were developed collaboratively, included K-12 administrative input and support, and provided on-site in-service. However, with one project we were unable to make provisions for sufficient time for planning and experimentation. We discuss three of our efforts here.

DolPhIn PrIDe As funding priorities shift, teachers are asked to provide educational services for students with exceptionalities, including gifts and talents, in the regular classroom. Instruction needs to be differentiated so that individual needs can be met. However, current pedagogical practices and preferences can make effective differentiation difficult (see, for example, Tomlinson, 2003). We decided to address this issue through our Dolphin PRIDE (Providing Resources to Invigorate Differentiated Education) project. Dolphin PRIDE was designed to integrate technology into classroom instruction, for the purpose of more effectively meeting the needs of diverse learners in a heterogeneous setting. Through a collaborative grant-writing process undertaken at the request of the school principal, an elementary school in rural, northeastern North Carolina received technology resources from the Beaumont Foundation that were used to enhance instruction and to address inequities in technology access and skill. The project had multiple components: notebook computers and equipment available for students to check-out and take home, parent technology training, school faculty technology training, wireless connectivity for where-you-need-it internet access, and a

622

support team comprised of a group of pre-service teachers and university faculty who were committed to supporting high quality educational outcomes for all students. With the support of the principal, the project director had 50% of her time scheduled for the project. Students in this school district come from varied backgrounds. Approximately 65% of the students at this elementary school are AfricanAmerican; most of the remaining students are multi-racial or Caucasian. Family income and education levels, as well as home use of technology, vary as well. Approximately, 60% of students are economically disadvantaged. At the time the project began, several teachers at the school successfully integrated technology use into their classroom activities, but most teachers were using computers only for testing, skill practice, and free time activities. Some teachers were not confident of their own technology abilities and saw their lack of expertise as a barrier to technology use in the classroom. Other teachers were older, successful teachers who did not recognize the importance of technology integration. And then some other teachers believed that technology integration was unrelated to the high stakes tests that their students needed to pass, and was, therefore, an inappropriate use of time. A university faculty member provided on-site professional development training for teachers who needed to learn basic technology applications. The project director assisted teachers as they began to use the newly-learned skills or as they transitioned to using technology for higher-level thinking, learning, and production. She also made technology equipment and training available for families who desired. Several teachers have been enthusiastic participants in the project, and have created learning projects that engaged and challenged their students. One example is the jeopardy-style game created by fourth graders in response to Black History Month and Women’s History Month. The students presented the game to their parents at an evening parent event where it was enthusi-

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

astically received. Another example of success is the 100% science fair participation rate that the school achieved. Students were given after school assistance, mentoring, and technology access to develop, conduct, and present their science fair projects. Although we wanted to impact the use of type II technology, we have seen primarily an increase in the effective use of type I technology. Angela, a fifth grade teacher is typical of those teachers who make frequent use of the available technology. Her students use interactive Web sites to practice math skills, conduct group research and create presentations to share information with their classmates, and take virtual tours of areas they are studying in Social Studies. One especially effective activity involved virtually touring the National Zoo and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History prior to taking a field trip. By taking the virtual tour first, the students knew what they wanted to see when they got to Washington, and were more knowledgeable about what they were seeing. Angela believes that access to the laptops has impacted students a great deal. She believes it has increased their reading, writing, and math confidence and skills, and helped prepare them for a technological future. Lauren, a fourth grader, agrees. “We love the laptops. Sometimes, before, we would go to the computer lab to research and type reports, but we enjoy being able to stay in our own classroom and use the laptops for research and the writing of Social Studies essays. I feel that my computer skills are much better now.” Although the project targeted fourth and fifth grade teachers and students in core content areas, eventually, because of teacher interest, it provided resources for all grades in the school, and had a major impact on the music and art programs as those teachers used the presence of the new technology to leverage additional small grants. The music teacher obtained composing software and keyboards, and the art teacher obtained photo editing software and cameras. Students composed music that they presented to other students at assemblies and to

parents during programs and took photographs that they used to enhance learning projects in other subjects, as well as for bulletin boards such as those highlighting student work, field trips, student accomplishments in competitions, students of the month and special school events. The effort to increase the availability of technology to children and families without home access has also been successful. Laptop computers and digital cameras are frequently checked out by children and returned on time. Unfortunately, the effort to increase the technological skills of family members was less successful. Although parent questionnaires indicated that some parents lacked technology skills and were interested in learning, in more than three years, no parent has accepted the project’s offer to provide skills training. (Parents of all socio-economic groups have enthusiastically viewed student projects and presentations using technology, however.) Another less successful component of the project was university partner support. After the first year, and without dedicated time for meeting and planning, university faculty members and their students were only able to assist on a hit-or-miss basis as their schedules allowed.

reADI rocKets A second informal collaboration between the university and a Local Educational Agency (LEA or school district) is the Resource Education Advancement via Differentiated Instruction (READI) Rockets initiative. READI Rockets is a collaborative effort to use type I and type II technology to improve educational outcomes for students with disabilities and other students. A Hewlett-Packard Technology for Teaching grant allowed a middle grades special education resource teacher to obtain notebook computers, peripheral equipment, and online professional development and mentoring in order to provide differentiated instruction in Mathematics, Language Arts, Sci-

623

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

ence, and Physical Education to students with learning disabilities and other students within the inclusion setting. Five special education teachers worked as a team to develop and implement learning activities that integrated technology across discipline areas. In addition, teachers in special education and general education worked in grade level teams to plan activities that support the goals of the project and the attainment of grade level standards and indicators. There was one major project for each of the four reporting periods. Students engaged in hands on learning activities that promoted social skills, higher order critical thinking, mathematical, writing, and technology skills. Students in each grade participated in the same project activities, but specific assignments varied according to grade level, curriculum standards, and IEP objectives. University faculty and pre-service teachers provided support as students worked on their projects. As an example of one project, students ran the 100-meter dash. They estimated their own times, were timed as they ran, recorded their times, and created databases, spreadsheets, and graphic representations of their data. Students used the Internet to research world record performances in the 100-meter dash, and determined the weekly rate of improvement necessary to race at worldrecord levels. JaVonte, a particularly reluctant learner, became enthused about the project when he discovered Carl Lewis and the prominent role that African Americans play in track. Students used graphing functions to identify the slope represented by this problem. They used writing programs to create math stories, and as a group, they completed a science lab where they examined the effects of running on their resting heart rates. At the completion of the unit, students made their own commercials, “See How We Run,” advertising their project. University faculty and pre-service teachers accompanied the middle school students to the track and assisted in the timing and recording of times. They were also available to provide one-on-one assistance to students during learning activities. 624

This project had unanticipated successes and barriers. First, we hoped for but didn’t plan for the level of administrative support we received. Partly because of the initiative shown by the classroom teacher, all of the resource room classrooms were provided with advanced instructional technology including Smart Boards. Although we knew this would increase teaching efficiency and flexibility, we did not expect the use of the technology alone would significantly impact student engagement. We were wrong. Students who were normally disengaged, reluctant learners became enthusiastic participants when they had the opportunity to do tasks as simple as tapping or writing on the Smart Board. Kyle, a seventh grader with learning disabilities said it best when at the end of a class period he asked, “Why are you shutting it down? It isn’t time to go yet!” This attitude was shared by many. Another surprise was the resistance shown by our students to physical education. We had anticipated that the inclusion of physical activity would be a naturally reinforcing activity for our students. However, we had failed to recognize the extent to which schools have changed over the past several decades. Given that more than one in four North Carolina youth 12 to 18 years of age is obese (Stanford & Clements, 2007), we perhaps should have recognized that our students may not enjoy running. This required us to consider ways we might increase their enthusiasm for exercise. One popular activity was the stretching exercises led by Celeste, a nationally recognized local college basketball star. While the impact of No Child Left Behind has been discussed in many forums, one little recognized or discussed effect has been its impact on exceptional children. Thirty years of legislation and litigation had provided a model whereby the educational services provided to children with exceptionalities would be based on individual need and family priorities, and would be described in the Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). However, by including children with exceptionali-

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

ties among the subgroups of students who must pass grade level proficiency exams, one effect of NCLB has been to shift instructional emphasis for this population from meeting individual needs to aligning instruction with the Standard Course of Study and preparing students to take and pass the same assessments as their non-disabled peers. These assessments include the quarterly benchmark assessments, as well as the end-of-grade assessments. However, because the quarterly assessments measure progress according to the state-wide pacing guides developed for typical learners, they lack the necessary sensitivity to reflect actual growth in skill and attitude that some of our students work so hard to attain. Our experiences served as a reminder that we must continue to address issues that are not currently mandated in the North Carolina Standard Course of Study but which are critical to assisting our children to become vital 21st century citizens.

eleArnIng hAnDs-on scIence The third collaboration came about as a result of the Eastern North Carolina Elearning Rural Broadband Initiative. This initiative is an ongoing effort to bring increased bandwidth to rural counties and to create a dedicated network for identified K-12 Grid applications and Internet and Internet II curricular projects. New projects utilizing the increased bandwidth and dedicated network received priority for funding if they met two criteria. First, they needed to identify specific curricular uses for Elearning courses, Web seminars and online workshops to be delivered over a dedicated, K-20 high speed education network; and secondly, they needed to support collaboration between specific school districts, community colleges and universities in eastern North Carolina. During discussions on how best to achieve these priorities, participants recognized that the development of a high quality teaching force in sciences and mathematics focused in our

region was another priority. Efforts that supported good science-process teaching, accurate scientific curricula content, and teacher assistance with understanding, planning, and teaching science and mathematic content would be welcomed. In the spring of 2006, with funding from the University of North Carolina General Administration, we piloted a collaborative Elearning Hands-On Science program, with three LEAs and 91 teachers participating. Specific goals for the project were: 1) to provide a Hands-On Science distance learning model program for teachers of grades three through five in northeastern North Carolina; 2) to model best practices in handson science, including the use of technology, in order to address the low science achievement of students in grades three through five in northeastern North Carolina; 3) to involve parents in the hands-on science education of their children; and 4) to increase the state’s scientifically literate workforce. Several months later, we received a Golden Leaf Foundation Grant to support the growth of a scientifically literate workforce in northeastern North Carolina. This allowed us to grow the program to include nine LEAs and approximately 215 more teachers. The majority of partnering LEAs are high-poverty (with poverty measured as family eligibility for free and reduced lunch) with school poverty rates ranging from about 60% to over 90%. However, several LEAs in the project have relatively low poverty, ranging from about 25% to under 50%. The Elearning Hands-On Science program is a complex “teacher-teaching-teachers” project that provides materials and training via videoconferencing, three to six graduate school credits, and in-class mentoring to current elementary school teachers who teach science. Lead teachers delivered and modeled hands-on science instruction from a university Interactive Video Conference (IVC) classroom to various high school sites across northeastern North Carolina. Participating teachers worked collaboratively with a science coach who assisted their schools in the implementation

625

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

of hands-on science in the classroom. Teachers also worked collaboratively with the science coach in implementing a Hands-On Science Night for parents, and in creating an Activity Science Mission Card published via the Web. In addition, teachers received graduate credit for completing all course activities, including implementing hands-on science instruction in their own elementary classrooms. Tuition and fees for teachers in the twelve partner school systems were waived for these courses. Teachers attended their Interactive Video Conference (IVC) one day a week for six weeks. Classes taught through the IVC were facilitated by teachers who took the course during the pilot program and who were then hired as consultants to deliver instruction and facilitate implementation. Science coaches facilitated instruction at the individual high school sites. Some coaches operated the IVC equipment on their ends, as well. The use of local sites with science coaches and lead teachers from the school district enabled teachers to collaborate, fine tune their skills in the sciences, and share best practices in science education with each other. Lessons focused on attainment of the North Carolina Standard Course of Study science goals for grades three through five. Science activities involved hands-on experiences with such things as soil, rocks, land forms, the human body, food and nutrition, and models and designs. Six science coaches, in addition to the lead teachers, assisted teachers as they transferred what they learned in the course to implementation in their own elementary classrooms. Teachers facilitated the use of technology among their elementary students as they created databases, spreadsheets, and graphs, recorded and discussed their findings in blogs (http://www.learnerblogs.org), wikis (http://pbwiki.com/) , and voice threads (http:// voicethread.com/#home), and they also created artifacts of their learning using digital cameras and recorders and PowerPoint presentations. As part of the requirements of the course, teachers conducted a hands-on science session for parents

626

and the community, as well, and students helped to plan and implement the parent orientations. This program supports the growth of a scientifically literate workforce in northeastern North Carolina and helps to meet the commitment of northeastern North Carolina to have “highly qualified” teachers. So far, over 285 teachers, 3,200 students, and 6,000 parents and community members have been impacted by this initiative. Most significant, perhaps, is the positive reaction that students have had to the program. For example, Quamaine, a third grade student commented: “I liked the experiment we did with our moms. We used a flashlight. We showed them that light can’t go through everything.” Maria, another third grader, was able to make the connection between the Halloween costume her mother made for her and the learning that had occurred in her science class: “My mama cleaned chicken bones with vinegar and water to make part of my Halloween costume. She made the bones into a necklace, earrings, and a hairbow. In science class I just finished studying about my skeleton and I figured out that my hair bow was the femur.” Teacher enthusiasm for science has also grown. A principal in one of the participating schools said the program had created the most excitement in science teaching and learning that he had ever witnessed in his 30 years in education. As Breawn, another third grader, stated, “I am happy that my teacher likes science. She makes science fun.”

benefIts to technology collAborAtIon Participation in K-20 technology collaborations has benefits for LEA partners and the university. While effective collaborations require the hard work of already hard-working teacher participants, the benefits to the LEA partners can be significant. Several of these benefits to participating teachers are:

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

1.

2.

3.

Assistance obtaining grant funding for innovative projects. Teachers and school administrators may have little experience obtaining grant funding. However, university faculty members often have substantial experience in this area, and can provide professional knowledge and skills that allow teachers to implement innovative projects. Opportunities to engage in high-quality professional development. Teachers are required to participate in in-service professional development in order to keep their teaching licenses current. Collaborations can be structured so that teachers’ needs for continuing education can be met through the project, at little or no cost to the teacher or district. Opportunities to develop team work and leadership skills. Teachers in K-12 schools often teach in isolation. We rarely see what teachers in other classrooms in our buildings are doing, and almost never get to see what happens in other schools. Participation in collaborations can provide teachers with opportunities to work with other teachers as members of a team and to develop leadership skills.

Another, more important benefit to LEA collaborators is the potential impact these collaborations can have on K-12 students. This impact may be seen in increased enthusiasm, improved attitudes, and in measurably increased performance on mandated assessments. We have attempted to structure our collaborations to ensure that we receive most of these benefits from our collaborations. Because measurably impacting student performance on mandated tests involves collecting and analyzing student performance data over time, we do not yet have data that demonstrates measurable growth on macro-assessments. However, we also value those benefits that are not measurable. We have seen typically disengaged children who don’t want to leave class at the end

of the day, young children who wake up saying that they can’t wait to get to school to see what they will do today, teachers who feel excited and confidant about teaching something that they previously avoided. While these outcomes may not be tested, they are, nonetheless, important. Benefits to the university partner also are significant. Collaborating provides us, first of all, with the opportunity to meet our own professional responsibilities in the areas of scholarship and service. In addition, collaboration provides us with the opportunity to impact the K-12 learning environment in a way that benefits K-12 students, our pre-service teachers, and our recently graduated students teaching in their first teaching assignment. When we model the use of best practices in teaching, including technology integration, in our university courses, but then send students into field experiences in which technology use does not occur, we send a mixed message about our expectations for teaching and learning. Participating in K-20 technology collaborations allows us to help create the technology-rich K-12 learning environments that our pre-service teachers need to experience if they are to become the kinds of teachers our children will need in the 21st century. It also allows us the opportunity to assist school districts make the kinds of systematic changes in pedagogical practices that benefit current teachers and, most especially, K-12 students. Another benefit of K-20 collaborations to the university is one that may seem unimportant to teacher educators but which may be of critical importance to university administrators. This is the potential of these collaborations to increase university enrollment growth in graduate education programs. For our university and for many smaller schools, enrollment growth drives funding decisions. Increasing the numbers of high quality students who complete our degree programs is a priority. As a result of the Elearning Hands-On Science program, about 10% of the teachers who participated in the project immediately matriculated into a master’s degree program. More participants have expressed plans to do so soon. 627

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

A benefit shared by all partners in K-20 technology collaborations is the potential they offer to improve family and community involvement in public education. Parents and community members were excited and enthusiastic about the opportunities these partnerships provided to our students. We all benefit when our communities support the work that is done in the schools.

bArrIers to AnD strAtegIes for effectIve ProgrAm collAborAtIon AnD ImPlementAtIon We also experienced barriers to the success of our collaborations. Most of the barriers were of two types: barriers based on system-wide factors and barriers based on current pedagogical priorities, preferences, and practices. System-wide barriers included the outdated equipment that was available in some classrooms. While some schools and classrooms obtained up-to-date equipment for classroom use through relatively small grants, larger projects such as the Elearning Hands-On Science project are usually unable to provide technology equipment upgrades as part of the project. Given the chronic funding problems low-wealth school districts face, the limited availability of up-to-date equipment will probably be a reality for many years to come. However, we believe if teachers continue to utilize the available technology, while, at the same time, bringing the limitations of the technology to the attention of parents, community members, and administrators, they are likely to get the upgrades they need. When funding is not available at the school or district level, groups such as the PTA or community groups often raise money to purchase computers. Several partners experienced problems with filters placed on internet use. These filters often prevented students and teachers from accessing appropriate Web sites for research and commercially supported Web sites that could be used for

628

wikis and blogs. The filters were put in place at the district level and teachers and school administrators did not believe they had the ability to override the filters. In most cases, decisions about restricting content or Web sites had been made in response to teacher or parent complaints. However, the policy of most partnering LEAs is to allow access to sites that have an educational purpose when that access is requested by the school principal. Unfortunately, teachers did not know about those policies. The problem of internet access is a growing issue as parents and teachers become aware of ways that predators can use the internet to entrap children. However, we believe that this is a problem better solved through education than through censorship. We agree with Prensky (2008) that we overestimate the dangers that technology poses to our children. Instead of asking how we can keep this technology away from them, we need to ask how we can give children the skills they need to navigate it safely. An additional system-wide barrier is related to teacher turnover. Currently, in the United States, approximately one-third of new teachers quit within the first three years of teaching. In North Carolina, about 13% of teachers quit their jobs each year (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2005). This creates an environment in which younger teachers, who are more likely to have skills and attitudes conducive to successful technology integration, are the most likely to leave a school after just a few years. We experienced this especially in the Dolphin PRIDE project which struggled with teacher turnover during the course of the project. Efforts to impact school culture by developing a cadre of teacher experts were delayed by turnover of expert teachers and the resultant need to continuously provide training and support to new teachers. The project coordinator was able to overcome this barrier through continued, enthusiastic, and energetic efforts. A final system-wide barrier is related to the different schedules, roles, and expectations of university and K-12 participants. Universities

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

operate under a two semester schedule, where students are in class for three hours a week, 1415 weeks at a time. K-12 schools operate under a 9-week quarterly reporting system, where students are in the same classes five days a week for the entire year. Holidays and breaks rarely coincide. Our efforts to use pre-service teachers supervised by university faculty to provide support for specific students as they worked to attain project goals was impeded by the differences in our schedules. University students were not always available when K-12 students and teachers needed them. Sometimes, especially in middle grades math classes, university students lacked content knowledge of the subject. Faculty working without release time were too often unable to meet with K-12 teachers far enough in advance to provide pre-service teachers with the preparation they needed to be effective facilitators. This barrier could be partially overcome by the provision of faculty release time to be used for K-20 planning and preparation, and by increased awareness of the time demands that cooperative planning will require. Other barriers to success that we experienced were due to pedagogical priorities, preferences, and practices. These barriers came from K-12 teachers and administrators, as well as university faculty and pre-service teachers. The first of these barriers involves priorities. Because current pedagogical priorities are focused on the assessment and attainment of basic skills in reading and mathematics, LEA support for technology collaborations can wane at times. Administrators and teachers often fail to see the connection between technology integration and improved reading and math performance. However, they do perceive value in computer-based study programs that provide students with skill practice in basic skills. This means that the use of computer labs and classroom computers for assessment-related purposes is often prioritized.

In some schools, teachers were unable to schedule time to use computer labs for type II technology projects, or even for research, because the use of computers for basic skill drill and test-taking practice was prioritized. Because the costs to schools and LEAs for low student performance on high-stakes assessments is potentially so high, this is a difficult barrier to overcome. It requires that we continuously demonstrate the powerful impact that effective technology integration can have on student learning. Additional barriers our K-20 collaborations experienced were related to pedagogical and learning preferences and practices. Often teachers lack technology skills, and do not wish to learn them. This is sometimes the case with older teachers, including highly effective—well-loved and well-respected—teachers. We found that younger teachers who use complex technology everyday served as a model for how technology can transform, or at least, enhance teaching and learning. After observing their younger coworkers for several months, older teachers would begin using technology in their own classrooms. Of course, this depends upon teachers’ opportunities to actually observe their coworkers. The school in which this phenomenon was most evident was an older “open” school, with no walls between classrooms. Sometimes teaching is departmentalized, and teachers who are teaching reading, for example, do not perceive the advantage of learning to integrate technology in science. One teacher described her concern that she did not expect to enjoy the interactive video conferencing because she was used to having experts come to her school. However, the modeling of effective teaching strategies and the opportunity to share best practices across schools and districts became one of her favorite parts of the project; it is also our most effective strategy for changing long-standing pedagogical practices that serve as barriers to successful technology integration efforts.

629

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

conclusIon Our university and LEA partners have engaged in several K-20 technology collaborations, both large and small, over the past five years. We have found that engaging in collaborations has allowed us to meet our mutual goals, only when we worked hard, shared responsibility and expertise, and valued each others’ concerns and priorities. These collaborations have allowed us to impact school culture in such a way that teachers, pre-service teachers, and K-12 students have benefited. However, we have experienced barriers to success that we had to work to overcome. Along the way, we learned a few lessons that we will use to improve our future collaborations. 1.

2.

3.

630

What-you-need, when-you-need-it technology support is critical for teachers who are not confident of their technology skills. Without the knowledge that someone is there to help them if a problem should arise, teachers are not likely to embrace technology integration. In the Elearning Hands-On Science project, we found that the science coaches were extremely important in working individually with teachers providing assistance in the most basic skills to the most advanced. In the other two projects described, pre-service teachers and university supervisors were available for support. However, because their time was not dedicated to the project, they were not consistently available. This impacted the effectiveness of the projects. Teachers will quit. They will get sick, or have babies, or their military spouses will be transferred. It is essential to have a backup plan. Who knows the lesson or activity and can teach it in an emergency? Identify several people who can take over each role as necessary. Formalize all partnership relationships and responsibilities. Be sure to provide adequate time for planning, preparation, and explora-

4.

tion for all partners. As Linda’s dissertation advisor used to say, “Everything takes longer than it takes.” Plan for that longer time. It will still not be enough, but at least it will be closer to what you need than your first estimate! Finally, be sure to think through all of the possible ways an activity can go wrong and plan accordingly. You can be sure that the technology will not work, at least once. Children will get sick when you are in the middle of an activity. Materials will get lost or broken. While you cannot prepare for every possible eventuality, if you prepare for several, you should be able to adapt to anything.

While it is true that the resources we need to be effective 21st century teachers are not readily available, we have found that through our K-20 collaborations we are able to provide some of the additional resources that allow us to make a difference in the educational lives of our children. Our collaborations have allowed us to provide our students with the opportunities to engage in challenging and creative learning activities that have engaged their imaginations and excited their curiosity. We plan to continue working together as we collaboratively meet the needs of our young students to develop the skills, knowledge, and attitudes they will need for 21st century success.

references Jones, M. G., Jones, B., & Hargrove, T. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown Publishers. Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Leigh, P.R. (1999). Electronic connections and equal opportunities: An analysis of telecommunications distribution in public schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (1), 108-127. Lisowski, L., Lisowski, J., & Nicolia, S. (2006). Infusing technology into teacher education: Doing more with less. Computers in the Schools, 23(3/4), 71-89. Orfield, G., & Kornhaber, M. L. (Eds.). (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education. New York: Century Foundation Press. Maddox, C.D., & Johnson, D.L. (2005). Information technology, type II classroom integration, and the limited infrastructure in schools. Computers in the Schools, 22(3, 4), 2-5. Nichols, J.W., Spang, L, & Padron, K. (2005/2006). Building a foundation for collaboration: K-20 partnerships in information literacy. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 18(1/2), 5-12. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2008). Testing the joy out of learning. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 14-18. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, (2005, Oct. 5). North Carolina’s teacher turnover rate shows slight increase. Retrieved March 24, 2008, fromhttp://www.ncpublicschools.org/ newsroom/news/2005-06/20051005 Partnership for 21st Century Skills, (Oct. 10, 2007). 21st Century Skills: Will Our Students Be Prepared? Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/ p21_pollreport_2pg.pdf Prensky, M. (2008). Programming: The new literacy. Edutopia, 4(1), 49-52.

Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 45-58. Rebell, M. (2008). Equal opportunity and the courts. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 (6), 432-440. Rothstein, R. & Jacobsen, R. (2006). The goals of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 88 (4). Retrieved March 5, 2008 from http://www.pdkintl.org/ kappan/k_v88/k0612rot.htm Salpeter, J (Oct. 15, 2003). 21st Century Skills: Will Our Students Be Prepared? Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.techlearning.com/story/ showArticle.php?articleID=15202090 Salpeter Stanford, L. & Clements, D. (2007, Mar. 5). Childhood obesity: A growing epidemic. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.dukehealth.org/ HealthLibrary/AdviceFromDoctors/YourChildsHealth/obesity Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11. U. S. Department of Education. (May 24, 2007). ED.gov. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program Web site: http://www.ed.gov/programs/ javits/funding.html

Key terms AnD DefInItIons 21st Century Literacy: A term describing the essential skills that students will need to be successful in the 21st century. These skills extend beyond the traditional academic areas of reading, writing, mathematics, and technological proficiency to include communicating effectively, collaborating with others, and evaluating information and ideas. Educational Equity: A term referring to the equitable distribution of resources so that all children have access to the same opportunities and outcomes.

631

K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community

K-20 Collaborations: Describes the efforts of Institutions of Higher Education and K-12 schools and districts to work together as equal partners towards mutual goals. Local Educational Authority: More commonly referred to as LEA. Refers to the local school district (as compared with the SEA, or State Educational Authority). LEAs are usually county or city level authorities, but may be community level in some states.

632

No Child Left Behind: Also known as NCLB, and pronounced as “nickelbee.” A US federal law, passed in 2002, which places a strong emphasis on reading and mathematic proficiency as measured by states’ standardized assessments. A major requirement of NCLB is that all children will be able to read on grade level by 2014.

633

Chapter XL

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students Tamara L. Jetton Central Michigan University, USA

Abstract A university education professor and a high school English teacher redesigned the curricula of their classrooms, so their students could participate in a literacy project that focused on computer-mediated discussions of literature. The goal of the project was to develop both the technological literacies of these students and the more traditional literacies in the form of reading and writing skills. The Book Buddy Project afforded the author the opportunity to create a virtual learning community in which high school and university students incorporated the traditional literacies of reading and writing within a virtual environment that facilitated communication, collaboration, and learning with text.

introduction Technology is an integral part of people’s everyday lives as they engage in computer online chat rooms, email messages to family and friends, use their digital cell phones to conduct business and personal communication, and capture their most precious moments on digital pictures and mov-

ies. Students as early as elementary school use computer technology to create stories and draw about particular events in their lives. As students progress into middle school, they further develop their knowledge of the computer through computer literacy classes that teach them to engage in multimedia and hypertext environments. By high school, students take elective courses that

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

focus on more sophisticated technologies that include creating digital video streams and computer programming. Through the use of technology K-12 students communicate, collaborate, and learn within and outside of the classroom as they seek to make meaning. These students use the computer as a tool for exploring many different ways of learning about literacy and the world. In elementary school, students use technology to learn new vocabulary. For example, students can read a book and take turns recording vocabulary words from the text on a digital white board that provides visual images as they read (Labbo, Love, & Ryan, 2007). These digital words would then be used to create a Digital Language Experience in which students use digital pictures and words to reenact and write the story events (Labbo, Eakle, Montero, 2002). Likewise, in middle and high school, students use the computer as a tool for communication through computer-mediated discussions in which students engage in online discussions through blogs or discussion boards (Langhorst, 2007; Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006). These discussions concern school subject matter topics, books they are reading, and social talk (Jetton & Soenksen, 2006). These students can now participate in discussions that extend the boundaries of the K-12 classroom to virtually anywhere in the world. As a result of the proliferation of technology, teachers and university professors are revising their theories about the ways in which students think and learn, and are designing new course curricula that encompass these new uses of technology (Kim & Kamil, 2004).

comPuters AnD lIterAcy leArnIng Literacy has many meanings, even within the field of education. Literacy can refer to the processes of becoming a literate citizen that might include mathematics, language, and science. With the

634

continued proliferation of technology, literacy has now been expanded to include the development of computer-related skills such as word processing, World Wide Web searches, computer-mediated discussion strategies, multimedia presentations, and a host of other valuable skills. Technology has also begun to change the way in which we examine the traditional literacies of reading and writing. Technology provides unique ways in which students can learn to read, collaborate through writing online, and respond to literature with others (Leu, 2000). According to Reinking (1998), digital communication is replacing the traditional printed texts, and as a result, has changed communication and dissemination of information. Students are approaching reading and writing tasks differently. For example, students have begun to engage in digital environments during writing lessons in kindergarten. As students create representations of play, art, and writing in these digital environments, they learn quickly that print is interactive and malleable (Labbo & Kuhn, 1998).

InterActIve lIterAcy envIronments The advent of information and communication technology (ICT) has led to substantial changes in classroom organization, curricula, and pedagogical practices (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Teachers have begun to organize their classrooms and design curricula so that their practices include more collaborative pedagogy in which teachers and students interact with the technology, and students interact with one another and students outside the confines of the classroom. Emerging evidence finds that students’ engagement and motivation increased as they participated in interactive software and hardware such as the Interactive White Board (Harrison et al., 2003; Passey et al., 2003). Students also reported that they appreciated the range of resources available

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

and the multi-media capability of the interactive technology (Hall & Higgins, 2005). Other studies have found that interactive technology enhances the attention of the students and the pace of the lessons (Wood & Ashfield, 2008). The purpose of this chapter is to describe a project in which a university education professor and a high school English teacher redesigned the curricula of their classrooms so their students could participate in a literacy project that focused on computer-mediated discussions of literature. The goal of the project was to develop both the technological literacies of these students and the more traditional literacies in the form of reading and writing skills.

comPuter-meDIAteD communIcAtIon AnD lIterAcy Technology has transformed the traditional literacies of reading and writing in the ways that students collaborate and interact with one another about the texts that they read. By sharing opinions and information about what they are reading to one another via the computer, students are finding interesting and unique ways to communicate. In the last twenty years, researchers have begun to examine students’ computer-mediated communication to determine the kinds and quality of communication, and how the specific features of this communication facilitate or hinder in-depth and sophisticated dialogue about text. For example, Beach and Lundell (1998) found that online communication encourages those students who typically shy away from face-to-face interactions to interact freely though email and online chats. They also noted that the online collaborations facilitate the development of social skills when students learn to infer social meaning, respond in socially appropriate ways, and write clearly to communicate to an audience. Technology provides a forum for students to write to audiences that exist beyond the boundaries

of their classrooms. By emailing governmental agencies and requesting information online from health organizations, museums, and various societies, students are able to communicate and collaborate with an authentic audience. Moore and Karabenick (1992) showed that when students had a clear purpose and audience, they were motivated to write lengthier essays and convey their ideas more clearly and effectively. Researchers are also discovering that communication via technology results in different reading and writing skills than those found with the traditional literacies of reading and writing. For example, students are inventing new symbols for communicating online, integrating media files, creating links to websites, and sharing digital pictures as they interact with others (Merchant, 2001). Despite the proliferation of these new literacy skills as students engage in computer-mediated communication, educators may not be recognizing or valuing these skills in the schools.

computer-mediated Discussion Some researchers have examined how students engage in computer-mediated communication through discussions on email, discussion boards, and online chats. These researchers have referred to this particular form of discussion as Computer Mediated Discussion (CMD) (Bonk, 2003-4; Fauske & Wade, 2003-4; Jetton, 2003-4; Schallert, Reed, & the D-Team, 2003-4). The research on CMD is still in its infancy. The lack of studies in this area may be attributable to the time it has taken many school districts to purchase enough computers so that they are readily available to students in classrooms. Furthermore, school districts have been slow to make available the online capabilities of students to use email at school to engage in CMD. This is largely due to issues of privacy and possible abuses by students. Despite the lack of studies in this area, research has focused on the advantages of CMD for students and their teachers in classrooms in three

635

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

important ways: communication, collaboration, and the learning environment.

communication First, CMD provides other ways in which students can communicate with one another. This communication can take the form of online “pen pals,” where students chat informally with one another about events in their lives and their common interests. Communication can also be more structured in that students are conversing online about their course content such as the information they learn and read (Jetton, 2003-4; Jetton & Soenksen, 2006). Through communication, students share knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about an array of topics. In fact, students have reported that they find it less inhibitive to express themselves through CMD than through face-to-face discussions (Beach & Lundell, 1998). Thus, they tend to take more risks, enhance their roles and status in the electronic community, and increase the socioemotional content of their responses (Cooper & Selfe, 1990; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Ku, 1996; Rice & Love, 1987). Beach and Lundell (1998) reported that the early adolescents in their study became more confident in their ability to express opinions and disagreements because they did not have to engage in the direct confrontation that is present in face-to-face interactions. Matusov (1996) states, “At the bottom of any agreement, there is a momentary disagreement that promotes communication…” (p. 29). CMD provides avenues for communication because students must engage in writing during this process. Daly and Miller (1975) found that students with writing apprehension typically avoided situations involving writing, and they dreaded writing when it was placed in a public forum. Several researchers have found that computer-mediated communication benefits students who exhibit writing apprehension (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978; Mabrito, 1992; Wellman, 1997). By participating in CMD, students read others’

636

writing and respond through their own writing, so they engage in the very process that they typically avoid (Mabrito, 2000). Another communication advantage is that the online, written electronic environment of CMD enables students and their teachers to read and review written artifacts that are stored in memory so they can reference particular comments (Jetton, 2003-4; Tiene, 2000). In contrast to face-to-face discussions, where responses are temporary and fleeting, electronic messages enable students and their teachers to look back and analyze certain responses that pertain to particular topics or themes. Students have opportunities to reread posted messages and construct more effective responses in light of others’ contributions. In a survey of the advantages and disadvantages of online discussion versus face-to-face discussions, Tiene (2000) found that survey respondents were in strong agreement about the advantages of having a written record of the online discussions, and many of them noted that they did examine the written record of responses before posting their own ideas. These written artifacts also enable the teachers to read students’ responses and, in turn, scaffold instruction that might show students how to respond more effectively when writing online.

collaboration Unlike the isolated reading and writing assignments that are typically assigned in schools, CMD is a communication forum that encourages social collaboration among students (Jetton, 2003-4; Jetton & Soenksen, 2006). Unlike face-to-face interactions in which participants can read both the verbal and nonverbal messages, CMD results in a much different student interaction. In this medium, students must rely on the written message for both the message meaning and social reasons behind it. By reading the written messages in CMD, students construct social impressions and develop assumptions about the other students with

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

whom they are collaborating. Over time, these assumptions are tested (Walther, 1992; 1996). Students find unique advantages to CMD that are not always found with face-to-face collaboration. Students have reported that they do not have to endure the interruptions that occur frequently during face-to-face discussions (Beach & Lundell, 1998), so they also feel safe in posting longer messages. They also find CMD to be a good medium for expressing opinions and ideas, especially diverse or controversial ones. Students feel comfortable disagreeing with others. Ferdig & Roehler (2003-4), who describe these types of collaboration as interactivity, believe interactivity can positively impact learning because participants have opportunities to provide feedback, support, and guidance to others, make connections to others’ ideas, and offer diverse viewpoints. Leinonen, Jarvela, and Lipponen (2003) examined 15 and 16 year-old students’ collaboration through computer-mediated discussion about literature. They found four types of students were represented in terms of their collaboration during computer-mediated discussions. The active contributors posted several notes of inquiry, and they consistently posted comments to other writers. The nonactive contributors wrote very little in terms of notes or comments to other students, but they read others notes and comments often. The central comment receivers were the students to whom many students commented to their inquiries, despite their lack of interest in others’ inquiries. The last type of student was the isolated case who made several inquiries to which no students responded.

learning environment Students benefit from the online environment of CMD in terms of processing information, increasing their knowledge, and engaging in reflective thinking (Thomas, 2002). The learning process occurs when students construct ideas, convey these ideas through writing, and reshape their

ideas in response to elaboration and critique from others (Rowntree, 1995). Computer-mediated environments increase learning beyond declarative knowledge to more sophisticated knowledge structures that involve evaluation, critical analysis, and self-reflection (Thomas, 2002). The process of reflection involves defining the problem, analyzing the means to the end, and generalizing. Students who engage in this kind of critical reflection through CMD are enhancing their own learning processes and the learning processes of others. Hara, Bonk, and Angeli (2000) examined the depth of processing and cognitive and metacognitive thinking represented by online responses during asynchronous discussions. They found that although students posted only the few messages that were required, their messages showed depth of processing in which they were using high-level cognitive and metacognitive strategies to achieve deep reflection and self awareness. For example, the researchers found evidence in the online responses that the students were using the cognitive strategies of inference and judgment.

computer-mediated Discussions of literature To date, few studies exist that examine communication, collaboration, and learning through Computer-Mediated Discussions of literature. Fischer (1998) and Gillespie (1998) examined how college students engaged in CMD during literature classes and found that students developed a deeper sense of purpose and audience as they engaged in CMD. As they collaborated and received responses, the students found incentive to write about the literature they were reading and became more aware of an audience. So often in literature classes, students are required to write about the literature through critical analysis and research reports that are not read by anyone but the teacher, and the only responses the students receive are the teacher’s. Through CMD, students have an authentic forum for writing their thoughts and

637

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

feelings about the characters, events, and themes of the stories they are reading. Fischer (1998) and Gillespie (1998) also found that when students engaged in CMD about literature, they provided textual evidence to support their responses, and they used prior experiences to connect with the literature. They also began to change each others’ thinking. By assuming the roles of particular characters in the stories, students had opportunities to experiment with voice and interact with the voices of other characters in the story. Beach and Lundell (1998) examined how 12 seventh graders engaged in CMD about literature. These seventh graders were white, middle class suburban students in a junior high school. Beach and Lundell focused on the influence of social factors as student participated in CMD. Students’ purposes for reading the texts were to help others gain information and to share ideas about the text with others in order to build social bonds. Students also felt comfortable offering opposing and controversial ideas. As these students engaged in CMD, they assumed anonymous roles, and they exhibited introspective reflection about their personal thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. The researchers also found gender differences in that the girls wrote longer, more elaborate messages that reflected task continuative practices such as asking questions, repeating, validating, and extending others’ responses. More recently, Smith (2007) examined asynchronous computer-meditated discussions of high school students as they engaged in discussions of literature. She found that these high school students were able to participate in effective discourse as they collaborated to construct meaning for literary texts. The students’ responses were more sophisticated when they had previous literacy learning experiences that incorporated the more traditional literacy strategies. However, they also acquired new literacies through discovery learning and peer coaching. She also found that certain prompts facilitated effective communication. These teacher-designed prompts asked

638

students to express alternate interpretations or competing beliefs and allowed students freedom in responding to text. Aside from these studies that have explored the uses of CMD as students engage in literature discussions, little research has been conducted in this area; it was difficult to find studies that explored CMD with public school students, particularly high school students. As stated previously, it has taken time for schools to purchase computers and integrate them seamlessly into the classroom environment. Furthermore, many educators may still not value the computer literacy skills of students as they participate in online discussion environments. We believe that much more research needs to be conducted with public school participants to determine the value and limitations of such discussions when students engage in literature. In the study detailed later, we examined how our students participated in discussions about literature through the use of CMD.

hIgh school booK buDDy Project The author, Tamara, was a literacy professor in the Secondary Education Program at a MidAtlantic university. She had the opportunity to participate in a partnership with the local school district in the town where the university is located. By examining the demographics of the local town’s schools, she found an increasing diversity in ethnicity and language. The schools saw an increase in ethnic minorities from 27% to 34% (Virginia State Department of Education, 1999; 2000; 2001). The Hispanic/Latino population increased from 12% to 18%, a 63% growth. Additionally, according to the local city school statistics, 875 students spoke 36 different languages and are from 43 different countries (Mellott, 2002). Most of Tamara’s work was with the high school in this district. She helped the principal and teachers provide effective reading strategies

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

to the diverse students who attend this school. Through these partnership activities, Tamara met Patty, the English teacher at this high school. Patty’s primary teaching responsibilities entailed providing English instruction to ninth grade students in a program known as Project Achieve. Project Achieve was founded to assist a group of ninth grade students who were designated “atrisk” because of a number of factors, including their low test scores on the eighth grade state criterion referenced test. Many of these students were English language learners (ELL) and special education students who had been placed in inclusive classrooms. These Project Achieve students received English, mathematics, science, and social studies instruction from teachers who were trained to meet their specific needs. Patty’s primary job as their English teacher was to increase their reading and writing achievement. The students in Project Achieve were indeed diverse. During the year of our study, Patty taught 10 African American, 1 Bosnian, 12 Latino, 2 Middle Eastern, and 2 Russian students. Seventeen of these students were identified as English language learners (ELL). Fifteen students faced specific learning difficulties and were, therefore, provided special education services. Many of her students read far below the grade level of their ninth grade peers. At the beginning of the school year, these students scores ranged from a 1.8 to a 6.5 on the Star Reading test. Despite this range of scores, the average scores were between a 3.0 and 4.0. The Project Achieve students needed specific reading and writing strategies to facilitate their literacy growth, and they needed sufficient time to practice these strategies during authentic reading and writing activities. Because these students did not have the availability of technology in the home, and they had not engaged in computerrelated activities in any significant way in school, they also needed computer-related literacy skills. Due to this need, Patty proposed a Book Buddy Project, which she and Tamara subsequently

planned and implemented. The theory and practice behind “book buddies” began as a program to facilitate the literacy growth of early readers who struggled with text (Johnston, Invernizzi, & Juel, 1998). This program involved pairing struggling readers with older, more advanced students. The more advanced students selected a book and read it to their “buddy” for approximately 30 minutes each week. The book buddies took turns asking and answering questions about the content of the book (Block & Delamura, 2001). As Patty began her search for the more advanced students, she thought of Tamara’s university students. At the time, Tamara was teaching a literacy course in the special education program. The 31 students in this course were undergraduate preservice teachers in their junior year of college. One of the major goals of the course was to examine the special and diverse literacy needs of struggling readers and writers in the public schools. In addition, these preservice teachers were learning how to use technology to facilitate literacy instruction. Tamara and Patty decided to use technology as the tool for communication, collaboration, and learning during the Book Buddy Project. Patty’s students would be able to practice their writing skills through their communication on the computer, and they would be able to collaborate with an older, more capable student about the books they were reading. This collaboration would, in turn, give her students practice in those strategies critical to understanding text. Thus, technology became a way to bring these two very diverse classrooms together in a virtual space where the students could broaden their notions of literacy and learn beyond the bounds of the high school and university classrooms. The Book Buddy Project was designed and implemented solely through technology. A guideline of the procedures for implementing a Book Buddy Project is in Appendix A. As the semester began, Tamara downloaded her course roster from E-Campus, a web-based system that

639

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

contains course rosters, schedules, and grading tools. At the same time, Patty created a table of her students’ names and reading scores in Microsoft Word. Both of them attached their class rosters via email. As soon as both rosters were exchanged, the university students selected a book buddy from the high school roster, and received the buddy’s reading score. This reading score enabled the university students to select books on their students’ particular reading level. Books were selected by using the technology of the high school media center. This particular high school had a web-based system known as OPAC that catalogued books according to authors, subjects, keyword, interest, and reading level. The university students accessed the web-based system from their computers at the university, and they began their search for books to use during the project. They narrowed their searches by specifying particular reading levels, interesting topics, and adolescent fiction or nonfiction. Using the technology of OPAC, the university students constructed a list of five books they thought might be interesting for them and their book buddy. After selecting a number of books, the university students were ready to contact their high school book buddies via email. Tamara asked them to complete three tasks in their first email. First, they were to introduce themselves in a personal way to their high school book buddies. Second, they suggested the five books that they had found on OPAC as possible books to read and asked their buddy to choose one. Third, they attached a digital picture of themselves. They included the digital pictures as another way that the students could use technology to communicate and collaborate with their buddies. The pictures provided a human link between the book buddies, so they could see the person to whom they were writing and responding. Unfortunately, the email technology of both schools provided some early glitches in the project. Since the high school students were ninth graders, they had not yet received email addresses in the

640

high school. The Book Buddy Project was delayed three weeks while these students were given emails and placed on the high school computer network. When the high school students finally emailed the university students, many of their emails were dumped into the university students’ junk mail folders due to the fire wall imposed by the web-based university email system. Frustration set in for a couple weeks as students searched the systems for each others’ emails. Eventually, the majority of these problems diminished. After the initial introductions and the book buddy pairs chose a book to read, Tamara and Patty gave the book buddies specific tasks for responding to each other through CMD. They required each buddy to respond at least once per week to his or her buddy for approximately 8 weeks. Due to absences and other unscheduled interruptions, some students emailed each other for a longer duration. All book buddies were given a handout that detailed ways they could respond to the books they were reading. Tamara and Patty requested that they respond to the book in the following ways: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Choose a word, phrase, sentence, or passage from the story that you believe is important or interesting, and explain why you chose it. Relate the story to your own life experience. Ask questions about words, sentences, character, and ideas in the story. Respond positively or negatively to the events in the story. Explain why you think that the events in the story should have happened differently.

This handout served as a guide for practicing good reading strategies such as activating prior knowledge, questioning, and clarifying information. The high school students also completed a Reading Response Log (see Appendix B) in which they set goals for their reading and identified important literary elements within their books.

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

DAtA AnAlysIs All book buddy messages posted on email were downloaded into a computer file and printed. The book buddy discussion responses were analyzed qualitatively using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The author employed this inductive analysis in order to determine the patterns, themes, and categories that emerged from the data (Patton, 1990). In particular, the author examined the data for themes of communication, collaboration, and the learning environment. The content of all CMD and interview responses was read, examined, and open-coded in order to produce an initial code list. The responses were then reread and categories refined until all data had reached theoretical saturation.

booK buDDy communIcAtIon The author examined the students’ responses and found that, while the students communicated according to the purposes and tasks that we set for the project, they also set their own purposes for communication. Although the assigned task was to respond to the books they were reading, students’ correspondence often centered around their interests in their respective buddies. Many of the high school students were highly interested in the personal and professional lives of their university book buddies, as evidenced by the many questions they asked them about life on campus, their hometowns, and their interests or hobbies. One high school student wrote, “I hope you had fun during your fall break. So, where did you go?” University students also connected personally with their buddies by writing such responses as “Happy Birthday! My birthday is in December. I hope you have a great weekend. Talk to you soon.” The high school students enjoyed communicating about the exciting events in their lives. One student wrote about her Thanksgiving trip, “What

are you going to do for thanksgiving (sic)? I am going to Philadelphia to see Allen Iverson. My uncle lives like 3 block away from him.” Another student wrote, “Hey ____, I had a great spring break. I went to Newville Pa this weekend to watch wrestling. It was awesome. It was my first time goin to Pa.” Even though students engaged in brief personal communication, both groups of students remained focused on discussing the books they were sharing. They wrote about their favorite characters, the parts of the books that they liked and disliked, predictions, and how the book connected to their own lives. Many of the students also focused their communication on the parts of the story that surprised them. One high school student wrote this email about his favorite character. “I really like Bonnie’s character. I think that it is so nice that she talks to the kids and tried to be their friend.” Through this email response, the student is not merely stating his interest in the character, but also using the story to provide a reason for his opinion. One university student wrote about her favorite part of Deuker’s Heart of a Champion (1994) by stating, “My favorite part has been reading about how Seth has been able to find ways to practice baseball even when he is by himself. Wasn’t that a cool idea to throw the ball against the part of the house where the building meets the ground so that he wouldn’t know if it was going to bounce as a pop-up, line drive, or grounder?” In this example, the student is also using the story to reinforce her interest in a particular event in the story, but she is also trying to continue the thread of conversation with her book buddy by closing her response with a question. Students expressed their interest by noting the surprises found in their stories. One high school student was surprised by the outcome of the story, “About the book, I really thought Eddie was the killer throughout the full book because it was weird how he knew everything about her and she didn’t know that much about.” Another

641

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

student wrote, “I was shocked when Mr. Pike got hurt. I did not think that Ric’s ex girlfriend would do something like that.” Other students were surprised by the characters’ relationships in the book. For example, one high school student wrote, “Sometimes I am surprised that Neil and Randy & David and Terry are such good friends. They seem like complete opposites to me!” Through this response, the high school student is analyzing the characters and drawing conclusions about them through his writing. The communication of these computermediated discussions was rather typical of email correspondence in that the high school and university students used colloquial computer jargon. One high school students wrote, “It must b cool 2 live close by the beach. Where ru from?” Several students used computer communication to close their responses by writing, “g2g” (got to go). Some high school and university students also eliminated the necessity for many grammatical conventions such as capitalized letters and apostrophes. Several book buddy partners found that they shared another common language besides English, and they began corresponding in such languages as Spanish and Russian. One high school student wrote in Spanish, and also provided an English translation. Hola como estas? Espero que al leer este mensage te encuentres muy bien. Bueno espero que ya encontrastes el libro de The Parrot in the Oven. _______ y yo ya leimios hasta la pagina 80 (we read together). Y pues por lo que hemos leido, el libro se trata de un familia que se mira a ellos mismo como si no costaran nada y hay un jovensito que le gustaria seguir estudiando, pero sus padres no tienen sufisiente dinero pa’ pagar sus clases, y bueno como el tiene esas ganas de estudiar, el trabaga en unos fields y tambien le quiere ensenarle a su papa que el puede salir adelante. Bueno me tengo que ir cuidate mucho

642

Love, _____ Translation: Hello, how are you….I hope you’ve found the book. ______ and I have read to p80. From what we’ve read, the book is about a family that thinks of itself that they’re not worth much. There’s a boy who wants to continue studying, but his parents don’t have enough money to pay for classes. Since he wants to study, he works in some fields and also because he wants to show his dad that he can make something of himself. I have to go…_____ Despite the more positive evidence of communication that occurred during the project, one of the major problems with communication concerned the high school students’ lack of responses to their book buddies. Several high school students responded infrequently or not at all. Since CMD was the only form of communication available, and there was no possibility of face-to-face communication until the end of the semester, a vital part of the success of this project depended on the email communication between the participants. Some of the university students sent three emails before receiving a reply from their buddies. As a result, the university students often expressed frustration to their teacher and their book buddies that their responses were not read. One way that this problem could be eliminated would be create newsgroups comprised of two university and one high school student. By establishing newsgroups of three collaborators, a book buddy would be more likely to receive a response.

booK buDDy collAborAtIon Collaboration involves the use of communication, in this case CMD, to connect or share with someone either through the content that is discussed or through the social interactions that occur. In this study the author saw evidence of collaboration in

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

several significant ways. First, the book buddies explicitly requested collaboration through their closing comments. They wrote “E-mail when u get a chance,” and “…let me know what you think about it [the book] so far,” Some high school students were quite explicit in their requests for collaboration, “WRITE BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!” A second form of collaboration occurred as they monitored each others’ progress through the literature. The book buddy partners were constantly monitoring their reading progress by setting particular dates for completing sections of the book, keeping track of the pages they had read and the characters they had met in the book. They also monitored their partners’ email schedule by determining the best time to email. One university student wrote, “When do you check your email? On Thursday or Friday? The morning or the middle of the day? I’ll be sure to read the chapter and get back to you by one of those times.” Another student wrote, “I’m almost done with the book. I’m on page 113. I might be a little ahead. So, I might not give out a lot about the book.” In many cases, the students were very conscious of not “giving away” the contents of the book until their partners had read far enough into the book. When the high school students read more than the university students, they often wrote to hurry them along. One student wrote, “Anyways, I’m halfway through the book and hoping you will be catching up.” Other students monitored progress by noting the pages they had read and summarizing the content. For example, a high school wrote, “I am almost at the end of the book. I am on page 176 where they meet a girl named Stephanie... Also, where their dad is missing. Where do you think he’s at?” This example illustrates another way in which many of the students collaborated. They asked each other questions to improve the likelihood of a response. Beach and Lundell (1998) refer to these responses as task continuative practices because

the students are writing to receive a response, so the thread of the discussion remains unbroken. A high school student wrote, I would not know what to do because you might have to go out and fight in the war. How would u feel if u had to make a promise to you father? I don’t know if I would be able to promise my father. Would u be able to? I think that the white and black boy will become friends. The white boy is going to teach the black boy how to read. What do you think is going to happen next? What do you think about the book so far? Who’s your favorite character? In this email, the student asked several questions related to the character’s dilemma and whether his partner would react in the same way as the character. The student also made a prediction and asked his partner to make one about the next part of the story. Finally, he asked some more general questions at the end that were focused on his partners’ interest in the story and characters. This type of response encouraged collaboration because his partner had many opportunities to continue the thread of conversation concerning any number of topics. His partner responded, “I do think that he will end up fighting for the North. What do you think will happen on his trip to Richmond?” Again, this university student responded by predicting the story events, but she also ended her response with another prediction question that allowed her high school partner to collaborate again without breaking the thread of conversation. The book buddy partners collaborated by validating their partners’ responses. A high school student wrote about the conclusion of her book, ‘I thought that the ending of the book would have given us more information… What do you think of the book? What would u like to have changed? I would like to see Bonnie and that guy get married.” Her university book buddy responded, “I like the ending, but I agree with

643

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

you. They should have given more information both about the hospital and about what happens between Bonnie and that guy.” High school students used collaboration with their book buddy as an opportunity to clarify parts of the books that were confusing. One high school student wrote, “Yes, I do remember about what Mr. Wagner did to Rebecca. It was very bad for a teacher to do that to a student. I kind of got lost. I don’t remember reading if Rebecca’s parents ever made it to Westphila (I think that’s how you spell it).” Another student conveyed his confusion by stating, “I’m on page 28. I understand the beginning, but I’m kind of confused. I also wonder why the title is called Storm.” These responses increased the collaboration among book buddy partners because the partner was now charged with the task of clarifying the text for his buddy. Some university students offered particular strategies to help the high school students overcome some of the difficulties in making meaning from the text. For example, one university student encouraged her book buddy to use strategies such as prediction and determining importance, “Making predictions is always a fun way to see if you and the author are thinking along the same lines. … pick out a sentence or idea from the book that you think is important…and tell me about it in your next email.”

booK buDDy leArnIng envIronment This project was a unique and rewarding method for seeing into the minds of the students and discovering the ways in which they were processing the text. The author saw evidence of several strategies that are important to text comprehension— character analysis, look backs, and summaries. Some of the richest strategies were evidenced in the ways book buddies were able to analyze the characters in the literature. In analyzing these characters, students responded in a variety of

644

ways. Some students analyzed the character by writing about how that character was one of their favorites. Other students analyzed the character’s motivations in order to predict what that character might do next. Students also provided character analyses by writing about the characters’ emotions and how they would act if they were the characters. In the following example, a university student analyzed the character of Mia in Cabot’s Princess in the Spotlight (2002) by discussing the role that Mia plays within her family and relating how she might feel in Mia’s position. Mia seems like a very responsible girl…seems like she runs the house for her mom. What do you think about her mom and the algebra teacher having a baby? I think that would be a weird experience to have to go through. Mia seems to be taking it well though….she is very concerned about her mom having a healthy pregnancy. She has a very busy, crazy life. Her high school book buddy writes back, “I would be excited yet scared 2 do an interview on national t.v. If my mom was [sic] having a baby by my algebra teacher, I would be freaked out. People would think that I am the teacher’s pet. Mia is very mature 4 her age.” In this response, the students are analyzing the character by placing themselves in the role of the princess, and thinking about the emotions that they would feel. The students were also learning about the text by expressing their viewpoints and feelings about particular sections of the stories. One high school student referred to a part of the book that caught his attention. He states, I just finished Chapter 15, and I thought the way they described Neil’s boy when he fell was pretty gruesome. When he fell, I was screaming “no!” inside my head. They were so close to escaping! Now that Neil was injured, I know he would hold the others back and their chances of finding a way out would be smaller. I almost feel as if it was not his body that gave up but his mind.

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

In this example, the student appears to think aloud about the ideas running through his mind as he reads this section of the story. Thus, one could see how he was making meaning with the text. Students conveyed their understandings of the text by summarizing the part of the story that they had just read. This high school student gave a detailed summary of the beginning of a biography about Grant Hill. I’m on page 26, and so far it’s only saying stuff that’s been going on in his life. Like his mother was sort of fearful that people would be scared of her because she wouldn’t let anybody mess with her or her son and his school grades. And his dad barely spent time with him because he was a professional football player, and since he had so many games, he couldn’t have any time with his son. But now he can since he retired. He goes to every basketball game that Grant had. Only he isn’t much of a cheering kind of father so he didn’t cheer as much. Summaries such as this one exemplified the learning that took place as these students engaged in text. These summaries also aided the university students in discovering how these struggling readers comprehended the text.

conclusIon The Book Buddy Project afforded Tamara and Patty the opportunity to create a virtual literacy community in which high school and university students incorporated the traditional literacies of reading and writing within a virtual environment that facilitated communication, collaboration, and learning with text. By communicating through writing, these students had opportunities to increase their writing and communication skills.

This was demonstrated in the ways they expressed their interests in various characters and parts of the books, as well as their descriptions of surprising events in the stories. They also used writing to express emotions about the characters and the events within the texts. This project gave the students the opportunity to collaborate with other readers beyond the physical space of their respective classrooms. As themes of collaboration were analyzed, the author was excited by the ways that students connected with their book buddy partners as they monitored each others’ progress and asked questions to generate responses. The author was also encouraged by their willingness to validate each other’s reactions to the text and, more importantly, by the kind of learning that was evidenced in the students’ responses. In typical classroom discussions, high school students are often relegated to one sentence answers to teacher questions about the text (Jetton & Alexander, 1997). Such was not the case in this study. Instead, the high school students often wrote elaborate descriptions and analyses of the characters in their stories. They examined particular parts of the story that were sad, gruesome, or scary, and they interpreted these events in light of their own emotions and experiences. This study offers validation for the use of CMD in K-12 education. It also reinforces the potential for CMD to create environments that transcend the traditional borders of the K-12 classroom by developing virtual environments where high school students can communicate and collaborate with authentic audiences. Despite its limitations, CMD is an excellent tool for deriving meaning from text because it allows students to examine literary characters and events and share their conclusions, predictions and reactions with a virtual community of other students who are engaged in the same pursuit of meaning.

645

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

references Beach, R., & Lundell, D. (1998). Early adolescents’ use of computer-mediated communication in writing and reading. In D. Renking, M.C. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 93-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Block, C.C., & Delamura, R.J. (2001). Better book buddies. The Reading Teacher, 54 (4), 364-370. Bonk, C. (2003-04). I should have known this was coming: Computer-mediated discussions in teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 95-102. Bonk, C.J., & Reynolds, T.H. (1992). Early adolescent composing within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting framework: Computer use in the improvement of writing [Special issue]. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 39-62. Boyd, R. (2000,). Computer based reading instruction: The effectiveness of computer based reading instruction in positively influencing student scores in science. CSTA Journal, Winter, 17-23. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R., (Eds.) (1999) How people learn: Brain, mind experience and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press..

Deuker, C. (1994). Heart of a champion. New York: HarperTrophy. Fauske, J., & Wade, S.E. (2003-04). Research to practice online: Conditions that foster democracy, community, and critical thinking in computermediated discussions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 137-154. Ferdig, R.E. & Roehler, L.R. (2003-04). Student uptake in electronic discussions: Examining online discourse in literacy preservice classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 119-136. Fischer, K.M. (1998). Pig tales: Literature inside the pen of electronic writing. In D. Reiss, D.Selfe, and A. Young (Eds.), Electronic communication across the curriculum. (pp. 207-220). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of English. Gillespie, P. (1998). E-Journals: Writing to learn in the literature classrooms. In D. Reiss, D.Selfe, and A. Young (Eds.), Electronic communication across the curriculum. (pp. 221-230). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of English. Gillingham, M.G., Garner, R., Guthrie, J.T., & Sawyer, R. (1989). Children’s control of computerbased reading assistance in answering synthesis questions. Computers in Human Behavior, 5, 61-75.

Cabot, M. (2002). Princess in the spotlight. New York: HarperTrophy.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, L.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Cooper, M.M., & Selfe, C.L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52, 847-869.

Hara, N., Bonk, C.J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.

Daiute, C. (1983). Writing and computers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Harrison, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Haw, K., Lewin, C., Lunzer, E., McFarlane A., Mavers, D., Scrimshaw, P., Somekh, B., Watling, R. (2003). ImpaCT2 The Impact of information and communication technologies on pupil learning and attainment. Annesley, UK: Department for Education and skills.

Daly, J.A., & Miller, M.D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Journal of Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242-249. 646

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

Hiltz, S.R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Jetton, T.L. (2003-04). Using computer-mediated discussion to facilitate preservice teachers’ understanding of literacy assessment and instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 171-189. Jetton, T.L., & Alexander, P.A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290-308. Jetton, T. L., & Soenksen, C. (2006). Creating a virtual literacy community between high school and university students. In L.T.W. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.) Handbook of research on literacy in technology at the K-12 level. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. Johnston, F.R., Invernizzi, M., & Juel, C. (1998). Book buddies: Guidelines for volunteer tutors of emergent and early readers. New York: Guilford Press. Kamil, M.L., Intrator, S., & Kim, H.S. (2000). Effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr, (Eds.) Handbook of reading research, 3, (pp. 773-788). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T.W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134. Kim, H.S., & Kamil, M.L. (2004). Adolescents, computer, technology, and literacy. In T. L. Jetton and J.A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice, 351-368. New York: Guilford Press. Ku, L. (1996). Social and nonsocial uses of electronic messaging systems in organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 297-326.

Labbo, L. D., Eakle, A. J., Montero, M. K. (2002). Digital language experiences approach: Using digital photographs and software as a Language Experience approach innovation. Reading Online, 5(8). Retrieved May 21, 2008 from http:// www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index. asp?HREF=labbo2/index.html Labbo, L. D., Love, M. S., & Ryan, T. (2007). A vocabulary flood: Making words “sticky” with computer-response activities. Reading Teacher, 60(6), 582-588. Langhorst, E. (2007). After the bell, beyond the walls. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 74-77. Leinonen, P., Jarvela, S., & Lipponen, L. (2003). Individual students’ interpretations of their contribution to the computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 1-24. Mabrito, M. (2000). Computer conversations and writing apprehension. Business Communication Quarterly, 63, 39-49. Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 2545. McMillan, K., & Honey, M. (1993). Year one of Project Pulse: Pupils using laptops in science and English: A final report (Tech. Rep. No. 26). New York: Center for Technology in Education. Mellott, J. (2002). City ranks second in Virginia for ESL percentage. The Daily News Record, pp. 13-14. Merchant, G. (2001). Teenagers in cyberspace: An investigation of language use and language change in Internet chatrooms [Special issue: Literacy, home and community]. Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 293-306. Moore, M.A., & Karabenick, S.A. (1992). The effects of computer communications on the reading and writing performance of fifth-grade students

647

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

[Special issue: Computer use in the improvement writing]. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 27-38.

with computer-mediated discussion. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 103-118.

Palumbo, D.B., & Prater, D.L. (1992). A comparison of computer-based prewriting strategies for basic ninth grade writers [Special issue: Computer use in the improvement of writing]. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 63-70.

Smith, C.A. (2007). Transactions and transformations on electronic message boards: Portraits of high school students’ asynchronous computermediated discussions of literature, ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University, Delaware).

Passey, D., Rogers, C., Machell, J., McHugh, G., & Allaway, D. (2003). The motivational effect of ICT on students. Annesley, UK: DfES Publications. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newberry Park, CA: Sage. Reinking, D. (1998). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of reading time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 484-498. Reinking, D., & Rickman, S. S. (1990). The effects of computer-mediated texts on the vocabulary learning and comprehension of intermediategrade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 33, 395-411.

Thomas, M.J.W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351-366. Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 371-384. Virginia Department of Education. (1999). Fall 1999 Membership by School Division. Retrieved April 11, 2002, from the Virginia Department of Education Web site: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/ VDOE/dbpubs/Fall_Membership/

Rice, R.E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socio-emotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14, 85-105.

Virginia Department of Education. (2000). Fall 2000 Membership by School Division. Retrieved April 11, 2002, from the Virginia Department of Education Web site: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/ VDOE/dbpubs/Fall_Membership/

Rosenbluth, G.S., & Reed, W.M. (1992). The effects of writing-process-based instruction and word processing on remedial and accelerated 11th graders [Special issue: Computer use in the improvement of writing]. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 71-95.

Virginia Department of Education. (2001). Fall 2001 Membership by School Division. Retrieved April 11, 2002, from the Virginia Department of Education Web site: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/ VDOE/dbpubs/Fall_Membership/

Rowntree, D. (1995). Teaching and learning online: A correspondence education for the 21st century? British Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 205-215. Schallert, D.L., Reed, J.H., & the D-Team. (2003-04). Intellectual, motivational, textual, and cultural considerations in teaching and learning

648

Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90. Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

Weller, L.D., Carpenter, S., & Holmes, C.T. (1998). Achievement gains of low-achieving students using computer-assisted vs. regular instruction. Psychological Reports, 83(4), 1440-1441. Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Asynchronous Discussions: People interacting through writing online at different points in time.

Book Buddy: Two people who read books and respond to one another about the content of the books. Collaboration: People interacting with one another to achieve a goal. Computer Mediated Discussion: People who interact through writing on e-mail, discussion boards, and online chats. Interactive Literacy Environments: People reading and writing to each other. Learning Environment: A place where people gain knowledge. Literacy: Reading and writing as a form of communication. Virtual Learning Community: A community of people who are interacting with one another through technology to learn.

649

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

APPenDIx A guidelines for the book buddy Project 1. 2.

Select K-12 students who struggle with reading, writing and computer literacy skills. Select university preservice teachers who are currently participating in a literacy course that focuses on struggling readers and writers. 3. The participating public school teacher and university instructor share class rosters via email. 4. University preservice teachers are given roster of public school students, and they sign up for a book buddy on this roster. 5. University preservice teachers obtain a digital picture of themselves. 6. University preservice teachers select five books based on their book buddy’s reading level, as determined by a reading assessment administered at the public school. Other variables to consider in selecting books include topic interests of adolescents and the genre of the text. Books can be selected using technology available (see reference to OPAC in the chapter). 7. Preservice teachers write a one or two-sentence synopsis for each of the five books chosen. 8. University preservice teachers establish initial contact with their book buddies via email and accomplish three tasks: a. Introduce themselves b. Attach a digital picture of themselves 9. Provide the book buddy a list of five books, along with a synopsis of each book, and ask the book buddy to select a book that they will read together. 10. The book buddies are given specific tasks for responding to each other through CMD: a. Choose a word, phrase, sentence, or passage from the story that you believe is important or interesting, and explain why you chose it. b. Relate the story to your own life experience. c. Ask questions about words, sentences, character, and ideas in the story. d. Respond positively or negatively to the events in the story. e. Explain why you think that the events in the story should have happened differently. 11. Book buddies respond to each other at least once per week for approximately 8 weeks.

650

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

APPenDIx b

Name______________________________ Date Due___________________________

Reading Response Log Title____________________________________________________________ Author__________________________________________________________ Why did you select this book?________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ How many pages? ________________

How many chapters?________________

How many pages will you read each day?________ Goal date for finishing?__________ Name of Book Buddy_____________________________________________________ Email address of Book Buddy_______________________________________________ Have you and your Book Buddy agreed upon the goal date for finishing?_____________

Complete one section of the reading response log for each day of reading. You do not have to complete the responses in any particular order. Use your responses to help you communicate with your book buddy!

* Date ___________ I have read from page ________ to page ___________. Write 5 complete sentences to identify and describe the main character. Consider such information as name, age, gender, family, interests, personality, friends, joys, conflicts, etc. Does this character remind you of yourself or anyone else you know? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________.

651

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

23

* Date ___________ I have read from page ________ to page ___________. Write 2 complete sentences to identify the main conflict of the story and another 2 sentences to predict how that conflict will be resolved. Have you ever been in a similar conflict or know anyone who has? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________.

* Date ___________ I have read from page ________ to page ___________. In three complete sentences, describe the setting of the book you’re reading. Be as descriptive as you can! ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________.

* Date ___________ I have read from page ________ to page ___________. Find examples of figurative language (similes, metaphors, personification, . . .) in your reading and record them below: 1) Example:__________________________________________________________ Type:__________________________ 2) Example:_________________________________________________________ Type:__________________________

652

Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students

3) Example:__________________________________________________________ Type:__________________________

* Date____________ I have read from page ________ to page ___________. Identify and define at least 5 words you have learned or become more familiar with through your reading: 1)______________________________ Definition or synonym:_____________________________________________________ 2)______________________________ Definition or synonym:_____________________________________________________ 3)______________________________ Definition or synonym:_____________________________________________________ 4)______________________________ Definition or synonym:_____________________________________________________ 5)______________________________ Definition or synonym:_____________________________________________________

Date____________ I have read from page ______ to page _______. Write a short paragraph about your reading so far. You may summarize the story, question a part you don’t understand, predict what might happen next, or comment on your opinion of the book so far. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________.

653

654

Chapter XLI

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent Carita Kiili University of Jyväskylä, Finland Leena Laurinen University of Jyväskylä, Finland Miika Marttunen University of Jyväskylä, Finland

AbstrAct The purpose of this study was to investigate the interrelations between information searching, textprocessing, information evaluation, and metacognition when upper-secondary school students are using Internet as a source for an essay. Students (n = 24) were asked to search for source material from the Internet in order to write an essay on a given topic. They were asked to verbalize their thoughts while they were gathering their source material. Their verbalizations and actions were recorded and analyzed. The results indicated that students who had difficulties in locating relevant information had to monitor their orientation and keep track of what to do next. Skillful students, in contrast, were able to plan and evaluate their performance, and adjust their activities to the task demands. These students were then able to focus more on elaborative text-processing. Thus, the present study supports the view that constructively responsive reading demands a metacognitively competent reader.

IntroDuctIon Using the Internet both as an information source and as a learning resource sets cognitive demands for searching, information processing, evaluation,

and regulation. Mostly these complex processes have been researched in separate studies. However, Brand-Gruwel, Wopereis, and Vermetten (2005) have suggested a model to combine these processes. The information problem solving

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

process, as their model is called, consists of five main skills and their regulation. In the model the main skills are: 1) defining the information problem, 2) searching for information, 3) scanning information, 4) processing information, and 5) organizing and presenting information. These main skills further divide into several sub-skills. A closer look at these sub-skills reveal that judging information is an iterative process that is related to the information searching, scanning, and processing phases of the information problem solving task. Because of this complexity, Internet readers need, alongside traditional reading strategies, additional prior knowledge on website structures and search engines (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). They also need forward inferential reasoning strategies (Coiro & Dobler, 2007) and critical thinking skills (Gilster, 1997). In this chapter we use concept of Internet reading as we are interested in how internet users apply traditional reading strategies. Do to the fact that Internet differs from traditional information sources, these reading strategies are complemented with information search processes as well as information evaluation and metacognitive processes specific to Internet reading. Information on the Internet is often presented as hypertext. Hypertexts are typically non-linear, interactive texts that may include multiple media forms (Coiro, 2003). Readers of hypertexts decide what information to access and in what order. Thus, the reader is responsible for choosing and organizing arguments, whereas in traditional, linear texts these activities are done by the author (Carter, 2003). This is an interesting notion in view of the difficulty that university students have in identifying arguments (Larson, Britt, & Larson, 2004), even when reading printed, linear texts. The reader’s responsibility for making decisions about what to read and in what order increases cognitive load; this in turn impairs reading performance (DeStefano & LeFevre, 2007). Eveland and Dunwoody (2000) found, consistently, that majority of processing done by Internet users

focused on maintaining orientation both to the structure and to the content of the website. This dual effort reduces information processing devoted to meaningful learning. In most cases, Internet readers are required to integrate information from multiple sources to meet their information needs. According to Britt and Sommer (2004), it is more demanding to form between-text links than within-text links, because of the lack of explicit clues for facilitating integration. On the other hand, when readers seek to acquire a coherent representation by integrating information from multiple sources, they process information more actively (ibid). In the study conducted by Wiley and Voss (1999) university students read the same material either from multiple sources (web documents) or as a single text from a textbook. The students were asked to write an argumentative, narrative, or exploratory essay, or a summary. The students who read the material from multiple sources and wrote an argumentative essay composed the most integrative essays with the most causal connections. In studies concerned with the reading strategies used on the Internet, participants have either searched for information in accordance with their own interests (Eveland & Dunwoody, 2000; Hill & Hannafin, 1997) or they have searched for answers to narrow questions (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Konishi, 2003). The aim of the present study was to obtain information about reading on the Internet while students searched for and read information for a broader, authentic learning task, that is, when they used the Internet as a source for an essay. The primary focus of this chapter is on the interrelations between information searching, text-processing, information evaluation, and metacognition and how these processes are mirrored in essay writing.

Information searching Internet readers need both prior knowledge of the topic related to the search task and experience of

655

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

the use of the Internet to be able to locate relevant information (Hölscher & Strube, 2000; Jenkins, Corritore, & Wiedenbeck, 2003). In most cases, however, mere recall of relevant prior knowledge and technical Internet skills are not enough. An Internet reader must also be able to transform his or her prior knowledge in order to formulate relevant search terms. Van Merriënboer and Kirschner (2007, pp. 15–16) have presented a hierarchy of the search skills needed to obtain relevant research literature. In the hierarchy formulating a search query refers to the skills of translating the research question into relevant search terms and combining these search terms to construct an appropriate query. Lower-order skills, such as using Boolean operators, are prerequisites for performing higher-order skills. In their review Walraven, Brand-Gruwel, and Boshuizen (2008) noted that all age groups have difficulties in specifying appropriate search terms. Even university students have problems with these higher-order skills, as has been demonstrated by Sormunen and Pennanen (2004). They found that that the most common errors in the search queries of university students were, in fact, concept-level errors.

distinguish between cognitive and metacognitive strategies in text processing. Cognitive strategies refer to learners’ cognitive processing during the process of encoding. Theories of reading comprehension emphasize that readers have to integrate text ideas and their prior knowledge to achieve the highest level of comprehension (e.g Kintsch, 1998). Metacognitive strategies refer to learners’ knowledge of their own cognitive processing and their ability to control these processes (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Brown, Armbruster, and Baker (1986) argue that successful readers monitor their learning by planning strategies, adjusting their effort, and evaluating their success. Although reading strategies have been classified in numerous ways (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Coté & Goldman, 1999; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995) researchers agree that the versatile and active use of reading strategies results in better text comprehension. Nevertheless, Afflerbach, Pearson, and Paris (2008) emphasize that reading strategies are not always successful and do not necessarily lead to better text comprehension. One reason for this is the context-dependent nature of strategic activities (Garner, 1990).

cognitive and metacognitive Processes in reading

Information evaluation

According to Pressley and Gaskins (2006, pp. 100, 102), constructively responsive reading is an active and strategic process. A constructively responsive reader knows reading strategies (what), is able to apply them adequately (when and where), possesses extensive knowledge, and is often highly motivated. Pressley and Gaskins (2006) argue that although constructively responsive reading is commonly associated with how experts read, students can be taught to be constructively responsive as well. They stress that constructively responsive reading demands a metacognitively competent reader. However, they do not explicitly separate cognitive from metacognitive strategies. Conversely, Weinstein, and Mayer (1986)

656

When reading on the Internet critical thinking skills are essential, as the Internet contains much partial and sometimes even misleading information (Gilster 1997, p. 87). However, previous research has indicated that even university students have deficiencies in evaluating Internet sources (Metzger, Flanagin, & Zwarun, 2003; Grimes & Boening, 2001). Furthermore, previous studies (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; MaKinster, Beghetto, & Plucker, 2002) have indicated that predictive evaluation of information has an important role in the skillful use of Internet sources. In the present study information evaluation is considered from two perspectives: how students evaluate credibility of information and relevance of information. Credibility refers to whether a student is paying

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

attention to distinguishing reliable from unreliable information. Relevance, in turn, refers to whether a student is paying attention to distinguishing essential from non-essential information.

strategies used by students associated with the quality of their essays?

methoDs re-Accessing Information Participants Experienced Internet users utilize the tools provided by web browsers for the purpose of making useful information easily re-accessible (Aula, Jhaveri, & Käki, 2005; Bruce, Jones, & Dumais, 2004). Aula et al. (2005) discovered that experienced Internet users utilized search engines, URL addresses, and bookmarks to re-access information. They found that the use of search engines is often problematic, as it might be impossible to remember the exact query with which the information was originally found. Further, Aula et al. (2005) noted that experienced users had often multiple tabs or multiple browser windows open while searching for information. Skillful Internet readers can take advantage of re-access strategies in different ways. Re-access strategies can help Internet readers to handle multiple documents and facilitate comparison and evaluation of information presented in different sources. Moreover, re-access strategies can help readers to maintain their orientation and not lose useful information once it has been found.

research Questions The research questions addressed by the study were as follows:

Students, 25 in total (14 female and 11 male) from an upper secondary school in Finland volunteered for participation in this study. The participants were either 16 or 17 years of age. One student was excluded from the analysis because her essay wondered outside the topic.

task The study was integrated into process-writing practice (Flower & Hayes, 1981) in the mother tongue (Finnish) class. The students were asked to look for source material on the Internet for 40 minutes in order to write an essay on the following topic: Sleeping as a human resource. The students were asked to verbalize their thoughts as they gathered their source material. They then had 45 minutes to write a first draft of their essay, writing their final essay at a later date. The students were informed that they were free to use all the features of the browser. In each browser the starting page was empty and the students had to decide how to start the search task. The students were allowed to make notes during the search, but not print pages.

Data collection 1.

2. 3.

What kinds of search actions and what kinds of text-processing, information evaluation, and metacognitive strategies do students use when searching the Internet for source material for an essay? To what extent do students copy or transform the texts they read in writing their essays? Are the search actions and text-processing, information evaluation, and metacognitive

The study was conducted in the spring term of 2006. The researcher met each student individually. The entire research session lasted approximately 1 hour 45 minutes. The session started with a brief questionnaire. The students were asked for background information (age, sex) and information about their use of the Internet (number of hours weekly; familiarity with search

657

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

engines). After the students had completed the questionnaire the researcher introduced the task. The instructions were also given to the students in writing. After reading the instructions, the students were asked to confirm whether they had understood the task. They were allowed to ask questions about the process. The students were instructed to think aloud and report whatever they thought while searching for and reading information on the Internet. They were informed that prompt questions (what is in your mind?; what are you thinking?) would be asked if they remained silent for a longer period. The researcher did not model thinking aloud, as the aim was to study students’ spontaneous thoughts. If students asked questions about what was meant by thinking aloud, they were answered. Students asked questions such as “Do I say that now I’m thinking that I’m going to use Google to find information” or “Do you mean speaking to myself?” Web actions as well as students’ think-alouds were recorded using Easy Video Capture software. Each session was replayed, transcribed, analyzed, and coded.

Data Analysis Students’ Search Actions Search actions were divided into seven categories: 1) formulating a query 2) using a URL address 3) browsing search results 4) selecting a link from the search results 5) using links 6) changing a search engine 7) changing the search language.

Think-Aloud Protocols and Students’ Notes In the analysis of think-aloud protocols, strategies were divided into three main categories: textprocessing, information evaluation strategies, and metacognitive strategies. External reading strategies (writing notes) were also taken into account.

658

The main categories and their sub-categories are presented in Table 1. The text-processing strategies were divided in two sub-categories: locating or gathering important information and elaborative text-processing strategies. Furthermore, the information evaluation strategies were divided into evaluation of credibility and evaluation of relevance. As shown in Table 1, metacognitive strategies consist of micro-level and macro-level strategies. Monitoring one’s own activities by saying what one is doing or going to do are characteristic of micro-level metacognitive strategies. On the contrary, when readers use macro-level metacognitive strategies they use forward-looking activities, evaluate their performance, and adjust their activities to the task demands. Re-access strategies were included in metacognitive strategies, because the purpose of such re-access strategies is to control the search and reading process. Re-access strategies at the micro-level are only reactive, such as using the search engine to relocate information, whereas re-access strategies at the macro-level are proactive, such as having multiple tabs or browser windows open. Some authentic examples from the data obtained on each subcategory are presented in Table 2. The reliability of the analysis of the students’ think-aloud protocols was examined by having two researchers to classify 17% (4 of 24) of the think-aloud protocols: the level of agreement found was 86%.

Essays We formed six variables to evaluate the quality of the essays. The origin of each sentence (variable 1) was analyzed to find out how the students applied the Internet sources in their essays. The number of idea units (variable 2) was measured to evaluate the breadth of the essays and number of explanative idea units (variable 3) was measured to evaluate the breadth of the students’ causal thinking in their essays. Explanative idea units were classified into three hierarchical levels (variables 4–6) to assess the depth of causal thinking.

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

Table 1. Sub-categories of text-processing, information evaluation, and metacognitive strategies Table 1. Sub-categories of text-processing, information evaluation, and metacognitive Text-processing strategies Locating or gathering important information

Elaborative text-processing strategies: Integrating own prior knowledge or own experiences Integrating or comparing two or more text Inferencing Recapitulating information Considering or categorizing concepts, finding out meaning of unfamiliar concepts

Information evaluation strategies Evaluation of credibility:

Evaluation of relevance:

Evaluation of publisher or authority

Predictive evaluation of relevance

Evaluation of writer’s argumentation

Evaluation of topicality at the textual, or paragraph level

Evaluation of style or content of the text Paying attention to publisher without evaluative comment

Evaluation of style or content of the text

Evaluation of credibility without justification

Evaluation of usability or mode of information

Evaluation of up-to-dateness Predictive evaluation of credibility

Evaluation of relevance by comparing two or more texts

Verification of information

Evaluation of generalization

Evaluation of sources given in the text

Evaluating text as relevant by frequency of information

Evaluation of novelty

Metacognitive strategies Micro-level metacognitive strategies:

Macro-level metacognitive strategies:

Repeating the title of the task

Defining information need

Steering: what to do next

Planning

Monitoring orientation: where am I now?

Proactive re-access strategies

Reactive re-access strategies Monitoring understanding or activities

Evaluating own performance or activities

Asking time: how much time do I have left

Monitoring time by adjusting ones’ activities to remaining time

Origin of the Sentences in the Essays (Variable 1) We compared the sentences in the students’ essays to the texts they had read. The students’ notes as well as the think-aloud protocols were used to help to locate the original source of the sentences. The origin of each sentence was coded as borrowed,

transformed or added according to the coding scheme by Wiley and Voss (1999). The borrowed sentences were either copied or paraphrased from the original source. The transformed sentences were either combinations of information presented in the original text together with student’s prior knowledge or sentences constructed using different sources. Also the recapitulations made by

659

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

Table 2. Examples of text-processing, information evaluation, and metacognitive strategies Category

Example

Text processing strategies Locating or gathering important information in the text

This seems important, this circadian rhythm.

Elaborative strategies

It occurred to me that, very young babies develop best when they are sleeping (integrating own prior knowledge). I should find something about deep sleep, because you should reach the deep sleep phase to be able to recharge yourself (causal inferencing).

Information evaluation strategies Evaluation of credibility

Here is at least somebody who is a knowledgeable person, docent of psychology, it is at least mentioned here, I don’t know if he has been interviewed or what (evaluation of authority).

Evaluation of relevance

Sleeping disorders [the title of the text] are not so important in this essay, so I don’t need any of the information given here (evaluating topicality at the textual level).

Metacognitive strategies Macro-level metacognitive strategies

I’d prefer to search for information about the causes, why it is worth sleeping (defining information need). I am wondering, do I have enough material. However, I already know something about this topic, but then I am wondering whether, that in the essay there should be also references to these web materials. But I think I have enough (evaluating own performance).

Micro-level metacognitive strategies

Wait a minute - is this the same page (monitoring orientation). I am just thinking that I don’t understand this sentence at all (monitoring own understanding).

students were coded into this category. Added sentences consisted of novel information not presented in the source texts.

Breadth and Causality of the Essays (Variables 2–6) In the analysis each sentence was divided into idea units. An idea unit corresponds typically to a single verb clause that expresses an action, event or state (Mayer, 1985). Each idea unit was coded as either an explanative or a descriptive one. The total number of explanative and descriptive idea units was counted to indicate the contentual breadth of the essay. The number of explanative idea units shows the breadth of causal thinking in the essay. Furthermore, explanative idea units were classified into three hierarchical levels to

660

assess the depth of causal thinking. The following excerpt from a student’s essay shows how the five explanative idea units are divided into the three hierarchical levels. Sleeping is essential for physical and mental health (Level I). During sleeping the brain organizes the events of the day and things that have been learned (Level II). Thus, a sufficient amount of sleep is essential, especially for students (Level III). The reliability of the analysis of the essays was examined by having two researchers classify 17% (4 of 24) of the essays: 96% agreement was found in number of explanative idea units. When the explanative idea units were classified into the three hierarchical levels, the percentage of agreement was 92.

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

results

query (This was not a good choice to make) and instantly changed their search terms.

search Actions text-Processing, Information evaluation, and metacognitive strategies

Table 3 presents the search actions carried out by the students. The most common action, accounting for 46% (M = 26.5) of all the search actions, was browsing the search results. The students selected a link from the search results on average 20 times and they formulated on average of 9.4 queries. As Table 3 shows, there were considerable inter-individual differences in the use of the different search actions. One student needed only 21 search actions to access relevant material, whereas the most active searcher conducted as many as 185 search actions during allotted time. One reason for these inter-individual differences was the content of the queries formulated by the students. For example, in their queries some students used search terms (for example the title of the task, i.e. sleeping as a human resource), which limited the number of relevant web pages available to them. It was also typical of these students that they were not able to change their queries appropriately. They either repeated the same query several times or reformulated it only a little. Some students who were more successful in formulating their queries also used the title of the task in their query. Unlike the less successful students, they evaluated the effectiveness of the

Table 4 presents the strategies used by students as determined by the analysis of their think-aloud protocols and notes. Text-processing strategies were the most common, accounting for 36.8% of the total. In text-processing the students concentrated mainly on locating or gathering important information from the texts (M = 22.2), while cognitively more demanding elaborative textprocessing strategies were seldom used (M = 5.5). Metacognitive strategies were almost as common as text-processing strategies, and accounted for 35.9% of all strategies. Micro-level metacognitive strategies (M = 16.3) were more common than macro-level metacognitive strategies (M = 10.8). Information evaluation strategies accounted for 27.3% of the total. The students concentrated mostly on relevance evaluation (M = 17.3), that is, they decided what kind of texts or part of texts were worth closer attention. In this study 27% of all the evaluative strategies used were predictive in nature. As Table 4 shows, considerable interindividual differences were found in the use of text-processing, metacognitive, and information evaluation strategies.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics on search actions Search action

f

%

M

SD

Min–Max

Browsing search results

637

46%

26.5

15.4

10–86

Selecting a link from the search results

481

35%

20.0

12.5

7–70

Formulating a query

226

16%

9.4

6.6

2–27

Using a URL address

10

1%

0.4

0.9

0–4

Changing a search engine

10

1%

0.4

0.8

0–2

Using links

9

1%

0.4

0.8

0–3

Changing search language

3

0%

0.1

0.3

0–1

1376

100%

57.3

33.3

Total

661

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

Table 4. Descriptive statistics on text-processing, metacognitive, and information evaluation strategies f

%

M

SD

Min–Max

Text-processing strategies Locating important information in the text

533

29.4

22.2

8.4

5–37

Elaborative text-processing strategies

133

7.3

5.5

4.2

1–17

Total

666

36.8

27.8

9.8

6–50

Micro-level metacognitive strategies

391

21.6

16.3

11.3

3–51

Macro-level metacognitive strategies

260

14.3

10.8

6.2

2–23

Total

651

35.9

27.1

12.2

6–57

414

22.8

17.3

9.9

6–43

Metacognitive strategies

Information evaluation strategies Evaluation of relevance Evaluation of credibility Total

Intercorrelations between search Actions, text-Processing strategies, Information evaluation strategies, and metacognitive strategies The number of conducted search actions was positively associated with the number of microlevel metacognitive strategies (r = .73; p < 0.01) and negatively associated with the number of macro-level metacognitive strategies (r = -.37). Thus, students who conducted several search actions at the cost of other activities monitored and regulated their activities mainly at the micro-level. Additionally, they were not able to concentrate on text-processing to the same extent as students who were able to find relevant information more effectively. The number of search actions conducted was negatively associated with the number of text-processing strategies, especially with locating important information in the texts (r = -.42; p < 0.05). Additionally, elaborative text-processing strategies were associated with macro-level metacognitive strategies (r = 54; p < 0.01), indicating that strategic reading involves a high level of metacognitive activity, particularly at the macro-level.

662

81

4.5

3.4

3.8

0–16

495

27.3

20.6

11.3

7–45

This means that students who elaborated what they were reading also put effort into planning, evaluating their performance, and regulating their activities to fit the task demands. Furthermore, the number of macro-level metacognitive strategies was positively associated with the evaluation of relevance (r = .51; p < 0.05).

students’ essays The students’ essays contained on average 25 sentences (ranged 12–41) consisting of 276 words (ranged 153–429). Most of the sentences (56.5%) were borrowed, 29.9% were transformed and 13.6% were added. Here too, the inter-individual differences were considerable. For example, the range of transformed sentences was 4–53% in students’ essays. The essays contained an average of 47 idea units, 26.7 of which were explanative in nature (see Table 5). Table 5 also presents the distribution of explanative sentences at the three levels of causality, indicating the depth of the students’ causal thinking. Most of the sentences were coded at level two of the hierarchy.

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

Table 5. Mean number of all idea units and explanative idea units in the students’ essays Idea units (total) Explanative idea units Explanative idea units at level I

f

M

SD

Min–Max

1127

47.0

12.7

28–78

639

26.7

7.7

12–40

81

3.4

2.9

0–11

Explanative idea units at level II

402

16.8

6.6

7–28

Explanative idea units at level III

156

6.5

4.8

0–17

correlations of search Actions, text-Processing strategies, Information evaluation strategies, metacognitive strategies with essay Quality Elaborative text-processing strategies were positively associated with the contentual breadth of the essays (r = .41; p < 0.05) and the breadth of causal thinking in the essays (r = .54; p < 0.01). Furthermore, elaborative text-processing strategies were associated with causal depth in the essays: the correlation between elaborative text-processing strategies and the number of explanative idea units at level two was .53 (p < 0.01). The number of conducted search actions was consistently negatively associated with all the variables related to the breadth and causality of the essays. However, the correlation was statistically significant only in one variable. The correlation between search actions and explanative idea units at level three was -.44 (p < 0.05). No relation was found between the text-processing, information evaluation, and metacognitive strategies students used and how they used source material in their essays, that is, whether they borrowed or transformed their sources or whether they added material into their essays on the basis of their prior knowledge.

DIscussIon Reading on the Internet is a complex process in which searching, text-processing, information

evaluation, and metacognitive strategies are interwoven. The results of this study indicated, consistently those of previous studies (Walraven et al., 2008), that some students had difficulties in formulating their search queries; this, in turn, had an overall negative effect on the reading process. Students who had difficulties in locating relevant information concentrated more on monitoring and regulating their own activities at the micro-level than at the macro-level. This can be considered from two angles. On the one hand, these students carried out so many short-term activities that they had to monitor their orientation (e.g., I have already seen this page) and keep track of what to do next. These intensive monitoring and tracking processes took up their cognitive capacity. On the other hand, these students were less able to operate at the macro-level and thus, evaluate and adjust their search strategies to the task demands. It can be concluded from these observations that ineffective search strategies can have a profound effect on the selection of reading material and thus, a detrimental influence on the quality of learning. In interpreting the results of this study, it is worth considering Garner’s (1990) idea regarding the context-dependent nature of strategic activity. For example, some of the search strategies applied in a strategic way by a few students did not lead to positive results in this task but might have been successful in some other task. The results demonstrated, in accordance with previous studies by Metzger et al. (2003) and Grimes and Boening (2001), that most students only seldom evaluated the credibility of the infor-

663

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

mation they found. Nevertheless, they evaluated the relevance of information quite actively, and this was associated with macro-level metacognitive strategies. This association suggests that students who define their information need or plan their activities have rather clear relevance criteria in their minds that, in turn, make the evaluation of relevance easy. The results of this study are also in line with previous findings (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; MaKinster et al., 2002) that predictive evaluation of relevance plays an important role when using the Internet as a source of information. This study supports the view that constructively responsive reading demands a metacognitively competent reader (Pressley & Gaskins, 2006). The students who elaborated what they read also used macro-level metacognitive strategies, i.e., they put effort into planning, evaluating their performance, and adjusting their activities to the task demands. Because these students were able to apply metacognitive strategies at the macro-level, their cognitive capacity was taken up to a lesser degree by micro-level monitoring and regulation. Consequently, they were also able to concentrate on elaborative text-processing. Teachers might assume that teenagers are skilled in the use of the Internet and take ready advantage of the technical tools offered by browsers. However, this study shows that only a small number of students utilized the possibility to have multiple tabs open in order to re-access of information. The students who used this feature were able to control their search and reading processes more effectively. Some of them also utilized multiple tabs as a tool for critical reading, so that they were able to compare different sources with ease. Moreover, this study indicated that strategic reading functioned as the basis for the quality of writing. More precisely, the use of elaborative text-processing strategies showed a positive correlation with the breadth and causality of the students’ essays. However, the use of text-processing strategies was not related to the way the students

664

utilized source material in their essays, i.e. whether they borrowed or transformed sources or whether they added contents into their essays by applying their prior knowledge. The think-aloud method is regarded as an effective method for gaining access to on-line processing (Ericsson & Simon, 1993; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Taking into consideration the distinction between declarative knowledge (i.e., what strategies are), procedural knowledge (i.e., how to use a strategy), and conditional strategy knowledge (i.e., when to use a strategy) (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983), the advantage of the think-aloud method becomes apparent. Namely, although students might be able to describe appropriate strategies if asked by means of think-aloud method it can also be established whether they are able to make proper use of those strategies. When evaluating the results of this study it has to be taken into account that on the Internet a researcher can not direct readers’ thinking aloud by marking text passages to show where the reader should stop to think aloud. Olsson, Duffy, and Mack (1984) argue that unmarked passages are likely to elicit only a few comments, thereby limiting the informativeness of think-alouds. When Coiro and Dobler (2007) studied Internet reading they used specific questions during the think-aloud with the aim of bringing out some of the highly automatic processing being done by the participants. In the present study this kind of rapid, automatic processing was probably not revealed. However, giving instructions of this kind during the think-aloud might direct students’ thinking and lead them to pay attention to issues that they would normally ignore. In this study the students were allowed to make notes but not to print or copy-paste documents. This decision was made as our aim was specifically to study reading on the Internet, and not merely information search, where the students would have read the material later on after copying or printing potentially interesting texts. Thus, this study might not describe how students usually

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

handle assignments of this type, as indicated by the following student comment: This is funny, one could just print these pages and look at them then later on. If the students had been allowed to copy or print the original texts it might have affected their essays, for example by increasing the number of borrowed sentences. In today’s information society the use of the Internet as a source of information is a basic skill which students continuously need in their studies and will need later in working life. However, use of the Internet as an information source is a demanding and complex process that has to be practiced. Brand-Gruwel et al. (2005) suggest that instruction should concentrate on training important sub-skills that students have not yet mastered. The findings of the present study suggest that at the upper-secondary school level, at least following four important skills should be practiced. In addition to the formulation of adequate search queries and evaluation of information credibility, students need to be scaffolded to be able to pay attention to macro-level metacognitive activities, such as planning and evaluating their own performance and elaborative text-processing. Previous research indicates that different methods of instruction might be useful for teaching different sub-skills. One computer-supported method that can be applied to assist students’ Internet reading processes is to give prompts that help students to pay attention to specific sub-skills. Stadtler and Bromme (2007) found that monitoring prompts, received during Internet reading, helped university students to acquire more facts about the topic of interest. Additionally, evaluative prompts helped students to judge information. Stadtler and Bromme argue that prompting could be especially useful when learners are capable of executing strategies but only seldom spontaneously apply them. For example, in the present study a few students were careful to evaluate the credibility of Wikipedia, possibly because it has been discussed in public, while the same students did not evaluate other web sources, even when no information on

the authors was available. If these students had been given evaluative prompts, they would have probably been able to evaluate the other sources as well. According to Britt and Aglinskas (2002), even a rather simple intervention may improve students’ abilities to attend to the source information quality. However, the study by Dornish and Sperling (2006) indicates that prompting might not always be as useful when trying to promote elaborative text-processing strategies. Another method that can guide students’ Internet reading is to issue argumentative task instructions. Wiley and Bailey (2006) found that when learning collaboratively from web pages, argumentative tasks may enhance co-construction of understanding. Surprisingly, in their study, an argumentative task did not promote evaluation of information. Furthermore, when reading on the Internet, collaboration in general may support metacognitive processing, such as task definition and planning activities (Wiley & Bailey, 2006). Students might also share good practices and learn more effectively to use the possibilities provided by browsers and search engines. Lazonder (2005) discovered that students working in pairs utilized richer repertoire of search strategies and located relevant information more efficiently than student working alone. Additionally, pairs monitored and evaluated their search behavior more actively. To sum up, it seems that evaluation of information might best be promoted by prompting whereas elaborative text-processing may be enhanced with tasks that require deeper processing as opposed to merely gathering information. However, more research is needed to find suitable methods for teaching sub-skills that are essential when using the Internet as a resource for learning.

AcKnowleDgment This research was funded by the Academy of Finland. We would like to thank Michael Freeman for checking the language of the manuscript.

665

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

The first author would like to thank the Doctoral Programme for Multidisciplinary research on Learning Environments for scholarly support.

references Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. Aula, A., Jhaveri, N., & Käki, M. (2005). Information search and re-access strategies of experienced web users. In Proceedings of WWW 2005, May 10–14, (pp. 583–592). Chiba, Japan. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 487–508. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25(4), 313–339. Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B. B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice reading (pp. 49–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bruce, H., Jones, W., & Dumais, S. (2004). “Information behaviour that keeps found things found.” Information Research, 10(1). Retrieved December 1, 2007from http://InformationR.net/ ir/101/paper207. html Carter, L. (2003). Argument in hypertext: Writing strategies and the problem of order in a nonsequential world. Computers and Composition, 20(1), 3–22.

666

Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458–464. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. Coté, N., & Goldman, S. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children’s’ think-aloud protocols. In H. Van Oostendorp & S. R Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169–193). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641. Dornish, M. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2006). Facilitating learning from technology-enhanced text: Effects of prompted elaborative interrogation. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 156–165. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2000). Examining Information processing on the World Wide Web using think aloud protocols. Mediapsychology, 2(3), 219–244. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 517–529. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Pub.

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

Grimes, D. J., & Boening, C. H. (2001). Worries with the Web: A look at student use of Web resources. College & Research Libraries, 62(1), 11–23. Hill, J., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), 37–64. Hölscher, C., & Strube, G. (2000). Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks, 33(1–6), 337–346. Jenkins, C., Corritore, C. L., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). Patterns of information seeking on the web: A qualitative study of domain expertise and web expertise. IT & Society, 1(3), 64–89. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Konishi, M. (2003). Strategies for reading hypertext by Japanese ESL learners. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 97–119. Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson A. A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25(3), 205–224. Lazonder, A. W. (2005). Do two heads search better than one? Effects of student collaboration on web search behaviour and search outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 465–475. MaKinster, J. G., Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Why can’t I find Newton’s third law? Case studies of students’ use of the Web as a science resource. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 155–172. Mayer, R. E. (1985). Structural analysis of science prose: Can we increase problem-solving performance? In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explana-

tory text (pp. 65–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41(3), 271–290. Olsson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Thinking-out loud as a method for studying realtime comprehension processes. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 245–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293–316. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 99–113. Sormunen, E., & Pennanen, S. (2004). The challenge of automated tutoring in Web-based learning environments for information retrieval instruction. Information research, 9(2). Retrieved from October 11, 2007 from http://informationr. net/ir/9-2/paper169.html Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 191–210. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 623–648.

667

Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent

van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 325–327). New York: Macmillan. Wiley, J., & Bailey, J. (2006). Effects of collaboration and argumentation on learning from Web pages. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology. Rutgers invitational symposium on education series (pp. 297–321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311.

Credibility Evaluation: Means distinguishing reliable from unreliable information. Elaborative Text-Processing Includes: Cognitive activities by which the reader expands information presented in the text with his or her prior knowledge or integrates information from different sources. Information Search Strategies: Comprise means of locating relevant information on the Internet. Internet Reading: Comprises searching, processing, and evaluating of information, and regulating these processes when using Internet as an information source. Metacognitive Strategies: Consist of planning, monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting one’s cognitive processes. Relevance Evaluation: Means distinguishing essential from non-essential information. Re-Access Strategies: Keep found things easily accessible.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Consrtuctively Responsive Reading: Is an active process by which adequate reading strategies are applied in a metacognitively competent way.

668

669

Chapter XLII

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice Gráinne Conole The Open University, UK

AbstrAct This chapter provides a summary of current research exploring students’ use of technologies. It focuses in particular on a case study carried out in the UK, which explored the use of technologies by students in four different disciplines. The case study included an online survey, audio logs and interviews. The findings suggest that students are now immersed in a technology-enhanced learning environment and use technologies extensively to support their learning activities. It points to changing digital literacy skills and has profound implications for educational institutions in terms of how courses are designed and delivered and in how students are supported in their learning.

IntroDuctIon There is currently a lot of interest in exploring students’ use of technologies and how they are appropriating new technologies for learning. The chapter provides a review of some of the current work being conducted in this area, concentrating in particular on work from the UK (including projects funded through the JISC Learner Experience programme and the HE Academy e-learning pathfinder programme) but also draws on research from the States and Australia. Al-

though the research drawn upon is primarily in a tertiary level context, the findings and implications are still of considerable relevance to the K-12 sector. In particular the chapter will critique the different methodological approaches that are being adopted and discuss how this influences the research findings. The chapter will draw in particular on research data, which the author has collected through the JISC-funded LXP project. The chapter will conclude by summarising some of the themes, which are emerging from this research and consider the implication of these findings for

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

educational institutions and the changing skills set of both academics and students.

A shIft to the leArner voIce It’s interesting to reflect on the parallels in the evolution of technologies and their use. Early use of the web was dominated by a focus on content, on information presentation, whereas the emergence of web 2.0 tools has shifted focus to user-generated content, communication and collaboration. Many are arguing that we are seeing a profound shift in the ways in which technologies are being used in education, and that we need to evolve new pedagogical paradigms to best meet these needs (Alexander, 2006; Downes, 2006). Research activities follow interesting and difficult questions – no more so than in e-learning research. Although one could argue that it is technologically deterministic to take such a stance, in reality the profound and fast changing nature of technologies cry out for dedicated research to understand these changes and their implications. E-learning research covers a broad church of interests: pedagogical, organisational and technical research interleave (Conole and Oliver, 2007, Conole, 2008). Within pedagogical research the focus ranges from questions about how to design appropriate educational interventions which best utilise new technologies, through to understanding the changing literacy skills needed by teachers and students to use these. The perception that new technologies are having and will continue to have a profound impact on students and the way in which they are learning has led to the growth of interest in research which focuses on the student voice. How are students using technologies to support their learning? Is there an indication of the ways in which learning is changing as a result? What is the impact of this: on teachers – in terms of how they design and support educational activities? What is the impact on the educational organisation? In terms of providing

670

a flexible and evolving learning environment for students, how can institutions make good use of new and emerging technologies? What might be appropriate enabling, future-orientated strategic and policy frameworks?

A tImelIne of some Key leArner exPerIence reseArch This section highlights some of the key research looking at students and their use of technologies over the past five years. In the space permitted I cannot hope to do justice to the wealth of literature on this topic; instead I have cherry picked a few examples, which typify the general trends being observed across most of the studies. Oblinger and Oblinger’s book (2005) provides a useful starting point in terms of recent research in exploring students’ use of technologies. It acted as somewhat of a watershed in terms of tuning into the increasing research interest in studying how students are interacting with technologies and how this might be changing the ways in which they were learning. Terms such as “Netgeneration”, “Nintendo kids”, “Millenials” (amongst others) typify this movement (see for example Tapscott, 1998; Prensky, 2001; Kennedy et al., 2006, Baird and Mercedes, 2006; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005, Morice, 2000). In the introduction to the book ‘The NetGeneration’ Oblinger notes “We hope this book will help educators make sense of the many patterns and behaviors that we see in the Net Generation but don’t quite understand” (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005:7). The general arguments the book puts forward are that: • • •

Technologies are ‘interwoven’ through all aspects of the lives of the netgeneration Today’s netgeneration have grown up with technology Use and ownership of technologies is becoming near ubiquitous

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

•

Students use the web extensively for homework.

The book also suggest that students view technologies as ‘part of our world’ and ‘embedded in society’. They feel that technologies help ‘makes things faster’ and ‘enable them to learn better’ (in their view). The variety of communicative channels enables them to connect more with family, peers and teachers; to communicate and collaborate more effectively. Oblinger and Oblinger make some bold statements suggesting that children born post 1980 are different. Individuals raised with the computer deal with information differently compared to previous cohorts: “they develop hypertext minds, they leap around.” A linear thought process is much less common than bricolage, or the ability to piece information together from multiple sources. (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005:15) A key argument they put forward is that these students are digitally literate; that they are intuitively able to use and navigate around the internet. It is suggested that they are more visually literate than previous generations, but also that their approach to understanding is more surface level and multifaceted. Other characteristics of this generation include the fact that they are virtually connected and more socially orientated. The affordances (Gibson 1979, Conole and Dyke 2004, Gaver 2006) of technologies offer immediacy and hence students expect quick responses to queries posted and operate very much on a ‘just in time’ basis. They are more experiential in their approach to tackling problems. Oblinger and Oblinger see clear implications arising as a result of these trends: Whether the Net Generation is a purely generational phenomenon or whether it is associated with technology use, there are a number of implications for colleges and universities. Most stem from the

dichotomy between a Net Gen mindset and that of most faculty, staff, and administrators. (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005:21) In a related study in Australia, Kennedy et al. (2006) had comparable findings and came to similar conclusions. They used a survey to gather quantitative and qualitative data about students’ use of technologies. With this study it is evident that the trend identified by Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) continued: with increasing levels of access and use of a range of technologies. The study found that students were ‘overwhelming positive’ about the use of technologies, indicating that they used them for all aspects of their studies (finding information, communicating with teachers and peers, course administration and general study purposes). Although published before the current wave of web 2.0 technologies really took effect, the study nonetheless shows evidence that students were starting to use social networking sites such as MySpace and the use of wikis and blogs were beginning to increase. However the study found that patterns of use were not homogenous: [Student were] very tech-savvy. Many students are using a wide range of traditional and emerging technologies regularly in their daily lives. However, there are clearly areas where the use of and familiarly with technology-based tools is far form universal among first year students. (Kennedy et al., 2006:8) This strikes a warning – suggesting that as we move nearer and nearer to near-ubiquitous access to technologies; the digital divide may be narrower, but is becoming ever deeper (Warschauer, 2003). In terms of use of particular technologies – two patterns of responses were evident. The first were those that the majority of students wanted or were using, such as manipulating text and data, finding information on the web, communicating via email, chat and other tools, accessing basic

671

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

course information or university administration systems. For the second group of technologies, there were more divergent views. The technologies in this group included tools that were not being used by the majority, but rather by a sub-set of students. These included social networking tools, mobile devices, web conferencing systems, RSS feeds and blogs. This suggests that there is a core set of technologies that all students are using and that additional technologies are taken up (or not) depending on personal preferences and individual ways of working. In a similar vain to the Oblinger and Oblinger work, Kennedy et al. concluded by considering the implications of these findings for their university. [This study] has significant implications for individuals, faculties, support units and the University as a whole. At the time of growing interest in the attributes of the so-called ‘NetGeneration’, it is particularly important for universities to ensure that decision-making about how to enhance the learning of incoming university students is evidence-based and empirically informed. (Kennedy et al. 2006: 13) In parallel to the work being undertaken by Oblinger and Oblinger in the States and Kennedy et al.’s work in Australia, in the UK a review of learner experience literature (Sharpe, Benfield et al. 2005) suggested that there was a scarcity of studies focusing on the learner voice (beyond that of simple course evaluations). However, Thorpe et al. (2008) point out that there is a rich literature focusing more broadly on the learner experience, citing in particular Richardson (2006,) and Entwistle and Ramsden (1983). Sharpe et al. argued that far more emphasis on e-learning research to date appears to have been given to the practitioner perspective and to course design. The Sharpe et al.’s report distilled out a number of overarching themes. In terms of the student

672

voice they highlight three aspects: Emotionality (students mixed views on the pros and cons of e-learning), Time Management (the contradiction between the tutor-centric view of the flexibility technologies afford and students’ concerned about the additional time requirements), and e-learning skills (a wider range of skills than just IT skills are needed for students to make most effective use of technologies to support their learning). In terms of the factors affecting the e-learning experience they highlight literature on: the influence of the tutor, the influence of pedagogy, learner differences – gender, culture, learner preferences, language, disability, etc, and effectiveness as an e-learner. As a result of the Sharpe et al. review, JISC commissioned two projects - the LEX and LXP studies; the latter is discussed in more detail in the next section. The focus of LEX was across both formal and informal learning. The aim was to ‘investigate learner’s current experiences and expectations of e-learning across the broad range of further, higher, adult, community and work-based learning (Creanor, Trinder et al. 2006). The study focused on three main questions: characteristics of effective e-learners, beliefs and intentions, and strategies for effective e-learning. The findings led to the development of a conceptual framework, which mapped five high level categories (life, formal learning, technology, people and time) against five influencing dimensions (control, identity, feelings, relationships and abilities). This first phase of the JISC Learner Experience programme generated considerable interest in the e-learning research community and seemed to strike a timely nerve as individuals and institutions began to realize that we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in terms of the use of technologies by students and hence the associated implications for institutional structures, processes and strategy. JISC (through the Phase Two Learner Experience Programme)1 has now commissioned a second phase of work, which consists of seven projects:

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

• • •

•

• • •

Hertfordshire - STROLL (Students reflections on lifelong e-learning) Warwick - Students’ Blending Learning User Patterns (BLUPs) Open University - Learners’ experiences of blended learning environments in a practicebased context (PB-LXP) Oxford University - Exploring the Experiences of Master’s Students in TechnologyRich Environments (THEMA) Northampton University - e-Learning for Learners (e4L) Edinburgh University - Learner Experiences across the Disciplines (LEaD) Southampton University - Disabled Learners’ Experiences of e-learning (LExDis).

Other related JISC-funded projects include • • • •

•

SPLASH (Student Personal Learning and Social Homepage) Myplan (Personal Planning for learning throughout life) WALES (Work based access to learning through e-Services) eLIDA CAMEL (e-learning Independent Design Activities for Collaborative Approaches to the Management of e-Learning) Isthmus project (linking the personal and institutional in learning technologies), exploring the technologies that students use and the technologies offered by academic institutions.

Whereas, JISC has a focus on technologies per se and the ways in which they are used to support teaching and research in tertiary education, the HE Academy has a broader learning and teaching remit, furthermore “the student experience” is an identified core part of the HEA’s mission. The HE Academy have funded a number of studies focusing on similar issues, including:

• • •

•

•

•

Evaluating systematic transition support into HE (Bradford University) ADDER (Assessment and Disciplines: developing e-tivities research), (Leicester University)2 Making Connections: using e-learning data to improve retention rates in higher education (Middlesex University) The Alignment between Design, Implementation and Affordances in Formal and Informal eLearning (Portsmouth University) Enhancing the student experience of workplace-based e-learning: a systematic review and best practice framework (Sheffield University) Learning from digital natives: integrating formal and informal learning (Glasgow Caledonian and Strathclyde Universities).3

Two surveys on patterns of technology use of relevance to this discussion are the SPIRE report (SPIRE, 2007), which focused on the use of web 2.0 technologies and the JISC Ipsos MORI poll (JISC, 2007), which looked as school leavers’ views of technologies and their expectations of the kind of technological environment they expect at university. Crook and Harrison have just completed a study of the use of web 2.0 technologies in schools (Crook and Harrison, 2008). The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) have just completed an extensive study of Learning 2.0 practices across European educational and training sectors ( ). These provide complementary findings to the more context specific case studies described earlier. Results are beginning to emerge from these projects - see for example a seminar (Beetham et al., 2008) covering four of the phase two JISC projects at the Networked Learning conference in May 2008. Findings echo those of the early studies discussed here and are beginning to provide more detailed, richer accounts of actual use as well as an aggregate body of empirical data from

673

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

which we can begin to extrapolate future trends and patterns of use.

focusIng on An In-DePth stuDy: fInDIngs from the lxP Project The previous section provides a summary of some of the key research exploring students’ experience and use of technologies. This section provides a summary of the findings from one in-depth study within this wider body of research. The LXP project (Conole et al., 2006, Conole et al. 2008) was funding by the Joint Information System (JISC) in the UK as part of a wider programme of research looking at learners’ experience of using technologies. The main research questions addressed were: •

•

How do learners engage with and experience e-learning? ○ What is their perception of e-learning? ○ What do e-learners do when they are learning with technology? ○ What strategies do e-learners use and what is effective? How does e-learning relate to and contribute to the whole learning experience? ○ How do learners manage to fit e-learning around their traditional learning activities?

The project was particularly interested in extrapolating out subject discipline differences in the use of technology and worked in conjunction with four of the UK’s HE Academy subject centres: Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine; Economics; Information and Computer Sciences; and Languages and Linguistics. These centres were chosen because they gave a good spread of subject areas and because they were centres who had a track record and interest in research on both

674

the way in which students learn and the use of e-learning. Data was collected through a detailed online survey, which gathered both qualitative and quantitative data about how students are using technologies and a series of in-depth case studies chosen to represent interesting instances of technology use. The students were required to send in audio logs at various points during the study to describe how they were using technologies, towards the end of the study semi-structured interviews were conducted. The study yielded both expected and unexpected findings in terms of students’ use of technologies. The expected findings are useful in terms of providing valuable up-to-date empirical evidence of students’ current learning environment. The unexpected findings give a hint of the student learning-environment of tomorrow and raise a range of important implications for policy and practice. Across all subjects the students made extensive use of personally owned technologies including mobile phones, laptop computers, personal digital assistants and USB memory sticks. In terms of expected findings the study revealed that students are using a range of standard packages (Word, PowerPoint, etc) in creating and presenting learning artefacts and assignments, and for manipulation of textual and numerical data (Excel, statistical software). The Web is unequivocally the first port of call for students – with extensive examples across the study of how students are using search engines, dedicated subject-specific sites and e-journals to find information of relevance to their studies. What is surprising perhaps is the extent to which this is common practice amongst the students and the sophisticated ways in which they are finding and synthesising information and integrating across multiple sources of data. Similarly, technologies are used extensively by students to communicate with fellow peers and tutors, with students demonstrating the use of a variety of tools (email, MSN chat, skype, mobile phones, etc) to support a range

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

of different forms of communication. Again the level and type of communication is notable – there is strong evidence of peer support and peer community, resonant with the rhetoric inherent in the idea of social networking and the world of Web 2.0. The key picture that emerges is that students are appropriating technologies to meet their own personal, individual needs – mixing use of general ICT tools and resources, with official course or institutional tools and resources. The aforementioned findings point to a profound shift in the way in which students are working and suggest a rich and complex interrelationship between the individuals and the tools. The following eight factors (Figure 1) emerged from the data in terms of the changing nature of the way students are working. •

Pervasive and integrated: Students are using technologies extensively to find, manage and produce content. They use technologies to support all aspects of their study. Students are using tools in a combination of ways to suit individual needs. There is evidence of mixing and matching. They are comfortable with switching between media, sites, tools, content, etc. They said that technologies provide them with more flexibility in terms

•

•

•

•

of being able to undertake learning anytime, anywhere. Personalised: They appropriate the technologies to suit their own needs. They use the computer, the internet and books simultaneously. Their learning is interactive and multifaceted, and they use strategies such as annotation and adaptation of materials to meet their learning needs. Social: Students are part of a wider, networked, community of peers. They are members of a range of communities of practice - to share resources, ask for help and peer assess. Interactive: Students’ perception of the nature and inherent worth of ‘content’ is changing: they have access to a rich variety of free material that is easily downloaded via the internet. Students expect high quality, interactive materials with a preference for ‘byte’ sized and condensed forms of information that can easily reviewed anytime, anywhere and store on handheld devices. Content is no longer ‘fixed’ and ‘valued’, it is a starting point, something to interact with, to cut and paste, to adapt and remix. Changing skills set: Students are demonstrating new skills in terms of harnessing the potential of technologies for their learn-

Figure 1. The LXP framework

675

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

•

•

•

ing. These include developing new forms of evaluation skills and strategies (searching, restructuring, validating), which enable them to critique and make critical decisions about a variety of sources and content. Students are becoming sophisticated at finding and managing hybrid forms of information drawn from a multitude of traditional (text books), existing (Google search engines) and emerging (blogs, Wikipedia) sources. Transferability: They see the PC as their central learning tool. They are used to having easy access to information (for travel, entertainment etc) and therefore have an expectation of the same for their courses. There is evidence of the transfer of practices of their use of technologies in other aspects of their lives to their learning context: for example MSN chat, Amazon, ebay and Skype. Time: The concept of ‘time’ is changing – both in terms of expectation of information and results on demand. There is evidence that despite the fragmentation of the learning timetable, technological tools (email, mobile phone, MSN, Skype, WebCT) are mediating and allowing students to remain connected and synchronised. Changing working patterns: New working practices using an integrated range of tools are emerging. The use of these tools is changing the way they gather, use and create knowledge. There is a shift in the nature of the basic skills with a shift from lower to higher levels of Blooms’ taxonomy, necessary to make sense of their complex technologically enriched learning environment.

Students are evidently comfortable with using technology and see it as integral to their learning. They are generally sophisticated users, using technologies in a variety of different ways to support different aspects of their learning. They are

676

critically aware of the pros and cons of the use of different technologies and ‘vote with their feet’ – i.e. they don’t use technologies just for the sake of it – there needs to be a purpose and clear personal benefit. They have an expectation of being able to access up to date and relevant information and resources and see this as vital. They don’t see the technology as anything special; but see it as just another tool to support their learning. Reflecting on the findings from LXP and LEX projects and the emergent findings of the phase two projects, Beetham (2008) notes that ‘effective e-learning involves complex strategies in which personal beliefs, motivations and affective issues are a factor as well as access and skills.’ She argues that although the general trend in terms of the findings from these studies is that students are becoming increasingly digitally literate, it is also true that there is a large diversity of literacies and in particular that although students may be digitally literate this does not necessarily mean they are able to appropriately harness these for academic purposes.

methodological Issues A number of methodological issues arise from this work. Sharpe et al. (2005) raise the issue of methodology in terms of researching the student voice and Mayes (2006) provides a contextualized methodological review related to the LEX project (Creanor et al., 2006). I am arguing here that there is a distinct difference between directly researching the learner voice as opposed to focusing on different aspects of activities around learning and teaching such as academic practices, organizational issues or conceptual aspects of learning (i.e. pedagogical frameworks or technical architectures). The reason is that students are at the centre of the educational process; courses are designed and delivered for them, student engagement is monitored and assessed through formative and summative mechanisms, quality assurance frameworks are designed

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

around the course lifecycle and are predicted on the assumption that students progress through the system from induction through to graduation. Therefore shining a research lens directly on the student is problematic. The student has a vested, personal interest in their studies and their successful completion and any responses they make under research scrutiny must be understood in that light. How can we ensure that the responses we get from students about their expectations and experiences are valid, unbiased? Is there a need for new methodological approaches to try and elicit the real learner voice? Where the researcher is an insider-researcher, involved in the design/delivery of the course being studied, does this add an additional layer of bias? Can we develop better ways of analyzing the digital traces that students leave when traversing through their courses? Surveying the literature shows that a range of methods are being used to study the student voice. Methodologies are predominantly interpretive in nature; there has been a move away from experimental approaches. In terms of methods a range are evident – interviews, focus groups, observation, surveys, student journals, video and audio diaries, document analysis, and web tracking. In-depth case studies are popular, as are largescale surveys. In terms of web tracking there is surprisingly little evidence of innovative methods on analyzing the digital traces left by students, and this is certainly an area worth exploring. Video and audio diaries have gained in popularity in recent years, as a means of letting the students tell their own stories in their own words. In our LXP study we used audio logs to good effect (Conole, 2007). Students were asked to phone in at critical moments in their study and were asked to describe what they were doing, what tools they were using and how they were feeling. Although short (between 30 seconds and 2 minutes in length) the audio logs proved to be a surprisingly valuable source of data. They gave a

rich picture of what the students were doing with the technologies and associated affective issues. The audio logs were in situ, emotive responses, as opposed to interviews or video logs, which provided more reflective and retrospective account of students’ experiences. Video logs tend to be of three types: recorded interviews, student self-reflections or postresearch summative accounts of an individual and their use of technologies. The later was a technique used as a means of summarizing the research findings from the JISC LEX project. These video logs have proved to be very powerful as a means of conveying research findings to a wider audience. For example “Laura” a young student who demonstrates that she is technological savvy and that technologies infiltrate all aspects of her life, “Jenny and Emma” who describe how they used e-portfolios and blogs during their teacher training programme. Short 2 or 3 minute video clips of individual students and their interaction with technologies seem to be able to convey the essence of the research findings, encapsulating the key aspects of student-technology interaction. They have proved to be very powerful images, which have struck a cord with those watching. At the risk of over generalizing it seems that there are two predominate approaches to research in this area: use of surveys and in-depth case studies. Surveys appear to be a very common technique, widely used in research in this area and group into two categories – those surveying within an institution and those adapting a broader sampling strategy – across a particular subject area, sector or level of student. Many of these are now being routinely collected on an annual basis providing a valuable growing body of longitudinal data which can be retrospectively queried, giving us the opportunity to see changes in technology uptake and use, identify emergent trends and make predictions for future directions. Edinburgh University for example has being doing a survey

677

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

of students’ use of technologies since the early nineties (see for example Hardy, 2008 and associated references) and the annual ECAR survey of undergraduates in the States is now in its fourth year (ECAR, 2007), with an impressive 28, 000 student responses. The general trends and patterns of use from the surveys through the quantitative statistics, along with the more descriptive statistics from the qualitative responses, give a rich overall picture of students’ engagement with technologies. In-depth case studies provide an alternative to survey collection as a means of understanding the student voice. All of the JISC learning experience programme projects are adopting a case study approach, as are many of the other studies cited earlier in the chapter. The details of the case studies vary of course – in terms of the research questions, and data collection and analysis. Some focus purely on the student perspective, others cast a wider lens looking at the teacher perspective, how courses were designed and wider contextual issues. Different theoretical frameworks are used which give a different focus for the interpretation of the results; two theoretical perspectives that seem to be particularly popular are Activity Theory (Engestrom et al., 1999) and Wenger’s Community of Practice (Wenger, 1998). Activity Theory has been appropriated by for researchers who want to get a better understanding of the context within which the learning is occurring and its impact on students’ experience of using technologies, whereas Wenger’s work is drawn on where the interest is more on the social interactions and collaborations that are occurring. Despite the methodological differences between surveys and case studies the data emerging from both is very complementary and indeed many studies incorporate aspects of both and use this as an important means of triangulation within their analytical cycle.

678

ImPlIcAtIons AnD future trenDs A retrospective review of the timeline of technology developments (Cook et al., 2007) showing a series of peaks and troughs in terms of the impact of technology. It is evident that there are key critical moments, step-changes, new waves – the shift from mainframes to PCs, the introduction of the internet or the update of Virtual Learning Environments/Learner Management Systems for example. Each ‘wave’ acts as a catalyst – sparking a range of new innovations and developments and ultimately settling down and becoming embedded in practice and policy. The findings from the student experience research described in this chapter show that the impact of these various technologies is cumulative – student are now immersed in a rich, technologically enhanced learning environment, where technologies are core tools for learning. The most recent wave, so called web 2.0 technologies, it could be argued is somewhat of a ‘tidal wave’; the spread of uptake and appropriation of these new technologies in the last few years has been phenomenal. The impact on students – their patterns of use, the nature of their digital literacy is not yet fully understood but is likely to be profound. Figure 2 argues that there are four areas where these technologies are likely to have a significant impact: teaching and learning practices, staff and student skills sets, roles and structures, and strategy and policy. The term disruptive technologies (Sharples, 2003) has been around a long time, but is a particularly apt description in terms of what is currently happening within education - as institutional control and IT systems come head to head with the loosely coupled, user-centred, personalised power of web 2.0 technologies. Just as educational institutions were beginning to feel they were getting to grips with mainstreaming technologies and developing coherent strategies which assumed that technologies were core to all aspects of institutional business (and not simply

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

Figure 2. Implications of new technologies •

•

peripheral innovations relevant to early adopters), along came a tidal wave of web 2.0 technologies which raised a whole set of new questions and issues: •

•

•

•

•

If excellent tools for managing information and facilitating different forms of communication are now available free (GoogleDocs, GMail, free wiki and blog software, twitter, etc) is there a need to replicate this with an institutional VLE that arguably has a more limited functionality? What are the implications for teaching of exciting and immersive virtual 3D worlds such as SecondLife or rich, peer-supported, collaborative gaming environments, such as World of Warcraft? International research evidence shows that students are increasingly digital in all aspects of their lives – what are the likely demands on institutions of this born-digital generation? As both students and teachers migrate to enveloping themselves in their own personalised environment of tools, how does this relate to and integrate with institutional tools? As students, as a whole, become ever more digitally literate, is the digital divide smaller

but deeper for those who can’t or won’t use technologies? Although generally digitally literate, what is the evidence that the students know how to appropriate these technologies for academic purposes? Many argue that to ‘get’ web 2.0 you need to do it - is there a widening chasm within our institutional of those who ‘get’ it and those who don’t?

This ‘clash’ between institutional systems and web 2.0 (Figure 3) has profound implications across all aspects of work within educational institutions – from future directions for policy and strategy, to the design of appropriate support infrastructures for students, to the way in which we design and deliver courses.

conclusIon What is clear is that technological developments are having an increasing impact on all aspects of institutions – from structures and processes, through to the role of academics and the nature of the student experience. Research which focuses on the student voice and what students are doing is vital to ensure we keep a close eye on developments and take account of the implications of the Figure 3. Tensions between institutional and student control

679

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

emergent findings. This research needs to feed directly into practice – to course design, to how student are supported, into staff development opportunities and also into institutional and national policy and strategy directives. These are challenging times, this is a fast moving area – there is a real need for continued research in this area and for new methodological innovations and fresh insights into both identifying and addressing the profound implications which are going to continue to arise as technology becomes more and more integral to the student experience.

AcKnowleDgment I would like to thank the JISC for funding the LXP project discussed in this chapter, the findings from that project form the basis of much of the thinking described here. I would also like to thank the researchers who worked on LXP and the support and synthesis team led by Rhona Sharpe who provided guidance and advice alongside the phase one JISC projects and continue to do so with the current phase of projects.

references Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32-44. Baird, D.E & Mercedes, A. (2006). Neomilennial user experience design strategies: utilizing social networking media to support ‘always on’ learning styles. Journal of educational technology systems, 34 (1), 5-32. Conole, G. (2007). Briefing on the use of audio logs:. LXP project report. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton. Retrieved August 21, 2009 from www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_learneroutcomes.html

680

Conole, G. (2008). International perspectives on e-learning: mapping strategy to practice., Paper presented at the CIDER Pan-Canadian E-Learning Research Agenda online conference. Retrieved from http://scope.lidc.sfu.ca Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of Information and Communication Technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113-124. Conole, G. & Oliver, M. (2007). Introduction. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on practice. Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2006, November). JISC LXP: Student experiences of technologies (Draft Final Report). Southampton: University of Southampton. Retrieved August 21, 2009 from www.jisc.ac.uk/ elp_learneroutcomes.html Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2008, February). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology.’ Computers and Education, 50(2), 511-524. Cook, J., White, S., Sharples, Davis, H. & Sclater, N. (2007). The design of learning technologies. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (eds), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on practice. Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Crook, C. & Harrison, C. (2008). Web 2.0 Technologies for Learning at Key Stages 3 and 4: Summary Report. Conventry, UK: Becta. Retrieved November 11, 2008 from http://schools.becta. org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/ research/web2_ks34_summary.pdf Creanor, L., K. Trinder, Gowan, D., & Howells, C. (2006). LEX: The learner experience of e-learning (Final Project Report). Retrieved April 21, 2007

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ LEX%20Final%20Report_August06.pdf Downes, S., (2006). E-learning 2.0. eLearning magazine: education and technology in perspective. http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=a rticlesandarticle=29-1 [20/04/07] Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R. & R.L. Punamäki, (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Entwistle, N.j. & Ramsden, P., (1983) Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm Gaver, W., (1991). Technology Affordances.’New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved February 2, 2009 from https://www. cs.umd.edu/class/spring2001/cmsc434-0201/ p79-gaver.pdf Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin Hardy, J., Haywood, D., Bates, S., Paterson, J., Rhind, S., Macleod, H. & Haywood, J. (2008). Expectations and Reality: Exploring the use of learning technologies across the disciplines. Proceedings of the 6th International Networked Learning Conference, Helkidi, Greece. Redecker, C. (2009). Review of Learning 2.0 practice, Learning 2.0 – the impact of web 2.0 innovations in education and training in Europe. Seville. JISC (2007, September 6). Student expectations survey. Bristol, UK: JISC. Retrieved from http:// www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/studentexpectations.aspx Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Gray, K., Judd, T., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Dalgarno, B. & Bishop, A. (2006). Questioning the net generation: A collaborative project in Australian higher education.In Proceedings of the ASCILITE conference, Sydney, December 2006. Retrieved April 21, 2007 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/ proceeding/pdf_papers/p160.pdf

Mayes, T. (2006). LEX methodology report. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_learneroutcomes.html Morice, J., (2000). Skills and preferences: learning from the Nintendo generation. In International Workshop on Advanced Learning Technologies: Design and Development Issues, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society. Oblinger, D.G. & Oblinger, J.L., (2005). Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: Educause. Retrieved April 4, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5). Richardson, J.T.E. (2006). Investigating the relationship between variations in students’ perceptions of their academic environment and variations in study behaviour in distance education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 867-893. Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Lessner, E. & DeCicco, E. (2005). Final report: Scoping study for the pedagogy strand of the JISC learning programme. Retrieved April 21, 2007 from http://www. jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/scoping%20 study%20final%20report%20v4.1.doc SPIRE (2007) Results and analysis of the Web 2.0 services surveyundertaken by the SPIRE project (Report for the JISC-funded SPIRE project). Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/ documents/programmes/digital_repositories/ spiresurvey.doc Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw Hill. Thorpe, M., Conole, G. and Edmunds, R. (2008), Learners’ experiences of blended learning environments in a practice context. Proceedings of

681

Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice

the 6th International Networked Learning Conference, Helkidi, Greece. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Weller, M. (2007, September). The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning. Computers and Education, 49(2) 148-159. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Affordances: “Affordance” refers to the perceived and actual properties of a thing, primarily those functional properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used. It originates from work on Gibson in the 1970s and has been used in relation to technological affordances in the last decade or so. Audio Logs: Collecting data on what students are doing with technologies via audio logs is a relatively underused but very effective method for collecting data. In particular it has proved useful in terms of eliciting students’ emotive and in situ experiences. Methodological Issues: This refers to the methodological issues that arise specifically with trying to understand what students are doing with technologies. It includes references to the typical methodological approaches that are being used and the associated methods.

682

The Learner Voice: This is a term which had come into use in recently years to describe research which is exploring the ‘learner voice’ or student experience. In particular it has been appropriated to refer to students’ use of and experience of technologies. The LXP Project: The JISC-funded LXP project was a project funded under the first phase of the JISC learner experience programme. It is a case study that is included in this chapter. Web 2.0: This is a term coined in 2005 by O’Riley. It refers to the recent wave of technologies and tools associated with the web, which emphasis the user-focused, collaborative aspects of the affordances of these technologies. It contrast with the first phase of web technologies which were essentially information focused. Social networking is a term also used to describe many of these technologies.

enDnotes 1

2

3

Further information and links to each of the project websites is available from the JISC Learning Experience Programme website http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/ programmes/elearning_pedagogy/elp_learnerexperience.aspx http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyonddistance-research-alliance/projects/adder_ page http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/ldn/

Section IV

Assessment

684

Chapter XLIII

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools Art W. Bangert Montana State University, USA Kerry L. Rice Boise State University, USA

AbstrAct In this chapter, the authors examine past and current efforts in evaluating the quality of online high school courses. They argue that policy organizations in the United States have made recommendations to guide the design and delivery of effective high school online courses. However, past efforts at determining the quality of online courses have focused primarily on broad-based program evaluations and the development of standards lacking specific evaluation criteria. They propose the development of evaluation processes and instruments based on solid theoretical foundations which embody learnercentered instructional practices, communities of inquiry, and a proven record of empirically-based research results. They suggest that a history of research evaluating instructional effectiveness using the Seven Principles of Effective Teaching combined with the inclusion of principles of cognitive presence in assessing deep learning may provide a useful framework for establishing empirically-based guidelines for evaluating the quality of online instruction.

onlIne leArnIng In the K-12 context Web-based instruction is becoming a viable alternative for delivering coursework to high

school students across the United States. Led by national policy initiatives supporting the use of the Internet for learning (Hassell & Terrell, 2004; U. S. Department of Education, 2004; Web-Based Education Commission, 2000), it

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

has been estimated that 700,000 elementary and secondary students were enrolled in some form of online coursework for 2005-2006 (Picciano & Seaman, 2007) with 42 states having either supplemental online programs, full-time online programs, or both as of September 2007 (Watson & Ryan, 2007). The convenience of Web-based course offerings has attracted many students to virtual high schools. Students favor this form of instruction because it allows them to complete coursework that would otherwise be impossible to accomplish because of time, geography, financial considerations, family obligations, work requirements or other constraints which limit their opportunities to attend face-to-face classes (Richards & Ridley, 1999). Web-based learning offers possible solutions to public schools where budgets are tight and resources are limited for offering students the curriculum and the opportunities they desire (Chaney, 2001). The Internet is particularly well-suited for providing students enrolled in small, rural or low socioeconomic status school districts access to specialized courses not normally available to them. The literature suggests that Web-based high school courses may be one solution to address a number of issues such as chronic teacher shortages, student drop-out rates, student disinterest, and low learner achievement (e.g., Chaney, 2001; Mupinga, 2005; Setzer & Lewis, 2005; Tucker, 2007). Online instruction provides greater educational opportunities for students from small rural schools who want to take more advanced math, science, foreign language and advanced placement courses that their districts typically are incapable of offering. Distance high school programs offered via the World-Wide Web also offer alternatives to traditional graduation pathways for students who are hospitalized or homebound, experience severe behavioral problems or have single parent responsibilities.

frAmeworKs for AssessIng the QuAlIty of K-12 onlIne eDucAtIon During the past 10 years the technology available for offering online courses to high school students has improved dramatically (Southern Regional Educational Board, 2006). The new generation of electronic course tools has expanded the array of instructional activities that online instructors can use to create quality distance learning environments. The new technologies that are now available suggest that the factors which have been previously identified as contributing to effective online teaching need to be reexamined. Early online course development efforts focused on transferring content from traditional face-to-face to electronic learning environments (Sims, Dobbs & Hand, 2002). The first online courses in many cases could be likened to “online correspondence study” with little thought to developing meaningful electronic discourse. Evaluations of the quality of these initial efforts were based on how the course looked rather than how the course was planned to create an interactive learning environment. However, electronic course management systems have evolved to include more sophisticated interactive learning components such as the use of Web-cams, virtual conferencing tools, Webbased collaboration tools (i.e. shared application tools, wikis, blogs, and social networks) and 3D virtual worlds. The continued development and use of new technologies suggests that evaluation efforts must examine how these technologies are used by online instructors to create virtual leaning environments that are interactive and that promote deeper levels of understanding. The complex issues surrounding the evaluation of Web-based distance courses suggest that judgments relevant to the quality of courses and programs must be guided by specific and measurable benchmarks (Stella & Gnanam, 2004). The dramatic increase in Web-based, distance education courses and programs has compelled K-12 policy and accrediting

685

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

organizations to offer recommendations to guide the design and delivery of Web-based courses and programs.

standards for Developing effective online education systems The National Education Association (NEA) (2006a), in its Guide to Online High School Courses, has established criteria for assessing the quality of online courses. They have also generated an additional guide which provides an overview of criteria necessary for developing effective online educational systems specifically addressing the skills necessary for effective online teaching, professional development, and models to evaluate course effectiveness (NEA, 2006b). Taken together, with a systems view, these guides represent one example of specific criteria useful in the establishment of a framework for developing quality online education. The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) has developed Standards for Quality Online Courses (SREB, 2006a), in addition to Standards for Quality Online Teaching (SREB, 2006b). The broad indicators represented by the nine standards devised by the SREB include (1) Academic Preparation, (2) Content Knowledge, Skills and Temperament for Instructional Technology, and (3) Online Teaching and Learning Methodology, Management, Knowledge, Skills and Delivery. The SREB has also developed a Checklist for Evaluating Online Courses (SREB, 2006c) and an Online Teaching Evaluation Tool (SREB, 2006d) based on the standards for quality online teaching that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of Web-based teaching practices. Building upon previous work, the North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) has also adopted the SREB standards for quality online courses and quality online teaching (NACOL, 2007; NACOL 2008). The SREB, NEA and NACOL recommend that teachers responsible for delivering internet-based

686

instruction possess a unique set of prerequisite skills to be effective. Their guidelines indicate that skills in facilitating online communications, promoting and sustaining appropriate interactions (i.e., timely feedback, facilitated discussions and collaboration), designing web-based curricula, and proficiencies in using the available technology to support instruction are essential for creating meaningful and productive electronic learning experiences. Although recommendations by groups such as these have been made to guide the delivery of quality online courses for high school students, few studies have been conducted to verify the effectiveness of Web-based instructional practices for high school students.

Past and Present evaluations Most of the efforts toward assessing the quality of online high school courses throughout the United States have been primarily focused at providing summary program evaluation information. For example, the Michigan Virtual University (MVU), a state supported initiative which offers online courses to middle and high school students, has identified technology, usability, access and instructional design as key standards for guiding the design and delivery of online courses. However, MVU has not provided a set of comprehensive indicators that can be used to determine how well online courses meet their proposed standards for quality design and delivery. The lack of specific criteria to evaluate the quality of online high courses is very typical for existing virtual high schools in the United States. An evaluation conducted for The Illinois Virtual High School (IVHS) was undertaken to evaluate the quality of its online course offerings. The following evaluation questions were posed: (1) How does the IVHS course development process compare to other virtual high school programs? (2) How does the IVHS course development process contribute to the stated goals and objectives of the IVHS? (3) How has the IVHS course

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

development process been improved over time? (4) What specific improvements to the IVHS course development process are recommended? Data collection methods primarily used by evaluators consisted of document reviews, surveys and interviews. Like the evaluation of the Michigan Virtual University, this evaluation effort was not guided by a research-based set of indicators to guide judgments about the quality of the IVHS. A study, more comprehensive in nature, conducted by the University of California College Preparatory Initiative (UCCPI) (Freedman, Darrow, & Watson, 2002) is an example of a broadbased attempt to examine the condition of virtual high schools both within the state and across the country and is one example of the value of evaluation data. By looking at multiple aspects of online education (e.g., course development, instruction, growth, state policies, program organization, and technologies across a wide number of programs) researchers constructed a model to guide the development of online education in the state. Dickson (2005) suggests that an organized and consistent data collection system such as that represented by the UCCPI should be a high priority in the start up phase of any distance education program. The benefits of such a system are far reaching, especially if standard forms of data collection across programs are implemented. California is one of the few states in which accountability is measured through an individual learning plan. We do not quarrel with the methodologies used by these evaluation approaches but do question the theoretical framework used to guide the evaluation questions that were posed to determine program quality and effectiveness. The questions posed are very broad and are not guided by researchbased criteria which have been associated with quality online courses and programs. For example, Michigan’s Virtual University’s course evaluation criteria are primarily focused on availability of software applications and the quality of student technology skills. However, the quality of instruction necessary for creating effective online

learning environments is not assessed. There are no criteria for assessing the use of research-based pedagogy by instructors responsible for online course delivery. The criteria specified for evaluating both the Illinois Virtual High School (IVHS) and University of California College Preparatory Initiative (UCCPI) also fail to include an assessment of research-based instructional practices that have been recommended for effective online instruction. One exception to the current methods for assessing online high school courses is an on-going evaluation effort by the The Monterey Institute for Technology and Education (MITE, 2006). Their Online Course Evaluation Project (OCEP) has identified seven broad areas each with specific evaluation criteria: (1) Course Developer Status and Distribution (2) Scope and Scholarship (3) User Interface (4) Course Features and Media Values (5) Assessment and Support Materials (6) Communication Tools and Interactions and (7) Technology Requirements and Interoperability. The feature of this evaluation framework that is most appealing is that MITE has devised multiple indictors for assessing each evaluation category. Although the focus of MITE’s initiative is on post-secondary instruction, their evaluation criteria may also be suitable for assessing online courses offered by public schools (Watson, 2007). MITE’s approach for evaluating online courses and programs is an improvement over those discussed (i.e., IVHS and MVU), however, there is still no empirical evidence presented to support the use of their evaluation criteria for assessing high school or postsecondary online courses.

the seven PrIncIPles of effectIve teAchIng AnD onlIne InstructIon Current approaches for assessing online high school or university courses, for the most part, are not guided by the important factors that research

687

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

studies have identified as making important contributions to the quality of online programs and courses. Research related to the key instructional practices that have been linked to sound face-toface classroom teaching may provide guidance for the design and delivery of effective online courses. During the past seventy-five years, thousands of research studies have been conducted to provide insights into the complex array of variables that impact student learning in college (Cross, 1999). These studies have been synthesized into large volumes of information and position papers which highlight best-practice for effectively delivering classroom instruction (e.g., American Psychological Association (APA), 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). One of the best known summaries of research-based instructional practices is the widely disseminated list of Seven Principles of Effective Teaching authored by Chickering and Gamson (1987) which suggests that student success is related to: (1) student-faculty contact, (2) cooperation among students, (3) active learning, (4) prompt feedback, (5) time on task, (6) high expectations, and (7) respect for diverse talents and ways of learning. It is clear that the majority of the learner-centered instructional practices which comprise the Seven Principles framework clearly focus on constructivist-based teaching practices. The constructivist-based teaching practices recommended by the Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles framework are well-suited for guiding the design and delivery of quality Webbased instruction, based on the current standards, (Bangert, 2004; Chickering & Erhmann, 1996), and are outlined below. The principle of active learning suggests that effective teaching engages students in authentic learning activities that require them to select, organize, and integrate their experiences with existing knowledge to create new cognitive schema (Hacker & Niederhauser, 2000). Authentic instructional activities that include simulations, case-based examples and other problem-solving exercises not only increase interactive learning but also support the principle

688

of high expectations. Clear performance expectations that accompany authentic instructional activities inform students of the criteria necessary for demonstrating acceptable and proficient levels of performance. When performance expectations for authentic exercises are clearly communicated by ongoing student-faculty exchanges, learners not only have a better understanding of the criteria required for successful performance but also gain insights about expected performances necessary for real-world problem-solving (Magnani, L, Nersessian, N.J., & Thagard, P., 1999; Vye, Schwartz, Bransford, Zech & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGVT), 1998). The principle of cooperation among students is aligned with the constructivist notion that social interaction enhances learning (Svinicki, 1999). A deeper understanding of concepts occurs when students have opportunities to talk, listen, and reflect with their peers as they engage in problemsolving exercises that require them to apply newly acquired knowledge and skills (Millis & Cottrell, 1998). The principles of student-faculty contact, cooperation among students and active learning are clearly aligned with the recommendations made by the SREB, NEA and NACOL. These organizations suggest that effective online courses are characterized by collaborative activities and team projects that are supported by consistent and frequent student-faculty interactions and ongoing exchanges among learners (NACOL, 2008; NEA, 2006b; SREB, 2006a). The SREB suggests that multiple assessments that supply students with on-going feedback about their progress toward the accomplishments of course goals is an essential element of effective online courses. This recommendation is aligned with the principle of prompt feedback, which research suggests promotes self-efficacy by encouraging students to become more responsible learners (Bandura, 1986). Research has demonstrated that self–efficacy or one’s confidence to successfully perform a task increases when students are supplied with immediate and

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

frequent performance feedback (Schunk, 1983). When perceived self-efficacy is high, students are more likely to engage in effective self-regulatory strategies that enhance academic achievement. Confident students take responsibility for creating meaningful leaning experiences by efficiently monitoring their academic work time, persisting on tasks when confronted with academic challenges, and accurately monitoring the quality of their work through frequent self-evaluations (Pajares, 2002). Improved learner self-efficacy is necessary for supporting the principle of time on task because students who are confident about their skills maintain the academic persistence necessary for high levels of academic achievement (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Effective online courses are also characterized by their capacity to promote mastery of content with engaging learning experiences that allow for multiple paths to completion and reflect the learning needs of populations with diverse learning styles, and cultural experiences (SREB, 2006a). Instructional practices that build upon learners’ diverse talents and ways of learning consider that knowledge acquisition is a unique experience for each learner (Svinicki, 1999). Students bring a diverse range of academic talents, preferences and experiences to instructional environments. Allowing students to choose the pathways they will follow to achieve learning goals is necessary for self-regulated learning and an increased sense of self-efficacy. Perceptions of successful task completion and engagement are further promoted when students are given the opportunity to choose instructional activities that are aligned with their own unique learning styles, academic strengths, and interests. The constructivist-based teaching practices recommended by the Seven Principles framework are well-suited for guiding the design and delivery of quality of Internet-based instruction (Billings, 2000). However, manipulating the existing technology in a manner that effectively operationlizes these best practices for effective instruction may

be perceived as a significant challenge. Chickering and Erhmann (1996) dispel this notion by emphasizing that the newest versions of course authoring tools allow faculty to easily create the kinds of instructional activities recommended by the Seven Principles’ framework. What must be emphasized here is that the pedagogy implicitly defined by the Seven Principles framework will ultimately determine the effectiveness of online teaching and not the technology associated with course authoring tools (Reeves & Reeves, 1997). The Seven Principles Framework clearly support recommendations made by the NEA, SREB and NACOL regarding the skills that effective online instructors must have or be willing to learn. Chickering & Gamson’s framework provides a research-based approach for supplying sound professional development for online instructors. The State University of New York (SUNY) Learning Network (SLN) uses the Seven Principle framework as the core component of their Web-based learning model used for training online faculty (Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003). Shea et al.’s training model is also heavily influenced by Garrison, Anderson & Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry (CoI) model which proposes that quality learner and faculty interactions within online learning contexts are necessary for promoting and sustaining deep levels of critical inquiry.

AssessIng DeeP unDerstAnDIng In onlIne leArnIng envIronments Another important consideration in assessing the quality of online courses is the depth of reflective thought engaged in by learners. Instructional practices that facilitate cooperation among students, student-faculty interactions, timely and meaningful feedback and high performance expectations all contribute to online communities that are engaged in critical inquiry and problem

689

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

solving. Research by Duffy, Dueber & Hawley (1998) suggests that inquiry occurring within online learning environments is best described by deep levels of reflective thought where learners generate hypotheses, evaluate evidence and consider alternatives that are possible solutions to issues or problems under consideration. Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson (1997) found that the depth of critical inquiry occurring in online forums was best represented by the complexity of learners’ social interactions. From their analysis of debate transcripts, they identified the following five levels of reflective thought occurring during online interactions: sharing/comparing, dissonance, negotiation, co-construction, testing, and application. Interactions classified as sharing/ comparing were considered to be in the lowest level of inquiry with interactions classified at the application level as the highest level of inquiry. It is clear that Gunawardena et al.’s findings offer a solid contribution to the knowledge-base related to identifying and assessing indicators of reflective thought for computer mediated conferencing. However, the use of debate-like discussion forum may limit the use of their assessment model for evaluating other kinds of learner discourse. For example, Gunawardena et al.’s assessment model may not adequately capture the levels of reflective thought that occur when students are engaged in collaborative learning activities where they are required to cooperate with one another to complete a homework assignment or course project. In fact Moore & Mara (2005) found that computer mediated conferencing which uses an argumentative approach appears to adversely impact both the quality and quantity of online interactions. Their finding suggests that caution should be exercised when using Gunawardena et al’s framework for assessing the depth of inquiry which occurs during online discussions.

the community of Inquiry model Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry (CoI) model represents how 690

written discourse used in computer mediated conferencing (CMC) activities promotes critical thinking. They argue that social interactions by themselves are not sufficient for sustaining critical inquiry and that online learners experience the deepest levels of reflective thought when cognitive, social and teaching elements are integrated to create discourse that expands beyond simple social exchanges and low-level cognitive interaction. Garrsion et al. suggest that ongoing teacher interactions and sustained collaboration among learners are the essential ingredients for establishing and maintaining online communities of inquiry where learners co-construct meaningful knowledge through deep levels of reflective discourse. The value of educational experiences for online communities of inquiry represented by the CoI model is dependent on the interaction of three core elements: social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence. The following sections describe research related to each of these types of presence.

Social Presence Picciano (2003) describes social presence as an online student’s sense of being and belonging in a course. Others suggest that, in addition, social presence is also characterized as how “real” a person is perceived during computer mediated communications (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Indicators of social presence include learners’ perceptions of engagement in collaborative learning activities supported by interactive discourse, a felt sense of community and acknowledgement by others (Richardson & Swan, 2003). Of the three presences described by Garrison et al.’s (2000) CoI model, social presence has been the most extensively researched (Arbaugh, 2007). Studies have consistently demonstrated that social presence has a strong influence on students’ satisfaction with online courses and their perception of learning (e.g., Picciano, 2003; Shea, Pickett, & Pelz, 2004;

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

Swan & Shih, 2005). Richardson & Swan (2003), for example, found high correlations between social presence, learning and course satisfaction when assessing these three variables across 17 undergraduate online courses. Regression analysis found that 46% of students’ perceived learning and 35% of course and instructor satisfaction was explained by perceived social presence. Swan and Shih (2005) found similar results when investigating the relationship of social presence to the same variables. However, this study investigated peer and instructor presence as dimensions of the social presence construct. As with earlier studies, Swan and Shih found that perceived social presence was highly correlated with perceived learning and course satisfaction. However, just as importantly, their study further revealed that perceived instructor presence was a significant determinant of perceived instructor satisfaction and perceived learning even more so than perceptions of peer presence. Similarly, an earlier study by Kanuka and Anderson (1998) found that deep levels of understanding are less likely to occur during online learner transactions without instructor facilitation. Arbaugh (2007) suggests that although social presence is foundational for higher-level discourse, teaching presence which manifests itself through course structure, organization and facilitation is necessary for supporting learning environments where cognitive presence can develop and thrive.

Teaching Presence Teaching presence can be argued as necessary for bridging the transactional distance between the learner and instructor in online courses (Arbaugh & Hwang, 2006). The construct of teaching presence can be described as the “methods” that instructors use to create quality online instructional experiences that support and sustain productive communities of inquiry. Garrison et al. (2000) conceptualize teaching presence as comprised of three underlying dimensions: (1) instructional

design and organization; (2) facilitating discourse; and (3) direct instruction. Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett & Pelz (2003) operationalized the construct of teaching presence when surveying 1,150 students enrolled in online courses offered by State University of New York’s (SUNY) Learning Network (LN). Indicators of teaching presence represented by their survey instrument consisted of questions that assessed perceptions of how online instructors: (1) organized and designed courses to communicate information about course topics, course outcomes, course learning activities, assignment due dates, and instructions for using the medium; (2) facilitated discussions that acknowledged student participation, encouraged exploration of new concepts and sought consensus and; (3) used direct instructional activities to focus learners on relevant issues; provide direct feedback; correct misconceptions, and relate knowledge from a variety of sources. Arbaugh and Hwang (2006) used confirmatory factor analysis to determine if Shea et al.’s survey items assessed the three underlying dimensions of teaching presence conceptualized by Garrison et al. (2000). Results from their confirmatory factor analysis of the data did in fact verify that the majority of Shea et al.’s teaching presence items clustered into a three factor structure that could be interpreted as dimensions representing Instructional Design and Organization, Facilitating Discourse, and Direct Instruction. However, Shea (2006) found somewhat contradictory results when using the same teaching presence items to survey over 2,000 online students from across multiple institutions. Results from his exploratory factor analysis found that teaching presence items clustered into a two factor solution that he interpreted as Instructional Design and Organization and Directed Facilitation. The latter factor considered an amalgamation of facilitation and direct instruction items. The much larger number of students surveyed and the diversity of institutions attended by students may explain why Shea’s research identified a two

691

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

factor teaching presence structure as compared to the three factor structured which emerged from Arbaugh and Hwang’s research. Although, there is contradictory evidence regarding the underlying dimensions of teaching presence, the most important outcome of research in this area is the development of valid indicators that can be used to assess perceptions of teaching presence. Assessing perceptions of teaching presence occurring within online courses and making revisions based on this feedback is important because research clearly demonstrates that the quality of instructor interactions is a significant determinant of student satisfaction, perceived learning, and sense of community (e.g., Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Shea, 2006; Shea, Pickett & Pelz, 2004). Critical inquiry is more likely to occur in online learning contexts when instructors facilitate discourse that involves reflective questioning, models responses that represent complex cognitive processing, and restructures tasks to promote additional learning opportunities that arise from differing perspectives (MacKnight, 2000). Deeper levels of understanding also occur when email and discussion messages are used to facilitate direct instructional activities that clarify misconceptions and provide examples that illustrate abstract concepts and the application of new skills.

Cognitive Presence Garrison, et al. (2000) describe cognitive presence as the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse within communities of inquiry supported by computer mediated conferencing. They borrow Dewey’s (1933) practical inquiry model to operationalize the construct of cognitive presence. However, they expand Dewey’s framework into four levels of inquiry hypothesized to represent the increasingly complex phases of cognitive presence that can emerge during computer mediated conferencing. The phases of cognitive presence

692

defined by Garrison et al. (2000) are represented by the following four dimensions: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Triggering Event: An issue or dilemma under consideration emerges. This phase might be instructor initiated or emerge from a previous discussion exchange Exploration: Experiences from one’s private and shared worlds are considered relative to the issue. This phase is defined by discussions that include brainstorming, questioning and exchanging of information. Integration: Meaning is constructed from ideas generated in the exploratory stage. Discourse involves identifying a range of possible solutions and discussion of their suitability for solving the identified problem or issue. Resolution: Discussions focus on consensus building. Reasoned solutions selected from the Integration phase are selected and defended. The validity of solutions is often tested by discussing applications to learners’ real-life experiences.

The cognitive presence construct is represented by phases that are ordered from the least to the most complex levels of reflective inquiry. The lowest level of inquiry is defined as learner discussions that identify one or more “Triggering Events” which create the impetus for reflective thought. The stages of cognitive presence continue to progress through the exploration and integration phases to the highest level of inquiry, the resolution phase, which is characterized by learner dialogues that show evidence of consensus and discuss applications of problem solutions as they relate to real-world contexts. Cognitive presence is considered a cycle of practical inquiry where participants move deliberately from understanding a problem or issue through to exploration, integration and application. Although, four phases of cognitive presence are proposed, there is no assumption that learner interactions will reach the

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

highest phase of reflective inquiry. Research by Bangert (2008) supports the notion that cognitive presence is an outcome of interactions of social and teaching presence in online learning communities. This finding suggests that Garrison, et al’s (2000) cognitive presence framework can be used to assess the quality of critical inquiry occurring in online learning environments.

the stuDent evAluAtIon of onlIne teAchIng effectIveness (seote) According to the NEA, “Standards for course development and delivery must be exacting and measurable, and they must be observed.” (2006b, p. 10) It is important that courses are evaluated regularly for effectiveness and the findings are used to make revisions and improvements (SREB, 2006a). The Student Evaluation of Online Teaching Effectiveness (SEOTE) (see Appendix A) developed by Bangert (2006) holds promise for evaluating the quality of online instruction based on recommendations made by professional organizations such as the NEA, SREB and NACOL. The SEOTE was originally developed to assess through student feedback the constructivistcompatible online teaching practices of higher education faculty. Contextual influences such as student characteristics, course content, and instructor skills manifest themselves differently in online courses implying that they will have different relationships to the processes and activities required for quality Web-based instruction. The 23 items comprising the SEOTE were written to assess the seven constructivist-based teaching practices recommended by Chickering and Gamson for producing the online relationships required for effective Web-based course delivery. Student responses are elicited using a six-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree (6) to Strongly Disagree (1). In addition, an open-ended question is administered to capture more individualized

and detailed student perceptions of the quality of Web-based teaching effectiveness. The technical features of the SEOTE have been documented in pilot studies (Bangert, 2004, 2005a) as well as validation studies involving exploratory (Bangert, 2005b) and confirmatory factor analyses (Bangert, 2006). The benefit of using the SEOTE as the instrument of choice for evaluating K-12 online teaching is that it assesses the research-based instructional practices that have been identified as critical for sound online learning experiences. In addition, the SEOTE contains items that reflect the existence of teaching and social presence that have been identified as essential for promoting and sustaining critical inquiry necessary for deeper levels of understanding. The initial version of the SEOTE scale contained thirty-five items and was used to evaluate the effectiveness of online instruction for a post-secondary online statistics and assessment course. However, results from later studies involving exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis retained 23 items representing four dimensions of online teaching effectiveness. The factors consistently identified in validation studies were interpreted as Student-Faculty Interaction, Prompt Feedback, Time on Task and Cooperation Among Students. The twenty-three SEOTE items arranged by factor structure can be found in Appendix A. One reason offered to explain why four rather than seven factors emerged from this analysis is that the dimensions of effective teaching originally described for face-to-face classroom settings by Chickering and Gamson’s framework have different causal relationships when applied to online learning environments. Contextual influences such as student characteristics, course content, and instructor skills manifest themselves differently in online courses implying that they will have different relationships to the processes and activities required for quality Internet-based instruction. Research in the area of course evaluations of teaching suggests that teaching is a complex,

693

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

mulitdimensional trait that is comprised of distinct instructional acts (Abrami & d’Apollonia, 1991; Feldman, 1997). The similarities in the processes and procedures that define quality teaching can create difficulties for researchers who attempt to write specific items to represent categories or factors representing the characteristics of effective instruction. In past years there has been an ongoing debate about the use of global factors vs. single items to describe students’ perceptions of effective teaching practices. Marsh (1991) argues that instructor quality is best defined by nine dimensions or factors. Abrami, d’ Apollonia, & Rosenfield (1997) on the other hand argue that effective teaching is better defined by single global items which assess individual instructor activities that occur both before and during teaching. They contend that the causal relationships between any one teaching activity and teaching dimension (i.e. factor) vary as a function of contextual influences such as student, instructor, and course content producing unstable causal relationships between the specific processes of teaching and the factors they represent. Despite the debate about the best use of information gathered from student evaluations of teaching, the SEOTE can supply online instructors with valuable diagnostic and summative feedback based on students’ perceptions of their teaching effectiveness. The four SEOTE factors offer a general profile that can be used to describe an overview of students’ perceptions about the quality of teaching for online courses. The individual items are suitable for supplying instructors with specific diagnostic feedback related to the use of constructivist – compatible practices in the design and for the delivery of their online courses. The main benefit of this type of feedback is that instructors can use this information to improve both their courses and the quality of educational experiences for their online students. Efforts are currently underway to test the use of the SEOTE with high school students enrolled in online coursework.

694

the chAllenges AssocIAteD wIth evAluAtIng K-12 onlIne leArnIng envIronments Although the adult research base examining effective online instruction is growing, very little empirical research has been done with younger students. The consequence of this omission is important, because young learners can be fundamentally different than adults, both cognitively and emotionally (Cavanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004). Current evaluation efforts have focused primarily on broader issues related to program effectiveness and lack a solid research foundation. Other K-12 distance research efforts have focused on studies that examine predictive characteristics of successful learners (Roblyer & Marshall, 2003; Simpson, 2004), the impact of professional development on transforming teaching practice and student perception on outcomes (Hughes, McLeod, Brown, Maeda, & Choi, 2005), and the value of student-to-student interactions in online courses (Zucker, 2005). However, qualitative, descriptive studies still constitute the greatest amount of research to date. This focus on descriptive research is apparent in studies exploring learner supports (Frid, 2001), teacher-to-student interaction (Vrasidas & Zembylas 2003), and quantity and quality of interactions with the use of synchronous communication tools (Murphy & Coffin, 2003). Research on effective online course design and delivery, and the development of a comprehensive and effective method for evaluating that effectiveness are high priorities for the future of K-12 distance education (Rice, 2006). Investigations that study online pedagogy are necessary to ensure the creation of effective electronic learning experiences. However, developing common measures by which to judge quality has been challenging, in part, because of the wide variation in online school and program models. In general, accountability is measured by either all, one or none of the following: 1) the results of state mandated

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

tests, 2) state, regional or national accreditation, and/or 3) evaluation by an external evaluator (Watson, 2007). Outcome-based assessments, like standardized tests, provide just one lens through which to view effectiveness and quality and are not typically used by state-led supplemental programs. Accreditation regulations are aimed at traditional classroom environments and do not adequately address the specific requirements of courses taught online. And external evaluations tend to be broad-based program evaluations. Another challenge for assessing online instruction is identifying appropriate instructional strategies for educational environments where the instructor is physically separated from the learner. Although the Seven Principles framework provides good guidance, more research focused on verifying the most effective approaches for online instruction is necessary. New research should be guided by questions such as “What are best practices for online K-12 environments? How do we know? While content knowledge is an important factor in student learning, effective online instruction requires skill and knowledge in creating, facilitating and assessing learning in this type of environment. Pedagogical knowledge and a deep understanding of how students learn best in virtual environments is vital especially when considering the emphasis on student-centered approaches to learning. Establishing a framework for course evaluation based on the existing empirical base, with strong theoretical ties, provides a lasting foundation for future growth, particularly in developing standards and policies for teacher professional development, course design and accountability.

conclusIon Online coursework and programs have the potential for impacting traditional educational purposes and processes in substantial ways. They provide access to educational opportunities where they

would not otherwise exist, in an environment conducive to the development of important technical skills necessary for success in the 21st century. Virtual schools can provide access to highly qualified instructors, especially in areas where demand is high and access is limited. In addition, factors inherent in online environments (i.e. flexibility, interactivity) may encourage the use of constructivist teaching methods. Past efforts at determining the quality of online courses have focused primarily on broad-based program evaluations and the development of standards lacking specific evaluation criteria. As the demand for online courses by public school students continues to grow, efforts must be undertaken to design and validate instruments and methods that can be used to judge the quality of online courses and can support instructional improvements by supplying reliable diagnostic information. A history of research evaluating instructional effectiveness using the learner-centered Seven Principles of Effective Teaching framework combined with the inclusion of principles of cognitive presence in assessing deep learning provide a useful framework for establishing empirically-based guidelines for evaluating the quality of online instruction.

references Abrami, P.C., & d’Apollonia, S., (1991). Multidimensional students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness-Generalizability of “N=1” research: Comment on Marsh. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 221-227. Abrami, P.C., d’Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S., (1997). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. In R.P. Perry & J.C. Smart (Eds.), Effective Teaching In Higher Education: Research and Practice (pp 321-367). New York: Agathon. American Psychological Association, (1997, November). Learner-centered psychological

695

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

principles: A framework for school design and reform. Retrieved April 21, 2005 from http:// www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html#Background. Arbaugh, J. B., (2007). An empirical verification of the Community of Inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 11(1), 73-85. Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? Internet and Higher Education, 9, 9-21. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for Evaluating online teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217-232. Bangert, A. W. (2006). The development of an instrument for assessing online teaching effectiveness. The Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 227 – 244. Bangert, A. W. (2005a). The Seven principles of effecting teaching: A framework for designing, delivering and evaluating an internet-based assessment course for nurse educators. The Nurse Educator, 30(5), 221-225. Bangert, A. W. (2005b). Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: An exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. Bangert, A. W. (2008). The effects of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of critical inquiry for a web-based statistics course. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 34-61. Billings, D.M. (2000). A framework for assessing outcomes and practices in web-based courses in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(2), 60-67.

696

Cavanaugh, C. S., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on k-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Cross, P. K. (1999). What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know it? Innovative Higher Education, 23(2), 255-270. Chickering, A.W., & Erhmann, S.C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6 Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. Chaney, E.G. (2001). Web-based instruction in a rural high school: A collaborative inquiry into its effectiveness and desirability. National Association of Secondary School Principles (NASSP) Bulletin, 85, 20-35. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: Heath. Dickson, P. (2005). Toward a deeper understanding of student performance in Virtual High School courses: Using quantitative analyses and data visualization to inform decision making. In Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (Eds.), A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning (pp. 21-23). Naperville, Illinois: Learning Point Associates. Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51-78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

and practice (pp 368-395). New York: Agathon Press.

2004, from http://www.connectionsacademy. com/PDFs/VirtualNews704.pdf

Freedman, G., Darrow, R., & Watson, J., (2002). The California virtual school report: A national survey of virtual education practice and policy with recommendations for the state of California. Retrieved September 8, 2004 from http://www. uccp.org/docs/VHS_Report_lowres.pdf

Hughes, J. E., McLeod, S., Brown, R., Maeda, Y., & Choi, J. (2005). Staff development and student perceptions of the learning environment in virtual and traditional secondary schools. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Learning Point Associates.

Frid, S. (2001). Supporting primary students’ online learning in a virtual enrichment program. Research in Education, 66, 9-27.

Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-75.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 2(2-3), 87-105.

MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 23, 38-41.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction model for examining the social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research 17(4), 397-431. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3). 8-26. Hacker, D. J., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 53-63. Hassel, B. C., & Terrell, M. G. (2004). How can virtual schools be a vibrant part of meeting the choice provisions of the no child left behind act? Virtual School Report. Retrieved September 6,

Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. J., & Thagard, P. (1999). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Marsh, H. W. (1991). Multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: A test of alternative higher-order structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 285-296. Millis, B. J., & Cottrell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Monterey Institute for Technology and Education. (2006). Mite projects. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from http://www.montereyinstitute.org/ index.html. Moore, J.L. & Marra, R.M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191-212. Mupinga, D. M. (2005). Distance education in high schools: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Clearing House, January/February, 105-108. Murphy, E., & Coffin, G. (2003). Synchronous communication in a Web-cased senior high school course: Maximizing affordances and minimizing

697

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

constraints of the tool. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(4), 235-246. North American Council for Online Learning. (2007). National standards of quality for online courses. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from http:// www.nacol.org/ North American Council for Online Learning. (2008). National standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http:// www.nacol.org/ National Education Association (NEA). (2006a). Guide to online high school school courses. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.nea.org/ technology/onlinecourseguide.html National Education Association (NEA). (2006b). Guide to teaching online courses. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.nea.org/technology/onlineteachguide.html Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived selfefficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 118-125. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: JoseyBass. Picciano, A. G. (2003). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40. Picciano, A. G. & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved May 27, 2008 http://www.sloan-c.org/ publications/survey/K-12_06.asp

wide web. In Bradual H. Kahn (Ed.), Internetbased instruction (pp.59-66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Rice, K. L. (2006). Priorities in K-12 Distance education: A delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research (UMI No. DP14642). Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest Information and Learning Company. Richards, C. N., & Ridley, D. F. (1999). Factors affecting college students’ persistence in online computer managed instruction. College Student Journal, 31, 490-495. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88. Roblyer, M. D., & Marshall, J. C. (2003). Predicting the success of virtual high school students: Preliminary results from an educational success prediction instrument. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 241-256. Schunk, D. (1983). Developing children’s selfefficacy and skills: The roles of social comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 76-86. Setzer, C. J., & Lewis, L. (2005). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2002-2003 (No. NCES 2005-010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 41-50.

Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A.M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice direction, Vol. 4 (pp. 279-312). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the world

Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2004). Enhancing student satisfaction through faculty

698

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

development: The importance of teaching presence. In J. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream, Vol. 5 (pp. 39-59). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Shea, P. J. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in an online learning environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35-44. Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality online learning: Scaffolding, planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-148. Simpson, O. (2004). The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning. Open Learning 19(1), 79-96. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2006). Report on state virtual schools. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/SVS/State_Virtual_School_Report_06.pdf Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) (2006a). Standards for quality online courses. Retrieved August, 19 2007 from http://www.sreb. org/programs/EdTech/pubs/2006Pubs/StandardsQualityOnlineCourses.asp Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) (2006b). Standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved August, 19 2007 from http://www. sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/PDF/StandardsQualityOnlineTeaching.asp Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) (2006c). Checklist for evaluating online courses. Retrieved August, 19 2007 from http://www.sreb. org/programs/EdTech/pubs/2006Pubs/ChecklistEvaluateOnlieCourses.asp Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) (2006d). Online teaching evaluation tool.Retrieved August, 19 2007 from http://www.sreb.org/

programs/EdTech/pubs/2006Pubs/OnlineTeachingEvaluationSVS.asp Stella, A., & Gnanam, A. (2004). Quality assurance in distance education: The challenges to be addressed. Higher Education, 47, 143-160. Svinicki, M. D. (1999). New directions in learning and motivation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 5-27. Swan, K., & Shih, L. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136. Tucker, B. (2007). Laboratories of reform: Virtual high schools and innovation in public education. Washington DC: Education Sector. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www. educationsector.org/research/research_show. htm?doc_id=502307 U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington DC: Author. Vrasidas, C., & Zembylas, M. (2003). Complexities in the evaluation of distance education and virtual schooling. Educational Media International. Retrieved September 22, 2004 from the International Council for Educational Media Website: http:// www.tandf.co.uk/journals . Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. J., Zech, L., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser, (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305-346). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Watson, J., & Ryan, J. (2007). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and practice. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http:// www.nacol.org/docs/KeepingPace07-color.pdf

699

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

Watson, J. F. (2007). A national primer on online K-12 education. Washington DC: North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www.nacol.org/docs/ national_report.pdf Web-based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission/ index.htm Zucker, A. (2005). A study of student interaction and collaboration in the virtual high school. In R. Smith, T. Clark, & B. Blomeyer (Eds.), A synthesis of new research in K–12 online learning (pp. 43-45). Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Cognitive Presence: The extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse within communities of inquiry supported by computer mediated conferencing. Community of Inquiry Model: A model created by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000)

700

that represents how written discourse used in computer mediated conferencing (CMC) activities promotes critical thinking. Computer Mediated Conferencing: Asynchronous discussions that occur in online learning environments. Critical Inquiry: Reflective thought that occurs as an outcome of the “real-time” or asynchronous discourse that learners engage in when involved in problem-solving activities. Online Learning: The use of the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) to deliver interactive learning experiences. SEOTE: Student Evaluation of Online Teaching Effectiveness Seven Principles of Effective Instruction: Essential principals of effective face – to –face and web-based learning environments first proposed in 1987 by A.W. Chickering and Z. Gamson. Social Presence: An online student’s sense of being and belonging in a course. Teaching Presence: The methods that online instructors use to create quality instructional experiences that support and sustain productive communities of inquiry.

What We Know about Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools

APPenDIx

Table 1. The student evaluation of online teaching effectiveness Student Faculty Interaction 1. My questions about course assignments were responded to promptly. 2. The amount of contact with the instructor was satisfactory. 3. I was provided with supportive feedback related to course assignments 4. The instructor was accessible to me outside of this online course. 5. The instructor communicated effectively. 6. The instructor was respectful of student’s ideas and views. 7. I felt comfortable interacting with the instructor and other students. 8. The instructor was enthusiastic about online learning. 9. My questions about WebCT were responded to promptly. 10. This course used examples that clearly communicated expectations for completing course assignments. Cooperation Among Students 11. The course was structured so that I could discuss assignments with other students. 12. The course was used to stimulate thoughtful discussions. 13. This course included activities and assignments that provided students with opportunities to interact with one another. Active Learning 14. This course included interactive assignments and links to examples from the web that directly involved me in the learning process. 15. This course used realistic assignments and problem-solving activities that were interesting and motivated me to do my best work. 16. This course used realistic assignments and problem-solving activities related to situations that I am likely to encounter outside of this course or in a future job situation. 17. This course provided good examples and links to other examples published on the Web that helped to explain concepts and skills. Time on Task 18. The course was structured to be user friendly. 19. The course was designed to provide an efficient learning environment. 20. The course allowed me to complete assignments across a variety of learning environments. 21. The course was designed so that technology would minimally interfere with learning. 22. This course allowed me to take responsibility for my own learning. 23. The assignments for this course were of appropriate difficulty level.

Open-ended Item: Please make specific comments that you might have to explain in more detail your perceptions related to the questions above.

701

702

Chapter XLIV

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment Yasemin Gulbahar Baskent University, Turkey

AbstrAct This chapter introduces the use of electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) as an assessment method in the K-12 classroom. Aligned with the constructivist approach, the term e-portfolio is considered to be an umbrella, actually comprising of various components reflecting both the teaching-learning process and the end products. Having many advantages, the use of e-portfolios is spreading all over the world. This chapter, in which issues such as conceptual underpinnings, possible advantages and challenges, implementation ideas, and content and assessment criteria for e-portfolios are also reviewed, concludes with suggestions for teachers who are interested in implementing e-portfolios into their own subject fields.

IntroDuctIon Educators are in constant search of the most effective evaluation method, where students are involved in different teaching methods. In addition to the many traditional methods of evaluation, like take-home exams, oral exams, written exams containing multiple-choice, true-false, matching and short-answer items, alternative methods for evaluating students’ performances have come into existence. Among these alternatives are selfevaluation, peer evaluation, observation, authentic assessment and the use of rubrics and portfolios (Corcoran, Dershimer & Tichenor, 2004). In recent

years, educators have therefore been reassessing their notion of student assessment by beginning to focus attention on examining the relationship between the assessment of student competence and student achievement. At the center of the emergence of these different evaluation approaches lies the reality that we cannot evaluate every kind of knowledge and skill in the same way. Hence, educators may use standard tests to measure cognitive skills, while they prefer observation for measuring the application performances of students in class. It is imperative, therefore, to select the proper and most effective evaluation method in accordance with the performance type. Since

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

effective teaching is sensitive to teaching contexts, parallelizing the practice with the assessment to reach consistent conclusions is a fundamental topic for investigation (Pecheone, Pigg, Chung & Souviney, 2005). Over the course of recent years, constructivism has gained prominence due to being a learner-centered approach that requires the active participation of students (Schunk, 2007; Richardson, 2003). Thus, in classes where constructivist approaches are implemented, students have the opportunity to engage in learning by doing, enhancing their critical skills and shaping their learning process as active participants. Since the teaching-learning process is reshaped in the classrooms through the application of a constructivist approach, assessment methods should be adapted so as to parallel the assessment. Constructivism, being both learner-centered and authentic, can be linked with performance evaluation through the use of electronic portfolio (e-portfolio) assessment strategies (Read & Cafolla, 1999). By using e-portfolios, students have the chance to reflect on their learning, while teachers have the opportunity to provide detailed feedback on students’ work (Ahn, 2004, p. 16). Hence, in unison with the constructivist approach, which is accepted and widely used throughout the world, portfolio development gained increased status as a means of assessment. Conversely, the advancement in technology together with the power of Internet has brought educators to the point that assessments should also be supported with the technology. Combination of constructivist approaches with the support of technology has brought us to the point whereby portfolio assessment can be carried out in an electronic environment. As a consequence, from among the many alternatives in measurement and evaluation area, e-portfolios are becoming popular in recent years. Constructivism tends to combine past and present teaching and learning theories, by placing the learner at the core of the teaching-learning process. Thus, the learner interacts with the surrounding

environment and gains an understanding of its various properties. The constructivist classroom presents the learner with opportunities to build on prior knowledge and understand how to construct new knowledge from authentic experience. In constructivist view, elimination of standardized tests and grades are encouraged. Instead, assessment should become a part of the learning process where the students take responsibility of judging their own progress. This idea, also supported by Rogers (1994) underlines the importance of “experiential learning” and points out the following qualities: (a) personal involvement, (b) learner-initiation, and (c) evaluation by learner, besides some other qualities. Moreover, Rogers’ humanistic approach encourages that students should participate completely in their own learning process and they should have control this process together with the product, since self-evaluation is the principal method of assessing progress or success (Rogers & Freiberg, 1994).

concePtuAl unDerPInnIngs The wide usage of portfolios has been observed in K-12 throughout recent years. According to Barrett (2001), “A portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work that exhibits the student’s efforts, progress and achievements in one or more areas”. Barton and Collins (1997) list the work that may be found in a portfolio as artifacts (documents produced during the normal academic studies), reproductions (learner work produced outside the program), attestations (documents reflecting learners’ academic improvement), and productions (documents prepared for the portfolio). Similarly, an “electronic portfolio” is defined as the compilation of portfolio items stored in electronic formats such as audio-visual, graphical or text (Barrett, 2001). E-portfolios are a valuable learning and assessment tool which are classified as a digitized collection of artifacts including demonstrations, resources, and accomplishments

703

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

that represent an individual, group, or institution. This collection can be comprised of text-based, graphic, or multimedia elements archived on a web site or on other electronic media such as a CD-ROM or DVD. An e-portfolio is more than a simple collection, however, it can also serve as an administrative tool for managing and organizing work, created with different applications and for controlling who can see the work. Electronic portfolios, thus defined as the collection of individual products in a web-based environment, are used for three different purposes in K-12: learning, evaluation and presentation. 1.

2.

3.

Learning Portfolios – used as a formative evaluation method to support professional development, Evaluation/Assessment Portfolios – used as a summative performance-based evaluation method, and Presentation/Working Portfolios – used for presenting self-work for specific reasons (Lynch & Purnawarman, 2004; Irby & Brown, 2000; Barrett, 2000; Hewett, 2004; Mason, Pegler & Weller, 2004; Carliner, 2005).

E-portfolios encourage personal reflection and often involve the exchange of ideas and feedback. Furthermore, portfolios should be viewed as a process rather than a product, “a concrete representation of critical thinking, reflection used to set goals for ongoing professional development” (Barrett, 2000). Similarly, the fundamental concept behind using e-portfolios “…is to keep students focused on learning rather than on individual projects or productse-portfolios are part of the learning process, not a result of it” (Garthwait & Verrill, 2003, p. 23). Therefore, for any student, the effect of an e-portfolio is mainly based on the three dimensions of this process experienced during construction (Wolf (1994) as cited in Zeichner & Wray, 2001).

704

1.

2.

3.

The process of collecting, organizing and presenting (the student learns how to work regularly and in an organized way), Facilitation, consultancy and collaboration within the process (the student improves in terms of different social and cognitive skills), and The feedback received during the process (the student understands self-reflection and self-evaluation, gains momentum in various cognitive dimensions).

These influences on learning can be much greater than expected. When the effects of eportfolios are investigated from a pedagogical perspective, it is evident that the key characteristics of e-portfolio assessment are: artifacts that demonstrate the student’s involvement in meaningful performance-based tasks related to the stated competencies, reflection with an emphasis on metacognition and self-evaluation, and a demonstration of the process of construction and collection of the set of artifacts (Lynch & Purnawarman, 2004). Since “e-portfolios are helping students become critical thinkers” (Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005), from among the many features of e-portfolio assessment, “the demonstration of critical thinking through reflective writing about artifact construction, selection and revision” is perhaps the most important aspect (Lynch & Purnawarman, 2004, p. 51). During the construction process, e-portfolios provide students with authentic, reflective, interactive and individual features which are more advantageous than traditional assessment methods (Chang, 2001). Students are engaged in various stages during this process: collection, selection, reflection, projection, and presentation (Mason, Pegler & Weller, 2004, p. 718-719). In the stages of collecting and selecting, students have the chance to integrate personal work and connect new ideas with existing ones and with the context. In the reflection stage, students have the opportunity to make sense of concrete experiences and realize self

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

competencies. The stage of projection is the point where students compare reflections, standards and performance indicators. The last stage, presentation, is a student-centered process where students make use of multimedia capabilities through the gaining of technical know-how. Being a model for learner-centered classrooms, e-portfolio assessment provides students with ownership and responsibility for their own learning (Hewett, 2004). In this way, students are given the opportunity to focus on their own learning rather than individual projects or products. Owing to the fact that e-portfolios are part of the learning process (Garthwait & Verrill, 2003), they contain many different products. Web pages created by computer software, reports, presentations, articles, animations, sounds, films, graphics, links to other web pages, concept maps, posters and all other kinds of product which a student can create, are among these products. In this way, students not only improve their technical knowledge, but also push their limits in producing products which have cognitive impacts. As also stated by Demirli and Gürol (2007), “the e-portfolio process has a unifying role in developing students’ information technological skills and enabling them to put theoretical knowledge to everyday use” (p. 268). By facilitating and capturing the evolution of concepts and ideas through previous versions of work, as well as through interactions with teachers and classmates, electronic portfolios can go further than a Web site. By fostering learning spaces, students can gain insights and a better understanding of themselves as a learner (ePortConsortium, 2003). In addition to these factors, an electronic portfolio is student-centric, it is owned and managed by the student. Thus, work evolves in the student’s personal workspace(s) where it can be retained beyond the limits of a course, for future reference and reflection (ePortConsortium, 2003). Owing to this fact, students gain skills such as self-management, organization, and self-reflection. Moreover, they realize the importance of

individual or group responsibility, together with ethical issues. Furthermore, in contrast to traditional portfolios, participation is not limited to being physically present at the same place and time. Through electronic media and computer mediated communication, teachers might exchange ideas with their students about their work, classmates might discuss their work with each other, students may request feedback about specific issues and concerns from their teacher, and students can reflect on their learning experiences. Moreover, student work may also be shared, with others commenting and discussing (ePortConsortium, 2003). E-portfolios “enable students to identify their own strengths and weaknesses over time and evaluate their development effectively and from multiple perspectives” (Demirli & Gürol, 2007). From a different perspective, Woodward & Nanlohy (2004) concluded in their research study that: “There was conclusive evidence that developing digital portfolios were worthwhile learning experiences and that this learning was at both the personal and technological level” (p. 237). Hence, when compared to traditional portfolio assessment, the power of technology comes forth which in turn bring much functionality like easy modification, moving, sharing and storage in a more effective and efficient way than the traditional portfolio collection. Consequently, bearing all this literature support in mind, and owing to the fact that use of e-portfolios results in “notable changes in student learning” (Chambers & Wickersham, 2007), the skills/competencies that students gain can be grouped into four areas, namely academic, reallife (work), social and personal. As elicited from the recent literature, the skills of students that can be improved with the use of e-portfolios can be summarized as follows: • • •

Communication Collaboration Problem Solving/Critical Thinking

705

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

• • • • • • •

Self-Reflection (Self-Confidence/Self Regulation) Self-Evaluation Professional Development Organization/Time Management Responsibility (social/individual/ethical) Technical/Technology Learning/Self-Knowledge

A conceptual framework which emerges from the aforementioned skills can be realized as presented in Figure 1, where social skills are those in the intersection of the other three areas of competencies. This conceptual framework has appeared broadly according to the analysis of research driven from the recent literature and schemas about e-portfolio assessment by the researcher. There are many facets of e-portfolio assessment, in terms of its application procedures. The individual part of e-portfolio assessment may enhance self-efficacy skills by providing professional development opportunities. In terms of academic achievement the students learn how to learn and fulfill the premise of lifelong learning

which are major ideas underlined by constructivism. Moreover, their critical thinking and problem solving skills may develop during the assessment process. On the other hand, e-portfolio assessment enhances ICT skills of students and makes them become technology literate individuals. Real life and social part of e-portfolio assessment points to organization, change and development. Furthermore, it contributes development of responsibility, real academic learning and interaction skills of students. As stated by Lorenzo & Ittelson (2005), eportfolios “enhance teaching, learning and assessment practices” (p. 3), therefore e-portfolios are really powerful tools. This leads to the question: Is there any other assessment method which has as many outcomes as listed for e-portfolio assessment?

PossIble ADvAntAges AnD chAllenges Portfolios are collections of work designed for a specific objective; to provide a record of ac-

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for e-portfolio assessment

Academic

Real Life

Critical Thinking Learning Technology

Problem Solving

Organization

Communication Collaboration

Self Evaluation

Responsibility

Professional Development Self Reflection

706

Personal

Social

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

complishments. Many students already produce portfolios for various uses, such as reflection, communication with instructors, or presenting examples of outstanding work and credentials to potential employers. As our technical capacity grows and we become more and more able to collect, store, manipulate, and share information digitally - and as students develop the skills necessary to produce their portfolios in electronic formats - e-portfolios become a potentially vital part of students’ permanent records and of their learning management. Having the advantage of providing reflection on real-time applications and the opportunity for authentic evaluation, e-portfolios are helpful for effective learning (Carliner, 2005). Assessing longitudinal projects, which comprise of several different types of products - during a semester or period of at least one month - with e-portfolio approach will be an especially appropriate choice (Frank & Barzilai, 2004; Gülbahar & Tinmaz, 2006). Being flexible, motivating, technologybased and extremely useful tools, e-portfolios “can address a range of needs from student assessment and professional development to creating connections between teachers, students, and parents” (Garthwait & Verrill, 2003). Hence, using e-portfolios for assessment also has many other advantages, such as: •

•

•

The process of constructing e-portfolios encourages the establishment of clear learning goals both by teachers and students (Gaide, 2006; Ahn, 2004). Based on the nature of tasks, e-portfolios result in long lasting impacts that go beyond the acquisition of basic skills and the surface processing of information. Development of higher level thinking abilities and the deep processing of information is possible through e-portfolio construction (Abrami & Barrett, 2005). Students are encouraged to conduct selfreflection during the construction process,

•

•

•

•

•

•

whereas teachers can observe students’ progress over time (Ahn, 2004; Gaide, 2006; Demirli & Gürol, 2007; Garthwait & Verrill, 2003; Abrami & Barrett, 2005; Gülbahar & Köse, 2006). Teachers have the opportunity to provide detailed feedback on student’s work (Ahn, 2004; Abrami & Barrett, 2005; Gülbahar & Köse, 2006). E-portfolios provide an effective means of organizing learning materials by illustrating the process of learner development (Wade, Abrami & Sclater, 2005). Students can improve and demonstrate their Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills through the creation and integration of a variety of multimedia materials by making use of different hardware and software (Wade, Abrami & Sclater, 2005; Heath, 2005; Abrami & Barrett, 2005). Students can exchange and share their work with all stakeholders, they can also provide feedback to each other through various electronic communication tools, hence becoming more sociable (Wade, Abrami & Sclater, 2005; Demirli & Gürol, 2007). Using e-portfolios provides independence from time and place for both teachers and students, which brings advantages like distance learning and remotely completing homework for students, while teachers can review and assess student work anytime and anywhere that an Internet connection exists (Wade, Abrami & Sclater, 2005; Gaide, 2006). E-portfolios are easy to produce, distribute, maintain, update and access, in other words an inexpensive means of effective documentation (Heath, 2005).

Besides these possible advantages, some disadvantages should also be taken into consideration.

707

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

•

•

•

•

•

• •

The e-portfolio constructing process is time-consuming for both teachers and students. Teachers may have difficulties while defining appropriate educational tasks and organizing tasks in parallel with the learning activities in classroom (Heath, 2005; Demirli & Gürol, 2007; Korkmaz & Kaptan, 2003; Baki & Birgin, 2004). The assessment of student portfolios is also time-consuming and may cause difficulties in terms of developing specific and feasible criteria (Demirli & Gürol, 2007). Neglecting the importance of providing in-service training before implementing e-portfolio assessment may cause teachers to be faced with various difficulties during the process (Korkmaz & Kaptan, 2003). Providing students, parents and all other stakeholders other than teachers with necessary information and skills before implementation is another important issue which may affect the success of the approach, since technological self-efficacy is an important barrier (Korkmaz & Kaptan, 2003; Chambers & Wickersham, 2007). E-portfolio development may require investment in hardware and software. Before implementation, schools have to check and update their infrastructure (Heath, 2005; Korkmaz & Kaptan, 2003; Baki & Birgin, 2004). E-portfolio construction requires technology skills (Heath, 2005). The distribution and sharing of e-portfolio content on a web-based environment may cause trouble about copyright issues.

As noted by Blair & Godsall (2006), “In order to be e-portfolio savvy, however, both teachers and counselors need to be trained or at least shown actual student-developed e-portfolios, and the benefits of producing such projects should be explained” (p. 151). After their implementation, Garthwait and Verrill (2003) suggest that: “Yes,

708

the e-portfolios were a time-consuming endeavor, but the rewards were well worth the efforts of teacher, students, and parents” (p. 27). Thus, transforming challenges into advantages is the key point in e-portfolio assessment. Overcoming the challenges of professional development to encourage correct adoption and widespread and sustained use, technical and administrative issues, and funding and infrastructure will lead to success in e-portfolio implementation. All these challenges, which schools may face, bring us to the point that careful planning for both curriculum and technology should be done before commencing implementation (Korkmaz & Kaptan, 2003). For any school, all of these challenges may be overcome with careful planning. Thus, the distinct processes of e-portfolio construction (from the perspective of the student) and e-portfolio assessment (from the perspective of the teacher) may be transformed into processes where only the advantages appear.

electronIc PortfolIo softwAre Instruments including learning log entries, writing samples, various text pages that students have mastered, audiotape recordings of student works, videotape recordings of readings, reports, CD’s or DVD’s of different work of students, a skills checklist, self-assessment sheets, outcome checklists, assessment narratives, and parent reflections are electronically organized and used by students through media for developing portfolios. Although this work can be carried out in electronic environments through simple web pages and by means of support software, specific software designed for handling student e-portfolios should also be used. Therefore, as identified by Lorenzo and Ittelson (2005), there are four different approaches to development of e-portfolio software: home grown, open source, commercial and common tools.

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

•

•

•

•

Homegrown: An institution develops a system through its own human, hardware and software resources. Open Source: An institution may select, modify and use a publicly available system. Commercial: An institution purchases a system including licensing and technical support fees. Common tools: An institution chooses widely available tools or HTML editors to support e-portfolio construction.

In order to support the conceptual base of e-portfolio development, the electronic portfolio software, of any type “should have their designs influenced more by educational goals rather than technical issues” (Sweat-Guy & Buzzetto-More, 2007, p. 329). Furthermore, the e-portfolio software should possess some key features of user management, security management, content management and plug-ins (Meeus, Questier & Derks, 2006). These features may typically

include: learning outcomes, advisement, reflections, tracking, assessing and reporting student progress, ready to use customizable templates and editors for different purposes, a rubric creator, compatibility with necessary standards, file/ content management and sharing, collaboration tools, communication tools, and administration and management tools (Sweat-Guy & BuzzettoMore, 2007; Gaide, 2006; Meeus, Questier & Derks, 2006). Moreover, as stated by ePortConsortium (2003), “electronic portfolios will be challenged to provide the flexibility needed to carry an individual through the continuum of learning and achievement from K-12 to undergraduate/ graduate education, continuing education, career/ professional work and life-long learning” (p. 12). This notion is further supported by Dahn (2007), who states that “by their very nature, ePortfolios are designed to document learning history,” also mentioning that this learning history covers the time period at least from K-12 to retirement. Thus, for e-portfolios to be truly useful, they should be

Table 1. Possible features in e-portfolio software Software Feature

Intended to…

Learning outcomes

Identify learning goals and measurable outcomes

Advisement

Guide students in decision processes and make key advising decisions

Reflections

Include a mechanism for students to submit meaningful reflections

Tracking, assessing and reporting

Track students’ progress for advisement, analyze scores, reporting assessment results including all types of detailed data

Templates and/or editors

Include ready to use customizable templates or the ability to build requested templates

Rubrics and rubric creator

Include ready to use rubrics or the ability to built requested rubrics

Compatibility with necessary standards

Have the capability of data exchange with other e-portfolio software (requires using the same standards for entering, storing and sharing information)

File/Content Management and Sharing

Allow multiple artifacts per learning outcome, allow multiple file types and different file sizes, allow sharing of files for reviewing and commenting

Collaboration tools

Include tools that allow students to discuss, collaborate and share information with each other (spaces for groups, ownership of specific forums etc.)

Communication tools

Include tools that allow students to interact with each other (e-mail, chat, forum etc.)

Administration and Management Tools

Possess various characteristics like: ease of use, growth and maintenance, potential to add new features, etc.

709

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

portable. This portability is needed for students to exchange their work between various e-portfolio software existing in different institutions if they transfer (ePortConsortium, 2003). To sum up, all these features, together with aims in assessment process, are given in Table 1. Any particular e-portfolio system may be more eye-catching than another depending on the number and quality of the features it has. However, every feature added to the system makes the system more complex to understand and use. When research results are analyzed, this notion appears to be true. Consequently, as indicated in research conducted by Tosh, Light, Fleming and Haywood (2005), the challenges students face range from “lack of functionality” to “being too complicated”. One of the biggest complaints reported by students was the amount of time they spent trying (a) to learn how to use the system and (b) to customize the e-portfolio due to its limited functionality. Since the e-portfolio software used to create the electronic portfolio will control, restrict, or enhance the portfolio development process, the software should match the vision and style of the portfolio developer (Barrett, 2000). The software should therefore allow teachers to add or delete features according to the target group who will use the software to create their portfolios. Since e-portfolio developers range from kindergarten to twelfth grade, the feature of “customizability” is considered to be a key feature in any e-portfolio software, due to the wide range of expectations from students. Hence, commonly used functional necessary standards should be established for students to give the freedom of moving their own educational records between different learning environments (Treuer & Jenson, 2003). Furthermore, as the e-portfolio applications grow, the software must be integrated into the schools’ IT infrastructure (Gaide, 2006; Akpınar, Bal & Şimşek, 2005; Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005).

710

creAtIng rubrIcs The emergence of new theories which define how learning occurs, in other words the continuously changing beliefs about how learning happens, result in the emergence of new assessment approaches. Furthermore, cases where traditional assessment methods have been deemed insufficient result in the birth of new performance assessment methods. On the other hand, the necessity of making a bridge between theoretical and practical knowledge also requires assessment methods that are different in nature from traditional ones. Since knowing something does not necessarily end in successful application in real life, assessing student performance in authentic environments from different points of view is an inevitable task. Moreover, questioning individual abilities, rather than academic achievement, also requires performance assessment. Due to the rapid changes in educational approaches, e-portfolios, a relatively new approach to performance assessment, have become commonplace in both K-12 and higher education quickly, bringing with them new concepts such as “rubrics”. Rubrics are authentic assessment tools used to evaluate students’ performance based on a rating scale. Rubrics are a detailed description of a certain type of performance. It makes explicit the criteria that will be used to judge the performance. Rubrics can also be used to communicate criteria and standards to students before a performance. Use of rubrics both increases the quality of instruction, by highlighting important points, and provides the scaffolding necessary to improve the quality of student work. They also serve the role of being guidelines for teacher expectations, so that students have the opportunity for enhancement of their anticipated abilities. Rubrics are generally divided into two types, as being either analytic or holistic. In analytic rubrics, separate parts for product or performance are scored firstly, after then a total score is obtained from adding these

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

Step  decide the approach to be used: analytic or holistic • Step  identify performance criteria and As with all instructional and assessment acobservable attributes tivities, creating a rubric should also start with • Step  list characteristics of observable specifying clear goals and objectives, since they attributes will be the guidelines for further tasks (Moskal, • Step  specify the scale for scoring 2003). Moreover, a teacher should decide Step  criteria controland explanation judge the performance. Rubricsalso can also be used to •communicate standards toof performance whether the performance or product be both increases levels each students before a performance. Usewill of rubrics the for quality of characteristic instruction, by highlighting important and provides scored either analytically or points, holistically. Afterthe scaffolding necessary to improve the quality of student work. They also serve the role of being guidelines for teacher expectations, so that that, sincestudents the rating of the rubric will depend The result obtained at the end of this process have the opportunity for enhancement of their anticipated abilities. Rubrics are on certain criteria, the into performance will be rubricIninanalytic grid format, generally divided two types, as criteria being either analytic or aholistic. rubrics,similar to the one separateattributes parts for product or performance are scoredshown firstly,inafter then2. a total score is obtained and observable should be identified Figure These rubrics may be prepared from adding these scores. In holistic rubrics, the product or performance is scored as a whole (Mertler, 2001). These criteria should be clearly either by hand or by using rubric generators or (Mertler, 2001). aligned with the requirements of the task, as well creators online through various web sites. as the stated goalsalland objectives. this, the The acriteria are the important point in As with instructional andAfter assessment activities, creating rubric should alsomost start with specifying clear goals attributes and objectives, since be the guidelines further characteristics of observable should bethey willany rubric, sincefor they are tasks used to evaluate the (Moskal, 2003). Moreover, a teacher should or product listed. These characteristics will be the items in also decide givenwhether tasks the andperformance instructional context. Thus, a will be scored either analytically or holistically. After that, since the rating of the rubric will the rubricdepend that will be scored upon observation. rubric with too many criteria cannot feasibly be on certain criteria, the performance criteria and observable attributes should be Thus, for identified making (Mertler, decisions2001). aboutThese excellent a classroom criteriaand should be used clearlyinaligned with the environment. requirements of On the other task, as well asbethe stated goals and objectives. After the characteristics of observable poor work,thea scale should specified for scoring. hand,this, descriptions between levels should be balattributes should be listed. These characteristics will be the items in the rubric that will be This scale may range from 0 or 1 to any number, anced, in other words, the difference between scored upon observation. Thus, for making decisions about excellent and poor work, a scale based on should the characteristics of each previously 5 and should benumber, equivalent be specified for scoring. This scale may range from 40 or 1 to any basedtoonthe the difference characteristics each previously task. In other words, here 2. theDeciding teacher develops an of the rubric defined task. In otherofwords, here thedefined teacher between 3 and the levels of performance levels forlevels each characteristic. Consequently, a general overview develops explanation an explanation of performance and defining performance descriptors for each of the rubric creation process can be summarized as follows. for each characteristic. Consequently, a general is another important point. So, after creating the overview of theStep rubric creation process can be c specify clear goals and objectives forrubric tasks the following questions should be asked. Step d decide whether the performance, process or product will be “Are scoredthe criteria defined at summarized as follows. In terms of criteria: Step e decide the approach to be used: analytic holistic eachorlevel accurate and consistent?” and “Are all Step f identify performance criteria and observable attributes • Step  specify goals and objectives criteria equally important, or does it make sense Step gclear list characteristics of observable attributes for tasks Step h specify the scale for scoring to weight one element more than the others?”. Step i control explanation of performance levels for each characteristic descriptors: “Are they • Step  decide whether the performance, Regarding performance process or product will be scored giving students enough information to know what scores. In holistic rubrics, the product or performance is scored as a whole (Mertler, 2001).

•

The result obtained at the end of this process will be a rubric in grid format, similar to the one shown in Figure-2. These rubrics may be prepared either by hand or by using rubric generators or creators online through various web sites.

Figure 2. Sample rubric Characteristics of Observable Attributes (Performance Criteria)

Levels of Performance (Rating Scale) Sample Rubric Performance Criteria #1 Performance Criteria #2 Performance Criteria #3 …

5 (Very Good)

4 (Good)

3 (Acceptable)

2 (Fair)

1 (Needs Work)

Performance descriptors for each characteristic

Figure-2 Sample Rubric

The criteria are the most important point in any rubric, since they are used to evaluate the given tasks and instructional context. Thus, a rubric with too many criteria cannot feasibly be

711

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

they need to improve?” Moreover, discussing the rubric with your students, in order to create an understanding of expectations and assessing the reliability of the rubric you created through various methods, may lead to a more effective implementation for any task-based rubric. To sum up, teachers should select or develop tasks that represent both the content and skills that are central to important learning outcomes. In this way, it is possible to minimize the dependence of task performance on skills that are irrelevant to the intended purpose of the assessment task. Also, the necessary scaffolding has to be provided for the students, as they are able to understand the task and what is expected. Constructing task directions is vital in clarifying the students’ task. Furthermore, for the purpose of judging the performance according to the criteria, the performance expectations should be clearly communicated. In cases where the portfolios are electronically assessed, the specified evaluation criteria will not only depend on the content and skills of students, but also the storing options and the eportfolio software used (Demirli & Gürol, 2007). The e-portfolio may contain various elements such as an audio file of an interview, a video file recorded during a field trip and/or an audio-video file of a role playing or an animation. All these multimedia opportunities shape the evaluation criteria together with its presentation medium. Furthermore, the focus of evaluation (process, product or performance) should also change the nature of the tasks, with their characteristics affecting the content of the e-portfolio. In any subject field and for any evaluation focus preference, rubrics can be used reliably, depending on the reliability of explanation of performance levels for each characteristic of the task.

ImPlementAtIon IDeAs Many schools require students to develop portfolios to both assess and report student performance.

712

The e-portfolio in such schools consists of a sample of artifacts and reflections that represent what the student has done and can do across all subject areas. The idea here is to have students prepare their portfolios so that they reflect on their own learning. In addition, teachers may combine portfolios, student reflections, and their own judgments into a visual reporting device. Generally, a good starting point to start is to hold discussions about e-portfolios, to show their importance as tools to encourage thinking, rather than simply a display of their work (Hallman, 2007). Also, the pieces of work should be decided on in these discussions. Examples of possible artifacts to be included in e-portfolios, according to various subject fields, are listed in Table 2. Teachers should choose and, if necessary, change the complexity of these artifacts according to the grade level. Furthermore, to help students learn how to evaluate their artifacts, teachers should provide enough guidance on: • • • •

Explaining expectations and criteria about students’ performance, Articulating growth and areas of improvement, Reviewing individual work as a group in order to gain different points of view, and Self-assessing their projects via teacher provided rubrics.

DIscussIon AnD conclusIon E-portfolios are powerful tools that are expected to enable students to gain or improve numerous learning outcomes such as; communication, collaboration, problem solving, critical thinking, self-reflection, self regulation, self-evaluation, professional development, organization, time management, responsibility, technology, and learning and self-knowledge, in terms of their academic, real-life (work), social and personal

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

Table 2. Sample artifacts that can be included in an e-portfolio Technology

Mathematics

Science

Social Science

English

General

Puzzles, Concept maps

Problem-solving sheets including solutions

A report on science biography

A movie about a popular topic like air pollution

An article for class newspaper or school bulletin

Concept Maps, Observation reports

Brochure

Biography of a famous mathematician

Video recordings of experiments

A poster

An interview with a native speaker

Daily diaries about self-improvement

Web Site

A poster demonstrating a math concept

Excerpts from laboratory manuals

A spider map

Video of roleplaying a short story

Compiled research results on a given topic

Animation

Error analysis on others’ work

Activity descriptions

A map showing lands

Error analysis of an article

List of related web sites

An Advertorial Movie

Graphical presentations of verbal explanations

Photographs from nature

A report about a virtual trip to museum or historical places

Word Puzzle

Computer simulations and software

Presentation, Newspapers

Exam questions prepared in different difficulty levels and types

Audio explanations of instructions for performing a skill (conducting an experiment)

Collecting diagrams for demographical and statistical data

Creating compositions using specific words or

A report on student’s overview of entire e-portfolio

WebQuest, Blog

Graphical symbolizations of given calculations

Interviews with experts

Cartoons about misconceptions

A poem about current issues in technology

Self-assessment reports, Checklists

standpoints. Moreover, if carefully planned and implemented having considered the aspects of training, curriculum and technology, e-portfolio assessment brings many advantages to both students and teachers. Together with the use of rubrics, it has real authority over other, traditional assessment methods. The use of electronic portfolios for assessment of student performance is at the intersection point of curriculum, learning, teaching, research and technology initiatives in K-12. The main advantage of this approach is the flexibility to choose a wide range of artifacts that best represent aspects of individual performance. “Electronic portfolios are the most reflective means of expressing a broad range of a student’s total learning experience that can include important information and artifacts that might not be considered when traditional assessment measures are applied” (Sweat-Guy & Buzzetto-More, 2007, p. 329). Hence, owing to the current features of online environments, the possibilities are truly extensive in serv-

ing various purposes, for both qualitative and quantitative assessment (Johnson, McDaniel & Willeke, 2000). Never the less, achieving these purposes requires the use of e-portfolio software. Although the software is less important than the educational activities, selected artifacts and the teachinglearning processes, it should possess a number of features besides merely being reliable, userfriendly, flexible, compatible with standards and portable. These features should be given careful consideration, from a pedagogical perspective, during the development and implementation of e-portfolio based assessment. A range of learning opportunities, facilitated by technology such as social software, simulation and multimedia production tools, are therefore common points of discussion within the context of e-portfolio assessment. Although the strength and richness of technology is mentioned in terms of the huge number of artifact options, traditional approaches may hinder

713

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

the potential of such tools and powerful aspects of assessment strategies that could form an integral part of educational practice in the future. Thus, starting with an open mind, designing appropriate educational activities, investigating the impact from different perspectives and making decisions based on the evidence produced is clearly a more suitable approach for the evolution and diffusion of e-portfolio assessment (Gunn, 2006). The conceptual shift towards such tools expected at the K-12 level may be facilitated by recent success in the development of easy to use e-portfolio software systems. Since e-portfolio software assists in overcoming technical and practical obstacles, issues like adequate training, establishing standards, curriculum design and rearrangement of teaching-learning processes should come to the fore. When the disadvantages are considered, it is obvious that the main drawbacks can be grouped under two headings: personal and technical. Giving adequate in-service training about the concept and technology usage will enable teachers to become competent implementers of e-portfolio assessment based on e-portfolio software, hence overcoming the aforementioned barriers.

suggestIons The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the various aspects of e-portfolios, together with the pros and cons of successful e-portfolio implementation. E-portfolio assessment, the use of which appears to be inevitable in K-12, seems to be disseminating among all subject areas in all grades. At this point, it may be useful to raise critical issues such as; in which subject fields are teachers more willing to adopt it and can e-portfolio assessment be successfully applied in these various subject fields? To increasingly widen the use of e-portfolio assessment through all subject fields and all grades in K-12, special care should be given to the following topics.

714

technology E-portfolios are bridges between theoretical knowledge and practice; however the widespread use of e-portfolios would require access to technology in classrooms. From a realistic perspective, investment in hardware, software and infrastructure is the key point in successful implementation. To achieve this goal, both the teachers and students should be provided with access to technology through a careful planning process. Since creating e-portfolios necessitates technology to be accessible in classrooms, more computers should be ‘donated’ to schools for use in individual classrooms. Additionally, the prerequisites for e-portfolios should be simple and clear on programs or software, as the awareness and efficiency of the students still need to be developed. Complex systems will create confusion and interrupt the e-portfolio processing system. Furthermore, instructions relating to downloading, inviting to forum and discussions should be explained clearly and students must properly understand what they are going to do. If not, the degree of ambiguity and lack of clarity will cause constant problems with the technology and the students will be hesitant in using this media. Teachers also have to solve communication problems in addition to improving the quality of the e-portfolio. Teachers should be able to work in full accordance with the downloading and use of computer programs, thus enabling them to solve many technical problems at first hand. Teachers should also share their ideas and expectations with the parents of the students, then the families will be able to help the students to use the electronic media effectively and teachers could receive feedback from them about the efficiency of the program and obligations. Finally, schools should carefully consider the resources necessary for e-portfolio assessment. Storage of files may threaten disk capacities in the long-term, sharing of files may cause copyright violation, issues about durability record keeping and backup units should be given due consideration.

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

In-service training The conceptual approach to e-portfolio assessment, together with implementation and ideas and strategies for assessment, should be delivered to teachers effectively. The benefits of e-portfolios should be maintained and explained to teachers in detail. Both teachers and principals should be informed about e-portfolios and their usage in the schools in order to eliminate either personal or official problems that may appear in the future. Teachers should receive appropriate in-service training and, moreover, they should also inform students and parents about the process and their expectations. They should become capable and confident enough to effectively integrate e-portfolio assessment into their daily courses, in terms of both theoretical and technical dimensions. Teachers should take into consideration the in-service training regarding e-portfolios. Those educators responsible for in-service courses should focus on the inefficiencies of the teachers while training them in e-portfolio usage. Teachers should also be informed on the advantages and disadvantages of e-portfolios, based on their real problems and on implementation factors. The possible difficulties must be stated, with teachers being required to address them in the implementation phase of the courses. Furthermore, course organizers need to be aware of changing technology and software, therefore organizing the courses based on the students’ and teachers’ technological realities.

Pre-service training Institutes of teacher education would be required to reshape their curriculums in a way that every student should be guaranteed to successfully implement the e-portfolio approach upon graduation. They should be provided with both theoretical background and opportunities to be assessed via an e-portfolio approach. Having experience of e-portfolio assessment will lead them to learn by doing. Additionally, the necessary technical

know-how should also be delivered to pre-service teachers before hands-on experience, or as a part of it. E-portfolio preparation modules might also be helpful in effectively providing information about the use of e-portfolios after graduation. Teacher training institutes should ask for assistance from experienced teachers in the schools. The teaching subjects and instruction methods courses should consequently cover e-portfolio implementations.

curriculum Alignment Since e-portfolios may be used to teach and practice certain concepts, the K-12 curriculum should be aligned in terms of topics and activities in the classroom. There are two sets of considerations that need to be taken into account when deciding what to include in an e-portfolio. Thus, the purpose of the portfolio and the criteria against which it will be judged must be focused. While the primary purpose of any portfolio is to demonstrate a scholarly approach to teaching, what to include will depend on the context, the achievements and capacities that are regarded as worthy of emphasis. In some instances, criteria will be specified and, if this is the case, those criteria should be parallel with the learning outcomes. The curriculum should cover e-portfolio usage and implementations in a formal manner. Teachers’ books may be helpful in using e-portfolios accurately. The instructions which might be added to teachers’ books should contain the various stages of e-portfolio assessment. Certain assignments or units might even be designed specifically to incorporate e-portfolios in some degree.

other Issues The design of an electronic portfolio should be realized by following the plan, design, develop, and present process. A variety of technologies should also be used throughout the electronic portfolio development process. While the format of a port-

715

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

folio varies considerably, an effective portfolio should be well documented and organized. The portfolios should be structured, representative, and selective. Structuring the portfolios means that they are created so as to enable the students to organize their learning outcomes easily and in a creative manner. Teachers help students to check the content in terms of the representation of the purposes or learning outcomes. Taking into consideration the learning outcomes of the course, flowcharts may also help students to create a detailed portfolio. ICT is a very useful tool for executing these tasks. It is suggested that teachers limit the contents of the portfolio to what is required by the reviewer. Enhancing of portfolios should not therefore exceed the content and purpose. Teachers should provide ‘hints’ to the students to ensure that the artifacts document a meaningful connection between theory and practice, integrating coursework and field experiences. From the collection of documentary evidence, a subset of the aspects should be instigated, which support the specific purpose of the application. This subset of the portfolio should be accompanied by a brief summary, in other words a statement of claims about teaching. Additionally, the importance of feedback should not be neglected, since the effectiveness of assessment requires the harmony of the form of teaching to its context and purpose (Gibbs, 1988). In conclusion, use of e-portfolios will continue to grow at the K-12 level as the necessary precautions are designed and put into action, and as the teachers gain understanding of their valuable outcomes for students. Doubtless, students will also start to, or have already started, to prefer e-portfolio assessment, as they become aware of their own potential. Together with advances in technology and emerging learning theories, alternative assessment methods should replace traditional ones. Thus, transformation of assessment processes via radical approaches will continue to evolve and diffuse. Nevertheless, as educators, our search for effectiveness will lead

716

us to continue to discover new ways of teaching, learning and assessment.

references Abrami, P. C. & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for Research and Development on Electronic Portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol31.3/abrami. html Ahn, J. (2004). Electronic Portfolios: Blending Technology, Accountability & Assessment. T.H.E. Journal, 31(9), 12, 16-18. Akpınar, Y., Bal, V. & Şimşek, H. (2005). EPortfolyolarla Öğrenme Ortamı Geliştirme ve Destekleme Platformu. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET 4(4). Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www. tojet.net/articles/4415.doc Baki, A. & Birgin, O. (2004). Reflections of using computer-based portfolios as an alternative assessment tools: A case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 3(3),. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www. tojet.net/volumes/v3i3.pdf Barrett, H. C. (2001). Electronic portfolios. In Educational Technology: An Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://electronicportfolios. com/portfolios/encyclopediaentry.htm Barrett, H. C. (2000). The Electronic Portfolio Development Process. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://electronicportfolios.org/portfolios/aahe2000.html Barton, J., & Collins, A., (1997). Portfolio Assessment: A Handbook for Educators. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Blair, R. & Godsall, L. (2006). One School’s Experience in Implemeting E-portfolios: Les-

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

sons Learned. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(2), 145-154. Carliner, S. (2005). E-Portfolios. Training & Development, 59(5), 70-75. Chambers, S., M. & Wickersham, L. E. (2007). The electronic portfolio journey: a year later. Education, 127(3), 351-360. Chang, C. (2001). A study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of web-based learning portfolio. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 435-458. Corcoran, C. A., Dershimer, E. L. & Tichenor, M. S. (2004). A teacher’s guide to alternative assessment taking the first steps. The Clearing House, 77(5), 213-216. Dahn, I. (2007). Specification Neutral E-Portfolios And Their Implementation With A Fedora Database. ePortfolio Conference, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~dahn/articles/ paperDahnEPortfolio2007.pdf Demirli, C. & Gürol, M. (2007). An overview of the electronic portfolio process (Article No.: C0017). e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 2(3).. ePortConsortium (2003). Electronic Portfolio White Paper (Version 1.0). Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://www.eportconsortium.org/ Uploads/whitepaperV1_0.pdf Frank, M. & Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course for pre-service science and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (1), 41-61. Gaide, S. (2006). ePortfolios Supercharge Performance-Based Student Assessment. Distance Education Report, 10(2), 4-6. Garthwait, A. & Verrill, J. (2003). E-portfolios: Documenting student progress. Science and Children, 40(8), 22-27.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Creating a Teaching Portfolio (2nd ed). Bristol, UK: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.. Gunn, C. (2006). A 360 Degree Review of e-Portfolio Assessment. The 4th international ePortfolio conference, Oxford, UK. Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http://www.eife-l.org/publications/ eportfolio/proceedings/ep06/ep2006_papers/ gunn/attachment_download/file Gülbahar, Y. & Köse, F. (2006). Perceptions of Preservice Teachers about the Use of Electronic Portfolios for Evaluation., Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 39(2), 75-93. Ankara, Turkey: Ankara University. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.education.ankara.edu. tr/ebfdergi/pdfler/2006_2/075-093.pdf Gülbahar, Y. & Tinmaz, H. (2006). Implementing Project-Based Learning and E-Portfolio Assessment in an Undergraduate Course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 309-327. Hallman, H. L. (2007). Negotiating teacher identity: Exploring the use of electronic teaching portfolios with preservice English teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6),474-485. Heath, M. (2005). Are You Ready to Go Digital?: The Pros and Cons of Electronic Portfolio Development. Library Media Connection, 23(7), 66-70. Hewett, S. M. (2004). Electronic Portfolios: Improving Instructional Practices. TechTrends, 48(5), 26-30. Irby, B. & Brown, G. (2000). The career advancement portfolio. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Johnson, R. L., McDaniel, F. & Willeke, M. J. (2000). Using Portfolios in Program Evaluation: An Investigation of Interrater Reliability. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(1), 65-80.

717

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

Korkmaz, H. & Kaptan, F. (2003). İlköğretim fen öğretmenlerinin portfolyoların uygulanabilirliğine yönelik güçlükler hakkındaki algıları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(13), 159. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http:// egitimdergi.pamukkale.edu.tr/makale/sayı13/13portfolyo.pdf Lorenzo, G. & Ittelson, J. (2005 July). An overview of e-portfolios (Paper 1). Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http:// www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdf Lynch, L. L. & Purnawarman, P. (2004). Electronic portfolio assessments in U.S. educational and instructional technology programs: Are they supporting teacher education?. TechTrends, 48(1), 50-56. Mason, R., Pegler, C. & Weller, M. (2004). Eportfolios: An assessment tool for online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 717-727. Meeus, W., Questier, F. & Derks, T. (2006). Open source eportfolio: Development and implementation of an institution-wide electronic portfolio platform for students. Educational Media International, 43(2), 133-145. Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(25). Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn. asp?v=7&n=25 . Moskal, B. M. (2003). Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(14). Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn. asp?v=8&n=14 Pecheone, R. L., Pigg, M. J., Chung, R. R. & Souviney, R. J. (2005). Performance Assessment and Electronic Portfolios: Their Effect on Teacher Learning and Education. The Clearing House, 78(4), 164-176. 718

Read, D. & Cafolla, R. (1999). Multimedia portfolios for preservice teachers: From theory to practice. Journal of Technology in Teacher Education, 7(2), 97-113. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers’ College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640. Rogers, C. R. & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to Learn (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/ Macmillan. Schunk, D. H. (2007). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective (5th Edition). USA: Prentice Hall. Sweat-Guy, R. & Buzzetto-More, N. A. (2007). A Comparative Analysis of Common E-Portfolio Features and Available Platforms. In Proceedings of Informing Science and Information Technology Conference - InSITE 2007, Ljubljana, Slovenia, (pp. 327-342). Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://proceedings.informingscience.org/ InSITE2007/IISITv4p327-342Guy255.pdf Tosh, D., Light, T. P., Fleming, K. and Haywood, J. (2005). Engagaement with Electronic Portfolios: Challenges from the Student Perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http:// www.cjlt.ca/content/vol31.3/tosh.html Treuer, P. & Jenson, J. D. (2003). Electronic Portfolios: Need Standards to Thrive. Educause Quarterly, 2, 34-42. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/ pdf/EQM0324.pdf Wade, A., Abrami, P. C. & Sclater, J. (2005). An Electronic Portfolio to Support Learning. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). Retrieved August 12, 2006, from http://www.cjlt. ca/content/vol31.3/ Woodward, H. & Nanlohy, P. (2004). Digital portfolios: fact or fashion? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(2), 227-238.

Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

Zeichner, K. & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: what we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613-621.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Assessment: The process of documenting, usually in measurable terms, knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs. Collaboration: A recursive process where a group of people work together toward an intersection of common goals.

Electronic Portfolio: A personal digital record containing information such as a collection of artifacts or evidence demonstrating performance. Rubric: An authentic assessment tool that is used to evaluate students’ performance based on a rating scale. Software: A general term used to describe a collection of computer programs, procedures and documentation that perform some tasks on a computer system. Technology: Is defined as the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area in order to solve problems.

Communication: The process of conveying information from a sender to a receiver with the use of a medium.

719

720

Chapter XLV

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classrooms Robin Kay University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

AbstrAct Extensive research has been done on the use of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems (ICCS) in higher education, but not in secondary schools. This chapter provides a detailed overview of the benefits, challenges, and strategies observed when using ICCS in higher education. This overview is then used to analyze and interpret quantitative and qualitative data collected from 659 secondary school students. The main benefits that students identified for using ICCS were increased use of formative assessment, higher engagement and motivation, enhanced participation, and improved focus during class. Students were relatively neutral, though, with respect to whether ICCS improved class discussion or learning. The main challenges that students reported were increased stress and uncertainty of answers when ICCS were used in a formal test situation. Males were significantly more positive toward ICCS, as were students who had higher comfort levels with technology. When ICCS were used for formative assessment as opposed to formal tests, students were significantly more accepting. The chapter concludes with suggestions for educators and future research.

overvIew AnD hIstory Interactive Classroom Communication Systems (ICCS) allow students to respond to multiple

choice questions using a remote control device. After students click in their responses, the results are instantly aggregated and displayed in chart form, usually a histogram. Responses are often

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

anonymous but can be linked to specific students for evaluation purposes. A comprehensive review of the literature reveals no less that 26 different labels for ICCS including audience response systems (e.g., Caldwell, 2007), classroom response systems (e.g., Siau, et al., 2006), electronic voting systems (e.g., Simpson & Oliver, 2007), personal response systems (e.g., Brewer, 2004), clickers (e.g., Bergtrom, 2006) and zappers (e.g., d’Inverno, Davis, & White, 2003). The label “Interactive Classroom Communication Systems” was chosen for this chapter because the tool promotes “interactivity”, is used in a “classroom” setting, helps “communicate” information to both students and teachers, and is used most effectively within a “system” of thoughtful pedagogical learning strategies. Judson and Sawada (2002) noted in a comprehensive review of early work on ICCS that student attitudes toward these systems in higher education was universally positive. However, the cost of using ICCS at that time was prohibitive. It was not until 1992 that the first popular ICCS became commercially available. A new generation of easier to use, affordable ICCS started gaining acceptance at universities in 1999 (Beatty, 2004). Several research reviews have been completed examining the use of ICCS (Caldwell, 2007; Fies & Marshall, 2006; Judson & Sawada, 2002), however all but one of the numerous papers reviewed (Penuel, Boscardin, Masyn & Crawford, 2006) focussed on higher education. Little is known about the use of ICCS in secondary schools. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the potential benefits, challenges, and strategies associated with using ICCS, then to present and evaluate the feedback and comments from 659 secondary school students who used ICCS over a period of one month.

benefIts to usIng Iccs general student Attitudes Prior to 1992, student overall acceptance of ICCS was quite high (Judson & Sawada, 2002), although much of the evidence presented was anecdotal. A more recent analysis of student attitudes is consistent with previous results. There is considerable quantitative and qualitative evidence to suggest that higher education students have positive attitudes toward using ICCS (Caldwell, 2007; Carnaghan & Webb, 2006; Draper & Brown, 2004; Judson & Sawada, 2002; Kaleta & Joosten, 2007; Paschal, 2002; Poulis et al., 1998; Prezler, Dawe, Shuster, & Shuster, 2007; Reay, Bao, Li, Warnakulasooriya, & Baugh, 2005; Sharma, Khachan, Chan, & O’Byrne, 2005; Abate, Hidges, Stamatakis, & Wolak, 2004). However, it is critical to focus on specific benefits in order to truly understand whether ICCS is a viable tool in the classroom. The list of advantages that have been researched in higher education with respect to the use of ICCS include 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Improving attendance; Increasing participation and interaction; Making participation anonymous; Increasing student attention; Enhancing student engagement; Increasing class discussion; Increasing the use effective formative assessment; and Enhancing learning.

Each of these potential benefits will be discussed in detail.

Attendance ICCS have been introduced at universities to help address attendance problems. A number of

721

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

studies note that attendance does improve when use of ICCS is associated with part of the course grade. Several researchers observed dramatic increases in attendance when 15% of a student’s grade was linked to ICCS participation (Burnstein & Lederman, 2001; Greer & Heany, 2004). Caldwell (2007), though, found that a five percent reward for using ICCS was sufficient to increase the number of students who came to class. Ideally, one would like to have students attend class because they felt using ICCS was beneficial to their learning. Two studies did report increased attendance in ICCS classes when grades were not used as a motivator. Greer & Heany (2004) added that students were not happy about being forced to come to class because of ICCS participation credit. Using external rewards to increase classroom attendance, may undermine the process of using ICCS if students are resentful.

Participation There is considerable evidence to suggest that students participate more when ICCS are used in the classroom (Bullock, et al., 2002; Caldwell, 2007; Draper & Brown, 2004; Greer & Heany, 2004; Jones, Connolly, Gear, & Read, 2001; Siau, et al., 2006; Stuart, Brown, & Draper, 2004; Uhari, Renko, & Soini, 2003; Van Dijk, Van Den Berg, & Van Keulen, 2001). One study noted that “shy” students participated more (Greer & Heany, 2004). Bullock et al. (2002) added that when a portion of a student’s grade was allotted to ICCS use, participation increased by 1400%. Specific strategies of ICCS use appear to influence the level of student involvement. For example, one study reported that ICCS were more effective when case studies were used (Jones et al., 2001). Other researchers have observed that students were more involved when ICCS were used in groups as opposed to individually (Jones et al., 2001; Van Dijk et al., 2001). Regardless of the type of student, influence of grade, or strategy used, it appears ICCS promote student participation in higher education classrooms. 722

Anonymity One of the proposed benefits of using ICCS is anonymity. Unlike traditional classrooms, students can respond to ICCS questions without being judged by peers, a tutor, or the instructor. A number of researchers have reported that higher education students like this feature (Caldwell, 2007; Draper & Brown, 2004; Jones et al., 2001; Siau, et al., 2006; Simpson & Oliver, 2007; Stuart et al., 2004).

Attention In order for learning to occur, students need to be focused and paying attention. There is some evidence to suggest that student attention wanes after about 20 minutes in a classroom (d’Inverno, et al., 2003; Jackson, Ganger, Bridge, & Ginsburg, 2005). Since a traditional lecture lasts anywhere from 50 minutes to three hours, there are times when students are not able to concentrate on what is being discussed. Presenting ICCS questions at 20 minute intervals is one way of breaking up a long lecture and allowing students to shift their attention and actively participate in the learning process. Numerous studies have reported that higher education students are more attentive when ICCS are used (Bergtrom, 2006 ; Burnstein & Lederman, 2001 ; Caldwell, 2007 ; d’Inverno, et al., 2003 ; Draper & Brown, 2004 ; Elliott, 2003; Jackson et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2001 ; Latessa & Mouw, 2005 ; Siau, et al., 2006 ; Slain et al., 2004).

engagement Engagement is also a key component of learning. Students who used ICCS had more fun (Caldwell, 2007; Draper & Brown, 2004; Latessa & Mouw, 2005; Siau, et al., 2006), were more interested or engaged (Bergtrom, 2006; Prezler et al., 2007; Simpson & Oliver, 2007), and were more likely to go to class (Greer & Heany, 2004). Only one

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

study reported no significant differences in motivation between ICCS and traditional classroom formats.

Discussion Several researchers have observed that ICCS promotes increased discussion, particularly when used with a peer instruction strategy (Beatty, 2004; Brewer, 2004; Draper & Brown, 2004; Jones et al., 2001; Nicol & Boyle, 2003). Peer instruction occurs when an instructor asks a question using ICCS, collects and presents amalgamated responses from the class, but does not give away the correct answer. Instead, the class is told to discuss the possible solutions in pairs and then a second vote is taken. In this situation, students felt they were better able to discuss and calibrate their understanding of specific concepts (Draper & Brown, 2004). In addition, students felt they were more engaged and animated when ICCS discussions were occurring (Jones et al., 2001; Nicol & Boyle, 2003).

formative Assessment There are two common forms of assessment that can be used in a class. Summative assessment involves tests and assignments that count toward a student’s final grade. The vast majority of assessment in higher education is summative. Formative assessment, on the other hand, is used to determine student understanding of concepts without grades, to identify misconceptions, and alter classroom instruction accordingly. Without ICCS, it is very difficult to calibrate student understanding of concepts presented in large classes. Regular use of ICCS can offer feedback to both instructors and students as to how well concepts are being understood. Experienced teachers can quickly modify their explanations or mode of instruction accordingly. Students can gauge and discuss their understanding of concepts as they are being presented. There is considerable evidence

to suggest that ICCS are an effective means for providing formative assessment (Beatty, 2004; Bergtrom, 2006; Brewer, 2004; Bullock et al., 2002; Caldwell, 2007; Draper & Brown, 2004; Dufresne & Gerace, 2004; Elliott, 2003; Greer & Heany, 2004; Hatch, Jensen, & Moore 2005; Jackson et al., 2005; Siau, et al., 2006; Simpson & Oliver, 2007; Stuart et al., 2004).

learning Ultimately, when one introduces a new learning tool such as ICCS, one wants to improve student learning. Many studies have reported that students feel they learn more when ICCS are used in higher education classrooms (Elliott, 2003; Greer & Heany, 2004; Hatch et al., 2005; Nicol & Boyle, 2003; Pradha, Sparano, Ananth,2005; Prezler et al., 2007; Siau, et al., 2006; Slain et al., 2004; Stuart et al., 2004; Uhari et al., 2003). Some students like hearing explanations about ICCS questions from their peers who have common experiences and can explain misconceptions more effectively than the instructor (Nicol & Boyle, 2003; Caldwell, 2007). Other students believe that using ICCS helps them think more about the important concepts (Draper & Brown, 2004; Greer & Heany, 2004). Still others note that the use of ICCS helps them discover and resolve misconceptions (d’Inverno, et al., 2003). The one drawback noted by several teachers is that not as many concepts can be covered when ICCS are integrated into the classroom (Elliott, 2003; Caldwell, 2007). However, it is felt that reduced coverage is more than compensated for by the increased material that students truly understand (Elliott, 2003). A strong argument can be made for the use of ICCS based on anecdotal and experimental evidence. A number of researchers have reported that learning performance has increased as a result of using ICCS (Carnaghan & Webb, 2006; Brewer, 2004; Caldwell, 2007; Kennedy & Cutts, 2005; Latessa & Mouw, 2005; Poulis et al., 1998; Schackow, Milton, Loya, & Friedman, 2004), although these

723

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

observations are based on descriptive feedback. However, many experimental studies have been done where ICCS classes significantly outperform traditional lecture formats (Bullock et al., 2002; Crouch & Mazur, 2001; El-Rady, 2006; Fagen, Crouch, & Mazur, 2002; Hake, 1998; Kaleta & Joosten, 2007; Kennedy & Cutts, 2005; Pradhan et al., 2005; Prezler et al., 2007; Schackow et al., 2004; Slain et al., 2004). It is important to note, though, that simply using ICCS may not necessarily improve learning performance (Draper & Brown, 2004; Van Dijk et al., 2001). For example, it is recommended by several researchers that peer-instruction be used to achieve the maximum benefit (Brewer, 2004; Bullock et al., 2002; Burnstein & Lederman, 2001; Caldwell, 2007; Crouch & Mazur, 2001). However, limited research has been done examining and comparing specific strategies used with ICCS.

chAllenges to usIng Iccs overview While ICCS appear to improve learning and has been well received by both students and teachers, there are several challenges that have been reported including: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Changing to a new method of teaching for teachers and students; Time required to develop effective ICCS classes; Technological problems; and Developing effective questions.

Each of these challenges will be discussed in turn.

new method of teaching - teachers Three main challenges emerged for faculty who used ICCS in their classrooms. First, there was

724

a big learning curve for some teachers when learning how to use ICCS. Some instructors were overwhelmed with the new technology (Kaleta & Joosten, 2007). A second problem emerged when teachers attempted to modify instruction based on misunderstandings reported from ICCS questions. Less experienced teachers, for example, had more difficulty modifying their explanations “on the fly” (Beatty, 2004). The most significant concern for instructors, though, was changing their teaching philosophy from teacher-centered lectures to student-based discussions stimulated by ICCS questions (Brewer, 2004; Freeman, Bell, Comerton-Forder, Pickering, & Blayney, 2007).

new method of teaching - students Some students may react adversely to the use of ICCS because the learning “game plan” has been changed. They are used to lecturing and a switch of methods can lead to stress, frustration, and resistance at first (Beatty, 2004; Fagen et al., 2002). Other students are distracted by the use of ICCS (Siau, et al., 2006). Still others doubt their own ability to direct their learning using ICCS (Allen & Tanner, 2005). Finally, certain students, not unlike instructors, feel that less content is covered when using the ICCS approach (Allen & Tanner, 2005). While resistance to using ICCS is relatively limited (Fagen et al., 2002), it is important to adequately explain to the class why ICCS are being used (Crouch & Mazur, 2001).

time Time has been reported as a concern when ICCS are implemented into the classroom. Four key areas have been noted by researchers. First, several instructors have commented that it takes considerable time to learn how to use ICCS, 20 hours in some cases (El-Rady, 2006, Freeman et al., 2007, Hatch et al., 2005). Second, time required to set up the ICCS, hand out the remote controls at the beginning of the class, and collect them back at

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

the end of the class can be significant (Hatch et al., 2005, Stuart et al., 2004). Third, time taken up during class to address and discuss ICCS questions instead of covering new material is a concern for a number of teachers (Caldwell, 2007, Draper & Brown, 2004; Fagen et al., 2002, Freeman et al., 2007, Kaleta & Joosten, 2007, Siau, et al., 2006, Slain et al., 2004). Fourth, in order for ICCS to be effective, thoughtful questions focusing on key misconceptions need to be developed. This is probably the most time consuming aspect of ICCS use and requires extensive commitment from an instructor (Beatty, 2004, Fagen et al., 2002, Freeman et al., 2007, Paschal, 2002, Steinert & Snell, 1999).

technology Two main technology-based difficulties were reported when ICCS were used. When students were responsible for buying their own remote devices, they did not always bring them to class or they lost them. Because of the dependence on technology, students without remotes were not able to fully participate in ICCS classes (Caldwell, 2007; Reay et al., 2005). A more critical issue was when remote devices did not work or the signal was not received by the instructor’s computer. This was a particularly stressful experience when students were being evaluated for marks (El-Rady, 2005; Hatch et al., 2005; Sharma et al., 2005; Siau, et al., 2006). For ICCS to be a successful learning tool, the technology has to work. Possible solutions to the earlier problem include handing out remote devices in every class instead of relying on students to bring them (Reay et al., 2005) and using radio frequency devices which are more reliable than the less expensive infrared models.

Questions Writing good ICCS questions turns out to be a daunting task. Researchers have noted that the most effective questions address a specific

learning goal, make students aware of opinions other than their own, locate misconceptions and confusion, explore ideas in a new context, and elicit a wide range of responses (Caldwell, 2007, Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Miller, Santana-Vega, & Terrell, 2006). Since there are very few collections of ICCS questions available for most fields, it falls upon the instructor to create questions from scratch. Many instructors find question creation very time consuming and challenging (Allen & Tanner, 2005; Beatty, Gerace, Leonard, & Dufresne, 2006; El-Rady, 2006; Fagen et al., 2002; Freeman et al., 2007; Paschal, 2002).

miscellaneous concerns A variety of miscellaneous, somewhat isolated problems were reported by students using ICCS involving anonymity, attendance, cheating, class discussion, distractibility, effort, and misuse. Some students were much less confident about using ICCS when their answers were not anonymous (Elliot, 2003). Other students did not like ICCS being used to monitor attendance. As a result, 20% to 58% of students reported seeing other students cheat by bringing multiple remote handsets to class to record attendance for missing classmates (Caldwell, 2007). Occasionally, significant problems emerged when ICCS questions were discussed. Some students dominated group discussion. Others reported that discussion of different viewpoints led to more confusion. Still others noted that class wide discussion took too much time and that it was easy to drift away from the main concept being addressed (Nicol & Boyle, 2003, Reay et al., 2005). Occasionally, students felt that ICCS use distracted them from learning (Draper & Brown, 2004). In certain cases, students realized that using ICCS required more effort and participation and they preferred the more passive lecture approach (Trees & Jackson, 2007). Finally, some students did not take ICCS use seriously and kept pressing buttons or voting randomly to mislead the instructor (Draper &

725

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

Brown, 2004). While the earlier problems were sporadic and do not represent the norm when using ICCS, they still need to be addressed, especially when learning is undermined.

K-12 Iccs results Penuel et al. (2006) have done the only comprehensive study of ICCS with K-12 teachers. They reported a number of findings. First, teachers used ICCS for two main reasons: to improve learning and instruction or for summative assessment involving marks. Second, frequent users of ICCS had the most positive perceptions about use in the classroom. Third, there was no relation between subject area taught and type of use. Fourth, training increased the likelihood that teachers would be frequent users. Fifth, teachers rarely used ICCS to promote discussion. Finally, teachers who adopted the view that students should play a significant, active role in learning were more likely to use ICCS to alter instructional practice. Overall, the main impact of ICCS in K-12 appears to be increasing motivation and improving student learning.

strAtegIes for usIng Iccs Technology does not improve learning by itself. It is the pedagogical strategies selected to use the technology that have a fundamental influence on success (Reay et al., 2005; Simpson & Oliver, 2007; Stuart et al., 2004). A detailed analysis and comparison of strategies used with ICCS is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is worth noting that a wide range of strategies has been used including: 1.

726

Explaining the why ICCS are being used in the class and giving students time to practice using the system (Beatty, 2004; Caldwell,

2007; Dufresne & Gerace, 2004; Trees & Jackson, 2007); 2. Requiring students to read material ahead of class so that ICCS questions can be discussed more meaningfully (Beatty, 2004; Bergtrom, 2006; d’Inverno, et al., 2003; El-Rady, 2006; Uhari et al., 2003); 3. Using questions that uncover misconceptions (Beatty, et al., 2006; Brewer, 2004; Draper & Brown, 2004; Judson & Sawada, 2002; Trees & Jackson, 2007); 4. Increasing peer and classroom discussion (Beatty et al., 2006; Caldwell, 2007; Draper et al., 2002; Dufresne & Gerace, 2004; Judson & Sawada, 2002; Kennedy & Cutts, 2005; Nicol & Boyle, 2003; Simpson & Oliver, 2007; Slain et al., 2004); 5. Cont i n ge nt t e a ch i n g wh e r e t h e path of instruction is contingent on ICCS feedback f rom the st udents (Brewer, 2004; Draper & Brown, 2004; Elliott, 2003; Greer & Heany, 2004; Jackson et al., 2005; Kennedy & Cutts, 2005; Poulis et al., 1998); 6. Case-study questions (Jones et al., 2001); 7. Conducting experiments (Draper et al., 2002; Simpson & Oliver, 2007); 8. Peer-instruction where students discuss responses to challenging questions and attempt to work out the answers without significant instructor input (Brewer, 2004; Bullock et al., 2002; Burnstein & Lederman, 2001; Caldwell, 2007; Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Draper & Brown, 2004; Jones et al., 2001; Kennedy & Cutts, 2005; Miller et al., 2006; Nicol & Boyle, 2003); 9. Summative assessment worth marks (Draper et al., 2002; Fies & Marshall, 2006; Simpson & Oliver, 2007); and 10. Formative assessment (Beatty, 2004; Kennedy & Cutts, 2005; Simpson & Oliver, 2007).

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

exAmInIng seconDAry school clAssrooms Benefits, challenges and strategies related to ICCS use in higher educations have been presented in detail. The second goal of this chapter was to examine use of ICCS in a secondary school environment.

methoD

ary on how to use the ICCS software and possible strategies for using ICCS in the classroom. They were then asked to use ICCS in their classrooms for one month, although how often ICCS were used was up to the individual teachers. In pairs, teachers shared a laptop computer, an LCD projector, and one ICCS system from E-Instruction. All students in a given teacher’s classroom participated in ICCS lessons. However, only those students with signed parental permission forms were permitted to fill in an anonymous, online survey about their use of the ICCS.

sample Data sources Students. The student sample consisted of 659 Canadian students (327 males, 327 females, 5 missing data), enrolled in grades 9 (n= 71), 10 (n=233), 11 (n=149), and 12 (n= 206). Subject areas where ICCS were used included accounting, biology, business, chemistry, civics, computer engineering, English, law, mathematics, marketing, physics, technology, and world issues. Eight-seven percent of the students claimed that they were comfortable or very comfortable with technology (n=572). Sample population data was collected from 23 different classrooms The students were selected through convenience sampling and had to obtain signed parental permission to participate. Teachers. The teacher sample consisted of 23 teachers (16 males, 7 females), with 1 to 26 years of teaching experience (M = 15.9, SD = 7.9). Almost all teachers reported that they were comfortable or very comfortable with technology (n=22, 96%).

Procedure Teachers were emailed by an educational coordinator and informed of the ICCS study. Participation was voluntary and a subject could withdraw from the study at any time. Each teacher received two half days of training in November and Febru-

Student survey. After using ICCS for one month, students completed the ICCS Attitude Survey for Students (see Appendix A). Since this was a formative analysis of student attitudes toward the use of ICCS, reliability and construct validity were not assessed. Instead, each item was analyzed individually to glean as much information as possible. Student comments. Students were asked “What was the impact of clickers on your learning in the past month?” A coding scheme was developed to categorize 760 student comments (see Appendix B). Note that some students wrote more than one comment when they filled in their survey, whereas other students offered no response. Each comment was then rated on a five-point Likert scale (-2 = very negative, -1 = negative, 0 = neutral, 1 = positive, 2 = very positive). Two raters assessed all comments made by students based on category and rating on the Likert scale. Inter-rater reliability was 83% for categories and 93% for ratings. Comments where categories or ratings were not exactly the same were shared and reviewed a second time by each rater. An interrater reliability of 98% was reached for categories and 99% for the rating values.

727

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

Table 1. Summary of ICCS quantitative survey questions Question

n

Min

Max

Mean

S.D.

C.I

Using ICCS were a good way to test my knowledge.

655

1

7

5.4

1.4

± 0.11

I was more engaged in the lesson when ICCS were used.

657

1

7

5.3

1.5

± 0.11

I would PREFER to use ICCS.

653

1

7

5.3

1.8

± 0.14

I was more motivated when ICCS were used.

656

1

7

5.2

1.5

± 0.11

659

1

7

5.1

1.6

± 0.12

658

1

7

5.0

1.5

± 0.11

656

1

7

4.8

1.5

± 0.11

I liked using ICCS for tests.

636

1

7

4.7

1.8

± 0.14

When ICCS were used, the class was better.

659

1

7

4.7

1.5

± 0.11

658

1

7

4.6

1.7

± 0.13

Using ICCS generated more class discussion.

657

1

7

4.6

1.5

± 0.11

I learned more when ICCS were used.

656

1

7

4.4

1.5

± 0.11

I participated more than I normally would when ICCS were used. The class was NOT out of control when ICCS were used. I liked seeing what other students in the class selected for answers.

I DID NOT feel bad when most students got an answer right and I didn’t.

Table 2. Summary of student comments about ICCS Category

728

Total Impact (Mean x n)

Mean

S.D.

n

Engagement

1.23

0.43

111

137

Learning

0.81

0.78

104

84

Review previous concepts

1.13

0.44

53

60

Participation

1.04

0.35

49

51

Formative Assessment

0.94

0.41

53

50

Paid attention more

0.93

0.38

28

26

General comment

0.30

0.89

70

21

Different methods used

0.43

1.03

46

20

Memory

0.86

0.73

21

18

Compare progress with other students

0.88

0.34

16

14

Feedback

0.86

0.53

14

12

Discussion

1.11

0.33

9

10

Teacher explained better

1.00

0.00

5

5

Class environment

0.14

1.23

14

2

Did not use Enough

0.00

0.00

32

0

Wrong answer - Reaction

-1.00

0.00

2

-2

Technology Issues

-0.48

1.05

25

-12

Learning performance

-0.26

1.16

80

-21

Stress

-1.00

1.05

28

-28

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

Table 3. Sample comments illustrating benefits of using ICCS Category

Defining Criteria

Engagement

“It made class more fun and enjoyable”. “I wasn’t falling asleep. And I was very interested.” “Much of the class seemed more interested in the Math we were doing”

Learning

“Clickers impacted my learning slightly” “I liked the way you had to think very fast.” “It was a faster learning process.” “I have learned better and observe the question better” “Learning was more fulfilling.” “A very innovative and exciting way to learn.”

Review Previous Concepts

“I think it was a nice way to test our knowledge for reviews” “It helped me study for the up coming test” “It was great review of the units and topics we just covered” “I was able to obtain answers to test-like questions easily giving me insight as to what more studying was needed.”

Participation

“It made the class more interactive.” “ICCS motivated me into participating in class discussions in general!” “More hands on and intriguing way to learn. More class involvement.” “It forced people who normally don’t feel comfortable participating in class discussion to participate.” “[ICCS] makes you want to participate because it’s not like school work.”

Formative Assessment

“Got to see how much I really understood in that class.” “I did figure out what I need to go over in my notes.” “It helped me see what parts of law I needed improvement in, judging by the questions I got right or wrong.” “Helped me by testing my knowledge and getting to know where the class and I are at.”

Increased Attention or Focus

“It made me concentrate more” “The clickers allowed me to stay focused on the subject while in class” “I felt I read all the questions more carefully to make sure I got the right answer and paid attention more than I normally would when we just talked about something.” “I am forced to pay more attention in class which helps me learn better.”

results Benefits to Using ICCS Student survey. Table 1 provides a summary of the means and standard deviations for each of items on the ICCS Attitude Scale (see questions 8 to 19 in Appendix A). Overall students felt that ICCS • • • • •

Was a good way to test knowledge, They were more engaged and motivated when ICCS were used, They preferred to use ICCS, They participated more in class, And the class was not out of control.

Student comments. Comments made by students about ICCS are presented by category in

Table 2. Note that total impact is of a particular category is calculated y multiplying mean rating (as determined from Appendix B) by the number of comments in that category. For example, engagement received a mean rating of 1.23 and was referred to by 111 students, so the total impact was calculated as 1.23 * 111 or 137. Based on total impact scores, students felt that ICCS had the biggest positive effect on engagement, learning, reviewing previous concepts, participation, formative assessment and attention. ICCS also had a positive impact on improving memory of concepts, seeing how one is doing relative to other class members, and getting feedback about learning, however, students made fewer comments in these areas. Table 3 offers sample comments made by students about the benefits of ICCS.

729

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

challenges using Iccs

Individual Differences in using Iccs

Student survey. Students were relatively neutral about whether they learned more using ICCS, whether ICCS generate more class discussion, how they felt when their answers were wrong compared to the rest of the class, and liking to use ICCS for tests of summative assessment (Table 1) Student comments. Some students felt that when ICCS were used they were more stressed, learning performance was negatively affected, and that technology issues were a problem. The relative impact of challenges, though, compared to the benefits discussed earlier were small. In other words, fewer students voiced concerns about the negative aspects of ICCS and the mean impact although negative, was modest. Table 4 offers sample comments made by students at about the challenges of using ICCS. The majority of comments refer to students not liking to use ICCS for summative assessment (testing) because of the pressure and stress created. Students also noted that when the remote devices did not work, they were somewhat frustrated.

Responses, both qualitative and quantitative, were quite varied in this study. Some students were very positive about using ICCS. Other students were neutral or stressed. Analysing individual differences is one way of sorting out possible factors that influenced student attitudes. Three key areas were examined: gender, computer comfort (self efficacy), and strategies used with ICCS. Gender. A MANOVA was run to compare male and females on each of the items in the ICCS Attitude Scale (Appendix A). Hotelling’s T was significant (p <.001), so individual comparisons were done on each survey question. From Table 5, it is clear that males and females differed significantly on all but two items from the ICCS Attitude Survey. Specifically, males were more motivated and engaged when using ICCS, they participated more, they liked using ICCS to test their knowledge, especially in summative evaluation, they did not feel as bad as females when they got incorrect answers, they thought ICCS generated more class discussion, they felt ICCS

Table 4. Sample comments illustrating challenges using ICCS Category

Defining Criteria

Stress

“It made me more worried about not knowing what I need to know!!” “I realized that I cannot work well under the pressure when ICCS were used.” “ICCS made me nervous in test situations” “Using ICCS on a test is very stressful. Not only are we stressed because of the test conditions, but it’s difficult to work the clickers.” “I felt that ICCS made me feel as if I had to rush to get my answer selected. I was nervous and felt pressure, when usually I’m confident.”

Learning performance

“IT hindered my performance on the test.” “ICCS does not help serve the purpose of testing our knowledge conveniently and effectively. It’s hard to go back to change your selected answer and the whole process of aiming the clicker is bothersome.” “ICCS seem to create more pressure to answer correctly which often led to answering incorrectly.” “I didn’t like using ICCS for tests because they take up more time; and also its not easy to go back and change your answer if you want to.”

Technology Issues

“They are too difficult to use and it was difficult to tell when the correct answer was chosen.” “The whole process of aiming the remote is bothersome” “I disliked ICCS because I didn’t like having such a small target to aim at. If the target was bigger and maybe on the front board it would be easier and much more efficient.” “Well at first I didn’t like ICCS - I found it rather complicated and also mine was not working correctly”

730

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

Table 5. Gender differences in attitudes toward ICCS Females

Males

M

SD

M

SD

F

I was more motivated when clickers were used

5.01

1.56

5.46

1.43

14.18 *

Measure Attitudes 8.

* ** *** ****

9.

I was more engaged in the lesson when clickers were used

5.18

1.56

5.50

1.35

7.21 **

10.

I participated more than I normally would when clickers were used.

4.97

1.60

5.29

1.51

6.53 ****

11.

The class was in control when clickers were used

5.04

1.50

4.99

1.54

0.16

12.

I liked seeing what other students in the class selected for answers.

4.72

1.49

4.95

1.52

3.62

13.

Using the clickers were a good way to test my knowledge

5.30

1.49

5.55

1.33

4.72 ****

14.

I liked using clickers for tests

4.41

1.86

5.13

1.73

24.68 *

15.

I would prefer to use clickers

5.01

1.85

5.62

1.64

18.70 *

16.

I did not feel bad when most students got an answer right and I didn’t.

4.41

1.73

4.82

1.71

8.50 **

17.

Using the clickers generated more class discussion

4.36

1.48

4.82

1.71

14.95 *

18.

I learned more when clickers were used

4.17

1.51

4.60

1.44

13.11 *

19.

When clickers were used, the class was better

4.44

1.51

5.01

1.43

23.07

p < .001 p < .005 p < .01 p < .05

helped improve their learning, and overall, they thought ICCS classes were better. The only two items where males and females did not differ significantly was feeling the class was out of

control when using ICCS and liking to see other students’ answers. Computer comfort. A MANOVA was run to compare students who were not comfortable

Table 6. Differences on in attitudes toward ICCS based on computer comfort level

*

Not Comfortable

Comfortable

Survey Item

M

SD

M

SD

F

8.

I was more motivated when clickers were used

4.28

1.82

5.38

1.40

39.86 *

9.

I was more engaged in the lesson when clickers were used

4.51

1.79

5.47

1.36

31.63 *

10.

I participated more than I normally would when clickers were used.

4.36

1.82

5.25

1.49

23.42 *

11.

The class was in control when clickers were used

4.88

1.48

5.02

1.54

0.65

12.

I liked seeing what other students in the class selected for answers.

4.60

1.33

4.89

1.51

2.59

13.

Using the clickers were a good way to test my knowledge

4.71

1.71

5.54

1.34

24.65 *

14.

I liked using clickers for tests

3.78

2.01

4.92

1.76

28.53 *

15.

I would prefer to use clickers

4.38

2.14

5.44

1.68

25.91 *

16.

I did not feel bad when most students got an answer right and I didn’t.

4.03

1.90

4.71

1.68

11.31 *

17.

Using the clickers generated more class discussion

4.05

1.48

4.68

1.47

12.54*

18.

I learned more when clickers were used

3.80

1.59

4.47

1.47

14.36 *

19.

When clickers were used, the class was better

4.13

1.46

4.82

1.49

15.39 *

p < .001

731

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

with technology (n=80) with students who were comfortable with technology (n=534) on the ICCS Attitude Scale items (Appendix A). Hotelling’s T was significant (p <.001), so individual comparisons were examined. Students who were more comfortable with technology were more motivated and engaged when using ICCS, participated more, liked using ICCS to test their knowledge, especially in summative evaluation, did not feel as bad when they got incorrect answers, thought ICCS generated more class discussion, felt ICCS helped improve their learning, and overall, thought ICCS classes were better. The only two items where there were no significant differences was feeling the class was out of control and liking to see other students’ answers. Strategies used with ICCS. Detailed data on how ICCS were used in secondary schools was not collected, however, three general strategies were observed: using ICCS for formative assessment only (formative, n=398), using ICCS for both summative tests and formative assessment (mixed, n=110), using ICCS for summative assessment only (summative, n =103). Means for all items on the ICCS Attitude Scale based on strategy

selected are presented in Table 7. Note that the means for most items show a steady rise in value from summative methods, to mixed methods, to a formative approach. A MANOVA was run to compare these three approaches to using ICCS based on items from the ICCS Attitude scale (Table 8). With the exception of the item asking about classroom control (Item 11), using ICCS for formative assessment was rated significantly more positively than using ICCS for summative assessment on all items on the ICCS Attitude Scale. The formative assessment approach outperformed the mixed method (formative & summative) approach on most items as well.

DIscussIon Benefits Based on Previous research Each of the benefits identified in previous research in higher education and secondary school classrooms will be discussed.

Table 7. Mean survey item scores as a function of strategy used Survey Item

732

Summative Assessment

Mixed (Formative & Summative)

Formative Assessment

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

8.

I was more motivated when clickers were used

4.44

1.60

4.79

1.47

5.57

1.39

9.

I was more engaged in the lesson when clickers were used

4.52

1.57

5.05

1.44

5.65

1.33

10.

I participated more than I normally would when clickers were used.

4.39

1.51

4.85

1.56

5.41

1.50

11.

The class was in control when clickers were used

5.25

1.38

5.21

1.38

4.92

1.56

12.

I liked seeing what other students in the class selected for answers.

4.10

1.47

5.23

1.43

4.92

1.48

13.

Using the clickers were a good way to test my knowledge

4.56

1.59

5.27

1.39

5.71

1.28

14.

I liked using clickers for tests

4.09

2.16

4.19

1.93

5.11

1.62

15.

I would prefer to use clickers

4.42

1.94

4.72

1.73

5.70

1.62

16.

I did not feel bad when most students got an answer right and I didn’t.

4.32

1.59

3.92

1.75

4.89

1.70

17.

Using the clickers generated more class discussion

3.83

1.35

4.45

1.37

4.85

1.49

18.

I learned more when clickers were used

3.63

1.48

4.13

1.37

4.65

1.46

19.

When clickers were used, the class was better

4.19

1.46

4.43

1.32

4.97

1.50

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

Table 8. MANOVA examining attitude toward ICCS as a function of teaching strategy Source

df

SS

F

Scheffe’s Post Hoc Analysis (p <.05)

8.

I was more motivated when clickers were used

2

132.1

31.9 *

Formative > Mixed & Summative

9.

I was more engaged in the lesson when clickers were used

2

115.2

29.6 *

Formative > Mixed > Summative Formative > Mixed > Summative

10.

I participated more than I normally would when clickers were used.

2

97.7

21.3 *

11.

The class was in control when clickers were used

2

13.0

2.9

12.

I liked seeing what other students in the class selected for answers.

2

76.0

17.6 *

No differences Formative & Mixed > Summative

13.

Using the clickers were a good way to test my knowledge

2

111.0

30.3 *

Formative > Mixed > Summative

14.

I liked using clickers for tests

2

130.4

20.6 *

Formative > Mixed & Summative

15.

I would prefer to use clickers

2

181.4

31.5 *

Formative > Mixed & Summative

16.

I did not feel bad when most students got an answer right and I didn’t.

2

93.4

16.4 *

Formative > Mixed & Summative

17.

Using the clickers generated more class discussion

2

89.2

21.4 *

Formative & Mixed > Summative

18.

I learned more when clickers were used

2

94.5

22.6 *

Formative > Mixed > Summative

19.

When clickers were used, the class was better

2

62.0

14.6*

Formative > Mixed & Summative

* p < .001

Attendance. Previous research suggested that ICCS were used to improved student attendance. In several cases, ICCS participation counted for a final percentage of a student’s grade. In this study, ICCS were not used by teachers to encourage students to come to class, at least directly. However, about 17% of the teachers used ICCS exclusively for formal tests. Most students would be motivated to come to class when a summative test of any format was taking place. It should also be noted that secondary school classes are usually much smaller than university classes, so it is much easier to determine whether students are present without ICCS. Therefore, high school teachers may have thought it unnecessary to use this tool for attendance purposes. Participation. Based on the mean survey scores on the ICCS attitude survey and the qualitative comments, students felt that they participated more when ICCS were used. This result is consistent with previous research in higher education. Of course, by design, ICCS forces participation to a certain extent. Each student has a remote device and is asked to click in an answer. It is possible that a student could not click in an answer, but most students when given the opportunity to answer

a question, did. It is not clear, though, whether participation helped improve learning from the data gathered in this study. Anonymity. Higher education students preferred their responses to be anonymous when ICCS were used. The ICCS Attitude Survey in this study did not ask about anonymity directly, however, not one of the 760 comments mentioned anonymity as a concern or benefit in the learning process. It is speculated that since ICCS were used as an instructional tool by most teachers, ICCS were probably used anonymously most of the time. When ICCS were not used anonymously, it appeared to be used for tests where students would accept that identification was a necessary component. Therefore, the type of strategy used with ICCS may have reduced or eliminated the impact of anonymity. Student attention. Students were not asked about their attention levels in the ICCS attitude survey, but several students spontaneously mentioned that they focussed more when ICCS were used. While increased attention in class is well documented in higher education, it appears that it is a minor issue in secondary school. One reason for this difference may be the size and duration of

733

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

an average high school class. Attention span may not be an issue in small, relatively short classes. Engagement. Previous research on ICCS and higher education indicated that engagement was a relatively minor impetus for using ICCS. In this study, though, engagement and motivation were among the top rated qualities of ICCS based on both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Engagement may be more of an issue for secondary school students, who have much less choice about the subjects they choose than their university counterparts. Class discussion. There is some evidence to suggest that higher education students enjoy class discussion precipitated by the use of ICCS, particularly when they can confer about questions with their peers. High school students, though, rated discussion relatively low compared to other possible benefits. Both quantitative and qualitative data confirmed that students in this study did not see ICCS as promoting discussion. This result may be a reflection of how ICCS were used by teachers. Teachers in this study were not trained to use discussion promoting techniques like peerinstruction. Formative assessment. Secondary school students rated the testing of their own knowledge as the number one benefit of using ICCS. In addition, quantitative comments confirmed that students liked using ICCS for formative assessment or to review for tests. This finding is consistent with extensive data reported in higher education. Based on ICCS Attitude Survey results, students overwhelming preferred using ICCS for formative as opposed to summative assessment. It is clear that many high school students did not like being tested for marks using ICCS. Learning. There is considerable research to suggest ICCS improved the learning environment and performance for higher education students. Based on the survey results in this study, learning was the lowest rated item. Students noted that they were more engaged, involved, and focussed. Yet, they were neutral about whether ICCS improved

734

their learning. The qualitative results were mixed. Some students felt ICCS improved their learning, while others were unsure. Other students noted that ICCS were not used enough to determine the impact on learning. Examining individual differences in perceptions of learning revealed higher ratings for males, students who were comfortable with technology, and using ICCS for formative assessment. Learning is a complicated process involving many factors, so it may not be fruitful to ask the question “Does ICCS improve learning?” A better question might be “Under what conditions does ICCS help improve learning?”

challenges based on Previous research Most of the challenges discussed in higher education were from the teacher’s perspective: increased time to learn software, preparing good questions, and integrating ICCS into the class. The data presented in this chapter reported challenges from the perspective of the student. Based on the qualitative data, secondary school students identified several challenges to using ICCS in the classroom. Some students were quite stressed when ICCS were used in a formal test situation. They were uneasy with the technology and in some cases, felt that ICCS hindered their performance. In addition, technological difficulties were distracting and frustrating, particularly when answers were not registered by the ICCS receiver. Anxiety about an answer being properly recorded was magnified in test situations. Increased stress, poorer learning performance, and technological difficulties appear to be directly related to using ICCS for summative assessment. Other relatively minor issues noted by a few students included the class being somewhat out of control and not using ICCS enough. Interestingly enough, most students did not to feel uncomfortable in situations where they selected a wrong answer and most of their peers selected the correct response.

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

Individual Differences Previous literature on individual differences in the use of ICCS is almost non existent. The data from this study provide a preliminary analysis of specific factors that might influence the use of ICCS. While there is considerable evidence to suggest that males, on average, have more positive attitudes toward computers (e.g., AAUW, 2000; Barker & Aspray, 2006; Kay, 1992; Sanders, 2006; Whitley, 1997), it was not anticipated that these differences would be present using a relatively straightforward tool like ICCS, where all a student had to do was click in an answer with a remote control. However, males preferred using ICCS significantly more than females in all but two of the 12 ICCS attitude scale items. It is unclear why these differences exist. More qualitative research needs to be done. In addition, those students who felt comfortable with technology preferred ICCS more than students who felt less comfortable. Again, because ICCS are relatively easy to use, this result was not anticipated. Finally, strategies used with ICCS had a significant influence on overall perceptions. When ICCS were used for instructional purposes (formative assessment), students ratings were significantly higher. When ICCS were used for summative assessment, a number of students were stressed and frustrated. Using a new technology combined with not knowing whether responses were accurately recorded likely increased student anxiety when using ICCS in formal test situations.

summary and suggestions for educators using Iccs The main benefits that students identified for using ICCS in secondary school classrooms were increased use of formative assessment, engagement and motivation, more participation, and to a lesser extent, improved focus during class.

Students were relatively neutral with respect to whether ICCS improved class discussion or learning. Key challenges reported were based on the use of ICCS used for test situations where some students were stressed and unsure whether their answers were recorded. Males were significantly more positive toward ICCS, as were students who were relatively comfortable with technology. Finally, when ICCS were used for formative assessment as opposed to graded tests, students were significantly more accepting. It is wise to interrupt the results from this chapter cautiously. While the sample size was large, reliability and validity of the assessment tools has not been established. Nonetheless, it appears that at least two suggestions are worth noting. First, ICCS should probably be used for formative assessment only. The negative reaction to summative assessment was intense and clearly had an adverse impact on learning in some cases. Second, it might be beneficial to offer a detailed orientation to using ICCS before it is formally employed in a secondary school classroom. Explanations of why ICCS is being incorporated combined with thoughtful practice sessions might help reduce anxiety in students. This approach has been encouraged in higher education as well (Beatty, 2004; Caldwell, 2007; Dufresne & Gerace, 2004; Trees & Jackson, 2007).

suggestions for future research on Iccs This chapter provided a review of benefits and challenges identified in previous research on ICCS in higher education. In addition, a formative analysis of ICCS use in secondary education was offered. Both quantitative and quantitative evidence was gathered from over 650 students. In order to build on this research, the following suggestions for future research are offered: 1.

Further develop the ICCS Attitude Survey and establish reliability and validity for constructs assessed; 735

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

2.

3.

4.

Examine and compare a wide range of strategies for using ICCS based on those identified in higher education; Conduct interviews of male and female students to determine possible reasons for differences in acceptance of ICCS technology; and Explore other sources of individual differences such as subject area taught and grade level.

references Allen, D., & Tannner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrolment Biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4, 262-268. American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Foundation. Retrieved Dec 1, 2006 from http://www.aauw. org/member_center/publications/TechSavvy/ TechSavvy.pdf Barker, L. J., & Aspray, W. (2006). The state of research on girls and IT. In J. M. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology (pp. 3-54). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming Student Learning with Classroom Communication Systems. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, (3), 1-13. Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0403.pdf Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39. Bergtrom, G. (2006). Clicker sets as learning objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2. Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from

736

http://ijklo.org/Volume2/v2p105-110Bergtrom. pdf Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses, BioScience, 54(11), 1034-1039. Bullock, D. W., LaBella, V. P., Clinghan, T., Ding, Z., Stewart, G., & Thibado, P.M. (2002). Enhancing the student-instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher, 40, 30-36. Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher, 39(1), 8-11. Caldwell, J.E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 391-409. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977. D’Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 22(4), 163-169. Draper, S.W., & Brown, M.I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81-94. Dufresne, R. J., & Gerace, W. J. (2004). Assessingto-learn: formative assessment in physics instruction. The Physics Teacher, 42, 428-433. Elliott, C. (2003) Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1(1), Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/ iree/i1/elliott.htm .

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

El-Rady, J. (2006). To click or not to click: That’s the question. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 2(4). Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index. php?view=article&id=171 Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109. Freeman, M., Bell, A., Comerton-Forder, C., Pickering J., & Blayney, P. (2007). Factors affecting educational innovation with in class electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 149-170. Greer, L., & Heaney, P. J. (2004. Real-time analysis of student comprehension: an assessment of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52 (4), 345-351. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics text data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. Hatch, J., Jensen, M., & Moore, R. (2005). Manna from heaven or clickers from hell. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(7), 36-39. Jackson, M., Ganger, A. C., Bridge, P. D., & Ginsburg, K. (2005). “Wireless handheld computers in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Medical Education Online, 10 (5). Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www.med-ed-online.org/pdf/ t0000062.pdf . Jones, C., Connolly, M., Gear, A., & Read, M. (2001). Group integrative learning with group process support technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 571-581. Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers

in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167-181. Kaleta, R., & Joosten, T. (2007). Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, (10), 1-12. Kay, R. H. (1992). An analysis of methods used to examine gender differences in computer-related behaviour. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 323-336. Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students’ use of an electronic voting systems and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 260-268. Latessa, R., & Mouw, D. (2005). Use of audience response system to augment interactive learning. Family Medicine, 37(1), 12 -14. Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2005/ January/Robyn12.pdf Miller, R. L., Santana-Vega, E., & Terrell, M. S. (2006). Can good questions and peer discussion improve calculus instruction? PRIMUS, 16(3), 1-9. Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457-473. Paschal, C. B. (2002). Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Advances in Physiology Education, 26 (4), 299-308. Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(4), 315-346. Poulis, J., Massen, C., Robens, E., & Gilbert, M. (1998). Physics lecturing with audience paced

737

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

feedback. American Journal of Physics, 66(5), 439-441. Pradhan, A., Sparano, D., Ananth, C.V. (2005). The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention: an application to resident education. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193 (5), 1827-30. Preszler, R.W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C.B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29-41.

system to promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68 (5), 1-9. Steinhert, Y., & Snell, L. S. (1999). Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher, 21(1), 37-42. Stuart, S. A. J., Brown, M. I., & Draper, S.W. (2004). Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: one practitioner’s application. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20 (2), 95-102.

Reay, N. W., Bao, L., Li, P., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005). Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73(6), 554-558.

Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university course using student response systems. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32(1), 21-40.

Sanders, J. (2006). Gender and technology: A research review. In C Skelton, B. Francis, and L. Smulyan (Eds.), Handbook of Gender and Education. London: Sage.

Uhari, M., Renko, M., & Soini, H. (2003). Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Medical Education, 3 (12), 1-6.

Schackow, T. E., Milton, C., Loya, L., & Friedman, M. (2004). Audience response system: Effect on learning in family medicine residents. Family Medicine, 36, 496-504.

Van Dijk, L. A., Van Den Berg, G. C., & Van Keulen, H. (2001). European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 15-28.

Sharma, M. D., Khachan, J., Chan, B., & O’Byrne, J. (2005). An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lectures. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21 (2), 137-154. Siau, K., Sheng, H. and Nah, F. (2006). Use of classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49 (3), 398-403. Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 187-208. Slain, D., Abate, M., Hidges, B. M., Stamatakis, M. K., & Wolak, S. (2004). An interactive response

738

Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1-22.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Formative Assessment: Is used to determine student understanding of concepts without grades, to identify misconceptions, and alter classroom instruction accordingly. Interactive Classroom Communication Systems (ICCS): Allow students to respond to multiple choice questions using a remote control device. After students click in their responses, the results are instantly aggregated and displayed in

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

chart form, usually a histogram. Responses are often anonymous but can be linked to specific students for evaluation purposes.

Summative Assessment: Involves tests and assignments that count toward a student’s final grade.

739

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

APPenDIx A: Iccs AttItuDe survey for stuDents 1.

Class ID: _________

2.

What grade are you in (circle one)?

3.

Gender (circle one)

4.

How comfortable are you with technology? (circle one) Not at all comfortable Somewhat Comfortable Comfortable Very Comfortable

5.

On average, how much do you participate in class when clickers ARE NOT used? (circle one) Not at all Some of the Time Most of the Time All of the Time

6.

About how many times did you use the clickers in the past month? Never 1-2 times Once a week 2-3 times per week

7.

Male

______ Female

Almost daily

In what subjects did you use clickers? _______________________________________

Item

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Neutral

Slightly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

8.

I was more motivated when clickers were used

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9.

I was more engaged in the lesson when clickers were used

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10.

I participated more than I normally would when clickers were used.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

11.

The class was in control when clickers were used

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12.

I liked seeing what other students in the class selected for answers.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13.

Using the clickers were a good way to test my knowledge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

14.

I liked using clickers for tests

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

15.

I would prefer to use clickers

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

16.

I did not feel bad when most students got an answer right and I didn’t.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

17.

Using the clickers generated more class discussion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18.

I learned more when clickers were used

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

19.

When clickers were used, the class was better

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

20. What was the impact of clickers on your learning in the past month? ____________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

740

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

APPenDIx b: coDIng scheme for stuDent comments About Iccs categories Category Code

Defining Criteria

Attend or focus more in class

• • •

Focus on class more Focus on questions more Concentrate more

Classroom environment

•

Talks about a change in the nature of the class e.g., out of control or more calm

Compare with other students

•

Talks about how they did compare to the rest of the class

Different Method

•

Discussion in Class

•

Brought about class discussion

Engagement

•

Fun / Motivated / Interested

Feedback

•

Referring to feedback they get – quickness of feedback or getting to see the answer right away

Formative Assessment

•

•

Referring more to formative assessment including homework – does not talk about “summative test” Also include quizzes (which student don’t seem to consider as summative) Student could refer to testing knowledge but not “a test”

General Comment

• •

Vague or general reference to learning General comment

Learning

•

Makes specific reference to learning or thinking

Memory

•

Talks about remembering better

Participation

•

Refers to increase participation / interactivity /getting involved / more hands on learning

Performance

•

•

Liked because it was a new method or way of learning / doing things / something different + score if liked clicker method better - score if liked another method (e.g., paper and pencil) better

•

Increased or decreased performance on test – looking at the impact on summative assessment Include improving ability to answer multiple choice questions

Review

•

Talks about reviewing or getting prepared for a test

Stressed

•

Talks about feeling rushed but also stress / pressure / frustration in general

Teacher Explain

•

As a result of using clickers, teacher explained answers

Technology

•

Refers to the use of the clicker technology

Use was too infrequent

•

Didn’t use them enough to make a comment about impact

Wrong Answers

•

Talks about feeling bad when getting wrong answers

741

A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classroom

Rating

742

-2

• • • • •

-1

Negative comment

0

Neutral (e.g., no effect, no impact)

1

Positive comment

2

• • • •

Using adverb to describe impact (e.g., very, too, really) Strong negative adjective (e.g., hate, annoying) A serious issue like reducing confidence More than one negative adjective Exclamation mark (e.g., this was terrible!)

Using adverb to describe impact (e.g., very, too, really) Strong positive adjective (e.g., love, awesome, captivating, great) More than one positive adjective Exclamation mark (e.g., this was good!)

743

Chapter XLVI

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings Chin-Chung Tsai National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

AbstrAct Many educators have suggested the usage of peer assessment for the improvement of learning outcomes. Peer assessment facilitated by Internet technology can enhance anonymity and lead to better interactions between students and peer reviewers. In addition, online peer assessment can effectively store students’ peer interactions and learning progression portfolios for further analyses or evaluations. However, most peer assessment studies have been conducted with higher education students, such as college or graduate students. This chapter reports an initial meta-analysis of a series of research utilizing online peer assessment involving Taiwanese high school students. This study also summarizes some practical principles for conducting online peer assessment in high school settings. Finally, this chapter proposes the required literacy of using Internet-based peer assessment, both for the learners and teachers.

bAcKgrounD In recent years, educators have suggested some alternative ways of evaluating students’ learning outcomes, such as interviews and concept maps (Keiler, 2007; Stoddart et al., 2000). However, these methods are still guided by the teachers, who judge and determine the learning performance. Peer assessment is also proposed as an alternative method of assessment of student learning (Fal-

chikov, 1995, 2001), but it requires that learners should carefully review peers’ work. In this way, the learners themselves are engaged in the assessment process. Thus, the learning environments are more student-centered, emphasizing the autonomy of learners and peers’ viewpoints. Clearly, the features of these environments concur with the practice of constructivism proposed by contemporary educators (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000; Gijbels et al., 2006; Kearney, 2004; Tsai, 2001a).

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

In fact, the ideas of using peer assessment are recognized by the practice of social constructivism where individuals provide feedback or guidance to their peers (Lin, Liu & Yuan, 2001; Tseng & Tsai, 2007). The social interactions among peers during the peer assessment process are quite important. If the quality of the social interactions is not good enough, such as in the situation where they do not offer constructive comments to their peers, educators cannot expect desirable learning outcomes from peer assessment. In addition, the development of online technology can create better learning environments for utilizing peer assessment for school settings (Prins et al., 2005; Reeves, 2000). For example, with the assistance of online technology, the students can review peers’ work without the constraints of time and location. Also, the students can dynamically modify their work through the online learning environments. The online systems can ensure better anonymity of peers (Davies, 2000), and can input or survey some peer reviewers’ background information (such as gender, achievement or preferences for certain issues), and then automatically assign each learner’s work to reviewers of more heterogeneity or homogeneity, depending on the researchers’ or teachers’ intentions. For example, the teachers may hope that each peer’s project (or assignment) is reviewed by students of a different gender or achievement level, or, in the opposite situation, the teachers may hope that the work can be evaluated by a similar level of reviewers. The online systems can have the capacity of assigning each peer’s work to fit the peer reviewers’ interest or expertise if relevant information is available for matching the pairs between author and reviewer. In addition, the online systems can record thorough data about all of the students’ assignments for each round of peer assessment, as well as all of the peer review comments. The teachers and researchers can acquire a better understanding of the progression of the work and the role of peers’ comments in its development. Clearly, traditional peer assessment (basically paper-and-pencil) can not fulfill this purpose. 744

The utilization of peer assessment or online peer assessment has gradually become popular in higher education settings. For example, Topping (1998) has reviewed many studies in higher education which have implemented peer assessment for learning. However, until now, there have only been a few studies involving high school students (e.g., Graham, Slocum & Sanchez, 2007), and those using online peer assessment are even fewer (Hsu, Tsai & Chen, 2002; Tseng & Tsai, 2007). The reasons behind this may be that many educators may have concerns about high school students’ knowledge and ability as peer assessors, and the students may also lack the experience of using online systems for learning or assessment. Nevertheless, in this chapter, I provide a summary of my research team’s findings and experiences of high school students or those of similar age using online peer assessment for learning.

overvIew of the chAPter In 2003 Taiwan launched an E-Learning National Program (ELNP), with a fund of about US$22 million per year. Many e-learning Websites, systems and platforms have been developed through the support of ELNP. The use of information technology for assisting teaching is common across elementary school, high school and higher education settings. It is easy to find some platforms to implement Internet-based peer assessment. Hence, in recent years, my colleagues and I have conducted a series of online peer assessment studies involving Taiwanese high school students (e.g., Tseng & Tsai, 2007; Yang et al., 2008; Yang & Tsai, in press). The purpose of this chapter is to provide an initial meta-analysis of these studies. By summarizing the findings, it is expected that this chapter can offer guidance for those educators who want to undertake online peer assessment for high school students. This summary chapter covers the following issues. First, based on the research literature, this

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

chapter will discuss the learning process involved in online peer assessment, the factors affecting student learning performance in online peer assessment environments, and students’ attitudes toward online peer assessment. Certainly, the use of online peer assessment is not a panacea. On the basis of the literature and my actual implementation experiences, I will summarize not only the advantages but also the concerns of using online peer assessment. Finally, I will discuss the role of online technology for peer assessment, and propose some practical principles as well as required literacy for conducting online peer assessment involving high school students. The final part of the discussion is mainly based on my experiences and observations.

the leArnIng Processes InvolveD In onlIne Peer Assessment by the hIgh school stuDents In general, when implementing online peer assessment, the students (authors) need to submit initial work to the system by a deadline. Then, after the deadline, the peer reviewers can access the students’ work (either assigned by the system or by the teacher) and make some comments and evaluations of each student’s work. After this round of peer assessment, each author can obtain their peers’ anonymous reviews, also from the online system, and modify the original work on the basis of their peers’ comments. Usually this sequence, that is, submission of work (or project), peer assessment, and revision of project, is repeated several times. In the process of peer assessment, clearly, the authors can acquire feedback from their peers. As a result of the feedback, they can enhance their original work, but they should carefully consider their peers’ comments, which requires judgmental and adaptation strategies of filtering

the peer reviews. This process can help the students acquire the skills regarding how to revise his/her ideas based on others’ viewpoints. This will also be very helpful later on in life when the students are in the job market where they face various perspectives from experienced personnel. On the other hand, acting as peer reviewers, the students require adequate background knowledge to review others’ work. In this way, they may try to enrich their own knowledge in order to provide better comments for peers’ work. The more work they review, the more knowledge they may accumulate. Also, they should try to clearly express their ideas for the improvement of the reviewed work, thus enhancing their communication skills (Topping, 1998). Therefore, during the process of online peer assessment, the participants, either as authors or reviewers, can acquire some skills and knowledge. In particular, the authors can identify their own strengths and weaknesses, and plan remedial actions for improvement, thus developing metacognitive and professional transferable skills as well as reflective thinking (Smith, Cooper & Lancaster, 2002; Topping, 1998; Tseng & Tsai, 2007). As a result, the whole process of online peer assessment can shape a learning environment of “knowledge sharing,” an ideal for an online community (e.g., Babinski, Jones & DeWert, 2001). For example, some e-learning scholars have proposed the ideas of “communities of practice,” “communities of knowing” or “distributive cognition” (e.g., Chang, Chen & Li, 2008; Liu & Tsai, 2008), and it is believed that a good practice of online peer assessment can achieve these goals. The apparent learning derived from online peer assessment can be found in the progression from the students’ original work to their revised work after peer assessment. Many studies have clearly shown that the quality of the students’ work is significantly improved as a result of the process of online peer assessment (Tsai, Lin & Yuan, 2002; Tseng & Tsai, 2007; Tsai & Liang, 2009).

745

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

the fActors InfluencIng the leArnIng outcomes DerIveD from Internet-bAseD Peer Assessment ActIvItIes Internet Self-Efficacy Till now, little research has carefully investigated the factors affecting the learning outcomes of online peer assessment of high school students. Yang et al. (2008) explored the process of learning by the three-round online peer assessment of seventy-nine junior college students (who are similar in age to high school students) and found that the students’ Internet self-efficacy, that is, their perceived confidence in using the Internet, was related to their learning progression in the later stage of peer assessment. In addition, the students’ preferences for Internet-based learning environments may have been related to their progression in some aspects of their work (Yang et al., 2008). In general, it was revealed that the students who had higher Internet self-efficacy or who showed stronger preferences for Internet-based learning environments tended to benefit more from the process of online peer assessment. Therefore, in order to successfully implement online peer assessment, educators may try to enhance students’ confidence in utilizing the Internet, and promote their willingness to use as well as preferences for online learning.

epistemological beliefs In recent years, some researchers have proposed the importance of the students’ epistemological beliefs in online learning (e.g., Hofer, 2004; Mason & Boldrin, 2008; Tsai, 2001b, 2004a; Tu, Shih & Tsai, 2008). The study conducted by Tsai and Liang (2009) may be pioneering work in the study of the role of students’ epistemological beliefs in the learning involved in online peer assessment. By gathering research data from

746

thirty-six junior college students, it was found that students with more sophisticated (constructivistoriented) epistemological beliefs tended to make significantly more progress derived from online peer assessment, suggesting that learners with constructivist-oriented epistemological beliefs might benefit more from the online peer assessment learning process. These students also tended to offer more feedback to their peers, and much of the peer feedback was viewed as being of higher quality. Tsai and Liang (2009) finally suggested that a more sophisticated epistemology may be a prerequisite for conducting peer assessment learning activities. Future research exploring the factors that may influence the success of high school students’ learning from online peer assessment may include gender, students’ prior knowledge and their perceptions of or attitudes toward online peer assessment.

stuDents’ AttItuDes AnD concePtIons towArD usIng onlIne Peer Assessment for leArnIng Attitudes toward the Internet Attitude toward new technology is central to its acceptance and actual usage (Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004). Tsai, Lin and Tsai (2001) have developed an early version of probing high school students’ attitudes toward the Internet. They found that male high school students tended to express more favorable feelings, lower anxiety, and higher confidence toward the Internet than female students. Students with more Internet usage experience tended to show more positive attitudes than those with less experience. The study investigated high school students’ attitudes toward the Internet in general, not specifically toward Internet-based peer assessment.

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

Attitudes toward online Peer Assessment Wen and Tsai (2006) developed an early questionnaire to survey students’ attitudes, particularly toward online peer assessment. Similar findings were revealed. Male students had more positive attitudes toward peer assessment than females did, and students with previous peer assessment experiences had less negative attitudes toward peer assessment. The students surveyed as a whole held positive attitudes toward peer assessment activities, but they perceived online peer assessment as simply a technical tool to facilitate assessment processes, rather than as a learning aid. Similar results were found in Wen, Tsai and Chang (2006). But the students involved in Wen and Tsai (2006) and Wen, Tsai and Chang’s studies (2006) were those in higher education settings. Interestingly, the graduate students in Wen and Tsai’s study (2008) showed a significant improvement for the peer-reviewed projects and the quality of peer feedback provided during three rounds of online peer assessment, but a statistical decrease in attitudes toward peer assessment was found. However, Tseng (2006) conducted a similar study on high school students for online peer assessment, and found that high school students retained statistically similar attitudes toward peer assessment in general, as well as toward online peer assessment, after several rounds of assessment. The study by Wen and Tsai (2006) found that many students did not conceptualize online peer assessment as a learning aid; hence, some of my recent research work with colleagues has attempted to explore students’ conceptions of learning by online peer assessment. By interviewing a group of junior college students who experienced online peer assessment for learning, we already found various categories of conceptions of learning by online peer assessment expressed by these students. For example, some students may conceptualize learning by online

peer assessment simply as “a drill for some related computer skills” or “a procedure of submitting assignments,” whereas some students may have more sophisticated conceptions such as “a training of critical thinking” and “a way to understand the ideas from different perspectives” (Yang & Tsai, in press). It is believed that these conceptions will guide students’ attitudes, strategies and usages toward the learning activities involved in online peer assessment. Continuing research work is necessary to examine this issue.

the ADvAntAges AnD concerns of usIng onlIne Peer Assessment As previously mentioned, there are some advantages of using online peer assessment. Based on the implementation experiences by Tsai et al. (2001) and Lin, Liu and Yuan (2001), they summarize that using online technology to facilitate peer assessment has the following advantages: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

Increased freedom of time and location for learners, facilitating the peer assessment process. The efficiency for students to modify their work. Increased student-student interaction and feedback. Higher degree of anonymity than traditional paper-and-pencil peer assessment. Significantly lower transmission costs and fewer limitations on transmission than traditional peer assessment. The possibility for the teachers to thoroughly monitor each student’s progression or change during the peer assessment process.

However, there are still some concerns about using online peer assessment, especially for high school students. First, the students may not have adequate prior knowledge to judge peers’ work.

747

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

Also, they may not be taught about how to neutrally present their comments to their learning peers, even in an anonymous mode. Further, they may have some difficulties facing and adapting to peers’ comments. (Some solutions and further discussion of these issues will be presented later). In addition, using online systems for peer assessment may favor a certain group of students, for example, the students with more Internet usage experience or with good online facilities at home. The final major concern is related to the validity of peer assessment. The high school peer students in Tseng and Tsai’s study (2007) showed quite consistent assessment results with those marked by the experts, indicating that peer assessment in high school was a valid assessment method. But the results of junior-college students in Yang et al.’s (2008) study and the junior high school students in Hsu, Tsai and Chen’s (2002) study did not show clear expert validity for peers’ assessment scores, similar to the conclusion of some studies found in the literature for higher education (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000; Topping, 1998). Therefore, educators and teachers should use the peer assessment results carefully when representing students’ learning performance.

the role of onlIne technology for Peer Assessment ImPlementAtIon Basically, the online technology can facilitate the process of peer assessment with greater ease than the traditional way of practicing peer assessment. In addition, the online technology can record all peer projects, feedback and interactions for further analysis. For example, Tseng and Tsai (2007), using the complete record of online peer assessment database, categorized the high school students’ peer feedback into four types: Reinforcing, Didactic, Corrective and Suggestive. They found that Reinforcing peer feedback was useful in helping students’ development of better

748

projects; however, Didactic feedback and perhaps Corrective feedback provided by peers might not play a positive role in subsequent improvement of students’ projects. This kind of analysis is very useful to gain a better understanding of the peer assessment process, but without the online records, the researchers may have serious difficulty conducting the analysis. The use of online technology for peer assessment also helps the students to acquire more online experience for future applications. Obviously, online environments contain a variety of information of quite different or conflicting perspectives (Chou & Tsai, 2002). Research has revealed that many students (basically university students) may not have adequate skills to resolve the conflicts, and try to trust the authority of online information (Metzger, Flanagin & Zwarun, 2003; Tsai, 2004b). This situation may be even worse for high school students. The utilization of online peer assessment activities may become a beginning step for the students to explore the opinions of different perspectives. And, it is expected that the opinions derived from the online peer assessment may not be as diverse as is commonly found on the Internet. They can in some way have practice judging or validating the opinions or try to adjust their original ideas from the online peer assessment process. This may be easily transferred to what they will experience in the world of online information with a variety of different sorts of knowledge, information, and perspectives. That is, the online peer assessment creates a learning environment which can be viewed as an early version of an online discussion or online knowledge forum. These online experiences are useful for future applications in similar online contexts.

the use of onlIne Peer Assessment As An ePIstemIc tool for leArnIng Tsai (2004a) has proposed that the Internet can not only be used as a cognitive or metacognitive

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

tool for learning; rather, it can be used as an epistemic tool for learning. Due to the diversity of online resources and virtual interactions, the Internet-based activities, when conceptualized as an epistemic tool, can enhance students’ epistemic understandings. Mason and Boldrin (2008) and Tsai (2008) have presented some evidence for this. Consistent with this perspective, I believe that the usage of online peer assessment can be regarded as an epistemic tool for learning, as it involves a variety of viewpoints and peer comments. By deeply exploring peers’ ideas and feedback, it is expected that online peer assessment activities can promote the participants’ epistemic awareness, thus achieving more sophisticated epistemic understandings.

PrActIcAl PrIncIPles for usIng onlIne Peer Assessment In hIgh school settIngs Based on the experiences and in-depth observations of implementing online peer assessment, I propose the following principles of utilization in high school settings:

the Adequacy of Prior Knowledge The learning task for peer assessment should be based on students’ prior knowledge. The learning task should be more authentic, and close to the students’ real life. For example, some inquiry (science activity, online searching, such as Tsai & Liang, 2009), design (designing an experiment, a test, or designing a product, such as Tseng & Tsai, 2007; Yang et al., 2008), analogy (the creative analogy for some learning concepts, such as Hsu, Tsai & Chen, 2002) activities are recommended.

the features of the learning task It is suggested to design an “open-ended” learning task for online peer assessment. If the learning

task is close-ended with certain answers, during the process of online peer assessment, the students can merely reproduce others’ answers. In addition to the inquiry, design or analogy activities proposed earlier, “writing” can be viewed as an open-ended learning activity for peer assessment (e.g., Venables & Summit, 2003). The popular Wiki or Blog Web platforms (e.g., Hall & Davison, 2007; Reinhold & Abawi, 2006; Robbins, 2006) may also be used for online peer assessment of writing activities.

the Author versus reviewer Some online peer assessment studies have asked each participant to act in only one role as either the author or the reviewer. As aforementioned, the author and the reviewer can acquire different knowledge and skills. It is therefore suggested to ask the students to act in both roles, as they can learn different skills from acting in these roles.

group Project versus Individual Project The use of group or individual projects is dependent on the nature of the learning task. If the learning task is very complicated, requiring extensive effort, a group project is recommended. However, it is suggested that even if the teachers decide to use a group project for online peer assessment, the peer review for assessing the project should be conducted on an individual basis. That is, students can submit the projects for peer assessment in groups, but each reviewer should submit individual assessment to the project reviewed. It is not recommended that the peers, as a group, submit one review report of the evaluated project.

the Assignment of Peer reviewers When implementing online peer assessment involving high school students, it is suggested that the students assess peers from other classes

749

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

(not within the same class). That is, it is better to have more than one class working together for the online peer assessment activity. Although online technology can help maintain anonymity, at high school age, complicated and sensitive peer interrelationships may hinder the validity of peer assessment. Also, the teacher needs to try his/her best to make sure that each work is evaluated by peers with an appropriate background.

the content of Peer Assessment

Based on the implementation experiences, it is better that each high school reviewer evaluates three to five peer projects. This review load is reasonable for the students, and the authors can also get enough comments from their peers.

It is suggested to employ both qualitative and quantitative ways of evaluating peers’ work. The online systems can easily design different columns for peer students to input qualitative and quantitative feedback. Also, the peers’ work is suggested to be evaluated from multiple dimensions. For example, Tseng and Tsai (2007) asked the high school students to search for some online information to design a three-day trip for peer assessment. Their peers then needed to judge the trip in terms of its creativity, richness, and feasibility. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods with multiple assessment dimensions can better represent the quality of the students’ work, and the peer reviewers can engage more in the peer assessment process.

the Importance of concrete guidelines and review criteria

the number of rounds of online Peer Assessment

Orsmond and Merry (1996) have emphasized the importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. The participants in Wen and Tsai (2008) showed a decrease in attitudes toward peer assessment, partially because of the lack of concrete guidelines and criteria for peer assessment. Similarly, for high school students, clear guidelines and review standards should be presented. Before actual implementation, some practice of peer assessment is required. In the practice, some concrete examples should be provided.

Three rounds of online peer assessment are enough for the improvement of students’ work. The students may feel exhausted if there are more than three rounds.

the number of Peer Projects Assigned to each reviewer

the need for Pilot trials In addition to some practice of peer assessment, the students should have some pilot trials for using online peer assessment. For example, they need to know how to use the online system, how to submit their projects, how to submit comments, and how to read their peers’ comments.

750

enough time for Peer Assessment It is important to make sure that for each round of online peer assessment, the students have enough time for submitting peer comments or modifying their original work. If the process does not allow enough time, the students can not offer highquality feedback to their peers. Similarly, the students may not have sufficient time to improve their original work. Consequently, the effects of online peer assessment for learning can not be expected. My observation suggests that at least two weeks for each round of online peer assessment is necessary.

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

the use of Peer Assessment for counting learning Performance As proposed by Tsai et al. (2001), the assessment of the following three parts should be included to maintain the fairness and quality of the peer assessment activity, if the participating students act in the roles of both authors and reviewers: (1) the initial work, (2) the final work, and (3) the quality and efforts of reviewing others’ work. The reason for including the initial work as part of the assessment comes from the fact that a better initial work for peer assessment may subsequently serve as a good model for others. Therefore, the students who submit better work in the beginning may contribute greatly to the enhancement of others’ work later. In addition, the efforts of reviewing others’ work should be counted, since the major source of improvement in online peer assessment stems from the quality of peers’ feedback. The inclusion of this part of assessment can encourage the students to offer high-quality comments to their peers.

the role of the teacher Peer assessment may, to a certain extent, reduce the teacher’s load for grading each student’s work. However, the teacher must monitor and facilitate the process of online peer assessment. He or she should give some guidance to students in helping or trying to resolve some biased comments offered by peers. This may create a greater load than the traditional assessment approach.

concluDIng remArKs In conclusion, high school students engaged in online peer assessment can develop some knowledge and skills, which may not usually be delivered by traditional teaching. By participating in the online peer assessment, the students can also acquire experiences of online discussion or

virtual idea exchanges, deemed as very useful for relevant activities in online contexts. It should be further noted that the success of online peer assessment requires the students’ metacognitive skills or strategies. For example, the students need to participate in reflective thinking and have an action plan to respond to peers’ comments. Also, as reviewers, the students should undertake in-depth exploration for each project, and then provide constructive feedback. Therefore, it is believed that the students with better metacognitive skills may benefit more from online peer assessment. Or, proper practices of online peer assessment per se may help the development of metacognitive knowledge and strategies. Finally, I propose the literacy requirements of online peer assessment for high school students. I have divided the literacy into “technical,” “cognitive and metacognitive” and “motivational” components. The technical component includes the use of Internet-related tools, and the usage of online peer assessment environments. The “cognitive and metacognitive” component basically covers the review of peers’ work, the adaptation strategies for peers’ comments, and the cognitive as well as metacognitive engagement during the online peer assessment process. The “motivational” component may comprise the attitudes for valuing peers’ comments, the attitudes toward online peer assessment and also the self-efficacy of participating in online peer assessment. The literacy defined here also strengthens the perspective that online peer assessment for students involves a very complex process of learning, and requires a variety of knowledge, skills and motivational traits. Clearly, more experiences can help the enhancement of the literacy. In a similar manner, the high school teachers who intend to implement online peer assessment require relevant literacy. In addition to the literacy just discussed, they may need additional literacy. For example, they need to know how to access all of the students’ online data to gain a full understanding of the activities during the process of online peer assessment. Also, they

751

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

need to know how to guide and monitor students’ learning derived from online peer assessment. With adequate literacy both from learners and teachers, the implementation of online peer assessment can possibly achieve its success in high school settings.

Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.

AcKnowleDgment

Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2006). New learning environments and constructivism: the students’ perspective. Instructional Science, 34, 213-216.

The funding of this research project is supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, under grant number NSC 96-2511-S-011-002-MY3.

references Babinski, L. M., Jones, B. D., & DeWert, M. H. (2001). The roles of facilitators and peers in an online support community for first-year teachers. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 151-169. Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28, 229-254. Chang, C. K., Chen, G. D., & Li, L. Y. (2008). Constructing a community of practice to improve coursework activity. Computers & Education, 50, 235-247. Chou, C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Developing Webbased curricula: Issues and challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 623-636. Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37, 346-355. Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 32, 175-187.

752

Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287-322.

Graham, M., Slocum, A., & Sanchez, R.M. (2007). Teaching high school students and college freshmen product development by deterministic design with PREP. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129-7, 677-681. Hall, H., & Davison, B. (2007). Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: The value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer support. Library & Information Science Research, 29, 163-187. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43-55. Hsu, Y.-C., Tsai, C.-C., & Chen, M.-J. (2002). A pilot study on mathematical creative analogy activities with networked peer assessment. Journal of Taiwan Normal University Mathematics & Science Education, 47, 1-14. (In Chinese) Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimediasupported predict-observe-explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34, 427-453. Keiler, L. S. (2007). Students’ explanations of their data handling: Implications for transfer of learning. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 151-172.

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F. & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 420-432. Liu, C.-C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50, 627-639. Mason, L., & Boldrin, A. (2008). Epistemic metacognition in the context of information searching on the Web. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 377-404). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41, 271-290. Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 239-250. Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 417-444. Reeves, T. C. (2000) Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 101-111. Reinhold, S., & Abawi, D. F. (2006). Concepts for extending Wiki systems to supplement collaborative learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3942, 755-767. Robbins, C. (2006). Providing cultural context with educational multimedia in the South Pacific. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 202-212.

Smith, H., Cooper, A. & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case study from psychology. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 71-81. Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., & Canaday, D. (2000). Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning - a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1221-1246. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities, Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276. Tsai, C.-C. (2001a). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to Internet-based instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 401-415. Tsai, C.-C. (2001b). A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in Internet-assisted chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 970-974. Tsai, C.-C. (2004a). Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools: the use of the Internet as an “epistemological” tool for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 525-536. Tsai, C.-C. (2004b). Information commitments in Web-based learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 105-112. Tsai, C.-C. (2008). The use of Internet-based instruction for the development of epistemological beliefs: A case study in Taiwan. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 273-285). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

753

Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings

Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S.S.J., & Tsai, M.-J. (2001). Developing an Internet attitude scale for high school students. Computers & Education, 37, 41-51. Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S.S.J., & Yuan, S.-M. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 38, 241-252. Tsai, C.-C., Liu, E. Z.-F., Lin, S.S.J., & Yuan, S.M. (2001). A networked peer assessment system based on a Vee heuristic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38, 220-230. Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, C.-C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37, 293-310. Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49, 1161-1174. Tseng, S.-C. (2004). The instruction of high school computer science assisted by a networked peer assessment system: An analysis of the effects and peer feedback. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Tu, Y.-W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Eighth graders’ Web searching strategies and outcomes: the role of task types, Web experiences and epistemological beliefs. Computers & Education, 51, 1142-1153. Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40, 281-290. Wen, L.M.C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51, 27-44. Wen, L.M.C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Online peer assessment in an inservice science and mathemat-

754

ics teacher education course. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 55-67. Wen, L.M.C., Tsai, C.-C. & Chang, C.-Y. (2006). Attitudes towards peer assessment: A comparison of the perspectives of pre-service and in-service teachers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43, 83-92. Yang, Y.-F., Liang, J.-C., Tsai, C.-C., & Tseng, S.-C. (2008). The roles of Internet self-efficacy and preferences toward Internet-based learning environments in students’ progression through online peer assessment. Paper presented in EdMedia conference in Vienna, Austria. Yang, Y.-F., & Tsai, C.-C. (in press). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Intruction.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Constructivism: A pedagogy emphasizing student-centered learning, the autonomy of learners and peer interactions. Epistemological Beliefs: Beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. High School Settings: The learning environments for students around 16-year-olds to 19-year-olds. Internet Self-Efficacy: Perceived confidence of using the Internet. Online Peer Assessment: The implementation of peer assessment via Internet-based systems. Peer Assessment: The learning peers act as assessors in evaluating their peers’ work. Peer Feedback: The comments offered by peers through the peer assessment activity.

755

Chapter XLVII

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community Giorgos Hlapanis University of the Aegean, Greece Angélique Dimitracopoulou University of the Aegean, Greece

AbstrAct How can we assess the effectiveness of a course that is implemented in the context of a technology based Learning Community (LC)? What are the features of successful courses? Under what circumstances is a LC created within courses? Such questions were explored during an educational program for in-service K-12 teachers concerning the use of ICT in their teaching practices. During the implementation of the program, a research study took place. Assessment issues were dealt with and one course was proven the most “successful”, according to specified criteria. In this chapter, features of this course are presented in detail. We studied the role of e-moderation and how different means of communication were used during the course implementation. During our analysis, we deduced that a key factor for the success of the course was the creation and evolution of a LC. Finally, conclusions, benefits and perspectives of issues presented are discussed.

IntroDuctIon During the last few decades, a paradigm shift from teacher directed instruction to learner managed learning, from subfject-centered design to learning-centered design, and from individualistic learning to learning within a social context has occurred in the research area of learning theories.

Most importantly, there is a shift from a vision of students as more or less passive learners to students as apprentice knowledge workers (Land & Hannafin, 2000). Learning theories with a social dimension, such as Vygotsky’s ‘Social Development Theory’ (1962), are now influencing nearly all learning theories, modern as well as traditional ones. In fact, most modern learning theories have

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

a ‘Socio-Constructivist’ nature (Wertsch, 1979). Despite their ‘Constructivist’ core, they have been greatly influenced by the aforementioned social-oriented learning theories. Recent theories derived from the socio-constructivism paradigm, such as ‘Situated Learning’ theory (Lave & Wenger, 1990), ‘Activity Theory’ (Leont’ev, 1974), and ‘Distributed Cognition’ theory (Hutchins, 1991) have provided a theoretical backbone for the creation of Learning Communities (LC) and have greatly influenced their requirements and implementation. According to Barab, Schatz and Scheckler (2004), an online community can be defined as ‘a persistent, sustained social network of individuals who share and develop an overlapping knowledge base, set of beliefs, values, history and experiences focused on a common practice and/or mutual enterprise’. According to Rovai (2001), participation in a community generates a substantial increase in useful information access, by the use of the ‘community’s knowledge base’ and mutual support, commitment and, mostly, cooperation among the participants. The process of creating a community is regarded as bearing mutual commitment, rules that determine the way participants interact, reliability, negotiation, understanding and knowledge acquisition through the creation of practices within the community (Wenger, 1998). Especially Communities of Practice (CoP) are considered (Palloff & Pratt, 1999), as potentially useful environments for both students and instructors. According to Johnson and Johnson (1987), a student’s participation in a LC can develop students’ abilities to learn on their own, beyond the limits of the educational environment. According to these theories, e-learning can be accomplished through numerous online collaboration activities, given the appropriate educational resources and communication services. In e-learning, the course content can be dynamically and radically changed according to the students’ needs and the progress of the activities assigned, thus facilitating the process of learning. So and

756

Kim (2005) believe that there seems to be a certain lack of instructional guidelines specifically developed for collaborative learning. In cases that are designed for formal technology supported courses, usually no rules or any special guidelines are followed. On the other hand, in cases where LCs are implemented, there may be positive learning results derived from the collaborative context and the interaction of the community members, yet learning is informal and usually without predefined goals. Most educational programs implemented with the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) come from the academia (Salmon & Jones, 2004; Vlachopoulos & McAleese, 2004, etc.), a few are from the circles of primary and secondary education (Nurmela, Palonen, Lehtinen & Hakkarainen, 2003; Vonderwell, 2003, etc.), and even fewer concern further education for in-service teachers (Nilsen & Almas, 2003; Wu, Larsen & Andersson, 2003, etc.). Some traditionally designed programs implement formal courses in a manner similar to educational programs conducted face to face (Nilsen & Almas, 2003). Other cases are designed so as to host or create learning communities via collaborative environments, usually called CoP, within which learning can be accomplished (such as Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Finally, only few cases have suggested formal course implementation within a framework of development and maintenance of an online community of learners (Vonderwell, 2003). The aforementioned implementations and research do not give clear answers to a number of basic questions, such as: How can we design course programs in the context of a K-12 teachers’ learning community? Is it possible to conceive a concrete and appropriate course model? And if so, how can we assess the effectiveness of a course that is implemented in such a complex learning situation?

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

What methods can be used to analyze such a course? What is the role of different means of communication in the learning community evolution and the effectiveness of the course? What is the role of e-moderation? When is a learning community created and how does it evolve within such a course program? These questions were the subject of our research, when in 2004, at the University of the Aegean, a technology supported course model was put into practice within an e-LC context during a distance learning educational program (Hlapanis & Dimitracopoulou, 2007). The program concerned further education of in-service K-12 teachers and was named ‘School-Teacher’s Learning Community’ (STLC). The course model included a Web-based environment with specific artifacts, a certain structure for lessons and a number of rules to be followed by the community members. STLC was designed so that significant learning results could be derived in an informal manner through the interaction of the community members within a collaborative context; members of STLC could also participate as students in a number of different technology supported courses that were implemented in a more formal manner. In the case study of the implementation that was conducted, issues regarding course evaluation were taken into consideration. Matters of assessment of the leaning results are rarely considered in cases of LCs in general, and especially in cases where blended learning solutions are attempted. In the following sections of the chapter, STLC is briefly presented, including research questions and methods of analysis that were used during the research. Also, methods for assessment of courses are introduced, as well as the criteria for determining how a certain course was considered as the most “successful”. This course is later pre-

sented in detail. The roles of e-moderation and the different means of communication used are analyzed, and the creation and evolution of the course’s LC is presented. Finally, conclusions, benefits and perspectives of issues presented in the study are discussed.

ImPlementAtIon Issues of the DIstAnce leArnIng eDucAtIonAl ProgrAm Fifty nine in-service K-12 teachers participated in STLC, working in a dispersed area (different islands) of the Aegean Sea in Greece. They were members of the LC and could also participate as students in a number of different electronically supported courses that were conducted in a formal manner and which were implemented (to a certain extent) according to a proposed course implementation model. The content concentrated on aspects mainly concerning the use of ICT in teaching practices. The electronically supported courses were e-moderated by 23 instructors from all over Greece; they were considered members of the LC and could participate in every community activity. The students were allowed to participate in up to 5 different courses. The overall LC was moderated and supervised by 2 e-moderators. These e-moderators had properly informed the instructors about the LC function prior to the inception of the program. The use of a previously specified course model, with a certain structure, artifacts, websites and rules was pursued, yet instructors responsible for each course were given substantial independence, since they were all academics with substantial experience in distance learning programs. Therefore the degree of their harmonization with the proposed course model varied. As seen in Table 1, 18 formal courses were implemented in STLC and 3 were not completed. The number of students attending each course varied from 7 to 16. The duration of each course varied from 3 to 12 weeks. 757

than 5. The overall LC was moderated and supervised by 2 e-moderators. These emoderators had properly informed the instructors about the LC function prior to the inception of the program. The use of a previously specified course model, with a certain structure, artifacts, websites and rules was pursued, yet instructors responsible for each Course Assessment in aall Teacher’s Learning course were given substantial independence, since they were academics withCommunity substantial experience in distance learning programs. Therefore the degree of their harmonization with the proposed course model varied. Table 1: Information concerning the 18 Table 1. Information concerning the 18 courses of courses STLC of STLC

At the initial stages of STLC implementation, a few face to face seminars were held in the most populous islands of the program, during which more than half of the community members participated and met each other, thus creating some social bonds. Members who participated in formal lessons also triggered discussions concerning the whole of the community. Experiences and ideas were shared among participants. Instructors and e-moderators also encouraged activities such as joint projects or face to face assemblies of subgroups at each island. Additionally, assistance on technical matters was provided on a continuous basis by e-moderators, instructors and fellow students. In fact, the intention of the LC was that members would acquire knowledge both from formally planned learning scenarios, as well as through informal exchanges with fellow learners,

758

professors, or experts. Summarizing, in order to create and sustain the LC, we applied the following principles: (a) A hybrid virtual and face to face mode was implemented. (b) Instructors and e-moderators constantly encouraged students to get involved in different groups and to shift their participation from small groups to wider groups, or to the whole community. (c) Members were encouraged to assist new members. (d) Emoderators sustained and even triggered discussions; all members of STLC had to work for the support of the LC and, at the same time, they had to work independently on any specific course they participated in. (e) Each instructor was involved in the permanent effort to create a cooperative and collaborative environment. The community’s learning space was a virtual area, a web-based environment with specific functionalities, where all information concern-

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

ing the LC and each separate course was placed or uploaded by members and could be retrieved. This web-based environment was developed with ‘Microsoft SharepointTM Portal Server’ (Bratitsis, Hlapanis & Dimitracopoulou, 2003). An instance of the central webpage of the LC’s platform is presented in Figure 1. The platform hosted many different means of communication (forum, email, and chat) and services such as support for writing documents by multiple authors, advanced security, automatic notification and search. According to our proposed ‘course model’, each course should be conducted in stages, with emphasis given to negotiation and flexibility. During each stage, within a certain time period (usually 1-2 weeks), participants should accomplish certain goals. We also proposed a certain pattern for the implementation of each stage. Accordingly instructors had to present subject and goals at first, give time for discussion and/or negotiation and later on hand out educational material (references, papers, presentations) relative to the subject. They had to assign specific tasks/projects, preferably as a product of negotiation. At first they needed to hand out simple learning activities to their students,

with complexity gradually built in by endorsing collaboration requirements. The action-circle in each stage had to end by reinforcing interaction though the presentation of the outcomes of the accomplished assignments, the co-reflection on those outcomes and the assessment of them. We also encouraged instructors to completely clarify all aspects of the course, to endorse collaborative learning activities and to give tasks relative to their students’ interests. Reliability, understanding, honesty, mutual respect, and integrity should be some of the basic characteristics of the instructors’ and students’ behavior. We also needed to establish a friendly and intimate environment; therefore all messages had to be politely written. The practice of such behavior would be the responsibility of all participants but the instructors and the e-moderators could enforce it to a great extent, through e-moderation. The e-moderators used low and high e-moderation in turns. Vlachopoulos and McAleese (2004) define these two distinct approaches for e-moderation: Low when instructors intervene with students in order to help them ‘reflect’. High when instructors intervene in the content as well. The exclusive use of high e-moderation style brings

Figure 1. An instance of the central page of STLC’s platform

Other useful Web-

Announcements

Course WebPages

Useful links

Knowledge Base All Docs of STLC

Service

759

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

on many long and analytical messages containing the moderator’s point of view and can generate inactivity among the students, and therefore was avoided. The instructor could of course use it in order to drive conversations towards the desired results, but without overdoing it as this could turn students into passive learners. Low e-moderation was used regularly, mostly as a means of encouragement and facilitation, in order to encourage students to become more active. Also, various means of communication were used in a supplementary manner. For example, email was used for personal messages, forum was used as a memorandum and chat was mostly used for real time negotiation. Finally, the degree of participation and activity of each student individually, as well as of the whole group, was monitored by the instructor via any means available.

reseArch Issues research Questions and methods of Analysis As previously mentioned, during STLC a proposed ‘course model’ was designed. This was done in order to try to deal with a few research questions, such as “whether we can design course programs in a K-12 teachers’ learning community context” and “if it is possible to conceive a concrete and appropriate course model”. During the research study that took place, other research questions were also dealt with. These included: “how can we assess the effectiveness of a course that is implemented in a learning environment like the one created in STLC”, “how can we analyze such a course”, “what is the role of e-moderation”, and “when is a learning community created and how does it evolve within such a course program”. Our research was a case study with interpretations based on quantitative as well as qualitative data. Questionnaires were filled out by partici-

760

pants, mostly via the completion of web-based forms or through email communication. Semistructured interviews were conducted during different phases of the program implementation. In addition to these data sources, interpretations were triangulated using measurements concerning each member’s participation and communication. Data relevant to these measurements were derived by using ‘Social Network Analysis’ (SNA) methods (Nurmela et al., 2003); parameters such as ‘network density’ and ‘centralization’ were calculated and graphs presenting the communication structure were produced and analyzed. During the analysis, even Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) methods were used, due to the high number of parameters involved in this complex learning environment (Hlapanis, 2006). MCA may be considered to be an extension of simple correspondence analysis to more than two variables. With MCA one can analyze the pattern of relationships of several variables. We tried to categorize complex phenomena such as courses in STLC by taking into account several of their attributes simultaneously. In order to organize the analysis and to be able to concentrate on the specific research questions that were being dealt with, we used Activity Theory (Leont’ev, 1974). Human activity, according to this theory, constituted our basic unit of analysis. Activities that were studied in detail were the “creation and sustenance of a LC” as well as the activity of the “implementation of electronically supported courses in a broader LC environment” (Hlapanis, 2006). With the help of this theory we were able to distinguish dependent and independent variables within the subjects, objects, community and outcome of each activity (Hlapanis & Dimitracopoulou, 2007). The mixed methods of analysis that were used during the research provided flexibility and increased reliability through triangulation of results obtained from the different sources of data (Hlapanis & Dimitrakopoulou, 2006). For example, the graphs were considered as metadata

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

representing the evolution of the community. In STLC these metadata primarily served as tools for e-moderators and researchers in order to monitor the evolution of the community; their use extended to community regulation, as a tool of awareness for the community members and self regulation. In STLC the communication graphs were produced by the use of software tools that derived data from system files. MCA also proved to be very useful in order to deal with the great number of variables that characterized STLC courses and helped us triangulate our assessment results and categorize the courses.

matters of course Assessment Prior to the assessment of an electronically supported course implementation, it is necessary to define what should be considered as such. According to our research (Hlapanis and Dimitracopoulou, 2006), successful course implementation is measured by taking into account widely applied methods of course assessment which emphasize on the examination of the learning results, measuring participants’ degree of satisfaction and the accomplishment of the signified course goals (Calder, 1994). Therefore, in order to assess the effectiveness of courses conducted in STLC, these essential elements were considered: • •

•

•

The degree of accomplishment of the predefined course objectives. Certain fact-based elements, such as the completion or not of the course, the percentage of students that attended or the percentage of those that passed. The degree of communication and interaction among participants as a key factor for the attainment of learning, according to the previously mentioned theoretical framework. The degree of knowledge constructed as a result of the course implementation, in any way it can be justifiably measured.

In order to look into the degree of accomplishment of the predefined course objectives, data gathered from questionnaires and interviews were used. Appropriate Likert-scale questions answered by both instructors and students were taken into account and the answers were matched up to comparative results of the conducted interviews. In some cases, triangulation of interpretation was possible, when, for example, the predefined course objective was a certain product. The degree of the obtained knowledge was quite difficult to measure; again appropriate Likert-scale questions were answered and interpretation of interview results was taken into consideration. In some cases fact-based data could affirm results like the accomplishment of a task that required certain abilities and knowledge, which were not known to exist prior to course implementation. Another way of indirectly measuring obtained knowledge was the comparison of answers concerning issues that were dealt with during a course, given prior and after the implementation of it. Such interpretations were not quite straightforward however, because some students attended simultaneously more than one courses and many required similar tasks, even if the content differed. The fact-based elements of our course success definition were easier to measure. Most of the communication parameters were calculated by using SNA methods. Measurements concerning these fact-based elements are straightforwardly used as a basis for certain dependent variables of our analysis. Several student and instructor answers to questions concerning the elements of the degree of accomplishment of the predefined course objectives and the degree of knowledge obtained as previously described were also used as dependent variables. As shown in Table 2, the independent variables were mostly related to instructors’ choices and especially e-moderation and communication policies that were in place (Hlapanis & Dimitracopoulou, 2006):

761

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

• • •

•

•

•

The degree of adherence of each course to the predefined implementation model. The collaboration policy that was endorsed. The e-moderation and communication policy (number/type of means of communication used, fact-based data such as number of interventions, SNA data). The degree of freedom of choice that was given to students (choosing assignments, group division, and ways of negotiation). The degree of flexibility of each instructor (acceptance for innovation, degree of adaptation). The degree of reliability and consistency of each instructor’s participation (dedication, punctuality).

gies used during the course were confirmed. The first independent variable, the degree to which instructors kept up with our proposed course model, proved to be very interesting. The instructors’ answers divided the courses into two groups, those with a high degree of adherence to the predefined course model (GEN1, GEN2, GEN4, MATH1, MATH4, PHYS2, PHYS3 and PHIL1) and those with a low degree of adherence (where instructors used their own methods). An example of the question answered by Instructors for this variable was: “What was the degree of adherence to the proposed course model in your course? 1. 2.

The data presented in Table 2 were derived from questionnaires Instructors completed (with Likert-scale (1-5) questions) after the course implementation. During the analysis, many existing correlations among previously defined elements of course assessment (as the dependent variables) and independent variables related to instructors’ choices concerning the structure and methodolo-

3.

4. 5.

Very low (I practically ignored the model, completely used my own methods) Low (I might have used some guidelines, but mostly followed my own methods) Medium (I used some guidelines and followed most rules but used some of my own methods as well) High (I mostly followed the proposed model) Very high (I completely followed the model).”

Table 2: Independent variables concerning STLC courses measured in a Likert-scale Table 2. Independent variables concerning STLC courses measured in a Likert-scale manner manner No of Les.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Course Code

GEN1 GEN2 GEN3 GEN4 PHIL1 MATH1 MATH2 MATH4 PHYS1 PHYS2 PHYS3 PHYS4 PHYS6 PL1 PL2 PL3 PL5 PL6

Degree of adherence of each course to the predefined course implementation model 4 4 1 5 5 5 2 4 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

Degree of collaboration required in course assignments 3 2 1 3 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1

e-moderation policy: degree of interventions made by the instructor 4 2 1 4 4 4 1 3 2 4 3 3 2 1 1 4 2 1

Degree of freedom of choice that was given to students 4 4 Not defined 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 1 Not defined 5 4 2

Degree of

suppleness/ flexibility of

instructor 3 3 Not defined 4 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 Not defined 1 1 1

Degree of reliability and consistency of the instructor’s participation 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 1

The data presented in Table 2 were derived from questionnaires Instructors filled in (with Likert-scale 1-5 questions) after the course implementation. During the analysis many 762 existing correlations among previously defined elements of course assessment (as the dependent variables) and independent variables related to instructors’ choices concerning the

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

Due to the dependency of the examined groups of students, correlated t-tests were used. Data were derived from questionnaires the K-12 teachers completed, both prior to and after the course implementation. A characteristic correlation found was:

ticipation (Μ=4.68, SD=0.476), according to their belief.

It should also be noted that when answers given by students who attended only low adherence courses were tested, no significant difference (p>0.05) could be measured between answers • For students who attended high adherence given prior to and after course participation. courses, the average degree of ICT they were Such correlations showed us that the courses willing to use in their classrooms prior to that substantially followed our proposed model • participation The average (Μ=2.59, degree ofSD=1.480), positive impact had applied inresults a classroom by thethe use of ICT, course better and fulfilled primary objecaccording to students’ belief prior to course participation (Μ=4.24, SD=0.431), was significantly less (t=-4.989, DF=50, tive of the program — to make K-12 teacherswas (the significantly less (t=-3.848, DF=59, 2-tailed p<0.001) than the average after course 2-tailed p<0.001) than the average they were students) eager to use ICT in their classrooms. participation (Μ=4.68, SD=0.476), according to their belief. willing to use in their classrooms after course In order to generate quantitative analysis reparticipation (Μ=4.04, SD=0.744). sults, two more dependent variables were defined, It should also be noted that when answers given by students who attended only low in relation to the overall assessment of each course adherence courses were tested, no significant difference (p>0.05) could be measured Moreover, for students who attended high according to the participants’ opinions. These between answers given prior to and after course participation. adherence courses, significant differences results are presented in Table 3 and the Suchsome correlations showed us that the courses that substantially followed ourvariables in their beliefs were detected. One example: were measured as an average of several proposed model had better results and fulfilled the primary objective of the program,answers to questions given by instructors make K-12 teachers (the students) eager to useLikert-scale ICT in their(1-5) classrooms. • The average degree of positive impact apand students concerning each individual course plied in a In classroom the usequantitative of ICT, ac- analysis and results, the direct assessment of the aforementioned order to by generate two more dependent variables cording to students’ prior to courseof eachelements were defined, as thebelief overall assessment course according to the of participants’ of our definition course success. opinions. These results are presentedwas in Table 3 and the variables were measured an to the participation (Μ=4.24, SD=0.431), In order to triangulate results andasdue average of several answersDF=59, (Likert-scale by instructors and students significantly less (t=-3.848, 2-tailed 1-5 questions) number ofgiven independent variables used in the concerning individual course and the direct assessment thealso above mentioned p<0.001) thaneach the average after course paranalysis, MCAof was used. An attempt was elements of our definition of course success.

Table 3: Assessment of courses as an average based on answers of both students and Table 3. Assessment of courses as an average based on answers of both students and instructors instructors No of Les.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Course Code

GEN1 GEN2 GEN3 GEN4 PHIL1 MATH1 MATH2 MATH4 PHYS1 PHYS2 PHYS3 PHYS4 PHYS6 PL1 PL2 PL3 PL5 PL6

Assessment of Courses based on students’ answers (av erage of 15 different answers Likert-scaled from 1 to 5) 4.14 4.17 Not Answered 3.57 4.14 5.00 4.00 3.71 2.14 3.86 3.71 1.67 2.29 3.43 Not Answered 3.71 3.29 2.86

Assessment of Courses based on instructors’ answers (average of 10 different answers Likert-scaled from 1 to 5) 3.36 3.56 1.14 3.53 3.61 4.52 3.59 3.51 2.50 3.49 3.52 2.55 2.62 3.31 1.50 2.87 2.89 2.79

In order to triangulate results and due to the number of independent variables used in the analysis, MCA was also used. An attempt was made to categorize and characterize763 STLC courses by taking into account as many parameters as possible through this analysis method.

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

made to categorize and characterize STLC courses by taking into account as many parameters as possible through this analysis method. All the independent variables shown in Table 2 were used. The analysis emphasized 17 independent factors whose importance was distributed according to the graph shown in Table 4. By using XLSTAT Pro software, we projected the two-dimensional map of factors F1-F2, which presented 25,03% of all information (Figure 2), the two dimensional map of factors F1-F3, which presented 23.66% of all information (Figure 3) and, finally, the more detailed three dimensional map of factors F1-F2-F3, which presented 34,19% of all information provided by the MCS analysis. F1 divides courses mainly on account of the degree of adherence to the predefined implementation model and the degree of collaboration that was used during the implementation of the course. The grouping of the courses that comes from Figure 4 is obviously more substantiated than those of Figures 2 and 3. In Group 1 belong courses PL2 and GEN3 which were not even completed. Close to this is Group 2, with courses such as MATH2, PL5 and PL 6, characterized by a low degree of adherence to the predefined course model, few projects and lack of flexibility. Quite a few courses belong in Group 3 with ambiguous policies. Groups 4 and 5 are the most interesting

because in these groups belong courses such as GEN1, GEN4 and PHIL1 in the former and MATH1 in the latter, with characteristics of a very high degree of adherence to the model, a high degree of communication, a great number of projects, flexibility, freedom of choice, etc. Especially MATH1 is a group by itself and has an additional higher degree of collaboration among participants. The categorization shown in Figure 4 was based on course characteristics. Yet it is greatly correlated to the assessment of courses as an average based on answers of both students and instructors, as shown in Table 3. Therefore these MCA analysis results both give us a course categorization and confirm our previous conclusions. All of the above mentioned analysis results lead us to the conclusion that a specific course, namely MATH1, was the most successful in STLC. As shown in Table 3, MATH1 was the most highly rated course. Fact-based elements confirm this and MCA analysis shows how unique the characteristics of this course were. F2 divides courses again on account of the degree of adherence, as well as of the degree of flexibility and freedom. In F3, courses are divided mainly on account of the degree of collaboration and the number of projects carried out during the implementation of the course.

Table 4. Eigen values and percentage of variance of the MCA analysis Table 4: Eigen values and percentage of variance of the MCA analysis

764

All the independent variables shown in Table 2 were used. The analysis emphasized 17 independent factors whose importance was distributed according to the graph shown in Table 4. By using XLSTAT Pro software, we projected the two-dimensional map of factors

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

It was no coincidence that MATH1 both followed our proposed course model substantially and proved to be highly “successful”; during the analysis we found that a strong relationship existed in STLC between these two course attributes. For all of the above reasons MATH1 was chosen for a more detailed analysis which follows.

DescrIPtIon of the most successful course In stlc context and stages MATH1 course was entitled “The use of CabriGeometry software in order to assist the learning of geometrical concepts”. Twelve students participated in this course, 9 of whom accomplished

all learning activities. The students were K-12 mathematics teachers. The instructor was an expert in the use of Cabri-Geometry. The course lasted 6 weeks. In MATH1, all available means of communication were used in supplementary ways and for different purposes. The instructor practiced both high and low e-moderation primarily through synchronous communication (SC). In STLC, the main artifact for each course was the dedicated ‘learning space’, as shown in Figure 5 for MATH1. It was a virtual area where all elements and information concerning the course implementation could be created, placed and retrieved. The learning space was fully parameterizable and could be adjusted to fit different educational needs.

Figure 2. The two-dimensional map of factors F1-F2 with 25.03% of all information

GROUP 5

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

GROUP 3

GROUP 4

765

Figure 3: The two-dimensional map ofCourse factorsAssessment F1-F3 within23.66% of all information a Teacher’s Learning Community GROUP 4 

Figure 3. The two-dimensional map of factors F1-F3 with 23.66% of all information Figure 3: The two-dimensional map of factors F1-F3 with 23.66% of all information GROUP 4  GROUP 1

GROUP 1 GROUP 3 

GROUP 2 

It GROUP 3  was no coincidence that MATH1 both followed our proposed course model GROUP 2  substantially and proved to be highly “successful”; during the analysis we found that a strong relationship existed in STLC between these two course attributes. For all of the above reasons MATH1 was chosen for a more detailed analysis which follows. was three-dimensional no coincidence that map MATH1 both followed ourwith proposed course Figure 4:It The of factors F1-F2-F3 34.19% of allmodel Figure 4. The three-dimensional of factors F1-F2-F3during with 34.19% of all information substantially and proved tomap be highly “successful”; the analysis we found that a strong information relationship existed in STLC between these two course attributes. For all of the above reasons MATH1 was chosen for a more detailed analysis which follows. GROUP 5

Figure 4: The three-dimensional map of factors F1-F2-F3 with 34.19% of all information GROUP 2 GROUP 4 

GROUP 5

GROUP 2 GROUP 4  GROUP 3

GROUP 3

In Table 5, some basic aspects of MATH1, such as its goals, its context, the stages and ways of implementation, as well as ways of assessment are presented.

766

GROUP 1

GROUP 1

communication Analysis Mixed methods of analysis were used in order to provide flexibility and increase reliability by

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

triangulation of results obtained from different sources of data. SNA communication parameters, such as network density, centralization and especially communication graphs can be considered as metadata. In STLC these metadata primarily served as tools for e-moderators to be able to monitor the evolution of the community. Their use also extended to community regulation, as a tool of awareness and self regulation for community members. SNA was mostly used for the analysis of forum and email and we believe that it is a tool that can be used during learning programs similar to STLC in order to monitor the evolution of the LC. For the analysis of chat, we took into account Quantitative Content Analysis techniques (Chi, 1997). An interaction coding scheme was used in order to segment and code interactions in SC and we believe that this method can help researchers understand how each session is used and the way e-moderation is applied. In MATH1 email was used for personal communication and exchange of information/work among students of the same group; asynchronous messages were mainly used to inform students or to hold a public discussion that was not urgent. Discussions took place both in the forum and in the chat room.

Τhe Table 6 presents SNA data related to the use of forum, such as the number of people that used it, the number of posts, the number of conversation threads that were initiated, the number of interactions and network density and centralization. Each member was considered to interact in the forum when posting some comment; by definition we considered that the interaction involved all members that contributed to the particular discussion thread. We measured the network’s density by comparing the observed interaction to the most intensive interaction (if all members had taken part in discussions) as a fraction from 0 to 1. Centralization measured how much network cohesion was organized around particular actors and results were interpreted so that when all members had equal ties in their communication it was 0% (decentralized network) and if all interacted with just one member (or with none) it was 100%. By interpreting the information presented in Table 6, as well as other data (interviews and communication graphs), it was obvious that the forum was used quite frequently during the first 2 weeks of the course, becoming infrequent later on. This was the case because in MATH1, chat replaced the forum for negotiation and e-moderation. In MATH1 nine chats took place and were used:

Figure 5. An instance of the course-space of MATH1 Available courses – SPSS bar

–

Document Database

767

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

Table 5. Description of MATH1

a. b. c. d.

For acquaintance, entrustment and team building. To organize the course. For negotiation and decision making. For learning, by explaining and exchanging ideas.

Social, organizing and learning purposes were simultaneously present in most chat sessions. During the analysis emphasis was given to the instructor’s comments, because through these comments e-moderation was exercised. The language used by the instructor in chat was

Table 6. SNA data related to the use of Forum in MATH1

768

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

organized into 4 categories and quite a few more sub-categories (Hlapanis, Kordaki & Dimitrakopoulou, 2006): A.

B.

C.

D.

Social Language. Sub-categories: (1) greetings, (2) chitchats, (3) humor and (4) thanking. Encouragement Language. Sub-categories: 1 for pure encouragement and 2 for promise. Learning Language. This language was used to promote learning. Sub-categories: question promoting (1) discussion, (2) design, (3) clarification, (4) explanation, (5) providing information, (6) direction, (7) proposal, (8) retrospection and (9) conclusions. Negotiation Language. Sub-categories: (1) question for negotiation, (2) agreement, (3) test and (4) request.

The instructor mostly used language category C in order to exercise high e-moderation. The sub-category of questions applied in order to promote dialogue could be considered low or high e-moderation depending on the information given or the way the question was expressed. Low e-moderation was mostly practiced through the use of the other language categories, such as

B. Figure 6 presents the percentage of language categories used in each chat. The main points derived from the analysis of the language used by the instructor in chat are: •

•

•

•

Social language was used during the first chat, in order to initiate the process of establishing social bonds among students. A percentage of the language used had a social nature in all chats. The high level of social language used in chats 8 and 9 was due to the bonding that had been created among members. Encouragement language was used at a regular basis with the exception of chat 4. During this, emphasis was given to the reorganization of the course after the Christmas break. Negotiation language was used in all discussions, at a lower degree at first because participation was low and forum was also used. Learning Language was used to a high degree. This type of language was the basis for exercising high e-moderation and its use declined in the end, because mostly assessment and reflection were needed.

Figure 6. Percentage of language categories used by the instructor in each chat 80% C. Language used for learning, directing, concluding D. Language used for negotiation 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% chat1

chat2

chat3

chat4

chat5

chat6

chat7

chat8

chat9

769

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

The categories of the language used were balanced in all SCs performed in the context of MATH1. In all cases the discussions served social and learning purposes to a certain extent. The use of high and low e-moderation was balanced. E-mail served its purpose in MATH1 for personal communication and exchange of work among students. Email use was studied mostly by using SNA parameters and especially communication graphs. Such graphs appear in the following figures, presenting email activity that was accomplished by participants during several important weeks of the course implementation. The participants are presented as oval nodes, with a specific color indicating the division of labor (white for students, blue for instructors and green for e-moderators). Associations between nodes indicate interaction/communication between members. The distance between two nodes indicate the degree of interaction between them; thus, the closer two nodes are in the graph the greater the degree of interaction between them. By studying the email communication graphs of MATH1 (figures 7-8) and by taking into account other research data as well, several interesting conclusions can be derived. For example, the

messages during these first two weeks were for guidance, delivery of information, encouragement and low e-moderation purposes. As presented in Figure 8, communication is obviously more coherent in the network and some students have a central role in the graph (red circles).

Putting it All together: studying the creation of a sub-community within the course In MATH1, all available means of communication were used in supplementary ways and for different purposes. Mixed methods of analysis were used during the study, as shown in the previous sections, but the analysis moved to a further level, when an effort was made to put everything together in order to figure out when and if a LC was in fact created within MATH1. In Figure 9, data concerning all means of communication and e-moderation used in MATH1 are presented. The x-axis of the graph represents time, number of days passed from the official start of MATH1. The y-axis presents (quantitatively) all communication that was measured,

Figure 7. Email communication graph of MATH1 during weeks 1 and 2 1st Week

No

Linear (

2nd Week

770

)

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

Figure 8. Email communication graph of MATH1 during weeks 3 and 6 3rd Week

6th Week

including all means of communication and even specific e-moderation messages. Such data are: number of e-mail messages sent by instructor and e-moderator, high and low e-moderation postings in forum, chat sessions, number of e-mail messages, forum postings, etc. By interpreting the above figure and taking into account issues of the communication analysis that was presented in the previous section, some

interesting conclusions regarding the creation and evolution of the learning sub-community of MATH1 were derived: a.

The first period of the course, during the first 2-3 weeks, was the LC Creation period. Emphasis was given to establishing social bonds, trust and mutual commitment, mostly through low e-moderation. Forum was

Figure 9. Presentation of MATH1 LC evolution (Through communication analysis and e-moderation)

771

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

b.

c.

d.

primarily used and high e-moderation was instrumental in defining or negotiating goals and methods of course implementation. The actual LC creation cannot be pinpointed, yet by the end of the third week participants felt they were a part of a LC. Course stages 1-2 were implemented during this period. The second period, during weeks 4-5, was a Decline period. This was mainly due to the Christmas holiday. Also a technical problem accelerated this decline. The instructor mainly used email messages and low e-moderation policy to keep the LC alive. The next period, during weeks 6-8 was the Communication Raise and Climax period. This segment started with many e-moderation messages. The aim was to quickly return to the previous communication levels. Course stages 3-4 were implemented during this period and chat replaced forum for negotiation. The last week was the Ending period. Course assessment of stage 4 was implemented and a gradual and expected decline of all communication took place.

Finally, our analysis showed that the instructor’s role was crucial for the effective management of the course and especially the choices that were made concerning e-moderation, the use of chat and the way the proposed course model was implemented.

DIscussIon AnD conclusIon In this chapter, research questions concerning “designing courses in a K-12 teachers’ Learning Community context”, “ways of assessing the effectiveness of such courses”, “the role of e-moderation and different means of communication in the LC evolution”, and “the identification of the creation of a Learning Community” are dealt with. 772

An implementation model of technology-based courses was initially presented. The model was specified according to adult collaborative learning principles and was implemented in a LC context. This model was put into practice during a distance learning educational program (STLC), concerning further education of in-service K-12 teachers. STLC hosted many different web-based courses. Within this broad e-LC K-12 teachers were educated, via the internet, on aspects mainly concerning uses of ICT in their teaching practices. Significant learning results were derived in an informal manner through the interaction of community members within a collaborative context. Members also participated as students in a number of different technology supported courses that were implemented in a formal manner. The basic goal of the project was to boost the educational use of ICT in K-12 classrooms. The application of the previously mentioned course model was pursued, however instructors responsible for each course were given substantial independence and the degree of harmonization with the course model depended on their judgement. During the implementation of STLC, a research study took place. We dealt with course assessment issues and evaluated positive results by measuring whether certain criteria that we considered decisive were satisfied. Therefore a contribution of this study is that certain aspects concerning the complex problem of course assessment were brought forward, through the definition of specific course elements that should be studied. Further insight into this particular research area can be achieved, thus producing more accurate and especially more immediate (computer-based) results during course implementation that could be critical for monitoring and/or self regulation - a subject of growing current interest (Dimitracopoulou & Bruillard, 2007). Our analysis showed that the most successful courses, according to the specified criteria, were the ones that: a) had a high degree of communi-

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

cation and interaction among the participants, b) focused on cooperation, negotiation and flexibility during their implementation, and c) followed our proposed course model to a great extent. The course model that we presented, and which was proven successful in STLC, consisted of specific guidelines that were given, a pattern for implementation in discrete stages with specific goals, rules for behaviour of participants and ways to enforce such behaviour through e-moderation. This model can be used as a guide for the implementation of further such educational courses. In STLC, a certain course (MATH1) was proven highly “successful”. This triggered the need for its further study and in this chapter MATH1 was presented in detail. The different methods that were used for the analysis of this course and some important results were also presented. Data were derived from questionnaires, interviews and reports of communication services. Moreover, the analysis involved e-moderation, communication graphs and other SNA parameters such as network density and centralization, and even MCA methods, showing how different methods of analysis can be used in order to study complex learning environments. The reader can find interesting aspects on how we dealt with the multitude of intervening factors, as well as how we combined different analysis methods. Means of communication used, such as email and forum, were analysed mostly via SNA. Chat and its link to e-moderation was mostly analysed via qualitative methods. In MATH1, chat was proven very effective for decision making, team building, learning, brainstorming and reflection. As shown in MATH1, the proper use of synchronous communication can create a high degree of commitment, cooperation, interaction and flexibility, thus seriously contributing to the success of such courses. A general conclusion derived about MATH1 is that its success is linked to management efficiency, especially choices the instructor made concerning e-moderation. Also MATH1 followed our proposed course model to a great extent.

We can also conclude that the success of MATH1 is linked to the creation of its sub-community, formed by its members, within the broader LC of STLC. When we tried to put everything together and combine all analysis results that derived from the mixed methods of analysis that we used during the study, the analysis moved to a further level, and we were able to figure out that a sub-community of the participants of MATH1 was in fact created within the broader Learning Community of the program. The actual creation of this sub-community could not be pinpointed, but by using mixed methods of analysis we deduced that at a certain time it was already there, with communication being boosted and members feeling as part of a community of learners with common goals. We believe that STLC opened a new path in in-service teacher education perspectives in analogous cases by surpassing obstacles related to geography, finance, perceptions and attitudes, and even technology. It is to be noted, that a number of additional features and research questions related to this actual effort were also explored (Hlapanis, Kordaki & Dimitracopoulou 2006), while others should be subject to further improvement and study in order to be made widely applicable and efficient in the future. One example is «how can activity reports produced by e-moderators be used both as tools of analysis and as tools for community members’ self-regulation”. Finally, we believe that this particular case study showed us that a learning model, such as the one used in STLC, can have a broader and more effective use for K-12 teachers. Its practical significance can be tremendous for those who are planning in-service educational programs. However, a question that normally arises is: under what circumstances can such a learning model be used for K-12 students as well? We believe that learning environments such as STLC will become more and more common in the future, especially in Europe, now that broadband connections are being used in primary and

773

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

secondary schools. Although STLC concerned K-12 teachers and its design focused on adult learning principles, many results and conclusions derived from this study could be directly used in K-12 classes that are supported electronically, especially in summer classes. Rules of behaviour, e-moderation policies and techniques, ways of boosting communication and interaction among participants, ways of creating a Learning Community by establishing social bonds, trust and mutual commitment (mostly through low emoderation) are some of the contributions of the present study. This would be of relevance to K-12 classes (with K-12 students) which are supported electronically.

references Barab, S. A., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25-47. Bratitsis, T., Hlapanis, G. & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2003). Advanced Distance Learning Systems: A technical approach using MS SharePointTM Portal Server. In V.Uskov (Ed.), Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference, Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, June 30July 3, 2003, Rhodes, Greece, pp.489-494. Calder, J. (1994). Programme evaluation and quality: A comprehensive guide to setting up an evaluation system. London: Kogan Page.

et la Communcation pour l’Education et la Formation, 13. Hlapanis, G. (2006). Creating learning communities by using communication technologies: The case study of a distance learning educational program, concerning further training of teachers in the use of information and communication technology in education. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of the Aegean, Greece. Hlapanis, G., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2006). A Course Model implemented in a Teachers’ Learning Community Context: Issues of Course Assessment. Journal of Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(6), 561–578. Hlapanis, G., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2007). A school-teachers’ learning community: Matters of communication analysis. Journal of Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, Special Issue on Online Communities of Practice in Education, 16(2), 133-151. Hlapanis, G., Kordaki, M., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2006). Successful e-courses: The role of synchronous communication and e-moderation via chat. Campus-Wide Information Systems-The international journal of information and learning technology, Synchronous methods and applications in e-learning, 23(3), pp. 171-181. Hutchins, E. (1991). The Social Organization of Distributed Cognition: Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chi, M. T. H. (1997).Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3),271-315

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Dimitracopoulou, A., & Bruillard, E. (2006). Interfaces de Forum enrichies par la visualization d’analyses automatiques des interactions et du contenu. Sciences et Technologies de l’Information

Land, S., & Hannafin, M. (2000). StudentCentered Learning Environments. In Jonassen D. & Land S. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of

774

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

Learning Environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate periperal participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leont’ev, Α. Ν. (1974).T he problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2),4-33. Nilsen, A., & Almås, A.(2003, June 30–July 2). Teaching Net Based In-Service Courses. In Proceedings of IASTED International Conference, Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, CATE 2003, Rhodes, Greece, , (pp.115-120). Clagary, Canada: Acta Press. Nurmela, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Developing tools for analyzing CSCL process. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, and U. Hoppe (Eds.). Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, (pp.333-342). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers. Rovai, A. P. (2001). Classroom community at a distance: A comparative analysis of two ALNbased university programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 4,105-118. Salmon, D., & Jones, M. (2004). Higher education staff experiences of using web-based learning technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 7(1),107-114. So, H.J., & Kim, B. (2005, May 30). Instructional methods for cscl: Review of case studies. In Chan T., Suthers D. & Koschmann T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Taipei, Taiwan, (pp. 607-616). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Vlachopoulos, P., & McAleese, R. (2004). Emoderating in on-line problem solving: a new role for teachers? In M. Gregoriadou, S. Vosniadou, C. Kynigos & A. Raptis, (Eds.), Proceedings of 4th Hellenic Conference with International Participation, on ICTs in Education, Athens, Vol. 1 (pp.399-406). Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77-90. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wenger, E. (1998).Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1979). The regulation of human action and the given-new organization of private speech. In G. Zivin (Ed.), The development of self-regulation through private speech (pp.79-98). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wu, H., Larsen, S. & Andersson, G. (2003, June 30–July 2). Web-based learning in teacher education: Advanced technology and appropriate tackling. Proceedings of IASTED International Conference, Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, CATE 2003, Rhodes, Greece, (pp.155-160). Calgary: Acta Press.

Key worDs AnD DefInItIons Course Assessment: Assessment to determine the extent to which a specific course is achieving its stated learning goals. E-Learning: Electronic learning (or e-Learning or eLearning) is a type of education where the medium of instruction is related to Information and Communication Technologies.

775

Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community

Information and Communication Technologies: A term used to encompass all forms of computing systems, telecommunications and networks. Learning Communities: A learning community is a group of people who share common values and beliefs and are actively engaged in learning together, mostly from each other. Moderation: A process within a course, during which teachers design, facilitate and direct the cognitive and social activities for the purpose of improving learning outcomes.

776

Multiple Correspondence Analysis: A method that aims to explain the relationships between multiple variables that are identified on identical or different measurement scales, and may include categorical data. Social Network Analysis: In its simplest form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between nodes being studied. The nodes are usually individuals tied by specific types of interdependency, such as values, ideas, exchange of communication, friendship etc. Social Network Analysis is a method of analysis used in order to study social relationships within a social network, in terms of nodes and ties.

777

Chapter XLVIII

Automated Essay Scoring Systems Dougal Hutchison National Foundation for Educational Research, UK

AbstrAct This chapter gives a relatively non-technical introduction to computer programs for marking of essays, generally known as Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems. It identifies four stages in the process, which may be distinguished as training, summarising mechanical and structural aspects, describing content, and scoring, and describes how these are carried out in a number of commercially available programs. It considers how the validity of the process may be assessed, and reviews some of the evidence on how successful they are. It also discusses some of the ways in which they may fall down and describes some research investigating this. The chapter concludes with a discussion of possible future developments, and offers a number of searching questions for administrators considering the possibility of introducing AES in their own schools

I. IntroDuctIon Constructed response material is being increasingly used as part of the overall assessment process, as awareness of the limitations of multiple choice testing becomes more widespread. Such constructed material- portfolios, project work, essays- while not completely supplanting closed response materials, offers the possibility of assessing a wider, and possibly more valid, range of skills.

Essays in particular require the ability to construct, organise and justify ideas, all essential skills in many jobs today. Further, practice in writing essays is in itself an important part of developing writing and communication skills. From the other side of the desk, teachers find essay marking an important part of the formative assessment process, which can give important insights into the extent to which their pupils have grasped a topic, and are able to communicate their understanding. The downside of this of course is the cost in time

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

and money of doing this. In England and Wales the marking of the written section of the National Curriculum Assessment cost some £18 million in a single year (Gunter, 2004), and it has been stated (Mason and Grove-Stephenson, 2002) that teachers take up to 30 per cent of their time in marking. There is clearly an opportunity for some kind of automation of the procedure. Computers, and applications which make use of their specialist properties, it seems, are everywhere in our lives, from our correspondence to our toasters. They seem similarly ubiquitous in education settings, potentially delivering the subject, assessing, and interpreting the results. In some instances, too, they help blur the distinction between the learning aspect of the process, and the assessment (Boyle and Hutchison, 2008). Thus for example, a flight simulator could be used in the first stages of training of pilots, and at the same time give an impression of when it might be safe to let the trainee loose on an actual aeroplane. Assessments can be delivered by computer: for example lab work can be assessed without the accompanying spillage of water. Some types of testing would be extremely difficult to score without computer input, for example any kind of IRT scoring, and the process of delivery and assessment is combined in computer adaptive testing, for example in the NFER-Mental Mathematics test (Vappula, Morrison, Hutchison and Boyle, 2004). However, one aspect of assessment that has not been extensively affected by computerisation, until relatively recently, is that of essay marking. Yet this too is changing.

II. AutomAteD essAy scorIng systems A number of programs (Automated Essay Scoring, or AES, Systems) are described in the literature. These vary in the extent to which they are generally available in a usable form: this chapter will concentrate for the most part on the

778

larger, commercially available systems. The first to be developed, by some margin, is Project Essay Grade (PEG), which first started in the 1960s, but has more recently been revived in an updated form (Page, 2003). Three other major systems are Intellimetric ™ (Elliot, 2003) and the Intelligent Essay Assessor ™ (IEA) (Landauer, Laham and Foltz, 2003) and e-rater ® (Burstein, 2003, Attali and Burstein, 2006). The work of Larkey and Croft (2003) has been significant in this area, and while it appears that there is no corresponding commercially available program, the program BETSY ((Rudner and Liang, 2002)), currently freeware, appears to share much of the same theoretical features. There is a bewildering and impressive range of techniques used in such AES systems, and in what follows the functioning of a few will be described as far as possible. The programs differ in the extent to which it is possible to discern what they actually do. Some, such as e-rater®, do describe publicly and quite extensively what they do: others cloak what they do under a cloak of commercial confidentiality. The descriptions to follow are taken from those produced by the developers, rather than from any personal knowledge of the inside workings of the packages. These systems are under constant development, so aspects of these descriptions may well date: for the latest information consult the respective websites. The majority of the systems I have managed to identify are centred round English, though Intellimetric is also operational in other languages, Malay, Turkish, Spanish and Chinese (Edelblut, 2008). Burstein and Chodorow (1999) discuss AES for non-native English speakers. Much of what follows will refer to e-rater®, because of the quality of its documentation, but the absence of reference to other AES packages should not necessarily be taken as indicating they lack the relevant features, merely that these are not publicly documented. Typically AES systems have four different aspects, though some may differ in details.

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

These are: • • • •

Training Mechanical/ structural Content Scoring

training Nearly all AES systems take as their starting point a ‘training set’ of essays, in some instances as few as 50, but more frequently several hundred, and in some instances as many as 1000 (Rudner, Garcia and Welsh, 2005). Recent developments mean in one system that this requirement is less central in that there is now the potential that the training set does not in fact need to be on the same prompts as the essay to be scored (Attali and Burstein, 2006). Generally each essay in the training set is scored in this way by two human ‘raters’ or ‘judges’, typically using a four- to six-point scale. The AES program is then set to ‘learn’ to reproduce the human marking on these ‘training’ essays. A properly conducted procedure will then undertake a further stage, in which the algorithm for scoring is cross-validated using a second, independent, set of data. If the whole data set is used for the ‘training set’ there is a danger of ‘over’-fitting’ so that an apparently good prediction fit is obtained which is based to a substantial part on random fluctuations: cross-validation is a standard method of protecting against this (Keith, 2003).

mechanical/structural e-rater® has two modules that can be classified under this heading, syntax and discourse. The syntax module uses Natural language Processing (NLP) methods, i.e. the application of computational methods to analyse characteristics of electronic files of text or speech. NLP was originally developed to use in automatic machine translation from one language to another, but the knowledge and experience gained in this research

has proved central in the AES field. Essays are dissected using routines referred to by such names as taggers, parsers and chunkers (Burstein and Marcu, 2000). These identify the part of speech of each word, determine the relationships with other words, and group them together to form larger units such as noun and verb phrases. This stage also identifies different types of clauses, such as infinitive, complement and subordinate. A number of characteristics are measured, for example e-rater® v2 collects information on errors in grammar, usage and mechanics under five headings, agreement errors, verb formation errors, wrong word use, missing punctuation and typographical errors. The approach here is statistical and based on a large corpus of material: it looks for unusual bigrams, for example ‘much persons’ would be come up as an unusual bigram compared with the frequencies of ‘much’ and ‘persons’ (Attali and Burstein, 2006). Ratios of syntax structure per essay and per sentence are calculated as possible measures of syntactic variety (Burstein and Marcu, 2000). e-rater®’s discourse module uses the syntactic information from the first stage as well as cue words, such as ‘firstly’, ‘second’ and ‘finally’ to identify stage in and organisation of an essay. (Burstein, Kukich, Wolff, Lu and Chodorow, 1998). These cues are then used to break the essay up into partitions based upon individual content arguments. This module provides measures directly, such as number of pronouns beginning arguments, rhetorical words beginning arguments and so on. It also acts as a tool to divide the essay up into argument units as an input for the third module, the topical content module. Burstein, Marcu and Knight (2000) show an essay dissected by human raters as follows: A Student Essay with Annotated Discourse Elements: “You can’t always do what you want to do!” my mother said. She scolded me for doing what I thought was best for me. It is

779

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

very difficult to do something that I do not want to do. But now that I am mature enough to take responsibility for my actions, I understand that many times in our lives we have to do what we should do. However, making important decisions, like determining your goal for the future, should be something that you want to do and enjoy doing. I’ve seen many successful people who are doctors, artists, teachers, designers, etc. <Main Point>In my opinion they were considered successful people because they were able to find what they enjoy doing and worked hard for it. It is easy to determine that he/she is successful, not because it’s what others think, but because he/she have succeed in what he/she wanted to do. In Korea, where I grew up, many parents seem to push their children into being doctors, lawyers, engineer etc. <Main Point>Parents believe that their kids should become what they believe is right for them, but most kids have their own choice and often doesn’t choose the same career as their parent’s. <Support>I’ve seen a doctor who wasn’t happy at all with her job because she thought that becoming doctor is what she should do. That person later had to switch her job to what she really wanted to do since she was a little girl, which was teaching. Parents might know what’s best for their own children in daily base, but deciding a long term goal for them should be one’s own decision of what he/she likes to do and want to do

content Much of the original development in the area of AES relates to scoring of essays for style. But

780

this is by no means the whole story, and scoring of essay for content is also a very important area of development. Having a good essay writing style is only a means to the end of conveying information, and there is considerable interest in classifying and assessing content, for example in science, or history. As might be expected, computer marking of constructed responses for content tends to operate in a somewhat different way from marking for style, and, in some ways, is possibly less controversial. If all the teacher wants to do is to check that the class have ‘got’ that the earth revolves round the sun, then it is conceptually not too difficult to ascertain whether a pupil’s answer shows this knowledge. How the responses are marked varies according to the length of the answer required and at the same time the amount of active input required form the pupil. At the one end of the continuum, there could be multiple response questions: at the other end would be something like a PhD thesis in which the student would not only aim to produce completely independent input, but even define the question the topic treated. In practice one would discount both ends of this continuum for AES systems. Techniques for computer marking of constructed responses vary with the length of the response envisioned. Thus, where the response is simply a question of the respondent supply a one- or two- word response, little more is needed than a list of synonyms, and rules for distinguishing borderline cases. Where a constructed response requires the identification and re-presentation of a relatively small number of salient facts, content marking requires an analysis of a model response to see what these would be, together with alternative ways of stating them. Some interesting developments are under currently way in the United Kingdom, scoring more complex but still predominantly factual responses (Intelligent Assessment Technologies, 2006, Mitchell et al 2003, Sukkarieh et al, 2003, Christie, 2003). Thus for example, Mitchell et al (2003) suggest that if the model answer is the

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

earth rotates round the sun, this contains three concepts, earth, rotate, around the sun, then the template for responses could contain possible alternative responses for each of these. Thus: • • •

The world rotates around the sun The earth is orbiting around the sun The earth travels in space around the sun

would all fall within the acceptable response framework. Longer and more intellectually sophisticated writing seems to need more elaborate systems. Two main approaches to classification and assessment of content are described in the AES literature, text categorisation (TCT) (Larkey and Croft, 2003, Palmer, Williams and Dreher, 2002) and singular value decomposition (SVD) (Landauer, Laham and Foltz, 2003). Both make the assumption that the meaning of a passage comes purely from the words, with the structure being relatively unimportant (the so-called ‘bag of words’ approach). This implies that ‘man bites dog’ is not viewed differently from ‘dog bites man’, a rather worrying simplification. The most intuitive approach is described in Larkey and Croft (2003). They indicate that the classification features used comprise mainly words classified by stem (i.e. ‘dogs’ = ‘dog’ in this application), but also some bigrams. All the distinct words in a document are represented in a vector, one element for each word, and a weighting related to the number of times the word occurs in a document. One of the potential problems in this type of approach is that it appears to be very data-hungry: one of the classifications reported by Larkey and Croft (2003) used as many as 680 features for some classifiers, and the recommendation for the number of training essays for BETSY is the highest among programs reviewed at 1000 (Dikli, S. 2006). Some kind of data reduction procedure is clearly called for: this is supplied in the application now described.

Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) is a technique essentially comparable to factor analysis or principal components analysis, to equate apparently different words or expressions which actually convey the same meaning and then used, again essentially as factor analysis, to reduce the dimensionality of the analysis to a more manageable scale. Having done this, vectors of scores for quality and quantity of content are calculated and new essays scored by finding the tests in the training set with the highest correlation (cosine) with the text to be scored. A useful description of this can be found in Miller (2003). Published applications of this type of technique mostly relate to older students. These techniques have been applied to social studies, physics, law, biology, history and psychology (Larkey and Croft, 2003; Landauer et al, 2003, Landauer, Foltz, & Laham, 1998). LSA is a technique that reduces the potentially large number of distinct words in the essays to a smaller (but still quite large) number of groups of words, the words in each group being thematically linked. Haley et al (2003) describe how the technique uses a corpus of text to infer meaning and equate apparently different words with equivalent meanings. The LSA technique is of value in a wide range of applications, such as the measurement of textual coherence, summarising and intelligent tutoring systems, as well as AES (Lenhard, 2007).Probably the majority of the corpora used are in English, but Landauer has been quoted as that the technique could be used to score essays in any language (Ingbretsen, 2008). Examples of the use of corpora in other languages such as French, Japanese or German have been described, and one application has circumvented the process of creating a corpus by translating the essays into English before scoring them (Ishioka and Kameda, 2006; Lenhard et. al 2007; Dessus and Lemaire, 1999; Perez et. al, 2005)

781

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

scoring Once the program has amassed a large number of essay characteristics, the next stage is to determine how these are to be converted to scores on the essays. There are two main statistical approaches, regression type models, and k-nearest neighbour comparisons. In the former multiple regression prediction is used taking as the outcome the results of judgments by expert raters and as predictors the various qualities and measurements made by the program up to that point. The details of the procedures used vary in detail between programs. Thus e-rater® uses stepwise regression, while IEA uses hierarchical/sequential entry, PEG uses forced entry regression (Keith, 2003) and Larkey and Croft (2003) used Bayesian classifiers. Programs also differ in the precise selection of predictor variables used in the regression. Thus IEA generally uses content, style and mechanics composite scores, while PEG uses all the smaller counts and tallies and e-rater® uses some counts and some composites. Bayesian Classifier methods ‘train’ the program to distinguish ‘good’ from ‘bad’ essays using a number of features in the texts. Larkey and Croft (2003) describe their research in which this approach is used experimentally to grade essays, produced in response to five different essay stems, into six levels. The author is not aware of any corresponding generally available computer package, but BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem) is a program which uses Bayesian classification methods to provide computer grading of essays on a four point scale (Rudner and Liang, 2002). The other ‘statistical’ approach is the k-nearest neighbour comparison. In this a vector of the measured characteristics of each candidate essay in turn is compared with essays in the training group by cosine. The candidate score is taken as the mean of the score of the k nearest essays thus ascertained. Landauer, Laham and Foltz (2003) give a good explanation of this procedure.

782

Recent developments however offer the possibility of pre-specifying the predictor variables and using user-chosen weighting of the combination of classification variables if it is required to emphasise or de-emphasise certain aspects (Attali and Burstein, 2006).

III. how well Do Aes systems score essAys? It seems counter-intuitive that a mere machine should be able to grade something as personal as a piece of creative writing, so assessing the programs themselves is obviously an important question. The performance of AES programs on the latter has been assessed extensively by their developers (see Shermis & Burstein, 2003). And the answer to the question ‘how well?’ is ‘surprisingly well’, surprisingly at least to those new to the field. First, however, the criterion for ‘success’ has to be defined. Keith (2003) discusses how the various conceptions of validity can be applied to AES. If human raters are indeed able to score prose for general writing skill or content with some degree of validity, then simple correlations of scores with human ratings provide evidence that AES is indeed able to measure the construct of writing. He considers that these correlations may also be considered evidence of reliability and criterionrelated reliability. Most of the assessments of the validity of AES have taken this form, and these will be discussed first. Other types of validity have also been used to some extent, and these will be discussed later. Most AES systems work on the basis of using a training set, marked by at least two human markers, and setting up a procedure to reproduce the human results. It is thus an obvious check to look at how close the computer mark is to some function of human results. One such criterion is the mean of the human raters. Correlations between computer scores and human rater scores

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

show that the agreement is as high as that between human graders. Another is what is described as the ‘true score’. What constitutes a “true” score is open to interpretation, but in these investigations it is defined as the mean of scores from a relatively large number of human markers, usually six or more. Under this definition, it is found that the computer grading agrees more closely with the “true” score than do the individual human markers. Commercially available packages generally describe the results of such comparisons. AES systems have two main types of aims, though these are not necessarily completely distinct, namely formative feedback to improve writing, and assigning a score to the essays. The author is aware of little reported work on the success of systems in improving essays, though Bennett (Bennett, 1999) noted that unless this was done in a sophisticated way, simply manipulating essay features, such as length, to improve overall rating, could actually reduce the quality. The classic test for the success or otherwise of an artificial intelligence application, albeit a largely conceptual one, is known as the Turing test, after the mathematician Alan Turing who played a fundamental role in the invention of the computer. In this test (Turing, 1950) for artificial intelligence an interrogator puts questions via a teleprinter to the computer and to a human being. The computer wins if the interrogator cannot distinguish between the two from their (anonymous) answers. It is an adversarial approach, with the computer potentially being programmed to mislead the interrogator. In fact, since the AES programs reviewed here are stated to correlate more closely with the “true” score than do any of the individual humans, the essay marking program could potentially fail this version of the Turing test by performing too well: in this context, we are left with the paradoxical situation that to perform on a comparable level to human markers the computer would have to include deliberate errors.

In the original formulation the Turing test is not really relevant to computer marking of essays, and Page (2003, 52) implemented a “newer version” in which essays were passed under a number of doors, one of which conceals a computer, and the rest conceal human markers. In this, which could be called the Page test, the computer was considered to be successful after about 300 essays since it is the one that agrees most closely with the other markers. Williams (2001) and Keith (2003) present the results of a number of studies. Agreement figures are quite variable, but for official assessments on the more recent versions of the programs correlations of 0.7, and ‘agreement figures’ of 0.8, or over are to be expected. There are a number of features to be borne in mind in interpreting these results. i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

It should be noted that unless otherwise stated these results refer to ‘exact plus adjacent’ agreement. When the focus is on exact agreement, the performance figures are much less impressive. For example Hutchison (2007) shows ‘exact’ agreement of approximately 40 per cent, compared with ‘exact + approximate’ around 87 per cent. Some writers, e.g. Larkey and Croft (2003) give a figure relating to the degree of prediction on the original training set, rather than a validation set, so this will result in a higher value of agreement. A separate validation set, preferably not available to AES (Keith, 2003) while setting up the scoring equation is even better. The Landauer et al (2003) figure relates to correspondence between the computer score and a single marker, so will give a slightly lower agreement than other figures, which relate to the mean of several scorers. Ability range of those tested. Keith (2003) comments that ‘it is likely that the (humancomputer) correlation (reported for Intellimetric in Elliot, 2003) is inflated due to

783

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

the extended range of the sample’, which ranged from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Attali and Burstein (2006) suggest that there are two other validation approaches to be used. In the first, AES scores are compared with other measures of the same or similar construct. They reference only two such studies, Elliot (2001) and Powers et al (2002). Attali and Burstein (2006) investigated this by taking as an external standard different essays submitted by the same pupils to 6th -12th grade assessment. Correlations were between 0.5 and 0.6, and the true-score correlation (i.e. corrected for attenuation) was 0.97. The final validation approach suggested lies in understanding the scoring processes that AES uses. There are few studies of this type of approach. Powers et al (2002) reported on the most commonly used features used in scoring models, but found that, with the exception of four features, different scoring models used different features. Working with a restricted range of pre-selected features, and Attali and Burstein (2006) were able to gain a sense of their relative importance in prediction of a human score. They found that Organisation and Development features had on average the highest weights of the ten features studied, and that the relative importance of O & D features increased for the older pupils. Conversely, grammar, Usage and Mechanics tended to decrease in influence over the seven years from 6th to 12th.

Iv. why they worK AES does not actually read and understand an essay. In evaluating AES systems, it is important to realise that they are all statistics-based. Whereas human raters may directly rate features of interest, for example diction, fluency and grammar, AES uses indicators of these. One popular method of setting scores, used in e-rater ®, is stepwise regression which adds predictor variables one at

784

a time until there is no longer a useful increase in the accuracy of the prediction. Typically this reduces the number of variables actually used in the classification to of the order of 10, though these 10 vary between applications (Burstein et. al 1998). PEG, on the other hand uses all predictor variables (Keith, 2003). The use of regression has a number of aspects which are important to understanding the operation of AES. i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

In stepwise regression, not all the features quantified by the computer will be included in the eventual prediction equation. The aspects chosen are fairly unsystematic, and not known to the majority of personnel involved, and vary from application to application. While PEG uses all the candidate predictors, the reader is not told what they are except for a few. Even if all predictor variables are forced in, giving the same set of predictors for all analyses, the ways in which they are combined (the ‘weights’) vary from application to application. Some can even be negative. A statistical AES will find optimal solutions for a specific set, but it will produce different solutions in different situations, including different constituent factors and different weights. The process is purely statistical and essentially atheoretical from a language point of view. The over-riding criterion is maximising the correlation. It is a statistical truism that, even with totally random data, with enough predictor variables, one can predict an outcome to any required degree of accuracy simply by using enough predictor variables. In the extreme case one could get perfect prediction by using one variable per case: most investigations protect against such capitalising on chance by trying out the predictor formula on a cross-validation set of data. If the prediction

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

is in fact simply random then the formula will be ineffective on the new data. vii. For this reason, adding too many predictor variables is suspect from a statistical point of view. More means less in fact. Comparable objections are likely to apply to other ‘statistical’ methods, for example to Bayesian classifiers, and to k-nearest neighbours methods. It is likely in fact that any non-transparent method of scoring will suffer from most of these problems. The ‘black box’ nature of the process whereby, to give a hostile description which the author encountered at a conference, unspecified quantities are combined in variable and unknown proportions using techniques only known to specialists to provide an answer that the average teacher doesn’t really believe. Thus while in PEG uses over 100 unspecified variables (Keith, 2003) while Intellimetric is stated to use over 300 and TCT applications (Larkey and Croft, 2003) use over 600. The only program of which the author is aware that makes a serious attempt to meet these objections is e-rater ® v2, which carries out the eventual scoring using 8 fixed pre-stated predictors with corresponding to identifiable dimensions of writing, and allows the user to specify the weights each of these predictors should have. It is rather disconcerting to find that in some circumstances computer programs compare so well with human markers. Recent research has been finding that computers using a relatively small selection of predictors do indeed perform better than experts in fields such as wine vintages and the success of Hollywood blockbusters (Ayres, I. 2007). If human markers have more subject knowledge and more stylistic awareness of writing, how can computers reproduce their markings so well? One reason is that good writing qualities tend to be correlated: for example Landauer et al (2003) state that handwriting scores and LSA scores for

the same essays correlated 0.76, even though the LSA system had no access to the handwritten essays. Further, the fact that the fourth root of the essay length is a very good predictor does not mean that writers should pad out their essays to increase the fourth root of the length. Indicators are picked because they are thought to have some relationship with desirable quantities, but it doesn’t mean that they actually cause it. Students who are knowledgeable, fluent and literate, and good at producing argument will generally write longer essays than the tongue-tied, unlearned and disorganised. A second reason lies in the nature of the qualities that the AES program is seeking. Measures such as errors in agreement, verb formation, word use, punctuation and typographical errors; measures of style, organisation, development, vocabulary level, word length, as well as promptspecific vocabulary usage are all ‘mechanical’ aspects (Attali and Burstein, 2006), but the average teacher would be quite pleased if all his or her trainee essay writers were able to perform well on all these aspects. This discussion so far has related to the more ‘mechanical’ aspects of essay writing, and thus the most accessible to computer manipulation. A second consideration relates to the content of the essay, which one would expect to be one of the least ‘mechanical’ the parts of the essay. LSA uses SVD, which accounts for synonyms and allied concepts, but takes no account of word ordering. The close correlation with human scorers suggests that at least in the context of examination essays, language may be over-engineered, and word combination conveys essentially all the meaning and word order is relatively unimportant (Landauer et al, 2003). Finally there are two statistical aspects. First, for technical reasons, to do with aggregating results, correlations with the mean of the human rater scores will be larger than those with an individual score. Second, when a computer carries out its scoring procedure, it does so in exactly the same

785

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

way for every case, so that in effect it is using the information from all other scores to score the one under investigation. By contrast, though the AES scorer will base scores as rigidly as desired on mechanical instructions, the human marker, while adhering closely to official guidelines in each case, will to some extent come to each essay anew. Many working in the area would consider this a definite advantage, but it is likely to mean somewhat lower consistency. Thus, for example, one teacher might give credit to a script because she could ‘see what it was driving at’, while another might not. The computer would not exhibit this type of specific variation.

v. where Aes systems fAll Down Such reported assessments give impressive results, yet doubts must remain. Obviously some will never be convinced: a machine can never do everything a human being can. It gives pause that in some of the earlier investigations an essay could be graded purely on structural features, such as number of words, so that an off-topic essay could be marked correct; or that the meaning of a passage could be completely summed up by the meaning of its words. What would be the point of writing an essay, as opposed to an ungrammatical string of words, in this situation? Older programs worked well with “good faith” essays, probably because desirable features are correlated, but “awkward squad” essays could be more problematic. For example, if a program depends solely on structural factors, an irrelevant but well-constructed essay would soon distinguish human from computer marking. Conversely if a program depends solely on the individual words in an essay, then an unstructured string of words could perform the same discrimination. These are extreme cases, and programs, do not necessarily work in such a simplistic way (Attali and Burstein, 2006).

786

So far there has been little published work assessing “beating the system”, though an entertaining article (Powers, Burstein, Chodorow, Fowles and Kukich, 2001) describes an attempt. Writing experts were invited to compose essays in response to Graduate Record Examinations Writing Assessment Prompts to trick one AES system into giving scores that were higher or lower than merited. Twenty-seven participants, ranging from a professor of applied linguistics with forty years experience to undergraduates with no specified experience took part, producing a total of 63 essays between them. Results were mixed. It seemed to be easier to fool the program into giving too high a grade (86 per cent success of 30) than to give too low a grade (42 per cent of 24). The most successful competitor, who persuaded the AES to give the highest possible score of 6 points, while human raters gave the lowest score of 1 point, did so by simply repeating several paragraphs a large number of times. Successful candidates who induced a substantial discrepancy towards higher AES scores produced essays that missed the boat on content or logic, but used structural features valued by the program. By contrast, only two essays tricked the program into giving scores that were too low. These made extensive use of metaphor and literary allusion, and ‘more subtle’ transitions than expected by the program. Of course one is not only interested in adversarial attempts to ‘beat the system’, imaginative though these may be. Hutchison (2007) investigated characteristics of essays on which there were substantial discrepancies between an AES program (e-rater®) and expert human markers. One would expect that the more intuitive approach of a human examiner would be more likely to identify evidence of more abstract concepts such as relevance and, especially, interest, and mark a script up or down accordingly. This is what was observed on Particularly engaging for reader, Inappropriate content, Pedestrian content, Drift, apparent lack of organisation, Some ambitious constructs, Inaccurate vs accurate

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

and Pedestrian vs lively. It was also noted that Plausible misspellings were associated with higher scores by humans, perhaps because human markers are more able to impute meaning and make sense of an otherwise impenetrable passage. Conversely one would expect no great difference between humans and machines on factors (mainly errors) which are relatively easily identified by either, and this is what is observed on Paragraphs demarcated, Apparent paragraph division, Chronological markers, Speech correctly demarcated with inverted commas, Inappropriate use of connectives, Comma splice evident, Over- or mechanistic use of variation in punctuation, Weak spelling and Upper case letters used within sentences. On the other hand, a number of relatively mechanistic criteria distinguish between human and computer scoring. These included Tenses consistent, Layout/ format conforms to accepted style, Variation in tenses used appropriately, Variety in verb use, Basic sentence punctuation inconsistent, Dialogue not always demarcated, Insecure punctuation leads to long sentences. Some relatively intuitive concepts apparently failed to distinguish between computer and human marking, where one would have predicted that they might. These included Drift between narrative and non-narrative, Sophisticated vocabulary used inappropriately and Sophisticated vocabulary, perhaps because they occurred too infrequently. Landauer, Laham and Foltz (2003) refer to some plagiarism checks, and Attali and Burstein (2006) mention systems to identify anomalous and bad faith essays. Reasonably enough, these are not described.

vI. conclusIons AES is a topic that occasions strong views, in one direction or the other. Thus for example John

Mortimer, the playwright and Rumpole author, called the concept “lunacy”. He said: “How can a computer listen to the sound of words? How can it decide whether ideas are original or not?” By contrast, the managing director of the examination board Edexcel said he had been astounded by the software’s accuracy (Brettingham, 2006). To date there are two main application areas suggested for computer marking, help with drafting (formative), and marking of results (summative). Mostly this chapter has concentrated on summative applications, though increasingly such applications are also offering formative feedback to help improve writing. See, for example Write to Learn (Pearson, 2006) or e-rater® v2, (Attali and Burstein, 2006) in marking for style, or Intelligent Assessment Technologies (2006) in marking for content. Summative assessment does not explain the reasons for scoring a particular essay, or offer suggestions for improvement: it is effectively a black box, attempting to reproduce human grading using statistical techniques. However the model used is relatively general and need not be confined only to producing an overall score. Increasingly AES programs are able to produce assessments on various aspects of the essays, such as style, punctuation or purpose and organisation. The developments and results discussed here are startling to the lay person for two reasons. First that the degree of exact agreement between human markers is so low: for example Hutchison (2007) quotes just over 40 per cent agreement, on average, for 11-year-olds, even assessed by specially trained and experienced markers: the degree of agreement could be expected to be lower in everyday use. Secondly, of course, that a computer can do so well. What of the Turing test, or its modification, the Page test, referred to earlier in the paper? As shown earlier in this paper, many of the currently available AES programs come close to passing the Page test. Indeed, in some instances it might even be necessary to reduce the performance of the machine to render it more similar to humans.

787

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

However, passing the Turing test in its original, adversarial, form may still be some way off. Older programs work well with “good faith” essays, probably because desirable features are correlated, but “awkward squad” essays could be more problematic. For example if a program depends solely on structural factors, an irrelevant but well-constructed essay would soon distinguish human from machine. Conversely if a program depends solely on the individual words in an essay, then an unstructured string of words could perform the same discrimination. These are extreme cases, and programs, especially the newer ones such as e-rater®, do not work in such a simplistic way. One could imagine a certain sort of student having fun trying to “beat the system” in this kind of way. Research applications such as are reported in the literature are necessarily somewhat artificial. A more serious source of practical problems lies in those whose orientation is coaching students to pass, rather than to become good writers. While a program can identify certain characteristics of an essay as being correlated with good essays in a research context, this relation may not continue to hold in the real world: when it becomes known that the program ‘likes’ certain style aspects, then these are likely to be emphasised. One way to minimise this is to increase the number of dimensions assessed. Essays could be flagged up for human inspection if they are particularly strong on one dimension and not on another. Even the most sophisticated programs, basing their assessment on a number of dimensions, can still miss out on important intrinsic qualities of an essay, such as whether it was lively or pedestrian. Perhaps it will never be possible to pass the Turing test: there may always be an aspect of writing style or content that can be adduced to distinguish human marking Could AES replace human markers? To take an example, e-rater v2 assesses writing on the basis of Grammar, usage, mechanics, style, organisation, development, lexical complexity and

788

prompt-specific vocabulary usage. It does this by forming counts of various features, mainly words, and combinations of words. This is simply not the same as reading an essay: nor would one expect it to be. However, and having said that, the average secondary school teacher would be pretty pleased if his or her charges were able to perform well on all of these dimensions. Perhaps a useful analogy would be would be determining whether someone was good-looking on the basis of an X-ray. You might be able to make a surprisingly good estimate on the basis of age, height, build, regularity of features, body mass index, and so on. This would still leave the unanswered question of human perception. If AES were to be used as the sole arbiter of essay quality, then it is likely that such mechanical aspects would be disproportionately emphasised as a way of easily obtaining higher marks. Even were the teaching profession prepared to accept AES, it would not be desirable for such reasons. One way in which it could be of value, however, would be in acting as a ‘second marker’ to back up teacher marking. As far as summative assessment is concerned, an AES system could be of great importance in high-stakes testing. It could flag up instances where an individual essay appeared to have an anomalous mark. It could also pick up examples of plagiarism. At the level of the individual pupil essay, a highly discrepant marking could act as a flag for further investigation (Monaghan and Bridgeman, 2005). Its main benefit would seem to be at a level aggregated beyond individual pupils. It could be used to identify where a marker appeared to be functioning in an erratic fashion, or to check comparability between markers working on the same test. Particularly interesting would be to ensure that marking remained at the same level between different prompts. In England and Wales it could be used as part of the ‘downstream’ output of the National Curriculum Assessment: aggregated scores from assessments are published and used by parents in selecting schools for their

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

children. There has to be pressure on schools to inflate the marks awarded on assessments: subtle biases at individual pupil level could be difficult to identify, but aggregated to school level, could be more readily identified. However, the existing packages are still not perfect. Even the most sophisticated programs can still miss out on important intrinsic qualities of an essay, such as whether it was lively or pedestrian. One could imagine an AES program marking Shakespeare’s school essays down, because he used so many words that the other children didn’t use. Indeed I have an ambition to see how some of the more famous authors would be scored by an essay marking program. Perhaps it will never be possible for a computer completely to replicate human marking: there may always be an aspect of writing style or content that can be adduced to distinguish human marking from machine marking. Could a machine determine whether an essay was boring? Or showed flair? Or was funny? One of the developers puts this point very well (Latent Semantic Analysis) training always falls short of the background knowledge that human beings bring to any task, experience based on more and different text, and, more important, on interaction with the world, other people and spoken language. In addition, on both a sentence and a larger discourse level, it fails to measure directly such qualities as rhyme, sound symbolism, cadence, alliteration and other aspects of the beauty and elegance of literary expression. It is clear for example that the method would be insufficient for evaluating poetry or important separate aspects of creative writing. (Landauer et al, 2003, 109) The author’s view is that AES could never completely replace human scoring. The very human emotion of mistrust both by teachers and pupils will mean that it will never be completely accepted. This mistrust is intensified by the

tendency by at least some of the available essay marking programs to be so secretive about their functioning. However, especially since everyone is producing essays using a word-processor these days, AES could be of substantial value as a formative tool, helping students eliminate obvious stylistic and grammatical errors, and get their work into the proper shape before formal assessment. Something like this could even be incorporated into word-processing packages. Most AES development has taken place in the US, and in English. One system has been implemented in a range of languages such as English (all variants), Spanish, Hebrew, Chinese, Bahasa Malay and Turkish in operational programs (Edelblut, 2008, personal communication) and an AES has been implemented in Japanese(Ishioka and Kameda, 2006). A system which produces feedback in a range of languages is available for essays written in English by ESL students (Warschauer and Ware, 2006). Some kind of developments have been reported in Spanish, French, German and Arabic (Lonsdale and Strong-Krause, 2003) and Landauer et al (1998) has argued that the LVA approach is applicable to other languages more generally. Much of the intellectual development trail blazing has already been carried out, though implementing such applications as corpora and/ or parsing and NLP is still going to be a major task. It may be that future developments in other languages will be precipitated by a wish to emphasise national identity. In conclusion, twenty years ago, it would have been difficult to imagine that the computer marking of essays could have got as far as it has today. Over the coming twenty years the only thing that is certain is that spectators will be surprised at how it develops.

vII. some QuestIons for ADmInIstrAtors 1.

Assuming that it’s not just a gimmick, what do you want to use AES for? 789

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

a.

2.

3.

790

Is it to save money? Is the marking the most expensive part, or would it be more efficient to look elsewhere in the process? b. Are you interested in assessing content or style? c. Is a single number score going to be enough? d. Giving more flexibility in time and place of administration. What do you expect to get out of adopting AES? a. Do you feel that consistency is more important than face validity? b. Will this help to ensure an even playing field between students writing on different topics? Or on different occasions? c. What would you consider to be convincing evidence of the validity of AES? d. Are you looking for scoring, feedback, an instructional package, or a check on human markers? Some problems and tricky questions a. What is going to happen to creativity if this is adopted? Is this important, is it adequately covered elsewhere? Or would you be happy if the pupils are capable of writing competently- an ambitious enough aim in itself? b. AES systems are sold on the basis that they are as reliable as human markers. Is this good enough, or should you be looking to improve processes for human marking? And, if so, how? c. Adoption of AES is likely to give an increased degree of reliability for this component of overall assessment. As such, it may sway the balance of influence of different types of assessment. In particular is it likely to favour essay over other types of constructed response, such as portfolios, etc?

d.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

As participants (teachers and pupils) learn to ‘work the system’, is this likely to reduce the quality of essay writing, as they concentrate on mark-improving strategies? Or at least to redirect effort away from important aspects? e. Could it lead to a de-professionalisation of teachers? f. Is the advice going to be as good from a machine as from a teacher who knows the individuals concerned, or will it be mechanical and not relevant to the particular student? How do you get it accepted? a. By teachers? b. By students? c. By parents and the media? d. By yourself? What would it take to convince you that it really was worth introducing? Will it discriminate against certain groups? Probably different ones from usual. It may actually make things easier for certain physically handicapped groups, but could make difficulties for a. Poorer groups, who can’t afford all the latest technological innovations. b. The ‘non-digital natives’ who haven’t been brought up on computers. These would include older people, but not necessarily very much older. The definition of ‘cheating’ is likely to change from copying from other pupils to plagiarism via the Internet. How can this be policed? Can innovations like this be used to reduce the distinction between learning and testing? It has been suggested that such techniques as AES are likely to discriminate against originality. How can this be counteracted?

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

references Attali, Y. and Burstein, Jill, (2006) Automated Essay Scoring with e-rater v2. The Journal of Teaching, Learning and Assessment 4 (3),3-30, 2006. Ayres, I. (2007). Super Crunchers. Cambridge, UK: John Murray. Bennett, R. (1999) Using new technology to improve assessment. In 25th Annual IAEA Conference ‘East meets West’, Bled, Slovenia. Boyle, A. & Hutchison. D. (In Press). Sophisticated tasks in e-assessment: what are they? And what are their benefits? In Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Brettingham, M. (2006). Robo-marking sees off red pen. Times Education Supplement ,18. Burstein, J., Kukich, K., Wolff, S., Lu, C. & Chodorow, M. (1998) Enriching Automated Essay Scoring Using Discourse Marking. In Stede, M., Wanner L, and Hovy, E. Somerset, (Eds), Association for Computational Linguistics, New Jersey: Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers: Proceedings of the Conference (pp.15-21). Burstein, J., and Chodorow, M. (1999). Automated essay scoring for nonnative English speakers. In ACL Conference, 1999. Burstein, J., Marcu, D. and Knight, K. (2000) Finding the WRITE stuff: automatic identification of discourse structure in student essays. IEEE Intelligent Systems: Special Issue on Natural Language Processing, 18 (1), 32-39. Burstein, J. (2003) Automated essay scoring. In M Shermis & J Burstein, (Eds.), Automated essay scoring (pp. 113-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burstein, Jill, and Marcu, D.(2000) Benefits of Modularity in an Automated Essay Scoring System. In Coling-2000 Workshop on Using

Toolsets and Architectures to Build NLP Systems, Luxembourg. Christie. J. (2003) Automated marking of essays for content. Presented at Symposium: Automated free text assessment, SCROLLA, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK. Dessus,P. and Lemaire, B. (1999) APex, un systeme d’aide a la preparation d’examens. Sciences et techniques educatives, 6 (2), 409-415. Dikli, S. (2006) An Overview of Automated Scoring of Essays. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5 (1). Edelblut, P. (2008) Personal communication. Elliot, S. (2001) From here to validity. Presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Elliot, S. (2003) Intellimetric: From here to validity. In M. Shermis and J. Burstein, (Eds.) Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 71-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gunter, B. (2004) Personal Communication. Haley, D., Thomas, P., Nusibeh, P., Taylor, J., & Lefrere, P. (2003) E-Assessment using Latent Semantic Analysis. In Proceedings of the 3rd International LeGE-WG Workshop,Berlin. Swindon, UK: BCS Hutchison, D.(2007) An Evaluation of Computerised Essay Marking for National Curriculum Assessment in the UK for 11 Year Olds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 977987. Ingebretsen, M. (2008). AI essay graders seek high marks for speed and accuracy. IEEE Intelligent Systems, May/June, 5-7. Intelligent Assessment Technologies Ltd. (2006) E-assessment of short-answer questions.

791

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

Ishioka, T. and Kameda, M., (2006). Automated Japanese essay scoring system based on articles written by experts. Proceedings of the 21st interational conference on computational linguistics and 44th annual meeting of the ACL, Sydney, (pp. 233-240). Keith, T. (2003) Validity of automated essay scoring systems. In M. D. Shermis & J Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective, (pp. 147-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284. Landauer T. K., Laham D, and Foltz P. W., (2003). Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Esay Assessor. In M. D. Shermis & J Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective, (pp. 87-112). Larkey, Leah and Croft, W. B. (2003). A text categorisation approach. In: Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective , edited by M Shermis and J Burstein, Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 55-70. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lenhard, W. (2008). Bridging the gap to natural language: a review on intelligent tutoring systems based on latent semantic analysis. Unpublished research paper. Retrieved March 9 2008 from http://www.opus-bayern.de/uni-wuerzburg/volltexte/2008/2798/ Lonsdale, D. and Strong-Krause D. (2003). Automated essay scoring for nonnative English speakers. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 workshop on Building educational applications using natural language processing, Vol. 2 (pp.61-67). Edmonton, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics. Mason, O, and Grove-Stephenson, I. (2002). Automated free text marking with Paperless School.

792

Proceedings of 6th Annual CAA Conference, Loughborough, UK. Miller, T. (2003). Essay assessment with latent semantic analysis. Journal of Education Computing Research 29 (4), 495-512. Mitchell, T., Aldridge, Nicola, Williamson W., & Broomhead, P. (2002). Computer based testing of medical knowledge using short answer free-text items. SCROLLA Invited Paper. Monaghan, W. and Bridgeman B. (2005). e-rater as a quality control on huma scores. R&D Connections, April, 1-4. Pearson. (2006, July 6) Write To Learn added to new digital learning series for middle and high school language arts. Press release, Pearson, San Diego, CA. http://www.pearsoned.com/ pr_2006/070606a.htm Page, E. B. (2003). Project Essay Grade: PEG. In M.Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated Essay Scoring: e cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 43-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Palmer, J., Williams, R., & Dreher, H. (2002). Automated Essay Grading System Applied to a First Year University subject- How Can we do it Better? In Proceedings of Informing Science 2002 Conference, Cork, Ireland, June 19-21. Perez Diana, Alfonseca, E., Rodriguez, Pilar, Gliozo, A.,Strappavara C., & Magnini, B. (2005). About the effects of combining latent semantic analysis with natural language processing techniques for free-text assessment. Revista Signos, 38 (59),325-343. Powers, D. E., Burstein J. C., Chodorow M., Fowles E, & Kukich, K. (2001). Stumping e-rater: Challenging the validity of automated essay scoring (GRE Board Professional Rep. No. 98–08bP) (Research Rep. No. 01–03). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Automated Essay Scoring Systems

Powers, D. E., Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., Fowles, E., & Kukich, K. (2002) Comparing the validity of automated and human scoring of essays. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26,407-425. Rudner, L. M. & Liang, T. (2002). Automated essay scoring using Bayes’ theorem. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 1 (2),3-21. Rudner, L. M., Garcia, Veronica and Welsh, Catherine (2005). An Evaluation of Intellimetric™ Essay Scoring System Using Responses to GMAT® AWA Prompts (GMAC Research report number RR-05-08, 2005). http://www.gmac.com/ gmac/researchandtrends. Shermis, M. D. & Burstein, Jill, (2003). Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sukkarieh, J. Z. Pulman, G., & Raikes, N. (2003). Auto-marking: using computational linguistics to score short, free text responses. Proceedings of 29th International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) Annual Conference, Manchester, UK. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 49, 433-460. Vappula, H., Morrison, J., Hutchison, D. & Boyle, A. (2004). Adaptive Tests- the way forward. NFER Annual Report 2004. Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: defining the classroom agenda. Language teaching research, 10 (2),1-24. Williams R. (2001, February 7-9) Automated essay grading: an evaluation of four conceptual mod-

els. In A. Hermann & M. M. Kulski, Expanding horizons in teaching and learning: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2001. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Automated Essay Scoring (AES): Assigning of a grade to essays using a computer program. Corpus: Reference collection text used to establish stylistic or knowledge base for AES. Cross-Validation: Validating a scoring procedure (here, for essays) by applying it to another set of data. Formative Assessment: A form of assessment intended to give students feedback on their learning progress and to give the teacher an indication of what students have mastered and areas of difficulty. Latent Semantic Analysis: A technique in natural language processing of analyzing relationships. Natural Language Processing: Use of computers to interpret and manipulate words as part of a language. Singular Value Decomposition: A statistical technique for grouping terms in a document according to meaning. Summative Assessment: A form of assessment carried out at the end of a time period and intended to document a learner’s progress.

793

794

Chapter XLIX

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion Bracha Kramarski Bar-Ilan University, Israel

AbstrAct Effects of two online inquiry discussions in mathematics are compared: one inquiry was based on metacognitive feedback guidance (MFG) and the other with no such guidance (NG). The MFG students were exposed to the IMPROVE metacognitive questioning method that serves as cues for solving the problem and features of providing feedback (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003). A total of80 eighth-grade students participated in the study. Students were asked to solve online a real-life task and provide feedback to their peers about the solution process. Results indicated that the MFG students significantly outperformed the NG students in online problem-solving task. The MFG students were engaged more in online discussion with respect to mathematical and metacognitive aspects. They also succeeded more on a delayed written mathematical transfer test. Theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.

IntroDuctIon Rapid advances in computer technologies have facilitated the development of electronic tools and resources that have, in turn, expanded the opportunities to empower students’ mathematical learning. Computers can help create challenging environments for mathematical learning in several ways. Computers can offer tools that support inquiry learning, such as tools to analyse or visualize data, tools that help learners state hypotheses, and tools that help learners manage the learning

process (de Jong, 2006b). Computers can support collaboration among learners, allowing them to communicate, share data, results and ideas, and discuss consequences for the knowledge that is under construction. Researchers pointed out that electronic learning affords learners with opportunities for active, student-centered learning where the students themselves decide what to learn, how to learn, whether they understand the material, when to change plans and strategies, and when to increase effort, based on their own needs and interests

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

pointed out that in such an environment, learners need to be able to regulate, control, and evaluate their own learning progress (Azevedo & Cromely, 2004; Britt and Gabrys, 2001). Although at face value the potential of these opportunities is compelling, research shows that students are usually not in fact “mindfully engaged” when it comes to learning with computerbased tools. Students often get bogged down by the logistics of their work, and focus on superficial measures of progress. They do not see the “big picture” and are unable to consider alternatives to their solution. Furthermore, they do not know how to articulate and explain their reasoning. Thus, students need support in identifying effective ways to reflect upon their ideas and productively regulate them (e.g., Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Kramatski & Mizrachi, 2006; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). The purpose of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of self-regulated learning support in assisting students with online inquiry learning in mathematics. Prior to explicating the design of the study, a brief overview of online inquiry learning in mathematics and self-regulation utilized in the study is provided.

online Inquiry learning in mathematics Standards in the area of mathematical education have largely emphasized the importance of promoting mathematical problem-solving and reasoning skills by inquiry learning (NCTM: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000, PISA: Programme for International Students Assessment, 2003). Inquiry learning is the process of being engaged in learning in which students solve problems, pose questions, construct solutions, and explain their reasoning (e.g., Schraw, Crippen and Hartley, 2006). According to the standards, problems should be based on a wide range of mathematical knowledge and mathematical skills, and often ask solvers to use different representations in their solutions (PISA, 2003).

Furthermore, explanations (also known as justifications) involve constructing, refuting, and comparing arguments using various types of reasoning. Explanations have the potential for engaging students, making students’ thinking visible, and refuting misconceptions (Nussbaum and Sinatra, 2002). One obvious way to bring students into the processes of scientific inquiry is by offering them environments and tasks that allow them to carry out the processes and help them build personal knowledge that they can use and explain what they learn. Online discussion in computer-based learning have facilitated the opportunities to empower inquiry learning. It enables students advocate their own individual opinions, sometimes backed by facts and sometimes unfounded (Sherry, Billig, and Tavalin, 2000). Discussion mediates shared meaning. Through critically examining the reasoning of others and participating in the resolution of disagreements, students learn to monitor their thinking in the service of reasoning about important mathematical concepts (e.g., Artz and Yaloz-Femia, 1999; McClain & Cobb, 2001). However, research indicates that just being engaged in online mathematical discussion is not enough to enhance mathematical inquiry ability. Self-regulated learning support for problem solving and providing elaborated explanations is needed (e.g., Oh & Jonassent, 2007; King, 1992; Kramarski & Mizrachi, 2006).

self-regulation of learning (srl) Self-regulation of learning (SRL) refers to a cyclical and recursive process which utilizes feedback mechanisms for students to understand, control and adjust their learning accordingly (e.g., Butler & Winne, 1995). The process involves a combination of four areas for regulation during learning: Cognition, metacognition, motivation, and context condition (Pintrich, 2000; Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). Cognition refers to strategies of simple problem-solving, and critical thinking.

795

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

Metacognition refers to knowledge (procedural, declarative and conditional) and to regulation of cognitive skills (planning, information managing, monitoring, debugging, and evaluation). Motivation component refers to students’ beliefs in their capacity to learn, values for the task and interest. Finally, context refers to evaluation and monitoring of changing task conditions. Researchers (e.g., Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006) believe that the role of metacognition is especially important because it enables individuals to plan and allocate limited learning resources with optimal efficiency, monitor their current knowledge and skill levels, evaluate their current learning state, and update products through feedback mechanism. According to Butler & Winne (1995), feedback serves a multidimensional role in aiding knowledge construction. Feedback may encourage learners to engage in reflection on why their solution or explanation is wrong and thereby to update their solution strategies. Research on feedback in computer-based learning environments has shown differential effects for feedback strategy on students learning. It was found that corrective feedback helps immediate learning, whereas guided and metacognitive feedback helps in gaining deep understanding and developing the ability to transfer knowledge (Azevedo & Bernard, 1995; Kramarski & Zeichner, 2001; Moreno, 2004). However, most studies examined effects of metacognitive feedback provided by an external agent, such as a computer, and little research was conducted on effects of exchanging metacognitive feedback in online inquiry discussion by the learners. Current research has focused on the role of self-questioning strategy as metacognitive feedback guidance for self-regulation of learning. Such strategy might include a description of why and how students select a specific self regulatory strategy, approach or response within learning (e.g., Azevedo, & Cromley, 2004; Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Schoenfeld, 1992; Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006).

796

ImProve metacognitive feedback guidance Mevarech & Kramarski (1997) designed the IMPROVE method that represents the acronym of all the teaching steps taken in class: Introducing the new concepts; Metacognitive questioning; Practicing; Reviewing; Obtaining mastery; Verification, and Enrichment and remedial. The metacognitive questioning encourages students to be actively engaged in self-regulation of learning by using four kinds of questions: Comprehension, connection, strategy use, and reflection. Comprehension questions are designed to help learners understand the information of the task or problem-solving (e.g., “What is the problem?”; “What is the meaning of?”). Connection questions are aimed at prompting learners to understand deeper-level relational structures of the task by articulating thoughts and explicit explanations (e.g., “What is the difference/similarity?”; “How do you justify your conclusion?”), strategy questions encourage learners to plan and be aware of selecting the appropriate strategy (e.g., “What is the strategy”, and “Why?”), and reflection questions play an important role in helping students monitor and evaluate their problem-solving processes and consider various perspectives and values regarding their selected solutions (e.g., “Does the solution makes sense?”; “Can the solution be presented in another way?”). In general, research reported positive effects of supporting metacognition with self-questioning on students’ learning outcomes. Ge and Land (2003) found that novice students who were exposed to a combination of different types of self-questioning in problem-solving, performed significantly better than those who were not exposed to such questions during the process of problem representation, developing solutions, making justifications, and monitoring and evaluation. Kramarski and Mevarech, (2003) found that self-questioning based on the IMPROVE method enhanced the mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge of students.

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

However, most studies examined the effects of self-questioning on learning outcomes such as reading comprehension (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984), science (e.g., Davis & Linn, 2000), mathematics (e.g., Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003), and general problem-solving (e.g., King, 1994). Little research investigated the effects of selfquestioning as a metacognitive feedback strategy in online inquiry learning and features of students’ feedback discussion. Feedback discussion refers to exchanging feedback online among students about the solution process. We suggest to assess the effects of supporting metacognitive feedback based on IMPROVE guidance on students’ online engagement in problemsolving and their discussion in two ways: Online and a delayed written transfer problem-solving test. Moreover, we suggest observing students’ inquiry learning processes by focusing on online feedback discussion in mathematical and metacognitive aspects. The purpose of the present study is threefold: (a) to investigate the ability to solve online mathematical tasks of students who were exposed either to metacognitive feedback guidance (MFG) or with no such guidance (NG); Problem solving will be assessed with regard to the ability to explain mathematical reasoning; (b) to observe online feedback discussion of students who were exposed to these instructional guidance with regard to mathematical and metacognitive aspects; and (c) to examine students’ problem-solving ability on transfer tasks in a delayed paper-and-pencil test.

knowledge were found between the two groups (M = 83.30; SD = 16.80; M = 80; SD = 15.70; t(78) = 2.01; p>.05).

measures a. An Online Real-Life Task A real-life task was administrated in online discussion environment adapted from PISA (2003). Students were asked to investigate patterns in change and relationships by comparing the growth of apple trees planted in a square pattern and conifers trees planted around the orchard and to explain their reasoning. The task included 6 items that assessed students’ procedural and conceptual understanding. Scoring: For each item, students received a score for submitting a correct solution, and a mathematical grade of either 1 (entirely correct answer or argument), or 0 (incorrect answer or argument). The total scores ranged from 0-6 for the correct solutions, and 0-6 for the correct explanations. We converted the scores into percentages. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was .79. In addition, mathematical explanations were analyzed according to two criteria: Conceptual arguments (e.g., logic-formal arguments); and procedural arguments (e.g., calculation example). Two judges, experts in the education of mathematics, scored students’ explanations. The inter-judge reliability r coefficients ranged from 0.85 to 0.91 for all criteria.

b. Online Inquiry Discussion methoD Participants Participants were 80 (boys and girls) ninth-grade students who studied in two classes within one junior high school. Each instructional approach was assigned randomly to one of the classes. No statistical differences in mathematical pre-

Students’ discussions were analyzed along two types of feedback: Mathematical feedback and metacognitive feedback. Mathematical feedback referred to four kinds (NCTM, 2000): Mathematical representations (e.g., tables, graphs), mathematical explanations, final solution, and non-mathematical statements (e.g., social communication as “we enjoyed working with you”).

797

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

Metacognitive feedback referred to four kinds of cognition regulation (Schraw and Dennison, 1994): Planning (e.g., “We suggest finding the pattern and not counting the trees”), monitoring the solution process (e.g., “A drawing is missing from your answer”), debugging errors (e.g., “You have a mistake in question 2, the multiplication is incorrect”), and evaluation (e.g., “Your explanation lacks depth”). Two judges, experts in the education of mathematics, scored students’ discussion. The inter-judge reliability r coefficients ranged from 0.83 to 0.92 for all criteria. Scoring: Total number of references to each category during the online discussion divided by the total statements in the forum was calculated. The scores were converted into percentages. Appendix A provides an example of online discussion feedback with respect to mathematical and metacognitive aspects.

problem-solving in forums of two pairs, once a week in the computer lab (45 min) for a fourweek period. Each pair was asked to solve the problem and send it to the other pair, to provide and receive feedback for the solution. At the end of the process the students e-mailed the solution to the teacher. Figure 1 presents the process of online discussion. The teacher encouraged students to be engaged in the inquiry discussion by providing feedback to the solution process. A discussion was held by the entire class on ways to provide effective feedback. The teacher emphasized the importance of mathematical explanations in providing feedback. She clarified that explanations and feedback are vehicles for enhancing mathematical understanding.

metacognitive feedback guidance (mfg) vs. no guidance (ng)

c. Transfer Tasks Two weeks after the end of the study students were asked to answer a written problem-solving test. The test addressed three kinds of skills: Procedural (9 items), problem-solving (8 items), and posing a problem of a given formula (1 item). In addition, students’ ability to provide mathematical explanations was assessed in 9 items. Cronbach alpha reliability for the entire test was .86. Scoring: For each item, students received a score for providing the correct solution, and a mathematical representation of either 1 (completely correct answer or argument), or 0 (incorrect answer or argument). The total scores ranged from 0 to9 for procedural skills, 0-8 for problemsolving, and 0-1 for posing a problem, and 0-9 for the correct explanations. We converted the scores into percentages.

Instructions General online inquiry discussion: Students from both groups (MFG & NG) practiced online

798

The MFG students were exposed to the IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning method of providing feedback during the problem-solving process (Kramarski & Gutman, 2006; Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Mevarech & Kramarski, 1997).

Figure 1. Peer feedback discussion and teacherstudents interaction

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

The metacognitive questions were designed as electronic pages and were displayed onscreen as automatic pop-ups at certain times during the practice of problem solving. The students were encouraged to use them explicitly in solving their tasks, when providing explanations, feedback and in conducting discussions. The procedure of metacognitive feedback guidance was applied as follows: At first students were exposed to the use of self-questioning method during the problem-solving process by using the comprehension, connection, strategy; and reflection questions as described earlier. Second, they practiced how to provide explanations by referring to four criteria of a “good explanation”: Mathematical expressions (e.g., terms, notations and symbols), representations (e.g., tables, graphs, formula), conclusions (e.g., finding a pattern), and clarity of communication (e.g., clear expression without repetition). Finally, they were guided to provide feedback by referring to five steps: (1) I have to read my friend’s solution; (2) I have to check if the solution is correct; (3) I have to check if the explanation is correct; (4) I have to respond to my peers regarding the correctness of the solution; and (5) I have to suggest how to modify their explanation to my peers (by referring to “good explanation” criteria). The NG students were not exposed explicitly to metacognitive guidance for problem-solving and providing feedback. As discussed earlier they were exposed to a general discussion that referred to these variables during the problemsolving process.

results The first purpose of the study was to investigate the ability of students who were exposed either to metacognitive feedback guidance (MFG) or with no such guidance NG to solve real-life tasks. We performed a one way ANOVA on the online real-life task scores.

Table 1. Meansa and Standard Deviations on Problem-Solving of Online Real-Life Task by Method of Guidance MFG n=40

NG n=40

F(1,79)

M

86.68

74.46

7.98*

SD

19.90

26.87

39.93

27.90

21.09

20. 17

Problem solving

Mathematical explanations M SD

9.94*

a

Note. Range 0-100. *p < .001.

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations on the online task scores by method of guidance. Results indicate that the online MFG students significantly outperformed their counterparts (NG) in mathematical problem-solving F (1,79) = 7.98, p < .001, and in providing mathematical explanations F (1,79) = 9.94, p < .001. In addition, we found that at the end of the study more MFG students provided conceptual arguments than the NG students: 72%; 50%, t (78) = 3.97, p < .05. The second purpose of the study was to observe the online discussion of students’ who were exposed to two instructional guidance with regard to mathematical and metacognitive feedback. We performed a MANOVA which was followed by an ANOVA on each criteria of mathematical and metacognitive feedback. Tables 2 and 3 present the means and standard deviations of online mathematical and metacognitive feedback by method of guidance. Table 2 indicates that the MFG students significantly outperformed their counterparts (NG) on providing mathematical feedback regarding two criteria: Mathematical representations F (1,79) = 11.15, p < .001, and mathematical explanations F (1,79) = 17.82, p < .001. No differences between the groups were found in regard to the correctness of the final solution F (1,79) = 2.30, p > .05, and non-mathematical statement F (1,79) = 1.18, p > .05. 799

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

Table 2. Meansa and Standard Deviations on Providing Mathematical Feedback by Method of Guidance MFG n=40

NG n=40

F(1,79)

M

11.04

3.93

11.15*

SD

15.71

7.60

M

15.76

4.15

SD

18.19

13.48

M

18.22

13.03

SD

19.72

22.31

M

6.52

8.80

SD

10.90

15.47

Mathematical representations

Mathematical explanations 7.46*

Final solution 2.30

Non-mathematical statements 1.18

Note: aScores are percentages and calculated as total references provided for each category divided by the total statements in the forum, multiplied by 100. *p < .001.

Table 3. Meansa and Standard Deviations on Providing Metacognitive Feedback by Method of Guidance MFG n=40

NG n=40

F(1,79)

M

6.84

5.12

2.9

SD

14.02

11.47

Planning

Similarly, findings (Table 3) indicate that the MFG students significantly outperformed their peers (NG) on metacognitive feedback regarding three criteria: Monitoring F (1,79) = 4.3, p < .05, debugging errors F (1,79) = 5.39, p < .05, and evaluating the process F (1,79) = 5.53, p < .05. No differences between the groups were found on suggestions for planning F (1,79) = 2.9, p > .05. The third purpose of the study was to examine student’s ability of transfer tasks in a delayed paper-and-pencil test. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of a delayed paper-and-pencil test by method of guidance. MANOVA findings indicate that MFG students significantly outperformed their peers (NG) on the delayed written problem-solving test regarding three criteria: Problem-solving F (1,79) = 7.98, p < .01, mathematical explanations F (1,79) = 16.18, p < .01, and posing a problem F (1,79) = 4.20, p < .05. No differences between the groups were found on procedural skills F (1,79) = 1.03, p > .05.

Table 4. Meansa, and Standard Deviations on Transfer Problem-Solving Tasks by Method of Guidance MFG n=40

NG n=40

F(1,79)

M

89.19

88.83

1.03

SD

15.30

16.52

M

86.58

71.46

SD

19.90

26.20

Procedural skills

Monitoring M

7.84

4.17

SD

14.15

12.67

4.3*

Problem solving

Debugging M

2.40

0.13

SD

6.11

0.04

5.39*

Mathematical explanations

Evaluation M

16.64

4.73

SD

19.18

12.68

8.53*

Note: aScores are percentages and calculated as total references provided for each category divided by the total statements in the forum, multiplied by 100. *p < .05.

M

36.10

21.53

SD

12.70

13.00

M

70.04

42.03

SD

4.60

5.13

16.18**

Posing a problem

a

Note: Range 0-100. * p< .05 **p < .01.

800

7.98**

4.20*

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

DIscussIon We found that students exposed to metacognitive feedback guidance (MFG) based on the IMPROVE self-questioning strategy, significantly outperformed the NG students in online problem-solving, and in providing conceptual explanations based on logic-formal conclusions during the solution process. Moreover, the MFG students outperformed the NG students in their ability to solve various transfer tasks that refer to high order skills (e,g., posing a problem) in a delayed written test. Findings from students’ online discussion indicated a significant difference between the two groups in their ability to articulate their thoughts in mathematical and metacognitive aspects. The MFG students displayed a higher tendency to refer to mathematical representations and explanations, and to consider the solution process by monitoring, debugging and evaluation. The findings raise some issues and implications for further discussion regarding the role of metacognitive feedback support, and transfer ability of problem-solving.

metacognitive feedback support in online Inquiry Discussion There are several possible reasons that explain the beneficial effect of supporting students’ metacognitive feedback in online discussion on problem solving, eliciting conceptual arguments and providing feedback. First, it seems, that making disciplinary strategies explicit online with metacognitive IMPROVE tools can help students think about the steps they need to take in their solution to the problem, and help them articulate their mathematical thoughts. When students explain and justify their thinking, and challenge the explanations of their peers, they also engage in clarifying their own thinking and recognize potential points of conflict for further discussion (e.g., Lampart, 1990). Indeed, the online discussion indicated that the MFG

students were involved more in mathematical explanations. Our conclusions provide evidence consistent with research conclusions that presenting elaborate explanations help students to get involved in thorough processing of information and to analyze their conceptualizations (Oh & Jonassent, 2007; King, 1992). Second, being exposed online to metacognitive tools can strengthen self-regulation of learning skills during active monitoring, controlling and updating products. This process might help students to shift their attention from problem-based features (i.e., goals and rules of the problem) to a metacognitive processing level (i.e., whereby they consider strategies, define sub goals, and evaluate moves). Indeed, the online discussion indicated that the MFG students were involved more in a metacognitive process by monitoring, debugging and evaluating the solutions of their peers. However, further research is needed to examine more deeply students’ metacognition in online learning using a mixture of measures such as questionnaires, interviews, thinking aloud, or analysis of log files. This study suggests that supporting students’ metacognitive feedback in online inquiry learning helps novice problem-solvers to be engaged in the problem-solving process. Our findings support previous research conclusions regarding differential effects of feedback types on computer-based learning (Kramarski & Zeichner, 2001; Moreno, 2004). For example, Moreno found that exposing students to multimedia supported by explanatory feedback to guide novices in attributing meaning to the process promotes deeper learning than among those who present identical materials using corrective feedback alone. The explanatory feedback group produced higher transfer scores. Mental load rating scales provided evidence that the explanatory feedback was effective due to reductions in cognitive load. However, as discussed earlier, these studies applied external feedback provided by the computer, unlike this study that implemented students’ own feedback

801

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

in online discussion. We suggest that further research investigate more deeply students’ performance under different conditions of providing feedback embedded online, and to examine how it relates to students’ variables as reductions in cognitive load.

Our findings extend other findings in nontechnology environments which indicated that self-questioning had a cognitive effect on students’ reasoning and their ability to promote transfer of new knowledge (e.g., Davis & Lin, 2000; Kramarski, Mevarech, 2003; Kramarski, Mevarech & Arami, 2002).

transfer Ability The findings indicate that students who were exposed to metacognitive feedback guidance (MFG) were better able to transfer their knowledge from online problem-solving to a delayed written test. There are possible reasons for the beneficial effect of the metacognitive feedback support in online inquiry learning on transfer tasks. As conceptualized by Cooper and Sweller (1987), three variables contribute to transfer of problem-solving. Students must master strategies of problem-solving, develop categories for sorting problems that require similar solutions, and be aware that novel problems are related to previously solved problems. According to the conclusion drawn by Kramarski and Gutmann (2006), using the IMPROVE metacognitive selfquestioning tools led students to reflect more efficiently on the solution of the transfer tasks because of the opportunity to: (a) know what to do (e.g., comprehension questions); (b) look for the big picture (e.g., connection questions); (c) plan how and when to do (e.g., strategy questions); and (d) make thinking visible (e.g., reflection questions). Other researchers reported similar conclusions that metacognitive tools are effective in developing problem-solving ability because it enables to allocate less working memory to the details of the solution and instead devote cognitive resources to identifying connections between novel and familiar problems, and to planning their work (Ceci & Roazzi, 1994; Hoek, Eeden & Terwel, 1999; Kramarski, Mevarech & Liberman, 2001; Schraw, Crippen & Hartly, 2006).

802

Practical Implications and future rresearch Our study brings to focus questions such as: How do students learn mathematics with online inquiry learning?; What mathematics do they learn?; and What is the role of metacognitive feedback provided by the learner in such a process?. Our findings indicate that just using online inquiry learning is not sufficient for enhancing mathematical skills such as problem-solving, explanations and discussion of mathematical and metacognitive aspects. Our study support other conclusions that learners fail to apply relevant knowledge in electronic environment. They find it difficult to coordinate among the numerous representations of electronic information, to determine an appropriate learning continuum, to plan, to use effective strategies, and to monitor their progress (e.g., Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Kramarski & Mizrachi, 2006). However, it is evident from the data that students’ metacognitive feedback based on IMPROVE tools is very useful in terms of developing these variables. Based on our findings we suggest supporting online discussion by practicing and reinforcing features of students’ metacognitive feedback. We recognize the need to understand more about how mathematical problem-solving and discussion emerge in online inquiry learning embedded with different metacognitive feedback. Feedback can be based on combining students’ feedback with external human tutor feedback via e-mail or other online communication media. Furthermore, features of feedback can be adapted individuals with

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

different competence in mathematics (Azevedo, Cromley, 2004; Ge, Chen & Davis, 2005). We suggest for future study to expand the investigation of diverse metacognitive instructional models in innovative technology environments, and to investigate these models’ implementation in SRL of students in various ages. Future research may also include further investigation of the role of IMPROVE self-questions guidance at different points during the solution process: before the beginning of the process, during the process and at the end of the process. Another direction for future research may be the comparison of the effects of the different methods of implementation of self questions guidance: receiving electronic automatic prompts at certain times versus the students’ actively seeking the guidance for help. These research directions could be compared to non technology environment that implement metacognitive guidance such as IMPROVE. Furthermore, we suggest that students’ metacognitive skills in online inquiry learning can be observed in different types of guidance such as individual-regulation or co-regulation by observations, interviews, “thinking aloud” and analyzing log files techniques. Such techniques might strengthen findings regarding the effects of metacognitive feedback support on mathematical problem-solving, explanations and type of discussions. In conclusion, our study contributes to our knowledge about effective conditions for online mathematical inquiry learning environments. Specifically, the contribution of metacognitive feedback with self-questioning as a scaffolding strategy in online inquiry.

(pp. 115-126). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R.M. (1995). A metaanalysis of the effects of feedback in computerbased instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2) 111-127. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004(. Does training of self- regulated learning facilitate student’s learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523-535. Britt, M., & Gabrys, G. (2001). Teaching advanced literacy skills for the World Wide Web. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web (pp. 73-90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281. Cecil, S. J., & Roazzi, A. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil. In J. S. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.). Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 74-100). Oxford, UK: Academic Press. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347-362. Davis, E.A., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompt for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837.

references

de Jong.T. (2006a). Computer simulations-Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.

Artz, A., & Yaloz-Femia, S. (1999). Mathematical reasoning during small-group problem solving. In L. Stiff & F. Curio (Eds.), Developing Mathematical Reasoning in Grades K-12: 1999 Yearbook,

Ge. X., Chen, C-H., & Davis. K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers’ problemsolving processes using question prompts in a

803

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Research, 33(2), 219-248.

solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225-250.

Ge. X., & Land, S.M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38.

Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281-310.

Ge. X., & Land, S.M. (2004). A conceptual framework of scaffolding problem solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22.

Kramarski, B. & Gutman, M. (2006). How can selfregulated learning be supported in mathematical e-learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24-33.

Hoek, D., van den Eden, P., & Terwel, J. (1999). The effects of integrated social and cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education. Learning and Instruction, 9, 427-448. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307-317. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111-126. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects on teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368. Kramarski, B. & Zeichner, O. (2001). Using technology to enhance mathematical reasoning: Effects of feedback and self-regulation learning. Educational Media International, 38(2/3), 77-82. Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Liberman, A. (2001). The effects of multilevel versus unilevelmetacognitive training on mathematical reasoning. Journal for Educational Research, 94(5), 292-300. Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive training on

804

Kramarski & Mizrachi, (2006). Online discussion and self-regulated learning: Effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 218-230. Lampert. L. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29-63. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 236-266. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365-394. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99-113. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Nussbaum. E.M., & Sinatra G.M. (2002). On the opposite side: Argument and conceptual engagement in physics. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

Oh, S., & Jonassen, D.H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2, 95110. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. PISA. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow. Further results from PISA 2000. Paris. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D.A. Grouws, Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165-197). New York: MacMillan. Schraw, G., (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K.J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139. Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475. Sherry, L., Billig, S. H., & Tavalin, F. (2000). Good online conversation: Building on research to inform practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(nh1), 85-127.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Mathematical Inquiry: The process of being engaged in problem solving. Metacognitive Feedback: Providing help/ guidance in learning. Online Discussion: Exchanging knowledge in online interaction. Transfer Skills: The ability to solve problems in a new context.

805

Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion

APPenDIx An example of online discussion feedback with respect to mathematical (Math_F) and metacognitive aspects (Meta_ F). Netaly and Sapir! • This is a good work, there are full solutions and they are good, the wording is excellent. Math_F: referring to mathematical solutions and explanations; Meta_ F: evaluation. • In question 3, with regard to the pattern, you wrote that each line of the conifers trees increases by 8 trees (i.e. n+8). However, in the final solution you wrote n*8, which is the correct answer. Your wording is incorrect. Math_F: referring to mathematical representations, and final solution; Meta_ F: debugging. • We suggest modifying the explanation by writing: The number of conifers trees multiplied by 8. Math_F: referring to mathematical explanation; Meta_ F: planning. • The tables that you added helped to illustrate the pattern, and the emphasis on the algebraic solution helped to understand better. Math_F: referring to mathematical representations; Meta_ F: monitoring the solution.

806

Section V

Professional Development

808

Chapter L

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked Leaunda S. Hemphill Western Illinois University, USA Donna S. McCaw Western Illinois University, USA

AbstrAct Three junior high teachers and 12 senior high school teachers were introduced to online teaching strategies and tools in a three-day workshop. The teachers developed their basic online course shell on Moodle, an open-source online course management system. Following the workshop, teachers revised their course shells and created short teaching modules to meet the differentiated needs of their students. The modules were evaluated using a modified version of the Quality Online Course Initiative (QOCI) Rubric (Illinois Online Network, 2007). All teacher participants completed the workshop training and 14 successfully met all the QOCI criteria on their modules. This Moodle training was a capstone experience following three years of curricula, content, and pedagogical training through the ISAMS project. The project was funded as part of a No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Teacher Improvement grant which provided professional development for math and science teachers.

IntroDuctIon Educators need to stop talking about how much and how fast the world is changing and start providing educational experiences that reflect those changes. Twenty-first century skills such

as digital-age literacy, inventive thinking, and effective communication are necessary for students entering the Digital Age workforce (Lemke, 2002). According to a 2006 North American Council for Online Learning and Partnership (NACOL) and Partnership for 21st Century Skills report, 84%

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

of employers do not believe that K-12 schools are adequately preparing students for the workplace. The report suggested that online learning can offer students “access to online, collaborative and self-paced learning environments – settings that can facilitate 21st century skills” (p. 2). This chapter describes a professional development model using workshop and post-workshop activities that helped junior high and senior high school teachers design, create, and use online course materials and alternative online strategies for delivering content that encourages student participation. The model followed the theoretical frameworks focused on the professional development research and Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development. The model paid small stipends for teacher training and for the completion of each Moodle course supplement. The development and implementation of the professional development training will be described. Participants’ workshop evaluations and their continuing use of the online course modules in their classrooms will also be discussed.

lIterAture revIew Continuous improvement is the prize sought by all effective school administrators. Yet, it is difficult to achieve at the secondary level and even more challenging to sustain. This project was developed using the research on adult learning theory, professional development, and technology integration to impact instruction and thus student learning.

Adult learning theory Knowles (1990) reported that adults learn best when they are a) given a voice in determining the topics of study, b) shown how the class will help them connect new learning to their existing knowledge and/or experience base (Speck, 1996), and c) are provided with a program that is orga-

nized and has clearly defined goals and course objectives. Additionally, Knowles found that the learning must have practical application to the adult learner’s work. It is also critical that adults be treated with respect. With a basis in Knowles’ theory of how teachers (adult learners) learn best, we then examined the research on professional development.

Professional Development Professional development (PD) models where teachers sit and get or experience drive-by teacher training do not work (Fullan, 2001; Guskey, 2002; Hoban, 2002). Professional development that does work: a) is sustained over a period of months or years, rather than days (Association of Curriculum & Supervision, 2003; Corcoran, 1995); b) focuses on the content taught by the teacher (Birman, et al., 2000; King & Newmann, 2000); c) has daily application (King & Newman, 2000); and d) is collaborative, fun, and is perceived as needed by the teacher (Killion, 2002; King & Newmann, 2000; Speck, 1996). Vygotksy’s (1978) zone of proximal development can be used by the trainer through scaffolding strategies. Welk (2006) describes how Vygotsky’s model can be used when working with faculty facilitators in an asynchronous online environment. Scaffolding strategies such as providing many opportunities for instructing, monitoring, and providing continuous feedback allows the shift of responsibility for learning to move from the trainer to the facilitator. In order to build capacity for change, a job-embedded professional development (PD) framework was utilized. Job-embedded PD is defined as, “learning that occurs as educators engage in their daily work activities. It can be both formal and informal and includes but is not limited to discussion with others, peer coaching, mentoring, study groups and action research” (Galloway, n.d., p. 1). In job-embedded learning, participants learn by doing, by reflecting on their experience, and then by stretching (singularly or in a group) to the next level of excellence. 809

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

technology Integration: online and blended learning The integration of technology into 21st century classrooms is not optional but mandatory. The research increasingly points to a positive relationship between the integration of technology and improved student achievement and motivation. Solmon and Wiederhorn (2000) reported that 61% of their students become more engaged learners due to technology, 46% of their students gain a deepened understanding of academic subjects, and 28% get better grades or test scores (p. 8). Technology tools stretch the capacity for teaching and learning into a higher level of engagement. These tools, when effectively utilized can become “a coteacher” expanding the instructional impact to all students. Blended learning integrates face-to-face classroom and online learning, allowing flexible learning opportunities, delivery methods, and teaching strategies (Rossett, Douglis, & Frazee, 2003). According to K-12 Online Learning: A Survey of School District Administrators, 63% or two out of three school districts have one or more students taking blended or online courses (Picciano & Seaman, 2007). In fact, Michigan now requires all public school students take an online course as part of their high school graduation requirements (Fisher, 2006). Online course management systems (CMS) are used by K-12 schools to host blended and online courses, virtual schools, and professional development courses (Bower, 2005). A CMS allows teachers to create and distribute online course materials, including communication, grading, assessments, and the tracking of student use. As high schools begin to offer more online courses and online course supplements, secondary teachers need the necessary strategies and skills to develop and facilitate quality online and blended classrooms. Online instruction requires a paradigm change in management techniques, student involvement, and perceptions of instructional time and space (Easton, 2003).

810

Levy (2003) emphasized the importance of support and training to encourage teachers to embrace this new teaching paradigm.

Project DescrIPtIon The Moodle training and ongoing technical support were a crucial and culminating aspect of the three-year PD project, funded by the Illinois Board of Higher Education: No Child Left Behind Teacher Improvement Grant. The project was called ISAMS: A formula for success (Improved Student Achievement in Math and Science = Professional Development + Best Practices + Curriculum & Cooperation [ISAMS = PD + BP + C2]). It established a learning organization culture between all six participating school districts. Study groups, online courses, dialogue, and team-building activities were all found within the ISAMS PD framework (Fullan, 1996, 2006; Murphy, 1992). The Moodle training provided teachers with a skill set that was tied directly to the coursework that they were responsible for teaching. All completed Moodle modules were part of actual classes being taught by the teachers. None of the teachers had used an online CMS to teach and the anxiety levels were high. The study groups that the teachers had been training with for three years provided a trust-filled learning environment where risk-taking felt less risky. One public high school district, five feeder K-8 districts, and one K-8 parochial school collaborated with a local state university on the ISAMS project. The focus of this project was the professional development of secondary science and math teachers and their administrators. Teachers received training over three years during summers and intercessions – no school-time was used. The goal of the project was to improve math and science test scores, while creating a culture of collaboration, technology integration, curricular alignment, and assessment.

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

The six K-8 school districts all had separate administrative teams, boards of education, and formal/informal math and science curricula. Eighth grade students feed into one public high school district. Prior to the project, alignment and communication between the K-8 districts were minimal, as was their communications with the high school district. The Moodle training was an opportunity to bring their courses into the 21st century, allowing their students the opportunity to use online course tools while still in high school. Teachers received three days of training on Moodle by a university faculty member. Teachers were paid to participate in the training and paid a stipend upon completion of the online course module. A convenience sample of 15 junior and senior high school math, science, and English teachers, from a project population of 47, participated in the Moodle phase of ISAMS. The teachers were from a high school district and two of the six K-8 feeder districts. Content area demographics included three middle school teachers (two science and one math) and 12 high school teachers (four English, one business technology, one math, and six science). Gender data were reported as nine males and five females. The Moodle course management system (CMS) was used as the common online environment for the professional development workshop and the teachers’ online courses. In contrast to expensive proprietary programs, Moodle is a free, open-source system that can be easily downloaded and used. Moodle has an active, worldwide community of users and developers (Cole, 2005). There is an estimated 200,000 registered users (Moodle, n.d.), including higher education and secondary education schools. Moodle is based on a social constructionist design (Dougiamas & Taylor, 2003), with built-in social networking and collaboration tools. It also provides a tracking system and content resources. Moodle is easy to use, and teachers can create and update their courses without using HTML editing software.

Two Moodle servers were used for the workshop. The professional development workshop online course was posted on the trainer’s server. This course area was open to all participants in a student role. The area contained workshop orientation activities, discussion areas, surveys, polls, and course materials and resources. The second server was funded (approximately $2,800) through the ISAMS grant and was housed at the high school. An Intel server running Linux Fedora with 4 GB of RAM was selected. The school’s computer administrators managed the Moodle server which was set up so that teachers and students could access the courses at school and home. Each workshop participant created his/ her own course area on the school’s server.

onlIne InstructIonAl strAtegIes worKshoP The face-to-face workshop took place during a three-day block of intersession (18 hours), allowing the participants to work continuously and uninterrupted. The post-module activity involved participants creating their individualized online course material. The activity spanned a threeweek period following the face-to-face training. A small stipend was paid to teachers upon successful completion of their individualized modules. Deadlines were restricted to three weeks forcing teachers to stay focused, increasing the likelihood of project completion. Figure 1 shows an overview of the training activities.

workshop Day 1 On the first day of the workshop (see Figure 1), participants experienced the online environment as “students,” exploring the navigation, structure, and tools of Moodle. A short series of exercises helped the trainer ensure that all participants had the necessary computer and Internet skills. The participants learned how to enroll in a Moodle

811

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

course, edit their user profiles, gain experience taking online surveys and self assessments, email the trainer, and interact with others in an asynchronous icebreaker discussion forum. According to the online background survey taken during the orientation phase of the training, three participants had never taken an online or web-enhanced course, four had taken one, one had taken two, three had taken three, and four had taken more than three. Nine participants planned to work on the online course development both at home and at the office, three at home only, and three at the office only. Thirteen participants

felt comfortable downloading software from the Internet and installing it on their computers, and 14 felt comfortable sending and receiving email with attachments. Regarding their abilities to create and modify Microsoft Office files, 14 participants were confident with Microsoft Word, 13 with Microsoft PowerPoint, and 10 with Microsoft Excel. Twelve participants were confident in their ability to create and modify graphics. Two informal online polls were administered. The first poll (n=15) examined the respondents’ previous use of a course management system as students. This poll

Figure 1. Workshop and post-workshop activities Workshop and Post-workshop Activities Orientation Activities Workshop Day 1 - Participant as “Student” Introducing the Online Environment and Moodle Understanding Online Teaching and Blended Learning Experiencing an Online Moodle Course Building a Moodle Course Shell Workshop Day 1 Requesting a Course Editing User Profile Specifying Course Settings Building a Moodle Course Shell - Continued Workshop Day 2 Adding Online Course Resources Creating and Managing Online Activities Creating Online Assessments, Monitoring Course, and Grading Students Creating Your Own Online Course Module Workshop Day 2 Planning Online Module Building a Moodle Course Shell - Continued Workshop Day 3 Using Advanced Features of Moodle Creating Your Own Online Course Module - Continued Workshop Day 3 Designing Online Module Creating Your Own Online Course Module - Continued Post-Workshop (three weeks online) Completing draft of Online Module Finalizing Online Module

812

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

revealed that 11 respondents had used a CMS as an online student. The second poll (n=13) revealed that none of the respondents had used a course management system for teaching. Although none of the participants had taught online, most of them had taken an online course and were comfortable using the software and Internet programs required for the workshop. Participants also reviewed research on online teaching best practices and subsequently engaged in a discussion on the pros and cons of blended learning in sixth through 12th grade. Using the Journal tool, participants submitted reflections on their self-assessment survey and on the potential of online learning and teaching. Next, the participants were introduced to Moodle’s features. They began creating a basic course shell by requesting a new course area, editing their user profiles, and specifying course settings such as the format of the course, the title, and start and stop dates.

expectations, and possible instructional strategies they planned to use in the online environment. The proposals were posted to an open discussion area. The workshop trainer reviewed their proposals and posted comments to individual participants via a private online message.

workshop Day 3 On the third day of the workshop, participants developed an outline or flowchart of their proposed online course module. They were asked to consider the following questions in their development process: •

• •

workshop Day 2 On the second and third days of the workshop, participants added on online course resources, course announcements, teacher information, activities, and assessments. Participants used some of Moodle’s advanced features including RSS feeds, wikis, blogs, mathematical expressions, glossary, and the group tool. All participants were required to incorporate the Moodle features listed in Figure 2 into their course shells. Simultaneously, on the second day of the workshop, participants began planning to modify their basic course shells so they were better suited for their individual needs and classroom use. Time was allotted for brainstorming topics and developing course module flowchart/outlines. For their individual modules, participants were required to submit a proposal, an outline/flowchart, a draft of the course module, and a finalized course module. The proposal included a short description of the module, student demographics, module

•

How will your course material be organized online? Will it be arranged by unit, lecture topic, or period of time (e.g., weekly)? What kinds of communication and discussion will you use? What discussion topics? What kinds of resources will you have? Resources here refer to the static course material such as files, text pages, web pages, links, labels, graphics, and syllabus. What kinds of online activities will you have? What makes them appropriate for an online format?

Figure 2. Basic course features checklist Basic Moodle Course Checklist 􀂃 Updated User Profile 􀂃 Course/Module description 􀂃 Course/Module graphic header 􀂃 Instructor information 􀂃 Calendar 􀂃 Hardware and software requirements 􀂃 Netiquette statement or external link 􀂃 Syllabus 􀂃 Link to webpage URL 􀂃 Labels 􀂃 Question-and-Answer discussion forum 􀂃 Student Lounge discussion forum 􀂃 Live Chat activity 􀂃 Journal activity 􀂃 Choice (Poll) activity 􀂃 Diagnostic quiz 􀂃 Quiz/Test with grading and feedback 􀂃 Sample Gradebook entries 􀂃 Use of two advanced Moodle tools

813

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

•

•

What kinds of assessments will you have? What makes them appropriate for the online format? What kinds of online media and resources might you use?

At the end of the third day, the trainer discussed the completed outlines or flowcharts with the participants.

Post-workshop Activities The first draft of the module was due ten days after the end of the workshop. The trainer reviewed the drafts and sent suggestions to each participant through the asynchronous discussion boards and through email. The finalized course module was due three weeks after the end of the workshop. The finalized modules were evaluated by the trainer using a modified version of the Quality Online Course Initiative (QOCI) Rubric (Illinois Online Network, 2007). The QOCI Rubric criteria include criteria for instructional design; communication, interaction, and collaboration; student evaluation and assessment; learner support and resources; web design; and course evaluation. Only the rubric performance indicators covered in the workshop were assessed. Participants had to meet the criteria in order to receive an additional stipend.

results All but one of the participants successfully completed their finalized course modules by fulfilling the revised QOCI criteria checklist. One participant chose not to make revision because of time constraints. As seen in Figure 3, all workshop participants choose text and web pages in their modules, while only three used PowerPoint files. For student activities, 12 participants used asynchronous discussion forums; 10 used quizzes, polls, and journals; and nine used chats and online assign-

814

ments. Eight participants used RSS feeds, seven used the glossary tool, six used graphics, and one used math notation and audio. Four months after the professional development training, seven Moodle course areas had been used for instruction and five additional courses were being developed. Six of the 15 workshop participants (one relocated) were using Moodle courses for instruction. Four additional courses are being developed by two participants, three by one teacher, and one by another teacher. Approximately 480 students had been enrolled in the four months following the workshop. One year after the workshop training, 35 Moodle courses had been developed.

Post-workshop teacher surveys Follow-up by the trainer with the teachers occurred multiple times, both formally through the use of online surveys and classroom visits and informally via e-mail and phone calls. Online surveys were given at four months post completion date and at the one year anniversary. Responding to the 4-month follow-up survey, all respondents felt they needed additional time to work on their Moodle courses. For example, one said, I need more time to structure my classes. I need to learn more about Moodle. I teach four preps and need time to develop all four subject areas. I really like Moodle. Similarly, two of the six respondents wanted more time for the students to be able to use the online course material. One issue was the problem of students not having access to computers and Internet at home. Another teacher observed: We have never before had an easy way to store things electronically such that the students could access them whenever they wanted. As we move away from lecture and chalkboard informational sessions, these electronic resources are more and more important. I do wish that there were more hours in the day to more fully utilize the

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

Figure 3. Frequency of Moodle tool use

Text Pages Web Pages Forums Quizzes Choices (Polls)

moodle tools

Journals Chats Assignments RSS Feeds Glossaries Graphics Presentations Math Notation Audio 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

number of Participant users

‘expert’ features, but I truly believe it is helping the students. Three respondents wanted additional training on Moodle. Two felt an on-site trainer was needed. Other issues mentioned including the inability to link the Moodle grading tool to their school’s grading system and the fact that many of the web resource areas were blocked by the school. One year after the workshop training, teachers were surveyed to determine the impact longevity of the Moodle training and the impact of the use of the Moodle area on their students. Teacher responses included: Moodle is an effective tool to organize and supplement my face-to-face classes. My students seem to enjoy the on-line elements and the anytime/ anywhere access. I have reduced paper consumption in my class by having students upload files to Moodle for grading.

Students have reported that they like uploading assignments and taking quizzes on the computer. When given the choice of a paper quiz/test or an online version, students choose the online test/ quiz. Online chats must be managed carefully with high school students. They are accustomed to casual conversations with friends not more formal school chats. Journal writing also requires reminders that this is not their personal diary. Complete sentences and good grammar and spelling are expected.

Post-workshop student survey One year after the workshop training, students whose teachers went through the training were surveyed on their attitudes toward learning and

815

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

the use of Moodle by their teachers. As seen in Table 1, ninth through 12th grade students responded using a 5-point Likert scale (Very True For Me, Somewhat True For Me, No Opinion, Somewhat Not True For Me, Not True at All – at least for me). Seventy-four percent of the students gave positive statements related to their use of Moodle as a course supplement. Combining Very True and Somewhat True responses, 87% said that Moodle made the material easier to understand and learn. More than two-thirds felt that Moodle challenged their thinking more than their textbooks. Similar to the Solmon and Wiederhorn (2000) study, students felt more engaged using the technology: The class I used moodle in was computer applications, it made things easier because my teacher put all the information that we needed on her moodle web site which made it easy to find and to study. It made me a better student by making it easy to study which in turn raised my grade making me a better student. I loved it. I loved the practice quizzes. I just wish there were more modules and that the modules that I used had had more stuff in them. Even so, it was great...my mom thought it was great too.

She loved that I could take the practice quizzes from home. I got a better grade on the real test than I usually get, I think it was because of the practice quizzes. It helped me check what assignments we needed to do. Students also commented that they liked having the vocabulary glossary so they could look up what words used in class meant. The points made by students regarding vocabulary and glossary are important variables for student achievement. Any tool that facilitates student acquisition and use of content vocabulary words should be viewed as valuable. This would be especially true for second language learners.

student Academic Improvement Although a direct relationship between improved state test scores and the use of Moodle would be difficult to show, improved test scores did in fact happen. Moodle was one aspect of a complicated restructuring plan for the high school. Although each subgroup on the state accountability tests showed improvements (except for African Americans), the Hispanics and students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP) subgroups

816

Very True (for me)

Somewhat True (for me)

No Opinion

Somewhat Not True (for me)

Not True at All (at least for me)

Table 1. Student responses to Moodle survey

1.

It made the class more interesting.

3.74

13%

57%

26%

0

4%

2.

It made the material easier to understand and learn.

4.09

26%

61%

8%

4%

0

3.

It gave me opportunities to learn beyond the textbook.

4.09

44%

30%

17%

9%

0

4.

It gave me opportunities to practice taking quizzes and tests.

4.3

39%

57%

0

4.%

0

5.

It challenged my thinking more than the textbook.

3.5

14%

46%

18%

18%

4%

6.

It fit how I learn much better than just sitting and listening to the teacher.

3.8

46%

14%

23%

4%

4%

Mean

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

showed the greatest gains on the Prairie State Achievement Test Scores for High School Partner. Hispanic students had a 14% point gain in math, 18% in science, and 9% in reading. IEP students had a 4% point gain in math, 7% in science, and 8% in reading. The middle school that was involved in the Moodle training had significant improvement in scores; but again, Moodle was one aspect of a continuous improvement framework. The school

invested in Smartboard technology in every classroom. This facilitated the use of Moodle as a teaching tool but could also have influenced student test scores. In the area of 8th grade math, Low SocioEconomic Students showed an improvement from 36% Meeting/Exceeding to 55%; while Non-LowIncome students had an increase from 49% to 83% (Table 2). Regarding ethnicity, eighth grade math scores improved eight percentage points for white

Table 2. 8th grade math state test scores BY INCOME LEVELS

BY ETHNICITY

Taken from thefrom IIRC (http://iirc.niu.edu/). Taken the website IIRC website (http://iirc.niu.edu/) DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The focus of this study was to use an effective professional development model to817 provide face-to-face and asynchronous training and feedback to secondary science and math

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

students and ten percentage points for black and Hispanic students. This allowed all three populations to meet state standards. What should also be noted was the increase in Exceeds scores for black students. As shown in Table 2, this group went from 2004 and 2005 zero Exceeds, 2006 with a 3%, to 10% in 2007.

DIscussIon AnD conclusIons The focus of this study was to use an effective professional development model to provide faceto-face and asynchronous training and feedback to secondary science and math teachers as they developed online course material for their classrooms. Little research has been done on applying professional development models to training K-12 teachers to develop and implement online course supplements. The existing literature was been mostly anecdotal from higher education instructors (Kearsley & Blomeyer, 2004). This study incorporated previous professional development research (Creighton, 2001; Guskey, 2003; Fullan, 1996; Galloway, n.d.; Killion, 2002) and Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development work and moved away from traditional one-time training. The teachers received sustained training over a period of months as suggested by the Association of Curriculum and Supervision (2003) and Corcoran (1995). Over a period of three months, teachers worked through several drafts of their online course material, adding content that was relevant to their own teaching purposes (Birman et al., 2000; King & Newmann, 2000; Stiggins, 2000; Ullman & Rabinowitz, 2004), appropriate for daily use in their classroom (King & Newman, 2000), and was seen as needed by the teachers (Killion, 2002; King & Newmann, 2000; Speck, 1996). Ongoing training support (Kinnaman, 1990; Shelton & Jones, 1996; Guhlin, 1996; Stager, 1995; and Persky, 1990) was provided as the teachers revised their courses. The post-workshop

818

training was flexible (Browne & Ritchie, 1991; Harvey & Purnell, 1995; Patton, 1997; Pope, 1996; Stager, 1995), allowing teachers to work at their own pace within the timeframe of the project and to focus on content areas that were important to them. Within one academic year, an increase from zero to 35 online Moodle course supplements were created and implemented by the teachers. All but one of the teachers became proficient at developing online instruction as measured by a revised QOCI rubric. The Moodle training was part of a continuous improvement framework model. The schools involved in the grant have seen improvement in their achievement test scores. As measured by gain scores, high school math, science, and reading state test scores improved significantly for Latino and special education students at the participating schools. Although there is no empirical evidence at this time that Moodle was solely involved in this improvement, certainly the utilization of technology should be acknowledged as having a partial responsibility. This association between the use of technology and student achievement lends support to the findings from NCREL’s (2005) meta-analysis review of research. Students and teachers reported improved student interest in the content, levels of engagement, and attitudes because of the addition of the online course material as opposed to traditional face-to-face instruction (Solmon & Wiederhorn, 2000). Students identified the online tools they used in the Moodle courses as helpful in their understanding and use of content vocabulary. This is significant in that the research (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Baumann, Kame‘enui, & Ash, 2003; Becker, 1977; Beck & McKeown, 1991; Castellano, Stringfield, & Stone, 2002; Davis, 1942; Whipple, 1925) clearly aligns vocabulary and reading comprehension to academic success. Marzano’s (2004) research on vocabulary acquisition identified games as a crucial step in learning new content words. Moodle allows outside resources (i.e., access to web sites with vocabulary games

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

to see visual representation of difficult concepts and to hear the words pronounced) to be easily organized and accessed by the student. The allocation of time for teachers to work on their courses (McCaw, Watkins, & Borgia, 2004) was an issue for the teachers. Although the initial workshop training took place during intersession, the teachers found it difficult to find enough time during the school year to work on adding to their basic course shell. Questions for future research include: a) what is the impact of having an on-campus support person to assist the teachers with technical questions?; b) How long does it take teachers to create online course supplements for the first time as opposed to how long does it take them once they have experience?. This information is important in terms of time management and cost analysis for the support of teachers when planning professional development workshops; c) What differential impact does this professional development model have on student achievement?; and d) What role do incentives play in completion and utilization of lessons developed during training? Although focused on a small sample of secondary teachers, this study demonstrated an effective process for conducting and evaluating professional development of teachers creating online course supplements. The study adds to the body of research on professional development and technology implementation in the schools. In a time of high accountability and fiscal limitations, secondary school administrators need cost effective, results-oriented, and implementable training modules for their staff. This study is an early contributor for meeting such demands.

references Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77-117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2003). What professional development structures best affect classroom instruction? Translating Education Research into Action, 1(15), 1-4. Retrieved November 2007 from, http://www. ascd.org/publications/researchbrief/volume1// v1n15.html Baumann, J. F., Kame‘enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook on research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.)( pp. 752-785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged – What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518-543. Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (2nd Ed)(pp. 789-814). New York: Longman. Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Garet, M. S., & Porter, A. C. (2000) Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33. Bower, C. S. (2005). Ready for a virtual course management system? Before your district invests in an e-learning platform, ask the hard questions. Technology and Learning 25(7), 8-11. Browne, D. L., & Ritchie, D. C. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: A model of staff development for implementing technology in schools. Contemporary Education, 63(1), 28-33. Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., & Stone, J. R. (2002). Helping disadvantaged youth succeed in schools: Second year findings from a longitudinal study of CTE-based whole-school reforms. Columbus, OH: National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education.

819

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development. The Consortium of Policy Research in Education. Retrieved on July 2, 2005, from http://www. ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/t61/index.html Cole, J. (2005). Using Moodle: Teaching with the popular open source course management system. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. Creighton, T. (2001). The educator’s guide to using data to improve decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Davis, F. B. (1942). Two new measures of reading ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 33, 365-372. Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. C. (2003) Moodle: Using learning communities to create an open source course management system. Proceedings of the EDMEDIA 2003 Conference, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://dougiamas. com/writing/edmedia2003/ Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online learning. Communication Education 52(2), 87-105. EduTools (2007). CMS: Feature definitions. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www. edutools.com/glossary.jsp?pj=4 Fisher, K. (2006, Apr. 23). Michigan to require “online courses” for high school graduation. The Art of Technology. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/ post/20060423-6657.html

Galloway, H. (n. d.). Job-embedded professional development. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://www.txstate.edu/edphd/PDF/jobpd.pdf Guhlin, M. (1996). Stage a well designed Saturday session and they will come! Technology Connection, 3(3), 13-14. Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748-750. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391. Harvey, J., & Purnell, S. (1995, March). Technology and teacher professional development. Report Prepared for the Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Hoban, G. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Philadephia: Open University Press. Illinois Online Network (2007). ION’s Quality online course initiative. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/initiatives/ qoci/index.asp Johnson, L. (2006). The sea change before us. EDUCAUSE, March/April. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ ERM0628.pdf

Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. The School Administrator, 10(63), 12-16.

Kearsley, G., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). Preparing K-12 teachers to teach online. Educational Technology 1, 49-52. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/ TeachingOnline.htm

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Killion, J. (2002). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 420-423.

Killion, J., & Bellamy, G. T. (2000, Winter). On the job: Data analysts focus school improvement

820

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

efforts. Journal of Staff Development, 21(1), 27-31.

improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(2), 90-109.

King, M. B., & Newman, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 576-580.

North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) and Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2006, November). Virtual schools and 21st century skills. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http:// www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/VSand21 stCenturySkillsFINALPaper.pdf

Kinnaman, D. E. (1990). Staff development: How to build your winning team. Technology and Learning, 11(2). Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species, 4th edition. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, Book Division. Lemke, C. (2002). enGauge 21st century skills: Literacies in the digital age. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463 753). Levy, S. (2003) Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 6(1). Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McCaw, D. S., Watkins, S. G., & Borgia, L. (2004). Providing more time for professional development. Learning Points and Associates (NCREL). Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/ profdevl/pd600.htm Moodle (n.d.). Retrieved August 23, 2007, from http://moodle.org/. Moursund, D. (1992). Empowering teachers. The Computing Teacher, 20(4), 6. Murphy (1992). School effectiveness and school restructuring: Contributions to educational

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) (2005). Critical issue: Using technology to improve student achievement. Naperville, IL. Learning Point Associates. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/ issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: A new century text (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Persky, S. E. (1990). What contributes to teacher development in technology. Educational Technology, 30(4), 34-38. Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online teaching: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Retrieved August 26, 2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/ pdf/K-12_Online_Learning.pdf Pope, S. (1996). Singing the praises of on-site training. Technology Connection, 3(3), 16-17. Richardson, W. (2004). Blogging and RSS – The “what’s it?” and “how to” of powerful new web tools. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 11(1). Retrieved Sept. 10, 2007, from http://www.infotoday. com/MMSchools/jan04/richardson.shtml Rossett, A., Douglis, F., & Frazee, R. V. (2003, July). Strategies for building blended learning. ASTD: Learning Circuits. Retrieved on October 4, 2008, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/ jul2003/rossett.htm Shelton, M., & Jones, M. (1996). Staff development that works! A tale of four T’s. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (582), 99-105.

821

Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked

Speck, M. (1996, Spring). Best practice in professional development for sustained educational change. ERS Spectrum, 33-41. Solmon, L. C., & Wiederhorn, J. A. (2000). Progress of technology in the schools: 1999. Report on 27 states. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Retrieved on October 4, 2008, from http://www.mff.org/pubs/Progress_27states. pdf Stager, G. S. (1995). Laptop schools lead the way in professional development. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 78-81. Stiggins, R. (2000). Student-involved classroom assessment (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ullman, C., & Rabinowitz, R. (2004, Oct. 1). Course management systems and the reinvention of instruction. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.thejournal.com/ articles/17014

Wood, F. H., & McQuarrie, F. (1999, Summer). Onthe-job learning. Journal of Staff Development, 20(3), 20-22.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Blog: A blog (or web log) is an online personal journal that can be updated and made available to others to read and post comments. Choice: This Moodle tool allows teachers to ask a multiple-choice question as a quick poll (Williams, 1991). Forum: Users can communicate with each other online in a text-based discussion forum. (EduTools, 2007). Glossary: Using this Moodle tool, students and teachers can create and update a list of definition entries, such as a dictionary of terms (Williams, 1991).

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

Group Tool: This Moodle tool allows students to be organized into workgroups.

Welk, D.S (2006, Winter). The trainer’s application of Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” in asynchronous online training of faculty facilitators. Online Journal of Distance Learning administration 9 (4). Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdia/ winter94/welk94.htm

Live Chat: Users can communicate with each other in real-time via the Web (EduTools, 2007).

Williams, B. C. (1991). Moodle 1.4.3 for teachers and trainers. Boston, MA: Free Software Foundation. Retrieved Sept. 10, 2007, from http:// download.moodle.org/docs/moodle_1.4.3_for_ teachers_and_trainers.pdf Whipple, G. (Ed.). (1925). The twenty-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Report of the National Committee on Reading. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.

822

Open Source: Users of open source software receive the source code and are allowed to alter and redistributed the software (EduTools, 2007). RSS (Real Simple Syndication) Feeds: Users can subscribe to RSS feeds published by websites such as blogs and news websites (Richardson, 2004). Usually displayed as a linked headline and summary, these feeds deliver updated content from the websites directly to the user. Student Tracking: Ability to track student online usage of course material (EduTools, 2007) and analyze student learning progress. Wiki: A website where many authors can collaboratively add and edit content.

823

Chapter LI

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program Nancy Wentworth Brigham Young University, USA Charles R. Graham Brigham Young University, USA Eula Ewing Monroe Brigham Young University, USA

AbstrAct The teacher education program at Brigham Young University (BYU) includes three stages of development in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Thompson & Mishra, 2007). The first stage consists of experience in a technology course with sections specific to early childhood education, elementary education, and secondary content areas. The next stage includes a series of methods courses in which instructors expand on the work of the introductory technology course. The third stage of technology development occurs during the final field experience. The candidates complete a Teacher Work Sample (TWS) (Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality, 2001) that must have a technology component. At each stage our candidates have consistent criteria for how technology should be appropriately used in active learning. These criteria are key to the lessons candidates develop that incorporate technology. This chapter describes each stage and how our program has worked to improve technology understanding of our candidates.

IntroDuctIon The teacher education program at Brigham Young University (BYU) includes three stages of de-

velopment in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Thompson & Mishra, 2007). The first stage consists of experiences with technology in an introductory course with

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

sections specific to early childhood education, elementary education, and secondary content areas. The next stage includes a series of methods courses in which instructors expand on the work of the introductory technology course. The third stage of technology development occurs during the final field experience. The candidates complete a Teacher Work Sample (TWS) that must have a technology component. At each stage our candidates have consistent criteria for how technology should be appropriately used in active learning. These criteria are key to the lessons candidates develop that incorporate technology. This chapter describes each stage and how our program has worked to improve technology understanding of our candidates.

theoretIcAl frAmeworK Two areas of research have informed our integration of technology in our teacher education program: teacher development and beliefs (Song, Hannafin, and Hill, 2007) and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). TPACK was formally referred to as TPCK but in the current literature has been changed to TPACK because it is easier to use when communicating (Thompson & Mishra, 2007). TPACK refers to the complex interrelationship between a teacher’s technology use, instructional methods, and understanding of the subject matter (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). TPACK involves understanding and negotiating the relationships among technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge (Niess, 2008). Teachers who possess TPACK think about and use technology as an enhancement of their pedagogical methods in teaching content and are aware of ways that technology can support high quality teaching in curriculum areas (Loveless, DeVoogd, & Bohlin, 2001). TPACK is the added dimensions of knowledge required by teachers to effectively teach with technology. The process of

824

developing TPACK can have a disruptive effect (Hedberg, 2006) when it requires teachers to consider teaching and learning in new ways that are quite different from traditional methods of teaching. Our teacher education program uses both the introductory technology course and the methods courses to develop technology knowledge and technology pedagogical knowledge. Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge is developed as the candidates continue their development in their content methods courses. Our faculty members strive to use active, inquiry-based learning to encourage the development of TPACK in our students (Song, Hannafin, and Hill, 2007). Pedagogical beliefs of teachers are a vital first step of change as teachers begin to integrate technology into their instruction (Ertmer, 2005). Active, inquiry-based activities can invigorate teaching and motivate students to take charge of their own learning, understand multiple perspectives, and develop high level reasoning skills; such activities also improve student understanding and retention of knowledge (Kur & Heitzmann, 2008; So & Kong, 2007; Yoder, 2004). Some teacher candidates have had few experiences infusing inquiry and technology into instruction. They expect technology to be used to improve only their administrative efficiency and presentation skills (Wentworth & Waddoups, 2003). The methods course is perhaps our best and only opportunity to turn the tide of teacher misconceptions about inquiry learning and technology use (Molebash & Julius, 2004). Teachers who ascribe to inquiry methodology use technology to support inquiry learning (Juliana, 2002). Experiences with active and inquiry teaching using technology at the preservice level have been found to impact the teaching practices of these future teachers (Nail, 2003). The inquiry experiences teacher candidates have can involve multiple types of technology because different inquiry tools reinforce different inquiry skills (Churchill, 2008; Everett & Spear, 2008). Use of handheld-based science activities were found to

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

enhanced preservice teachers’ inquiry abilities, organizational skills, engagement in science content learning, and attitudes and self-efficacy (Gado, Ferguson, & van ’t Hooft, 2006). Calculator-based data collection devices have been determined to be useful tools for generating real data from natural phenomena (Dixon & Johnson, 2001). The TPACK developed in the methods courses is continued as our candidates integrate technology as part of their Teacher Work Sample (TWS) their final field experience. The challenge of helping preservice and novice teachers to bridge the gap between their knowledge about good pedagogical practice and their application of that knowledge in the classroom is well documented. The challenge is particularly acute when integrating technology into teaching. Preservice teacher candidates are faced with the challenge of determining how they will use technology in their field experiences and in their future careers. They often resort to uses of technology that are primarily oriented toward teacher productivity and teacher-centered presentation of information in a direct instruction classroom. Until candidates are confident with active instruction as an instructional mode, they are not likely to engage with technology in an active lesson. Combining an unfamiliar lesson style with unfamiliar technology only creates more stress for the candidate. TPACK also complicates the transfer of knowledge into practice because many of the teachers who supervise teacher candidates in the field are masters of traditional methods and not comfortable with technology-supported teaching methods. Salomon (2002) refers to the effects of this challenge when he writes: [There is a] consistent tendency of the educational system to preserve itself and its practices by the assimilation of new technologies into existing instructional practices . . . . A most powerful and innovative technology is taken and is domesticated, or if you want—trivialized, such that it does more or less what its predecessors have done, only it does it a bit faster and a bit nicer. (pp. 71-72)

the brIghAm young unIversIty teAcher eDucAtIon ProgrAm The teacher education program at Brigham Young University (BYU) has been designed to provide candidates multiple opportunities to develop and demonstrate Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). We believe that this task can not be accomplished in a single one- or two-credit course alone. Rather, we believe that TPACK needs to be developed across our entire teacher education curriculum. The teacher education program provides modern technologies to candidates in labs and in classrooms, and instructs teacher candidates in the integration of technology into K-12 curriculum to improve teaching and learning. Candidates in the preservice program have been instructed in a technology course and in methods courses to integrate technology into their practice. The BYU program includes three stages of technology development: (a) an introductory technology course in which TPACK is defined and modeled through inquiry lessons, (b) content area methods courses in which candidates apply TPACK, and (c) a capstone unit plan that requires candidates to demonstrate TPACK during their student teaching. At each experience our candidates create technology enhanced lesson plans that are evaluated based on a common set of Principles of Effective Technology Integration (see Table 1). These principles were established for our program prior to the emergence of the TPACK framework but we feel that they require our candidates to understand and negotiate the relationships between technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge defined by TPACK. They were developed after reviewing the Levels of Technology Integration (LoTI) scale (Moersch, 2002), the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) continuum (Haymore, Ringstaff, and Dwyer, 1992), the North Central Regional

825

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

Table 1. Principles of effective technology integration 1. Student Use of Technology: Effective technology integration typically involves students (as opposed to just the teacher) in actively using the technology.

Guiding Questions: WHO is using the technology? Is the technology being used to promote active or passive learning?

2. Technology Use is Integral: Effective technology integration is integral not peripheral to the learning activity.

Guiding Questions: Is technology an add-on to the real learning activity? Is technology added as a convenience or solely as a motivational factor?

3. Focus on Learning Task: Effective technology integration focuses on the learning task and not the technology.

Guiding Questions: Is the technology the focus or learning in the subject area the focus? Is technology being used as a tool to help achieve the learning task? How much time will it take for the students to learn to use the technology as compared to the benefit from using the technology tool?

4. Added Value: Effective technology integration facilitates learning activities that would be more difficult or impossible without the technology.

Guiding Questions: Would it be easier to do without technology? What is the added value to the learning process by using technology? What were the teacher and student able to do because she/he had the technology that wouldn’t have been possible without the technology?

Educational Laboratory’s engage model (Lemke, 2003), and the ISTE NETS-T 2000 Standards (ISTE, 2000). They were also influenced by the work of Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordin, and Means (2000) as well as Hargrave and Hsu (2000). The principles integrated ideas from many of the cited works and were intended as a simpler, easy to remember criteria that students could use in considering the effectiveness of the technology integration they observed and/or planned. University faculty members have engaged candidates in tasks that model the use of these instructional practices to our candidates and have required them to implement technology into lesson plan designs. We continue to investigate how our candidates put into practice what they have learned about technology integration during their field experiences. In this chapter we discuss the experiences our candidates have at each stage of their TPACK development, using the common criteria for technology integration as a lens for examining these experiences. The following questions guide our evaluation of the technology experiences: •

826

Are teacher candidates translating the knowledge of technology integration (TPACK) experienced in the introductory course and

•

•

methods courses into teaching practice as represented in the capstone assignment (TWS) in their final field experience? What factors have the greatest impact on student integration of technology into their TWS (modeling in methods classes, perception of technology availability, common criteria across experiences, linking technology to the inquiry process, etc.)? What are the barriers to improved transfer of TPACK to practice during preservice teachers’ field experiences?

stAge 1: IntroDuctIon of tPAcK The first stage of technology development for our teacher candidates begins with a prerequisite assessment of their basic technology skills. The Technology Skills Assessment (TSA) requires candidates to demonstrate basic technology skills in the areas of Internet and communications, spreadsheets, word processing, and presentation software. Having demonstrated basic technology skills, the candidates are introduced to technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in an introductory technology course.

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

basic technology skills Basic technology skills are a prerequisite for candidates applying for our teacher education program. The McKay School of Education has developed a Technology Skills Assessment (TSA) that students must pass as part of their application process. The TSA tests students’ skills in four areas: Internet and communications, spreadsheets, word processing, and presentation software (see http://education.byu.edu/technology/tsa.html). To complete each of the four assessments, students are presented with a task that they must complete in a 30-minute time frame. The assessment is proctored in an open computing lab and can be done at the student’s convenience. Students who need remediation on their basic skills can choose to learn from online tutorials or from individualized help from lab assistants. These basic skills provide a foundation for the other more content-specific technology skills that the students will acquire in the program.

technology Integration course TPACK is introduced to our candidates in a technology integration course with sections specific to early childhood education, elementary education, special education, and secondary content areas. The course is based on the belief that there is a difference between learning technology skills and learning how to integrate technology into the classroom and that ultimately the integration skills are key to making technology a useful teaching tool (Graham, Culatta, Pratt, & West, 2004). We also acknowledge that, without some basic technology skills, integration is not possible. The course is designed to help our teacher candidates learn knowledge and skills of technology that will help them be more effective and more productive teachers and to develop the disposition that using technology in instruction will improve student learning. Although there is some technology instruction in this course, it is primarily concerned with methods of integrating

technology into education so that our candidates develop technology pedagogical knowledge. The goals for this course are consistent with the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) (http://cnets. iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html). A key unit in the first technology course focuses on developing TPACK in our candidates. The purpose of this unit is to help the teacher candidates learn what effective technology integration is. They gain experience through (a) seeing models of effective technology integration, and (b) participating in several design challenges that involve integrating technology. Students begin by using the Video Modeling Database (http://vmdb.byu.edu) to access video examples in their specific disciplines and grade levels of teachers using technology effectively. They use the TPACK lens to analyze several videos. Then they begin a series of design challenges. Elementary and Early Childhood Education candidates participate in challenges in all of their major content areas, while secondary education majors are involved in design challenges that look at different genres of technology applied to their specific content areas. Table 2 describes the design challenges for early childhood, elementary, and secondary education sections. In the elementary education sections, candidates begin with highly scaffolded challenges within which the instructors provide constraints related to one or more of the technology, pedagogy, or content dimensions. Candidates end the course by completing a final challenge in which they are making all of the decisions about technology use. By the end of the unit, the candidates should understand the TPACK framework for analyzing effective technology integration; have an increased awareness of technologies that can be used to support specific pedagogies and specific content areas; and have analyzed the effectiveness of technology to enhance learning with specific pedagogical strategies for the core content areas of their area of study. 827

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

The candidates are asked to design lessons that effectively integrate technology, integrate technology-rich lessons in the classroom with students, and demonstrate creativity in completing technology-rich projects. Criteria for success match the Principles of Effective Technology Integration: (a) student use of technology is central to the task, (b) technology use is integral to the task, (c) the focus of the task is on the concept to be learned, and (d) technology adds value to the task. The criteria used to evaluate the lessons focus on how the students to whom the lessons will be taught will use the technology to engage in active learning. The course examples, assignments, and criteria strive to increase the candidates’ willingness to explore the effective use of digital technologies to enhance student learning and contribute to a belief of the candidate that technology integration can make a difference in enhancing student learning.

stAge 2: tPAcK In methoDs courses The second technology integration experience for our teacher candidates is during a range of

methods courses in which instructors expand on the work of the introductory technology course. For early childhood and elementary education candidates, there are methods courses in reading and language arts, science, mathematics, and social science. Secondary education candidates have a least one methods course in their content area. Table 3 is a sample of specific goals or assignments in the elementary methods courses that relate to integration of technology into the content area of the methods course. The elementary mathematics methods course experience is discussed here as an example of what our candidates experience in the second stage of their technology development. As part this course preservice teacher candidates are introduced to inquiry-based mathematical tasks that use technology. Two tasks are presented to the candidates to complete and then each is discussed based on four criteria: (a) the lesson involve students (as opposed to the teacher) in actively using technology for inquiry learning; (b) the technology is integral, not peripheral, to the learning activity; (c) the lesson focuses on the mathematical concept and not the technology; and (d) the technology facilitates learning activities that would be more difficult or impossible for the students to complete without the technology. These

Table 2. TPCK challenges and descriptions for elementary and secondary education Elementary & Early Childhood Challenge

828

Secondary Education

Description

Challenge

Description

Virtual Tour Project

Candidates create a virtual tour using Google Earth that addresses a core content standard.

Multimedia Project

Candidates create a lesson that involves students in using multimedia tools to address a core curriculum standard.

Digital Storytelling Project

Candidates create an age appropriate lesson that involves children in developing a digital story. They use video software (iMovie, MovieMaker, or PhotoStory) to create an example for the students.

Web 2.0 Project

Candidates create a lesson that involves students in using Web 2.0 or Web communication tools to address a core curriculum standard.

Science Inquiry Project

Candidates use Vernier probeware, digital microscopes, Kidspiration, or Stellarium to enhance a science inquiry lesson in which elementary students are doing science as opposed to just learning about science.

Content Specific Technology Project

Candidates create a lesson that involves students in using a content specific technology tool to address a core curriculum standard.

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

Table 3. Technology integration in methods courses Methods Course

Technology Goals or Assignments

Reading and Language Arts Methods Course

Teacher candidates will consider the role of technology in primary grade literacy instruction. (see IRA standards‚ stranded throughout elements)

Science Methods Course

Inquiry Lesson Plan (Science Webquest)—100 points This is a small group project. You will be assigned to a team of 3 or 4 students. Together you will plan and construct an inquiry-based content lesson for a specific grade level using a WebQuest format. This lesson may be based on the topic you selected for your Modified Teaching Unit, or it may be designed to teach a science concept or concepts that are completely unrelated.

Social Science Methods Course

Goal 4: Teacher candidates will demonstrate the ability to access and apply a variety of appropriate teaching methods, strategies, resources, and technology to support the effective teaching and learning of social studies. Objective 4.1: Teacher candidates will demonstrate their ability to use the Internet and other appropriate sources to access resources and materials for teaching social studies and will be able to defend why they are appropriate. Objective 4.2: Teacher candidates will use a variety of appropriate technology, resources, teaching strategies, and materials in designing social studies lessons. Objective 4.3: Teacher candidates will incorporate the use of technology for the purpose of teaching social studies in each lesson they design OR be able to defend why they did not include technology in a particular lesson. Objective 4.4: Teacher candidates will research and present one useful and appropriate method or strategy for teaching social studies.

Elementary Education Mathematics Methods Course

Design, implement, and reflect on an inquiry lesson that uses technology. The lesson will be evaluated according to how well (a) the lesson involved students (as opposed to the teacher) in actively using technology for inquiry learning; (b) the technology was integral, not peripheral, to the learning activity; (c) the lesson focused on the mathematical concept and not the technology; and (d) the technology facilitated learning activities that would be more difficult or impossible for the students to complete without the technology.

four criteria are consistent with the Principles of Effective Technology Integration (see Table 1) presented to the students in their introductory technology course.

task 1 The first task involves using either a hand-held calculator or a computer-based basic or scientific calculator to solve the following problem: • • • •

Use these symbols only once 1 2 3 4 Use these symbols as many times as you would like ( ) - . (a decimal point) Create expressions for large numbers Record all of your expressions

The examples provided are: • •

4321 (43)(21) meaning 21 multiplied by 43

Expressions created by students include: • • • • •

(41)(32) 21(43) 4(321) (2)(3)(41) (.1)-432

After the candidates work through the task, the instructor guides the discussion of how this activity met the four criteria given the candidates for their lesson. Important ideas that have emerged included the following. First, in this task the students are using the technology, and technology is not used just to create the lesson or present material to the students. Second, technology is integral to the learning task because it allows the students to examine several expressions in the amount of time given for the task. The students explore many possible solutions, and there is not just one correct answer to the problem. They learn

829

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

from one expression and then try another and another. Third, the lesson focuses on mathematics concepts, not the technology. Responses will vary depending on the grade level and mathematical background of the students. In early grades the concept of place value is central. In later grades, positive and negative exponent use is an important mathematics concept. Fourth, the task is more difficult without the technology. How many students would be willing to compute manually 4 to the power of 321? The candidates are excited by this example because they can see that through inquiry their students will be able to explore many mathematical ideas at many different levels.

task 2 The second task is a graphing exercise. Preservice candidates are asked what they ate for breakfast: a dairy item, a grains item, a fruit item, a meat item. They can answer more than once, and the totals are entered into a spreadsheet. Working in pairs, the candidates create as many charts or graphs as they can to represent the data. The instructor selects candidates to discuss their thinking with the class, and the instructor presses them to explain how the chart tells the story of the data. Bar charts are common and easy to understand. Line charts are discussed so that students can understand that the categories (dairy, grains, fruit, and meat) are discrete, making the line chart problematic. Pie charts are also a common representation created by the candidates. Through questioning, the idea emerges that a specific percentage reported on the pie chart does not represent the percent of candidates who ate a particular food item–-but rather a percentage of all food items eaten and reported. The classroom discussion makes this concept clear to the candidates. Again the instructor guides the discussion of this activity according to how the task meets the four criteria for technology integration. The task did have the students, not the teacher, using

830

the technology. The students create charts with a partner and then explain their chart to the rest of the class. The instructor did select the charts to be presented to the class based on the lessons that need to be learned from them (an important aspect of the inquiry model), but she does not create charts herself. The technology is integral because it allows several charts and graphs to be produced in a short time, allowing many comparisons of data representations. The candidates are quick to cite this advantage for students. They recognize that public school students might spend a great deal of time coloring one chart rather than making more than one chart and thinking about what the different representations show. The task focuses on the mathematics, not the technology. The mathematical concept central to the lesson is how data can be represented in multiple ways to tell a story. The technology allows the candidates to focus on this concept, not on how to create different charts and graphs. The task is of creating multiple charts or graphs are more difficult without the technology. After completing these two tasks, the candidates are given the assignment to write an inquiry-based lesson that integrates technology into their instruction. They are reminded that their lesson will be assessed using the four criteria for technology integration. After they complete drafts of their lesson plans, they bring them to class for peer review according to the criteria. Then they teach their lesson to elementary students during the field experience component of their methods class. The instructors have reviewed the lessons submitted to determine which criteria are met consistently and which criteria need to be stressed more clearly (Wentworth & Monroe, 2008). The following examples of lessons created by the candidates help illustrate the extent to which criteria were met. The first example met all four criteria. The second failed one, the third failed two criteria, and the last example failed three criteria.

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

example 1: All criteria met Students will determine the amounts of ingredients needed to make various foods for a class party with the purpose of understanding fractions. Students will also display their data on a graph in order to explore the function of various graphs. This example satisfies all criteria of technology use so it is a strong example of TPACK. The students are using calculators to compute changes in amounts of ingredients and spreadsheet software to create graphs representing the ingredients used. The students are able to compute many changes and convert more recipes because of the technology, which makes the technology integral to the learning. The mathematics concepts of fractions and graphs are the focus of the lesson, and the technology supports these concepts by allowing the students to interpret results of calculation and not just the calculations themselves. The task would be more difficult without the technology because only a few recipe ingredients could be converted and the graphs would not be based on as many ingredients.

example 2: one criterion failed Students will review symmetry using digital cameras. They will go on a brief walk around the school and take pictures of apparent symmetry. Students will download the pictures onto the computer and move them into a graphic editor. They will draw lines of symmetry onto the shapes and then print out their symmetry for the teacher to evaluate. In this example the students are again using the technology, and the mathematics concept is again the focus of the lesson. Two different types of technology are being used in the lesson, a digital camera and digital drawing software. In the first part of the lesson the students are taking digital pictures of apparent symmetry. This use of technology is integral to the lesson because

the students can capture and print many more pictures using digital cameras than if they were drawing them or using film cameras. The second part of the lesson has students using technology in a difficult way. Drawing a line of symmetry using a drawing program takes longer than just having the students print the pictures and then draw the line of symmetry with a straight edge. This use of technology is not essential to the learning, so the technology pedagogy is weak.

example 3: two criteria failed In partners or individually, students will use an interactive website to find shapes that can be used to construct different shapes. Students will record their findings and identify the relationship of “a part to a whole” in terms of fractions. Students will record their findings and be able to explain the how and why of their observations and conjectures. As with other lessons this example does have the students using technology and does focus on a mathematical concept, but the technology is neither an integral part of the task nor is the task more difficult without the technology. Students could use tiles or some other manipulative to compare the part to the whole, so the technology is not essential to the inquiry. The task is not more difficult without the technology. For some students, the hand-eye coordination of using the computer might make the task more difficult than using manipulatives. Here both technology pedagogy and content pedagogy are weak.

example 4: three criteria failed Students will create their own review questions about probability using the computer. In this example the content knowledge and content pedagogy are weak. The students are using the computer, but the mathematics concept

831

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

of probability is only a minor part of the task. The students are spending their time entering questions and not learning about the concept of probability. The use of technology does not relate to the mathematics concept at all. The students are doing word processing–not learning a mathematics concept using technology. The mathematics of this task is not impacted by the technology in any way so the technology is not essential to the lesson, and the task is not more difficult because of the technology. The examples discussed earlier show that the candidates did understand the importance of technology being used by the students and not just the teacher, and the importance of the technology supporting the mathematical concept of the lesson, two critical aspects of TPACK. The candidates had the most difficulty using technology in a way that was integral to the inquiry task and designing tasks for which the mathematics would be more difficult without the technology. The instructors need to stress these two criteria and perhaps give more examples that meet these criteria as they introduce technology-enhanced inquiry lesson to their students.

stAge three: APPlyIng tPAcK In fIelD exPerIences The final stage of TPACK development is during the student teaching semester during which the candidates develop and implement a unit plan. This capstone assignment, the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) (Renaissance Partnership, 2001), contains seven specific assignments in lesson design including (a) contextual factors, (b) learning goals and objectives, (c) an assessment plan, (d) instructional design, (e) instructional decision making, (f) analysis of student learning, and (g) reflection. (A detailed description of a Teacher Work Sample assignment and criteria can be found at http://education.byu.edu/deans/documents/TWS_rubric. pdf.) Table 4 shows the instructions and criteria

832

for the technology requirement of the TWS. As in stage one and stage two of our teacher education program, in stage three the primary criterion for appropriate technology integration is that the classroom students are using technology rather than the teacher. Level 5 of the TWS criteria, Exceeds Expectations, implies the value added criteria, that the technology in integral to the task and increases the level of thinking of the instruction. During this stage of technology development, candidates are expected to know how to integrate technology into the lessons they design. The candidates’ supervisors and mentors may give them advice about what technology is available in the schools, but no explicit instruction about technology integration is provided. Technology is not required in every lesson, but when it is used, the candidate is asked to plan thoughtfully for and describe its use. An initial review of 96 TWSs data was conducted to help us assess if the instruction during stage one and stage two of our program had prepared our candidates to meet our expectations of technology integration in inquiry lessons. The results showed that only 33% of teacher works samples reviewed had students rather than teachers using technology (Wentworth, Tripp, & Graham, 2008). We were very disappointed that 88% of candidates listed “overhead” as the only technology they were using in their unit. We saw a major disconnect between the work we had done in stages one and two of our teacher education program and the technology integration represented in the TWS. In order to understand what the primary factors were that impacted the quality (good and bad) of the technology integration in the TWS, we conducted 22 interviews from a random selection of the candidates whose TWSs were analyzed. The questions included: •

Did you feel that you effectively integrated technology into your teacher work sample?

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

Table 4. BYU teacher work sample technology requirement instructions and rubric Instructions Describe how you will improve student learning through student use of technology tools (word processing, spreadsheets, presentation software, Internet, simulations, science probes, etc). The technology should be used by the students in higher level thinking activities that would be difficult or impossible without technology. Student use of technology is not required in every lesson, but when it is used, thoughtfully plan for and describe its use. (You may include a description and rationale for using technology that is not available to you in your school setting.) Rubric

c. Technology

5 Exceeds Expectation

• • •

•

Student use of technology is integrated throughout the entire unit to promote higher level thinking activities.

4-3 Meets Expectation

2-1 Partially Meets Expectation

0 Not Met / Missing Evidence

Students use technology in learning activities that would be difficult without technology OR a strong rationale for not using technology is given.

Technology is used only in the production or presentation of learning activities OR a limited rationale for not using technology is given.

Technology is inappropriately used OR not used. Rationale for not using technology is weak.

What influenced your choice of technology used in your teacher work sample? How did the availability of technology at your school influence your choice? What kind of guidance did you receive regarding technology integration from supervisors, mentor teachers, faculty, etc. Did your classes at BYU require you to include technology in your lesson plans?

Three interviews were reviewed by three researchers to determine common responses and then the other 19 interviews were coded for these responses. Two issues emerged that candidates considered as they described uses of technology in their TWS. The first issue was that the expectations in the original criteria were unclear about what kinds and uses of technology would be acceptable. The second issue was that the supervisors often advised them that productivity uses to create lessons and presentation uses would be sufficient to receive a “partially met” or “met” on the technology indicator of the TWS score. We then interviewed 20 randomly selected supervisors to understand what information they were giving to candidates as they designed their TWS and how this impacted the integration of

technology into the instruction. The questions included: • • •

•

• • • •

• •

Do you teach your students ways to integrate technology into the subject you teach? How do you teach the preservice teachers to integrate technology into their lessons? How much time do you spend teaching students about effective ways to integrate technology? What kind of counseling/mentoring do you provide to preservice teachers regarding the technology component of the TWS? How do you integrate technology into your course? What type of technology do you model in your classroom? How often do you use technology to teach your students? Do your student teachers ask about the technology portion of the teacher work sample? What kind of feedback do you provide them? What have been some barriers for students using technology in their teacher work samples?

833

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

We found that they were sympathetic to the concerns of the candidates about the difficulty of having technology available in the schools. They verified suggesting to candidates that using the Internet to find lesson materials, word processing to produce handouts for students, and overheads or PowerPoint presentations to provide information to the students would meet the TWS technology requirement. The most common technologies modeled and suggested by the supervisors paralleled the technologies that the candidates used in the TWS. We now realized that many supervisors did not yet understand the vision of technology integration based on TPACK that our candidates had experienced during their introductory technology course and in their methods courses. We began to share the TPACK vision with them in their regular bi-monthly meetings, first by reviewing with them the principles of effective technology integration (Table 1). We also provided the supervisors with examples of lessons within a unit that had similar goals and objectives but that would be scored at a different level of the TWS. Our goal was to help the supervisors encourage candidates to use the knowledge about technology integration learned in the introductory technology course and in their methods courses. A Language Arts example focused on a writing assignment for a fifth grade classroom. The lesson objective was to have the students write in different forms and genres, produce informational text (e.g., book reports, cause and effect reports, compare and contrast essays, observational/research reports, content area reports, biographies, historical fiction, summaries), produce writing to persuade (e.g., essays, editorials, speeches, TV scripts, responses to various media, and produce functional texts (e.g., newspaper and newsletter articles, e-mails, simple PowerPoint presentations, memos, agendas, bulletins). In the sample TWS that Exceeds Expectation the instructor introduces the students to research

834

reports. The students choose a topic to research. Then the students will gather information and pictures about their topic on the Internet and use a concept-mapping template to outline their report. The students use iMovie or Windows Movie Maker to create their final research reports. The pedagogy of this lesson is highly impacted by the technology use and the students are using the technology. The Meets Expectation lesson requires the students to choose a topic to research. The teacher shows the students some websites they can use to gather information on their topics. The students spend one day in the computer lab gathering information and pictures for their report. The students create a handwritten copy of their research report. Here the students use the technology for some aspects of the assignment but most of the work could be done without technology. In the Partially Meets Expectations example the teacher uses the internet to find pictures and information for an example report. The teacher uses Microsoft Word to write the report and gives the report to the students as an example. The students choose a topic to research in the school library. The students create a handwritten copy of their report. Here the teacher uses the technology, not the students and the entire lesson could be done (poorly) without technology. After the mentoring of the supervisors, the three researchers coded the TWS created by our candidates. Figure 1shows a comparison of the technology use before (2006, n=96) and after (2007, n=99) the TWS criteria was changed and mentoring of supervisors was completed. The percent of TWSs showing technology used only for producing lessons dropped from 53% to 23%. Overhead use dropped from 88% to 61%, and teacher-centered non-overhead use dropped (60% in 2006, 51% in 2007) as teachers began to involve their students more in using technology. Teacher work samples that involved student use of technology increased from 32% to 59%.

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

conclusIons AnD ImPlIcAtIons The TPACK development of candidates at Brigham Young University is focused in three stages: (a) an introductory technology course, (b) content area methods courses, and (c) a capstone unit plan (the TWS) that requires technology integration in the instruction. Our common criteria of technology integration in each of these stages are that students, not teachers, should be engaged with the technology in an active, inquiry learning experience and that the technology adds value to the pedagogy of the instruction. We feel that these criteria support the development of TPACK of our candidates by helping them understand the relationships between technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge. The examples, assignments, and criteria in all stages are designed to increase the candidates’ willingness to explore the effective use of digital technologies to enhance student learning and develop a belief among the candidates that technology integration can make a difference in enhancing student learning. A review of the TWSs by technology experts as well as education faculty initially showed a disconnect between the assignments created

at the first two stages and the TWSs created in the last stage. Our teacher candidates were not translating the knowledge of technology integration experienced in the introductory course and methods courses into teaching practice as represented in the capstone assignment (TWS) in their final field experience. Interviews with candidates and their mentors indicated that the university supervisors mentoring candidates during their final field experience had the greatest impact on student integration of technology into their TWS. The candidates indicated that they had learned the required technology knowledge and skills of TPACK and could articulate our vision of technology integration but were told by their supervisions that the expectation on the TWS criteria could be met when the candidate used technology to produce lesson materials and present information to their students. As a result of this disconnect we began to work with the candidates’ mentors and supervisors to help them understand the technology vision of TPACK. We provided examples of lessons that showed low and high expectations of technology use. We discussed the most common questions asked by the candidates and provided support for helpful answers. We shared samples of candidate

Figure 1. Types of technology use represented in teacher work samples 100 88

90

Percent of use

80 70 60

61 53

60

59 51

2006

50

2007

40 30

32 23

20 10 0 Productivity

Teacher Use (Overhead)

Teacher Use (non Overhead)

Student Use

835

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

work that had been created during stage one and stage two so that the supervisors would know the level of understanding of technology integration that our candidates had mastered. We reinforced the criteria required in the earlier stages of the program so they would continue that level of expectation as they mentored the candidates during the TWS assignment. The TWS produced the semester after the mentoring of supervisors showed that instructing the supervisors on our vision for technology integration has improved the mentoring of candidates as they began to implement their knowledge of technology use in their field experience. The focus of the supervisors’ mentoring changed from one of technology use for producing lesson materials and presenting content in the classroom to a focus on pedagogy that included inquiry learning with technology. The TWSs created after this effort showed that our candidates seemed to understand how to create lessons that engaged their students with technology. This work supports the importance of a collaborative effort among all teacher educators to present a common set of expectations to candidates across the whole of the teacher education program. Our common vision has been based on TPACK throughout the program using a common set of criteria focusing on pedagogy and technology that support content knowledge. Knowledge of how to integrate technology into instruction is not enough if technology instructors and the people mentoring and assessing field experiences do not share the same high expectations.

references

Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2001 (39-44). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Examining the effect of small discussions and question prompts on vicarious learning outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39(1), 66-80. Everett, C., & Spear, R. (2008). Investigating the earth and its environment. Science Teacher, 75(1), 58-61. Gado, I., Ferguson, R., & van’t Hooft, M. (2006). Inquiry-based instruction through handheldbased science activities: Preservice teachers’ attitude and self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 501-529. Graham, C. R., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools, 21(1/2), 127-148. Hargrave, C. P., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303-314. Haymore, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1992). Innovation and interaction: The relationship between technological innovation and collegial interaction (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Report No. 13). Retrieved August 4, 2008 from http://www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/ acot/library.html Hedberg, J. G. (2006). E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 171-183.

Churchill, D. (2008). Learning objects for educational application via PDA Technology. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 5-20.

ISTE (2000). NETS-T 2000. Retrieved August 13, 2008 from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2000Standards/ NETS_for_Teachers_2000.htm

Dixon, J., & Johnson, J. (2001). Cyber spaces and learning places: The role of technology in inquiry.

Juliana, M. (2002). Deepening the impact of technology through an inquiry approach to teach-

836

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

ing and learning: A cross-case analysis of three teachers’ experience. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002, 2031-2032. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Kur, J. & Hietzmann, M. (2008). Attracting student wondering. Science and Children, 45(5), 28-32. Lemke, Cheryl (2003), Standards for a modern world: Preparing students for their future. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(1), 6-9. Loveless, A., DeVoogd, G.L., & Bohlin, R.M. (2001). Something old, something new…Is pedagogy affected by ICT? In A. Loveless & V. Ellis (Eds.), ICT, Pedagogy and the Curriculum. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Moersch, C. (2002). Measures of success: Six instruments to assess teachers’ use of technology. Learning & Leading with Technology , 30 (3), 10-13, 24.

Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality. (2001) Project overview. Retrieved August 4, 2008 from http://fp.uni.edu/itq/ Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76-101. Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 42(2), 71-75. So, W. W., & Kong, S. (2007). Approaches of inquiry learning with multimedia resources in primary classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 329354. Song, L., Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2007). Rconciling beliefs and practices in teaching and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 55(1), 27-50. Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38-64.

Molebash, P. & Julius, J. (2004). Web inquiry projects: The Everest of online learning experiences. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004, 4209-4211. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Wentworth, N. & Monroe, E. E. (2008). Preservice teachers focus on inquiry learning using technology-enhanced mathematics lessons. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008, 45994605). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Nail, M. (2003). Facilitating inquiry through technology infusion. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003, 2048-2050. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Wentworth, N., Tripp, T, & Graham, C. (2008). Using preservice teacher work samples as a means for assessing and improving technology integration in field experiences. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2007, 2279-2285. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPACK. In Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (pp. 223-250). New York and London: Routledge for the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Wentworth, N., & Waddoups, G. L. (2003). The promise of technology: Are technology-rich units changing learning environments? Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2003, 790-793.

837

TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program

Yoder, M. (2004). Inquiry based learning enhanced and invigorated by the internet: Research, resources, WebQuests. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004, 2775-2778. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

KeyworDs AnD DefInItIons Field Experience: Any school-based experience such as practicum or student teaching completed during a teaching licensure program. Inquiry: A form of pedagogy that involves teachers and students in problem solving. ISTE NETS-T: International Society for Technology in Education National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers Standards used to evaluate teachers’ understanding of the uses of technology in the learning process.

838

Methods Courses: University courses during a teacher licensure program that relate to the teaching methods of a particular content area. TPACK: Technological pedagogical content knowledge or TPCK. Teacher knowledge of the uses of technology that impact the pedagogy of teaching various content. Teacher Work Sample (TWS): A capstone document completed by student teachers that shows their understanding of developing, implementing, and evaluating lessons. Technology Integration: Ways in which technology is integrated into teaching methods and curriculum. Technology Integration Course: University course during a teacher licensure program that relates to the ways technology is used to teach content.

839

Chapter LII

Self-Regulated Learning:

Issues and Challenges for Initial Teacher Training Manuela Delfino Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy Donatella Persico Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy

AbstrAct This chapter assumes the importance of developing Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) competences in students in order to cope with the challenges of today’s and tomorrow’s society. To achieve this, it is claimed that it is crucial to train teachers who are aware of what SRL is and are able to support their students in developing these abilities. This chapter proposes examples drawn from a course in Educational Technology where SRL competence has been promoted through reflection on cognitive, meta-cognitive, emotional and motivational aspects of learning, as well as through modelling teaching practices that tend to shift the locus of control from trainers to trainees.

IntroDuctIon Teaching is a very hard job. It has always been hard, but it has become even more difficult and crucial in the so called knowledge society, where the major assets of its citizens do not lie in the amount of information and skills they possess, but in their ability to acquire knowledge and competence and in the way they can make use of both.

In this view, the aim of education is not to make learners know all there is to know about a given subject, but rather to make them able to build, enrich and nurture their own knowledge. Hence, what teachers should do is provide their students with some very basic and carefully chosen notions and concepts and with the ability, the will, the conceptual and technological tools needed to elaborate on them. This is why teach-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Self-Regulated Learning

ing is so difficult: because it is about empowering people, putting them in charge of their learning and teaching them how to control it by making them aware of how to choose the best learning strategies. But there is even more. Today we do not want to leave anybody behind, neither do we wish to mortify talents or betray excellence. This entails achieving personalised learning, thereby giving each learner the chance to fully exploit their potential. And this makes teaching even more difficult, in that it requires decisions about how to foster learning for each student, by adapting, controlling and assessing the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process. However, there is some good news: learners can, and should, help in the realization of this process. They can, and should, become aware of their learning styles, learn to evaluate their results, exploit ICT to acquire, evaluate and elaborate knowledge. Teachers will have to provide scaffolds for learning by modelling how to carry out authentic tasks, by offering situated learning opportunities; by providing chances for learners to collaborate and therefore support each other in this process. But how can we train teachers for such a hard job? According to Paris and Winograd (2001) the best way is by using, with trainee teachers, the same approach we expect them to use with their students. They claim that it is a frequent paradox that teachers are often trained with methods that contradict the principles they are being taught. Teachers naturally tend to replicate the same teaching approach they have experienced. This accounts for their resistance to the educational use of technology, their tendency to engage in perfunctory curriculum delivery, their focus on contents rather than on learning methods. In this paper, we will use the case of a course in Educational Technology run by the Institute for Educational Technology of the Italian National Research Council for the Post-Graduate School in Secondary Teaching of the University of Genoa to discuss and exemplify the following points: 840

•

•

•

•

If the aim is to train teachers about Educational Technology, then Educational Technology must be used to do so; It is impossible to teach future teachers all there is to know about Educational Technology: a much more sensible approach is to identify some basic concepts and to lay the bases for further autonomous professional development; Awareness about the importance of selfregulation in the teaching profession should also be promoted, because instructional design in education cannot be reduced to rigid decision making procedures; If teachers must empower their students and make them able to become better and more autonomous learners, they will first need to learn to self regulate their own learning. To this end, they should receive explicit training on what self-regulated learning is, how it can be promoted and what its relationships with the use of Educational Technology and with the most popular learning theories are.

theoretIcAl frAmeworK The theoretical framework of this chapter lies at the crossroads between two fields: the psychological theories of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and the interdisciplinary sector of Networked Learning (NL). When we talk about the importance of developing a learner’s ability to successfully cope with the challenges of today’s and tomorrow’s society, we acknowledge that this ability involves cognitive, meta-cognitive, emotional and motivational aspects. The theory of SRL subsumed research on these aspects in one coherent construct emphasising the interplay taking place among them when learning is the focus. NL, on the other hand, is the term we will use to refer to learning on the Web and with the Web, that is by using both its online resources and its

Self-Regulated Learning

interpersonal communication facilities. In the following we will set the scene for this paper by discussing the respective contributions of research in SRL and NL to the field of teacher training. We will also focus on the interplay between these two fields, with emphasis on those aspects that are relevant to the aim of the paper, that is, advocate the importance of SRL in teacher training, both as an aim and as a content, and provide examples of how theory can be bridged into praxis, as well as of the role that can be played by NL in this process.

self-regulated teachers for self-regulated learners SRL takes place when learners are in full control of their own learning, that is they plan, monitor and evaluate their own learning processes, from a cognitive, meta-cognitive, emotional and motivational point of view (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001; Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). In principle, this entails learners being able to set their own learning objectives and pursue them by choosing optimal learning strategies and suitable media, according to their learning styles and pre-existing knowledge. They will also be able to regulate the whole process, possibly re-adjusting their own decisions based on effective self-evaluation strategies. SRL is therefore a very desirable set of competences for students who are to become autonomous citizens, and educators should pursue its development. SRL competences develop through practice, and teachers can support such development by modelling effective behaviour and by planning the teaching and learning process in such a way that SRL strategies are increasingly adopted by students while teachers’ support decreases according to scaffolding and fading techniques (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989). Obviously, teacher training programmes should aim to raise awareness of the need to nurture

students SRL and to develop such competences among teachers. The case of pre-service teacher training is particularly interesting and critical because trainees’ SRL competences may be quite well developed in connection with their own disciplines, but some important components are often lacking: the awareness of the importance of supporting their development among their students, the teaching skills needed to do so and the competences required to self-regulate their own learning in a technology rich environment. While the first two points should be among the aims of any teacher training programme, the third point is one of the primary aims of teacher training in Educational Technology.

networked learning and teacher training NL is used here to identify “the use of internetbased information and communication technologies to promote collaborative and co-operative connections: between one learner and other learners; between learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources, so that participants can extend and develop their understanding and capabilities in ways that are important to them, and over which they have significant control” (de Laat, Lally, Simons & Wenger, 2006). According to the aforementioned definition, NL comprises both learning through Information Problem Solving tasks and Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). The distinction between these two areas is quite blurred, the difference lying mainly in the fact that the first appears to focus more on use of the Web and its online resources to retrieve, evaluate and reuse information in a critical way (Brand-Gruwel & Gerjets, 2008; Walraven, Brand-Gruwel & Boshuizen, 2008), while the second is mostly inspired by socio-constructivist views of learning, and concerns the way people learn together with the help of computers (Stahl, Koschmann

841

Self-Regulated Learning

& Suthers, 2006; Koschmann, Hall & Miyake, 2002; Koschmann, 1996). CSCL enables, on the one hand, distance learning students to participate in collective activities and achieve shared goals, and, on the other hand, tutors and teachers to effectively scaffold and support students in learning together (Strijbos, Kirschner & Martens, 2004). In this field, written asynchronous interactions are central, since they have the potential to activate collaboration and meta-cognitive processes. In spite of the strong resistance initially shown by trainees (Wood, Mueller, Willoughby, Specht & Deyoung, 2005; Uzunboylu, 2007), NL is being increasingly used in teacher training, and there are many reasons for this. One is that the large cohorts of trainee teachers are often characterised by very different backgrounds and expectations, so they need to be addressed with a very flexible and personalised approach, which cannot easily be done face-to-face, let alone in a transmissive way. Another is that teacher training is mostly about problem solving in instructional design, and therefore requires reflective practice and the possibility of looking at problems from several perspectives, which is better done through discussion among peers and with experts (Gray, Ryan & Coulon, 2004; da Ponte, Oliveira, Varandas, Oliveira & Fonseca, 2007).

the Interplay between srl and nl in teacher training SRL in NL contexts imposes demands that are peculiar to this kind of environment (Whipp & Chiarelli, 2004) and have to do with the ability to strike a balance between individual and social aspects of knowledge construction. For example, in CSCL learners should be pro-active and goal orientated without disregarding the importance of peer contribution to the discussion, they should be able to control emotions but also disclose them to contribute to the formation of a pleasant social climate, they should seek support and feedback but also provide it when needed and they should negotiate decisions and share achievements. 842

Networked learners, especially novices, should not be left alone in such a powerful but complex and unfamiliar world. To this end, the figure of the online tutor is of crucial importance. The roles of the online tutor have been widely investigated (de Laat, Lally, Lipponen & Simons, 2007; Conrad, 2004; Salmon, 2004; Berge & Collins, 1996) and include, among others: providing guidance and support to participants, especially at the beginning of a new learning experience; facilitating access to the learning environment and providing help with its use; mediating between the instructional design decisions and the spontaneous dynamics of the learning group; helping individuals to work collaboratively towards the achievement of common goals; stimulating discussion on specific contents; promoting cohesion and favouring a positive social climate among students. As Goodyear, de Laat and Lally (2006) put it, learners, on their side, have to (re)learn “to become active learners, need time to develop confidence to act as constructive learners, and exercise autonomy. […] Students also need to act as a community, where they take on active responsibility for educational processes as well as managing cohesion, well-being, trust, emotion, spirit and motivation within the group” (p. 216). The design, investigation and evaluation of NL environments as well as the way they support the development of SRL among trainees can be made more systematic if we refer to an adaptation (Delfino, Manca & Persico, 2007) of the Community of Inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000). The original, well known model was based on three dimensions (i.e., the cognitive, social and teaching presence): through these components the model aims to provide a way to understand and analyse the intertwining of several factors in a Community of Inquiry. Enriched by a fourth element, meta-cognition, the model was used to design our courses in Educational Technology. The four components of the learning experience - the cognitive, the social, the teaching and the meta-cognitive – also provide

Self-Regulated Learning

a structure to discuss, in this paper, the choices made by the course designers. In particular, we will discuss the decisions made about the learning objectives, the contents and learning styles (the cognitive dimension); the course structure and the teaching/learning strategies adopted (the teaching dimension); the participants’ interactions and the emotional/motivational factors involved in building the online community (the social dimension); the reflection on the learning process and on its effects (the meta-cognitive dimension).

InstructIonAl DesIgn choIces to trAIn teAchers About eDucAtIonAl technology AnD srl The course in Educational Technology was addressed to trainee teachers and run yearly from 2001 to 2006, involving a total of more than 600 trainees. The objective of the course was promoting the development of educational design competences, with special focus on the evaluation and selection of learning strategies, techniques, tools, and on the infusion of Educational Technology in the school context. Even though some of the contextual constraints remained the same every year (e.g., number of participants; short duration of the course; limited amount of resources available; great differences among trainees as regards expectations, interests and background), the course design changed according to the changing needs and features of the target population, and to the experience gained during the previous versions (Delfino & Persico, 2007). For this reason, in the following, we will refer to the different “versions” of the course, meaning the various formats it took in the six years of delivery. The instructional design choices made for this course are discussed in the next sections, with particular reference to those aimed at the development of SRL and collaborative abilities. We will start with our view on how the subject

can be dealt with, bearing in mind that it is a large and fast moving field. Then we summarise the delivery modes adopted in the various versions of the course. The subsequent sections are devoted to the cognitive, teaching, social and meta-cognitive components according to which the course was designed.

training teachers in educational technology “Educational Technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (AECT, 2004, p. 3). This is the latest definition of Educational Technology diffused by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). It emphasizes different aspects of educational practice (through the verbs facilitating, improving, creating, using, managing) without disregarding the role of theory and research in the field (concepts summarized in the word study). The double nature of this subject entails that the course programme should strike a balance between opportunities for the development of operative abilities (i.e., knowing how to do things, using and managing processes and resources) and for reflective practice, performance improvement and competence building. The key role of practice in Educational Technology is emphasized in all versions of our course by including extensive hands-on experience in their programmes. This choice also derived from the belief that Educational Technology cannot be taught without using Educational Technology, because future teachers should be trained with methods and tools that are similar to those they are expected to use with their own students. Furthermore, to develop know-how about what kinds of technology suit different contexts, trainee teachers should be given the opportunity to become acquainted with different forms of

843

Self-Regulated Learning

technology and to reflect on their educational limits and potentials (Cox, Preston & Cox, 1999; Pope, Hare & Howard, 2002; Brush, Glazewski, Rutowski, Berg, Stromfors, Van-Nest, Stock & Sutton, 2003; Dawson, Pringle & Adams, 2003; Ertmer, 2003). This can be done by emphasising the importance and the nature of the educational processes triggered by technology and by focusing on methodological and educational aspects rather than analysing in detail specific tools, that are likely to become outdated in a short time.

there was no option but a blended course. The blended scheme chosen for the final versions of the course entailed, for the first time in the course history, that all students had to take part in online activities. Distance communication among participants students, tutors and experts - took place within a special configuration of the Centrinity First Class© CMC environment. Interactions were mostly asynchronous, though synchronous communication in the form of chat was occasionally used.

Delivery mode

the cognitive Dimension: learning objectives, contents and learning styles

In accordance with the earlier considerations, CSCL was included among the training methods of our course, for a number of reasons. Firstly, CSCL competences are highly valued for technology integration in schools. Secondly, collaborative forms of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) are capable of fundamentally reshaping teachers’ professional development (Pachler & Daly, 2006) since they increase teachers’ acquaintance with the different Web services and hopefully encourage their future participation in communities of practice, one of the most promising means of Teacher Professional Development (Fusco, Gehlbach & Schlager, 2000). Lastly, very few of our trainees had experienced CSCL before and they therefore needed to try it out first hand to become aware of the pros and cons of its use in education. While the first version of the course, held in 2001, was entirely face-to-face, with lessons alternated with laboratory activities, from the second year the course included a distance learning component based on a socio-constructivist approach and therefore it relied heavily on task-based group work. The distance learning component gained importance with time: in the second year it was an optional three-week online module; in the third and fourth years it was a ten-week online course that students could choose as an alternative to the face-to-face one; in the last two years

844

Instructional design techniques suggest that decisions concerning the learning objectives of a course, in an academic context, should derive from the learning needs and take into consideration both the features of the target population (size, age, motivation, prerequisites, etc.) and the requirements and constraints imposed by the context in which the training is to take place (times and settings, tools and resources available, etc.). The nature of the subject matter also influences the design of the course. Educational Technology, in fact, is a wide and complex domain, hard to cover in short courses like the one in question. According to Issroff and Scanlon (2002), it includes a set of pedagogical and methodological skills needed for a competent use of the various strategies, techniques and media in teaching. It was therefore necessary to provide a general idea of the field and its contents, but also to identify some indefeasible concepts to be dealt with in greater detail than others, posing the basis for subsequent autonomous learning. When learners are adults, or graduates as in the case of our trainee teachers, it is desirable that they have a say in the overall objectives of the courses they take, even if their lack of competence in the domain might limit their ability to do so. In our case, to find a good balance between the

Self-Regulated Learning

institutional aims of the course and the students’ expectations, interests and desires, we found it very useful to: •

•

•

•

•

Provide students with a course guide, sent by e-mail a few weeks before the beginning of the course and containing information about the course (its objectives, structure, contents, method and the assessment criteria). This helps students to plan their learning and arrange the environment; Monitor students’ expectations towards the course and their previous knowledge/experience in the field of Educational Technology year by year, by using ad hoc questionnaires and informal interviews. This also helps students to become aware of their expectations, recollect ideas about previous learning experiences, and activate prior content knowledge; Devote some time, at the beginning of the course, to discuss these expectations and competences and negotiate the course objectives and approach with the students; Offer the trainees a number of options as to sub-objectives and topics to be dealt with, and differentiate the activities proposed (e.g., individual vs. group work; compulsory vs. optional; based on discussion and knowledge building vs. based on tasks; etc.), so as to give them the chance to identify those that best match their personal goals within the course general aims; Provide different ways to achieve similar or alternative learning objectives, so that learners can choose the learning strategies according to their favourite learning styles.

Nevertheless, some types of choices should not be left to the students at the beginning of the course but postponed to a later phase. First of all, high level choices concerning learning objectives and contents require some

competence on the subject, so they can only be made by people with previous knowledge of the domain. This does not mean that the students will never be able to make them but rather that they need to be gradually guided towards this aim. To this end, students can be supported through tools such as advance organisers in fully fledged online courses (McManus, 2000) or face-to-face sessions in blended courses. The role of these tools is to provide an overall picture of the content so that students can make informed choices as to what and how they would like to learn in more detail. This is particularly helpful when there is not enough time for the lecturer to completely cover a subject and the domain is a rapidly changing one. In the online versions of our course, the overall theoretical introduction was taken care of through readings and discussions moderated by competent tutors. In the blended versions, the face-to-face lectures provided the general picture of the topics covered in the online modules, while these served the purpose of carrying out in-depth analysis of one or more examples. Secondly, choices regarding learning strategies, methods and tools require awareness of one’s own favourite learning styles and of the pros and cons of each option. Among our trainee teachers, this awareness is unlikely to be well developed, at least in connection with technology use. However, since Educational Technology is the topic of the course, the ability to make informed choices in this respect is also one of the aims of the course. In particular, among the various possible methods, we wished them to appreciate the pros and cons of online collaboration. This is why we concluded that all our students should try online learning at least once, and specifically CSCL.

the teaching Dimension: course structure, social structures, tutors’ roles, learning evaluation While deciding the activities to be carried out online, many decisions about the course structure,

845

Self-Regulated Learning

the social structures, the tutors’ roles and the evaluation criteria must be taken, being aware of their reciprocal influences. The balance between the institutional aims of the course, its method and the students’ expectations, interests and desires can be achieved by giving the course a modular and flexible structure, where different modules pursue different objectives and students can choose which topics to investigate, with what methods, as well as how deeply they want to investigate them. While this is hardly feasible face-to-face, especially with a large audience, it can be done online, by proposing open learning tasks (i.e., tasks that can be further specified by the students themselves) and by splitting the whole cohort of students into small groups, working under the guidance of experienced tutors. In our course, for three years, even the choice between the online and the face-to-face mode was left to the students. However, there are drawbacks concerning the management of such options. On the one hand, the more freedom of choice the students have, the more the design and the tutors should be flexible and considering the investment required to design learning activities, especially online, it is desirable to limit the effects of these fluctuations. On the other hand, the students’ choices are not necessarily the best ones from the point of view of the learning outcomes (e.g., extrinsic motivation can prevail over intrinsic motivation, and the easiest option is likely to be chosen instead of one that is perhaps more promising but more demanding). In addition, the balance between choice and imposition changed in time, during each course. The initial activities were, in fact, carefully planned and pre-defined: start date, end date, who does what, by when, with whom, were decisions taken by the course designers. As the course progressed, though, more freedom was granted and the activity structure was more flexible. The learning materials changed too: during the scaffolding activities tutors provided students with analytical

846

grids and detailed worksheets, aiming to show a possible way to accomplish tasks, as the course progressed, however, they granted learners more and more responsibility, letting them decide how to organize their documents and what to produce in the reification phase. Since our students had to learn how to handle group dynamics and to experiment their future teaching role, they were encouraged to practice different roles, and in particular to act as moderators and facilitators of online activities. This was achieved through role-play techniques where students were invited to take up various types of pro-active roles in a group, such as strongly characterised teachers (e.g., the technology enthusiast, the technology detractor, the bureaucrat, etc.) while discussing strengths and weaknesses of an online resource. Previous research seems to support the hypothesis that role playing fosters SRL fairly well, compared to other strategies (Dettori, Giannetti & Persico, 2005). However, it was felt that facilitation roles should be first modelled by the tutors before asking students to do the same. Designing the teaching dimension also entails decisions aiming to define the social structure of the community, including the size and composition of groups as well as their reciprocal interactions. In order to obtain a lively exchange, heterogeneous groups of seven/eight people were established and different learning strategies were adopted in each module. Among these, an alternation of individual and group work was aimed to consolidate and assess specific topics dealt with during face-to-face sessions or covered in educational materials; dialogical, argumentative and peer review strategies were adopted to carry out critical analysis of different learning resources; the collaborative production of artefacts within the framework of the role-play activity was chosen to achieve thorough understanding of different technology enhanced learning methods. Most of these decisions were taken during the instructional design of the course, while others

Self-Regulated Learning

were left to the tutors. These were choices that had to be taken on the basis of the information that tutors constantly receive from the monitoring process. Examples of these decisions are those depending on the tutors’ sensibility to the students’ emotional and cognitive status. The consequence is a need for close orchestration between the work of the instructional designers and the tutors: a lack of understanding of the course design principles by the tutors might, in fact, endanger the whole design effort. It is no coincidence that in our courses the tutors often took part in the design of the course. In this way, not only did we take advantage of their invaluable contribution to the course set up, but we also made sure they really shared its design principles. Finally, methods and criteria for learning evaluation should be mentioned. The central issue pertains the need to harmonize the socioconstructivist approach with the requirement of a summative evaluation of learning which is peculiar to the academic context. In the solution adopted for our courses the final summative evaluation took into consideration both qualitative and quantitative elements related to participation to each online activity (Anderson 2004a; Benigno & Trentin 2000). The criteria informing learning assessment were made clear from the beginning of the course. Although this point is a general principle in education, it is particularly important in online collaborative learning. Usually the quality and regularity of participation in the collaborative activities is assessed by the online tutors and informs the final assessment, together with the calibre of the products of the working groups. In our course, this type of assessment, based on the individual contribution to the group work process (MacDonald, 2003) was combined with a more traditional type of assessment, based on the production of an essay or an oral exam. To some extent, we let students choose on what basis they wanted to be evaluated, hoping that this assumption of responsibility further fostered

SRL. Forms of self-evaluation were encouraged as factors belonging to the meta-cognitive dimension but were not taken into account for summative evaluation.

the social Dimension: emotional and motivational factors The social dimension “relates to the establishment of a supportive environment such that students feel the necessary degree of comfort and safety to express their ideas in a collaborative context” (Anderson, 2004b, p. 274). To reach this purpose, special attention was given, especially at the beginning of the course, to familiarization and socialization activities, considering them as crucial components, able (a) to increase the sense of togetherness among participants and, consequently, to increase the quality of learning and the achievement of instructional objectives (Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Aspden & Helm, 2004); (b) to establish a suitable social climate; and (c) to develop the emotional and motivational aspects of SRL (Delfino, Dettori & Persico, 2008). Although much of the responsibility concerning the regulation of social dynamics is entrusted to the tutors’ sensibility, the importance of keeping in mind the social aspects when designing online courses should not be underestimated (Anderson & Elloumi, 2004). The measures taken to foster social presence were deemed particularly important due to the high number of participants and to the fact that only some of the participants had met before the course. In particular, the sense of belonging developed in the blended versions of the course seemed stronger than in the online versions, perhaps because face-to-face meetings allowed its strengthening by acting on participants’ identity, recognisability and participation. This was achieved, for example, by allowing identification of colleagues through the use of badges, by inviting students to sit in

847

Self-Regulated Learning

the classroom according to areas corresponding to the online workgroups, etc. The online activities usually started with some ice-breaking playful tasks, aimed at encouraging students to socialise or at least communicate with colleagues in order to get used to the environment and to familiarize with the basic rules of CMC. Furthermore, they were provided with a common Café area devoted to non-course related discussion. Sometimes, students used this area to talk freely about the course and its components. An interesting way to encourage socialisation and expression of emotions is the use of metaphoric expressions and figurative language, as a stimulus to manifest and share the emotions involved in any new learning experience. A study based on transcript analysis (Delfino & Manca, 2007) revealed that many of our students made spontaneous use of metaphoric expressions to disclose their feelings and support peers in the emotional control of the learning experience. For this reason, the following years we decided to exploit the potential of metaphors more systematically by adopting an explicit spatial metaphor as a way to foster the students’ sense of belonging to a community, to provide a framework for role assignment, identity, and responsibility and as an encouragement to manifest and share emotions (de Simone, Lou & Schmid, 2001). The activity proposed was based on the metaphor of navigation. Participants were invited to choose the kind of boat they wanted to use for their metaphorical voyage (the course), to say why they had chosen that particular kind of boat and their feelings and their expectations about the trip. Afterwards, each group of sailors had three weeks to negotiate and decide on a name for their boat, a motto and a symbol, thus practicing in a simple way methods of online collaboration. In the conclusive activity, they were required to say if they had changed their mind about the original choice, if they wanted to join another boat and another crew, and why.

848

the meta-cognitive Dimension: Reflective Practice The meta-cognitive dimension deserves special attention when SRL is one of the training objectives (Dettori & Forcheri, 2004; Paris & Winograd, 2001). In particular, in our course, it was regarded as an essential element and therefore made explicit in the design principles because the course was addressed to trainee teachers, and the very nature of their future work requires the acquisition of critical thinking skills in the field of education through in-depth analysis and reflection on learning processes (Parsons & Stephenson, 2005), including their own. The meta-cognitive component of the course consisted of critical discussions on the approach adopted in the course, on its contents, on the students’ expectations, on the relevance of Educational Technology within their training. Furthermore, the fact that for the majority of our trainees (about 90% per year) this was the first exposure to CMC in formal learning activities made it advisable to focus on the peculiarities of this type of learning process. In parallel with the contents-related main stream tasks, another activity was devoted to the analysis of “what” and “how” participants were learning. Since they were generally free to choose the topics of conversation, some of them gave their feedback on the course method, others focused on the concept of online social presence, yet others gave their opinion on the development of pragmatic and rhetorical skills. The conclusive phase of the meta-cognitive reflection process took place during the final part of the course and was aimed at reflecting on acquired skills, difficulties, satisfaction or dissatisfaction as to expectations and commitments for the future. The importance given to the discussion within the group and to the collaborative approach is the consequence of the belief that the teaching skills to be developed within the course are complex,

Self-Regulated Learning

demanding, and may be best acquired through experience and reflection on it. The tutors, recruited from researchers in the field of Educational Technology and in-service teachers, proposed discussion topics based on authentic or realistic learning situations (van Weert & Pilot, 2003). For example, regarding topics such as instructional design, trainee teachers need to become aware that there is not one right-or-wrong choice since each decision is characterized by pros and cons that a good teacher should be able to detect and evaluate. To this purpose, both self-evaluation and peer interaction are more effective than listening to or reading the expert’s opinion, whose point of view is too often assumed as correct. At the meta-cognitive level, even if face-to-face sessions can be very useful (especially to solve latent conflicts or uncertainties about the method), online discussion is often even more effective, possibly because so many participants, overcoming the distance in space and time, could reflect on and react to each others’ postings. The storage of postings in the form of a threaded discussion developed over time, also provided a useful support for reflection (Åhlberg, Kaasinen, Kaivola & Houtsonen, 2001; Thomas, 2002; Macdonald & Twining, 2002; Meyer, 2003). It was mostly through these meta-cognitive activities that participants become aware of what SRL is, how it can be promoted and what its relationships with the use of Educational Technology and constructivist learning theories are.

lessons leArnt The experience gained throughout the six years of this course, has provided us with a better insight, though not with clear-cut solutions, concerning teacher training in Educational Technology and the way it can be brought to enhance trainees’ SRL competences. We started from the assumption of the importance of first hand experience and reflective

practice, in both areas. In addition, we realised that creating and managing a positive social environment in the learning community is a necessary condition for any learning to occur. There is no learning for pupils without an adequate process of socialization behind it, both with the teacher and among themselves. The same applies when collaborative technologies are introduced, and teachers must be prepared for that. A theoretical understanding of pros and cons of given educational software is not enough for teachers to feel at ease in using it in the classroom, they must also know what happens to someone to whom such an activity is proposed. The changes made to the course aimed to offer flexibility and freedom without making the course too hard to run. Trainee teachers were given the opportunity to focus on the importance of social relations, on meta-reflection; to emphasize the chance to express feelings, moods, states of mind towards the learning processes; to play different roles within a community of learners; to reflect on the potential of language in social interactions, to learn how to self-regulate in order to promote effective self-regulation processes. While the course was in progress, we found that informal interaction among participants (e.g., that occurring in the Café area) via the online platform was as important as the formal learning activities. They were learning something meaningful even (and perhaps especially) when they were not working on a given assignment, but rather making use of the online platform for personal communications of various nature. In the context of a postgraduate training programme for teachers, some of their postings could be considered quite weird or out of place. However, they were not, because ultimately what participants were doing was just experimenting the potentialities of a Web-based collaborative environment, and that was among the objectives of the online course.

849

Self-Regulated Learning

conclusIon Technology is changing the way we work and the way we learn. In particular, at the same time NL requires us to become more autonomous in learning and more open to collaboration with peers. These two needs may appear to be contradictory, but they are not. More autonomy is needed because learning on the Web entails personal commitment, personalised goal-setting, ability to manage time and resources, successfully handle emotions and motivation, constructively deal with failures and self-assess achievements while facing information problem solving tasks. Better abilities to collaborate are needed because professional life is increasingly based on communities of practice, virtual or face-to-face, and teachers professional lives are perhaps even more dependent on this way of learning than others. In many countries, the problems teachers face in their work include isolation, lack of preparation to work with colleagues - especially those with different backgrounds, difficulties in dealing with students with different needs and learning styles, and last but not least, insufficient time, competence and disposition to use ICT effectively in their profession. The educational polices of many countries are, at least in principle, already directing schools and individual teachers to a way of teaching that is more relevant to the outside world, but in many cases this is not enough. Filling the gap from theory to praxis is the difficult part, and teachers should not be left alone in doing it. Actually, in many cases good policy indications are interpreted by the establishment and translated into rigid rules, which are passively, and often reluctantly applied by teachers who do not share their final aim and their real sense. Teacher training programmes should therefore become a priority and should generally invest a lot in SRL development of trainees, in particular when pedagogical and technological aspects are concerned. These objectives should of course go hand in hand with polices concerning teachers’

850

enrolment, investments in their preparation and support building among parents, legislators and institutions. The organisation of work in schools should favour, and not hinder, the achievement of these objectives, providing time, space and resources that can be used freely to these ends. If it is true that teaching is a hard job - but very crucial for any society, then consensus should be built around its role and recognition for it should be granted in all senses.

references AECT (2004). The Meanings of Educational Technology. Definition and Terminology Committee document #MM4.0. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/ Meanings%20of%20ET_4.0.pdf Åhlberg, M., Kaasinen, A., Kaivola, T., & Houtsonen, L. (2001). Collaborative knowledge building to promote in-service teacher training in environmental education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 10(3), 227-238. Anderson, T. (2004a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson, F. Elloumi (Eds.). Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University Press. Anderson, T. (2004b). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson, & F. Elloumi. (Eds.). Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 273-294). Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University Press. Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (Eds.). Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University Press. Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the Connection in a Blended Learning Environment. Educational Media International, 41(3), 245-252. Benigno, V., & Trentin, G. (2000) The evaluation of online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 259-270.

Self-Regulated Learning

Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference, Tallahasee, FL, June 1996. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~mpc3/ moderate/flcc.html

Dawson, K., Pringle, R., & Adams, T. L. (2003). Providing links between technology integration, methods courses, and school-based field experiences: a curriculum-based and technologyenhanced microteaching. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20, 41–47.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. New York: Academic Press.

de Laat, M. F., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons R.-J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35(3), 257-286.

Brand-Gruwel, S., & Gerjets, P. (2008). Instructional support for enhancing students’ information problem solving ability. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(3), 615-622. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M.H., Stock, L., & Sutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: the PT3@ ASU Project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 57–72. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-493). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated. Conrad, D. (2004). University instructors’ reflections on their first online teaching experiences. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 31-44. Cox, M., Preston, C., & Cox, K. (1999). What factors support or prevent teachers from using ICT in their classrooms? Paper Presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2–5, 1999. da Ponte, J. P., Oliveira, P., Varandas, J. M., Oliveira, H., & Fonseca, H., (2007). Using ICT to support reflection in pre-service mathematics teacher education. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 14, 79-89.

de Laat, M., Lally, V., Simons, R. J., & Wenger, E. (2006). A selective analysis of empirical findings in networked learning research in higher education: questing for coherence, Educational Research Review, 1(2), 99-111. de Simone, C., Lou, Y., & Schmid, R. F. (2001). Meaningful and interactive distance learning supported by the use of metaphor and synthesizing activities. Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 85-101. Delfino, M., & Manca, S. (2007). The expression of social presence through the use of figurative language in a Web-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 21902211. Delfino, M., & Persico, D. (2007). Online or face-to-face? Experimenting different techniques in initial teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 351–365. Delfino, M., Dettori, G., & Persico, D. (2008). Self-regulated learning in virtual communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(3), 195-205. Delfino, M., Manca, S., & Persico, D. (2007). Harmonizing the online and face-to-face components in a blended course on educational technology. In H. Uzunboylu, & N. Çavuş (Eds.), Proceedings of 7th International Educational Technology Conference, 3-5 May 2007, Near East University Cyprus (pp. 248-253). Cyprus: Near East University

851

Self-Regulated Learning

Dettori, G., & Forcheri, P. (2004). Fostering prospective teachers’ abilities of learning to learn within an ICT preparation course. In Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, & P. T. Isaías (Eds.), Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA’04), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 15-17 December 2004, (pp. 91-98). IADIS. Dettori, G., Giannetti, T., & Persico, D. (2005). Communities of practice, virtual learning communities and self-regulated learning. In R. Carneiro, K. Steffens & J. Underwood (Eds.). Self-Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (pp. 126-133). Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag. Ertmer, P. (2003). Transforming teacher education: visions and strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 124–128. Fusco, J., Gehlbach, H., & Schlager, M. S. (2000). Assessing the impact of a large-scale online teacher professional development community. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (pp. 2178–2183). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2/3), 87-105. Goodyear, P., de Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2006). Using pattern languages to mediate theory-praxis conversations in design for networked learning. ALT-J Research on Learning Technology, 14(3), 211-223. Gray, D. E., Ryan, M., & Coulon, A. (2004). The training of teachers and trainers: innovative

852

practices, skills and competencies in the use of eLearning. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, II. Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 6. Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.) (2002). CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. MacDonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers and Education, 40(4), 377-391. Macdonald, J., & Twining, P. (2002). Assessing activity-based learning for a networked course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 603-618. McManus, T. F. (2000). Individualizing instruction in a Web-based hypermedia learning environment: Nonlinearity, advance organizers, and self-regulated learners. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 219-251. Meyer, K. (2003). Face to face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65. Pachler, N., & Daly, C. (2006). Online communities and professional teacher learning: affordances and challenges. In E. K. Sorensen & D. Ó Murchú (Eds.) Enhancing learning through technology (pp. 1-28). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2001). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principals and practices for teacher education (CIERA Archives 01-04). Ann Arbor, MI: CIERA. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.

Self-Regulated Learning

ciera.org/library/archive/2001-04/0104parwin. htm Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student teachers: Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 95-116. Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what preservice teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191-203. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Taylor & Francis. Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman B. J. (Eds.) (1998). Self-regulated learning. From teaching to Selfreflective practice. New York: The Guildford Press. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-425). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (2004). What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351-366. Uzunboylu, H. (2007).Teacher attitudes toward online education following an online in service program. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(2), 267–277.

van Weert, T., & Pilot, A. (2003). Task-based team learning with ICT: Design and development of new learning. Education and Information Technologies, 8(2), 195-214. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 623-648. Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a Web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5-22. Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teacher’s perceptions: barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 183-206. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (2001). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

Key terms AnD DefInItIons Computer-Mediated Communication: Communication process between humans through ICT. Community of Inquiry: Virtual community for inquiry learning. Educational Technology: Theory and practice of systematic design of learning processes and resources. Instructional Design: Systematic approach to the design of learning processes and environments. Networked Learning: Learning on the Web and with the Web.

853

Self-Regulated Learning

Self-Regulated Learning: Learning process controlled by the learner from the cognitive, meta-cognitive, emotional and motivational points of view.

854

Teacher Training: Process aimed at making teachers more competent for their work.

855

Compilation of References

A digital decade. (2007, March 29). Education Week, 26(30), 8-9. Abdul-Alim, J. (2006). Tech-savvy students find lifeline in virtual science: Bayside class acquires vital skills through Web-based ‘epidemic.’ Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http:// www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=429182 Abrami, P. C. & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for Research and Development on Electronic Portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://www.cjlt.ca/ content/vol31.3/abrami.html Abrami, P. C., Savage, R., Wade, C. A., Hipps, G. and Lopez, M. (2008). Using technology to assist children learning to read and write. In T. Willoughby and E. Wood (Eds.), Children’s Learning in a Digital World, (pp. 130-172). Oxford: Blackwell. Abrami, P.C., & d’Apollonia, S., (1991). Multidimensional students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness-Generalizability of “N=1” research: Comment on Marsh. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 221-227. Abrami, P.C., d’Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S., (1997). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. In R.P. Perry & J.C. Smart (Eds.), Effective Teaching In Higher Education: Research and Practice (pp 321-367). New York: Agathon. ACOT, Apple Class of Tomorrow, (2001). Teacher-centered staff development. Available at http://www.apple. com/education/k12/staffdev/tchrcenterstaff..html

ACT®. (2007). ACT National Curriculum Survey[R], 2005-2006. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED496669) Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. AECT (2004). The Meanings of Educational Technology. Definition and Terminology Committee document #MM4.0. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http:// www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Meanings%20of %20 ET_4.0.pdf Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyear, L., & Harper, B. (2004). Developing a learning object metadata application profile based on LOM suitable for the Australian higher education market. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 191-208. Åhlberg, M. (2004) Varieties of concept maps. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Åhlberg, M., Kaasinen, A., Kaivola, T., & Houtsonen, L. (2001). Collaborative knowledge building to promote in-service teacher training in environmental education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 10(3), 227-238.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Compilation of References

Ahn, J. (2004). Electronic Portfolios: Blending Technology, Accountability & Assessment. T.H.E. Journal, 31(9), 12, 16-18.

Alexander, B. (2006, March/April). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review 41(2), 32-44.

Ahuja, M. K. (2002). Women in the information technology profession: a literature review, synthesis and research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 20-34.

Alexander, J., Tate, A. M. (1999). Web Wisdom: How to Evaluate and Create Information Quality on the Web. London: CRC Press.

Ainley, J., Banks, D., & Flemming, M. (2002). The influence of IT: perspectives from five Australian schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 395-404. Akpınar, Y., Bal, V. & Şimşek, H. (2005). E-Portfolyolarla Öğrenme Ortamı Geliştirme ve Destekleme Platformu. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET 4(4). Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http:// www.tojet.net/articles/4415.doc Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. A. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52-81. Albion, P.R., (2003). Graduating teachers’ dispositions for integrating information and communications technologies into their teaching. Retrieved July 2004, from http:// www.usq.edu.au/users/albion/papers/site03/3756.pdf Albion, R R. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs as an indicator of teachers’ preparednessfor teaching with technology. Society for Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1999. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development (2nd Edition). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Alessi, S. M., Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for Learning. Methods and Development. 3rd ed. Boston: Ally and Bacon. Alexa Internet (2008). Wikipedia.org-Traffic details from Alexa. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www.alexa. com/data/details/traffic_details/wikipedia.org?range=3 %C2%A0m&size=large&y=t Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32-44.

856

Alexander, K. L. (2007, March 19). Illiteracy aid found to lag in district: High rates said to hurt economy. The Washington Post, pp. B01. Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, Emotion and Cognition. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Alexander, R.J. (2006) Towards Dialogic Thinking: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). York, UK: Dialogos. Al-Kunifed, A. & Wandersee, J. (1990). One hundred references related to concept mapping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1069-1075. Allen, D., & Tannner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrolment Biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4, 262-268. Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D. & Vines, J.M. (2005). An instructional model for Web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (2), 217-235. Altman, R. (2007). Why Most PowerPoint Presentations Suck and How to Make Them Better. Fort Washington, PA: Harvest Books. Alvermann, D.E., Moon, J.S., & Hagood, M.C. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Foundation. Retrieved Dec 1, 2006 from http:// www.aauw.org/member_center/publications/TechSavvy/TechSavvy.pdf

Compilation of References

American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Foundation. Retrieved Dec 1, 2006 from http:// www.aauw.org/member_center/publications/TechSavvy/TechSavvy.pdf American Library Association. (2006). Position paper on flexible scheduling. Retrieved on May 4, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslproftools/positionstatements/aaslpositionstatement.cfm American Psychological Association, (1997, November). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school design and reform. Retrieved April 21, 2005 from http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html#Background. Anderson, C. (2004). An Update on the Effects of Violent Video Games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113-122. Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion. Anderson, D.D. (1992).Using feature films as tools for analysis in a psychology and law course. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 155-157. Anderson, J. (1981). Thinking, changing, rearranging. Eugene, OR: Timberline Press. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207. Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77-117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Anderson, R. H., & Bikson, T. K. (1998). Focus on generic skills for information technology literacy. In Proceedings of the Computer Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Anderson, T. (2004a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson, F. Elloumi (Eds.). Theory and practice

of online learning. Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University Press. Anderson, T. (2004b). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson, & F. Elloumi. (Eds.). Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 273-294). Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University Press. Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (Eds.). Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University Press. Anderson-Inman, L. & Horney, M. (1997). Electronic books for secondary students. Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, 40, 486-491. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153-160. Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Szymanski, M. (1999). Computer-supported studying: Stories of successful transition to postsecondary education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22, 185-212. Angelo, T. A. & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Pub. Ansburg, P.I, Caruso, M., & Kuhlenschmidt, S. (2004). Getting started on the Web: Enhancing instruction in psychology. In Perlman, McMann, & McFadden (Ed.) Lessons learned: Practical advice for the teaching of psychology ( pp. 81-90). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Society Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Kensington Gardens: International Reading Association and Australian Literacy Educators’ Association. Apiola, M. (2008). Sukupuoli ja kiinnostus tietotekniikkaan [Gender and the interest in information technology]. Kasvatus, 39, 72–77. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. (n.d.). Retrieved May 3, 2008, from http://www.apple.com/education/k12/ leadership/acot/ Apple. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning & technology: A report on 10 years of

857

Compilation of References

ACOT research. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from: http://www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/ library.html Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? Internet and Higher Education, 9, 9-21. Arbaugh, J. B., (2007). An empirical verification of the Community of Inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 11(1), 73-85. Argyris, C., & Schon, D., (1978). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Arnaldo, C. (2001). Child Abuse on the Internet: Breaking the Silence. Oxford, UK: Bergbagn Books & UNESCO. Arreguin, C. (2007). Reports from the field: Second Life community convention 2007 education track summary. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.holymeatballs. org/pdfs/VirtualWorldsforLearningRoadmap_012008. pdf Artz, A., & Yaloz-Femia, S. (1999). Mathematical reasoning during small-group problem solving. In L. Stiff & F. Curio (Eds.), Developing Mathematical Reasoning in Grades K-12: 1999 Yearbook, (pp. 115-126). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Asera, R. (2006). Pipeline or pipedream: Another way to think about basic skills. Carnegie Perspectives. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED498968) Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the Connection in a Blended Learning Environment. Educational Media International, 41(3), 245-252. Associated Press (2007, 26 April). Irish Government Blames Text Messaging for Teen Illiteracy. Fox News. com. Retrieved 26 April 2007 from http://www.foxnews. com/story/0,2933,268733,00.html?sPage=fnc.technology/personaltechnology Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2003). What professional development structures

858

best affect classroom instruction? Translating Education Research into Action, 1(15), 1-4. Retrieved November 2007 from, http://www.ascd.org/publications/researchbrief/volume1//v1n15.html Atkinson, C. (2005). Beyond Bullet Points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to Create Presentations That Inform, Motivate, and Inspire. Buffalo, NY: Microsoft Press Atkinson, C. (2005a). Zen and the Art of PowerPoint. Retrieved June 13, 2008 from http://www.beyondbullets. com/2005/01/story.html Attali, Y. and Burstein, Jill, (2006) Automated Essay Scoring with e-rater v2. The Journal of Teaching, Learning and Assessment 4 (3),3-30, 2006. Aufderheide P., & Firestone, C. (1993) Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Queenstown, MD: Aspen Institute. Aula, A., Jhaveri, N., & Käki, M. (2005). Information search and re-access strategies of experienced web users. In Proceedings of WWW 2005, May 10–14, (pp. 583–592). Chiba, Japan. Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton. Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research, 48, 251-257. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in learning and retention of meaningful information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 26. Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Ayres, I. (2007). Super Crunchers. Cambridge, UK: John Murray. Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., Douglas, K. H., Meade, C., & Bell, V. (in review). Structural analysis of UDL reading supports for students with intellectual disabilities.

Compilation of References

Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199-209.

Baird, D.E & Mercedes, A. (2006). Neomilennial user experience design strategies: utilizing social networking media to support ‘always on’ learning styles. Journal of educational technology systems, 34 (1), 5-32.

Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R.M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2) 111-127.

Bajaj, G. (2004). Simple Quizzes in PowerPoint. Computer Companion. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from http://www. computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=210

Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004(. Does training of self- regulated learning facilitate student’s learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523-535. Babinski, L. M., Jones, B. D., & DeWert, M. H. (2001). The roles of facilitators and peers in an online support community for first-year teachers. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 151-169. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Baer, A., Parchmann, I., Demuth, R., Gräsel, C., & Puhl, T. (2004). Concept mapping as a tool to facilitate goaloriented communication and cooperation among teachers. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Baggetun, R. & Wasson, B. (2006). Self-regulated learning and open writing. European Journal of Education, 41, 453-472. Bailey, F. & Moar, M. (2001) The Vertex Project: children creating and Baird, D. (2005). FlickrEdu: The Promise of Social Networks. TechLEARNING, 4(22).. San Francisco, CA: New Bay Media. Baird, D. (2006). Learning 2.0: Digital, Social and Always-On. Barking Robot. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www.debaird.net/blendededunet/2006/04/ learning_styles.html Baird, D., & Fisher, M. (2005-2006). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support ‘Always On’ learning styles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5-32.

Baki, A. & Birgin, O. (2004). Reflections of using computer-based portfolios as an alternative assessment tools: A case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 3(3),. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.tojet.net/volumes/v3i3.pdf Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT Impact Report. A Review of Studies of ICT Impact on Schools in Europe. European Schoolnet. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from http://insight.eun.org/shared/data/ pdf/impact_study.pdf Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (Dec. 11, 2006). The ICT impact report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/reports/doc/ ictimpact.pdf Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for Evaluating online teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217-232. Bangert, A. W. (2005). Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: An exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. Bangert, A. W. (2005). The Seven principles of effecting teaching: A framework for designing, delivering and evaluating an internet-based assessment course for nurse educators. The Nurse Educator, 30(5), 221-225.

859

Compilation of References

Bangert, A. W. (2006). The development of an instrument for assessing online teaching effectiveness. The Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 227 – 244.

Testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(1), 1-15.

Bangert, A. W. (2008). The effects of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of critical inquiry for a web-based statistics course. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 34-61.

Barbuto, L., Swaminathan, S., Trawick-Smith, J., & Wright, J. (2003). The role of the teacher in scaffolding children’s interactions in a technological environment: How a technology project is transforming preschool teacher practices in urban schools. In J. Wright, A. McDougall, J. Murnane and J. Lowe (Eds.), Young children and learning technologies: Selected papers from the International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 3.5 open conference(Vol. 34). Melbourne, Australia: Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology. Retrieved: December 12, 2004, from http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV34Barbuto.pdf

Banks, J.A., Au, K.H., Ball, A.F., Bell, P., Gordon, E.W., Gutierrez, K.D., et al. (2008). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://life-slc.org/ wp-content/up/2007/05/Banks-et-al-LIFE-DiversityReport.pdf Barab, S. A., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25-47. Barab, S. A., Young, M. F., Wang, J. (1999). The effects of navigational and generative activities in hypertext learning on problem solving and comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26 (3), 283-309. Barab, S., Dodge, T., Tuzun, H., Job-Sluder, K., Jackson, C., Arici, A., et al,(2007). The Quest Atlantis Project: A socially-responsive play space for learning. In B. E. Shelton & D. Wiley (Eds.), The educational design and use of simulation computer games. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: QuestAtlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107. Barab, S.A., Arici, A., & Jackson, C. (2005). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A design-based investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 65(1), 15-21. Barab, S.A., Sadler, T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., Zuiker, S. (2006). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: A framework for socio-scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59-82. Barbeite, F. G. & Weiss, E. M. (2004). Computer selfefficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample:

860

Barker, L. J., & Aspray, W. (2006). The state of research on girls and IT. In J. M. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology (pp. 3-54).Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Barker, P. (1999) Using intranets to support teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 36(1), 3-10. Barlow, M. & Robertson, H.J. (1994). Class warfare. New York: Plume Books. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. Boston: Routledge. Baron, L. (1991). Peer tutoring, microcomputer learning and young children. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 2(4), 27-40. Barrett, H. C. (2000). The Electronic Portfolio Development Process. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http:// electronicportfolios.org/portfolios/aahe2000.html Barrett, H. C. (2001). Electronic portfolios. In Educational Technology: An Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/ encyclopediaentry.htm Barrow, G.M. (1991). Intellectural integrity or mental servility. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(6), 449-453. Barrows, H., & Myers, A. (1993). Problem-based learning in secondary schools(Unpublished manuscript).

Compilation of References

Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute, Lanphier High School, & Southern Illinois University Medical School. Bartlett, A. (2002). Preparing preservice teachers to implement performance assessment and technology through electronic portfolios. Action in Teacher Education, 24(1), 90-97. Barton, J., & Collins, A., (1997). Portfolio Assessment: A Handbook for Educators. Menlo Park, CA: AddisonWesley Publishing Co.

in the personal digital assistant industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (1), 50-63. BBC, (2001). Text Message Warning. Retrieved 7 January 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1346511. stm BBC, (2005). Slang creeps into English exams.Retrieved 25 October 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4252108.stm

Baruque, L. B., & Melo, R. N. (2004). Learning theory and instructional design using learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 343-370.

Beach, R., & Lundell, D. (1998). Early adolescents’ use of computer-mediated communication in writing and reading. In D. Renking, M.C. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 93-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Basil, C., & Reyes, S. (2003). Acquisition of literacy skills by children with severe disabilities. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 19(1), 27-48.

Bearne, E. (2003). Rethinking Literacy: Communication, Representation and Text. Reading Literacy and Language, 37(3), 98-103.

Baskin, C. and Williams, M. (2006). ICT integration in schools: Where are we now and what comes next? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 455-473. Retrieved January 18, 2008 from http://www. ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/baskin.html

Bearne, E. (2007). Personal communication.

Basque, J. & Lavoie, M. (2006).Collaborative concept mapping in education: Major research trends. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Baumann, J. F., Kame‘enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook on research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.)( pp. 752-785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Baxter, J. H., Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Interactive multimedia and concrete three-dimensional modelling. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 323-331. Bayus, B. L., Jain, S., & Rao, A. G. (1997). Too little, too late: Introduction timing and new product performance

Bearne, E., Clark, C., Johnson, A., Manford, P., Mottram, M., Wolstencroft, H., Anderson, R., Gamble, N. & Overall, L. (2007). Reading On Screen. United Kingdom Literacy Association/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming Student Learning with Classroom Communication Systems. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, (3), 1-13. Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0403.pdf Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39. Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teacher’s technology uses: why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45-63. Beck, C. & Kosnik, C.M. (1994). Caring for the emotions: Toward a more balanced schooling. Unpublished manuscript. Beck, C. (1993). Learning to live the good life: Values in adulthood. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.

861

Compilation of References

Beck, C. (1995, February 3rd). Let’s work WITH teachers. A response to the Royal Commission’s “Vision for schools,” (Vol. 2). Presented at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, OISE/UT Forum, (pp. 1-7), Toronto, Canada. Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (2nd Ed)(pp. 789-814). New York: Longman. Beck, J. (2002). Emerging literacy through assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 44-48. Becker, H. J. & Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions correct? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ conferences-pdf/aera_2001.pdf Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/internet-use/ text-tables.pdf Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s Wired and Who’s Not? The Future of Children, 10(2), 44-75. Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Irvine, CA. Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions correct? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Becker, H., Ravitz, J.L., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Report #3, Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national survey. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine. Becker, H.J., & Riel, M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist-compatible computer use (Report No.7). Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine, Center for Research on Information Technology

862

and Organizations. Retrieved August 10, 2007 from http:// www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7/TEXT.html Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged – What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518-543. BECTA. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Retrieved September 20, 2006 from http://partners.becta. org.uk/page_documents/research/ barriers.pdf Beed, P., Hawkins, M., & Roller, C. (1991). Moving learners towards independence: The power of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher, 44 (9), 648-655. Beirne-Smith, M., Ittenbach, R. F., & Kim, S. H. (2006) Mental Retardation: An introduction to intellectual disability (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Bell, G., & Dourish, P. (2007). Yesterday’s tomorrows: Notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11(2), 133-143. Belmont, J. M., & Butterfield, E. C. (1971). Learning strategies as determinants of memory deficiencies. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 411-420. Benigno, V., & Trentin, G. (2000) The evaluation of online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 259-270. Bennett, K. & McGee, P. (2005). Transformative power of the learning object debate. Open Learning, 20 (1), 15-30. Bennett, R. (1999) Using new technology to improve assessment. In 25th Annual IAEA Conference ‘East meets West’, Bled, Slovenia. Bennett, S., Marton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775 – 786. Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference, Tallahasee, FL, June 1996. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://jan.ucc. nau.edu/~mpc3/moderate/flcc.html

Compilation of References

Bergtrom, G. (2006). Clicker sets as learning objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2. Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://ijklo.org/ Volume2/v2p105-110Bergtrom.pdf Bernard, S. (2006). The Edutopia Poll. Http://www. edutopia.org/are-computer-and-video-games-effectiveteaching-tools. Berners Lee, T., Caillau, R., Groff, J., Pollermann, B. (1992). World Wide Web: the information universe. Electronic Networking: Research, Applications and Policy, 2(1), 52-58. Berry, L. (2000). Cognitive Effects of Web Page Design. In B. Abbey (Ed.) Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education (41-55). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28, 229-254. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models, Vol. II (pp. 269-292). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221 - 252. Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1998). The consequences of negative scaffolding for students who learn slowly— A commentary on C. Addison Stone’s “The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 365-369. Bienkowski, M., Penuel, W., Toyama, Y., Molina, A., Hurst, K., Peck-Theis, L. (2005). JASON Academy Summative Program Evaluation, Final Report, Arlington, VA: SRI International. Bikson, T. K. & Law, S. A. (1995). Toward the borderless career: Corporate hiring in the ‘90s. International Educator, 4(2), 12-33.

Bikson, T. K. (1994). Organizational trends and electronic media. American Archivist, 57(1), 48-68. Billings, D.M. (2000). A framework for assessing outcomes and practices in web-based courses in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(2), 60-67. Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Garet, M. S., & Porter, A. C. (2000) Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33. Blachman, B. A. , Ball, E. W. , Black, R. S. , & Tangel, D. M. (1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner city classrooms. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-18. Blackhurst, A. E. (1997). Perspectives on technology in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(5), 41-48. Blair, R. & Godsall, L. (2006). One School’s Experience in Implemeting E-portfolios: Lessons Learned. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(2), 145-154. Block, C.C., & Delamura, R.J. (2001). Better book buddies. The Reading Teacher, 54 (4), 364-370. Block, D. (1992). Metaphors we teach and learn by. Prospect, 7(3), 42-55. Blog. (2008, July 22). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog/ Blood, R. (2002). What is a Weblog. In R. Blood (Ed.), The Weblog handbook: Practical advice on creating and maintaining your blog (pp. 1-25). Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery, instruction and curriculum, regional education laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, topical papers and reprints, number 1. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-5. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED053419) Blum, D. (1997). Sex on the brain: The biological differences between men and women. New York: Viking. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M., & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Chemical

863

Compilation of References

Education, 78(8), 1107. Retrieved May 24, 2008 from http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2001/Aug/ index.html Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. New York: Academic Press. Boethel, M & Dimock,, K. V.(1999). Constructing knowledge with technology. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. http://www.sedl. org/pubs/tec27/10.html Bohannon, J. (2007). Folk wisdom for web sites. ScienceNOW, 123, 5. Boling, E., Beriswill, J. E., Xavier, R., Hebb, C., Kaufman, D., Frick, T. (1998). Text labels for hypertext navigation buttons. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(4), 407-421. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (1999). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard. Bolte, L. (2006) Reflections on using concept maps in teaching mathematics. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (2001). The picture exchange communication system. Behavioral Modification, 25, 725-745. Bonk, C. (2003-04). I should have known this was coming: Computer-mediated discussions in teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 95-102. Bonk, C. J. & Dennen, V. P. (2005). Massive Multiplayer online gaming: a research framework for military training and education. Madison, WI: Advanced Distributed Learning. Retrieved from Http://www.strategicleader.us/ ExperientialLearningPapers/GarneReport_Bonk_final. pdf. Bonk, C.J., & Reynolds, T.H. (1992). Early adolescent composing within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting framework: Computer use in the improvement of writing [Special issue]. Computers in Human

864

Behavior, 8, 39-62. Borkowski, J. G., Peck, V. A., & Damberg, P. R. (1983). Attention, memory and cognition. In J. L. Matson & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Handbook of mental retardation (pp. 479-497). New York: Pergamon. Boss, S. & Krauss, J. (2007). Real projects in a digital world. Principal Leadership, 8(4), 22-26. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge. Bower, C. S. (2005). Ready for a virtual course management system? Before your district invests in an e-learning platform, ask the hard questions. Technology and Learning 25(7), 8-11. Bowler, L., Largeb, A. & Rejskindc, G. (2001). Primary school students, information literacy and the Web. Education for Information, 19, 201–223. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books. Boyd, D. (2007). The Significance of Social Software. In T. N. Burg and J. Schmidt (Eds.), BlogTalks Reloaded: Social Software Research & Cases (pp. 15-30). Norderstedt, Gemany.. Boyd, D.M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html Boyd, R. (2000,). Computer based reading instruction: The effectiveness of computer based reading instruction in positively influencing student scores in science. CSTA Journal, Winter, 17-23. Boyle, A. & Hutchison. D. (In Press). Sophisticated tasks in e-assessment: what are they? And what are their benefits? In Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Boyle, T. (1997). Design for Multimedia Learning.. Essex UK:Pearson Education Limited. Bradley, C., & Boyle, T. (2004). The design, development, and use of multimedia learning objects. Journal

Compilation of References

of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 371-389. Bradley, L. , & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read-a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421. Brady, H. (1999). Political Participation. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver & L. Wrightsman (Eds.) Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Brand-Gruwel, S., & Gerjets, P. (2008). Instructional support for enhancing students’ information problem solving ability. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(3), 615-622. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 487–508. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R., (Eds.) (1999) How people learn: Brain, mind experience and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R., (Editors), (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Bratina, T.A., Hayes, D. & Blumsack, S.L. (2002). Preparing teachers to use learning objects. The Technology Source Archives. Retrieved January 10, 2007 from http://technologysource.org/article/preparing_teachers_to_use_learning_objects/ Bratitsis, T., Hlapanis, G. & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2003). Advanced Distance Learning Systems: A technical approach using MS SharePointTM Portal Server. In V.Uskov (Ed.), Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference, Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, June 30-July 3, 2003, Rhodes, Greece, pp.489-494. Breck, J. (2006). Why is education not in the ubiquitous Web world picture? Educational Technology, 46 (4), 4346. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://goldenswamp. com/articles/edTech8.06/edTechP1.html Breck, J. (2007). Education’s intertwingled future. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 50-54.

Bresler, L. (2003) The role of musicianship and music education in the twenty-first century. In S. Leong (Ed.), Musicianship in the 21st Century: Issues, Trends and Possibilities. Sydney, Austalia: Australian Music Centre. Brett, P. (1998). An Intuitive, Theoretical and Empirical Perspective on the Effectiveness Question for Multimedia. In K. Cameron (Ed.) Multimedia CALL: Theory and Practice (pp. 81-93). Exeter, UK: ElmBank Publications. Brettingham, M. (2006). Robo-marking sees off red pen. Times Education Supplement ,18. Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses, BioScience, 54(11), 1034-1039. Brinckerhoff, L.B., Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J.M. (1992). Promoting access, accommodations, and independence for college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 417-429. British Broadcasting Corporation. (2005). Make Lessons ‘Fit the Learner’. BBC News Education. Retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ education/4482372.stm British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (2007). Delivering the Future for Learners: Harnessing Technology. Coventry, UK: Becta. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) (2003). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Coventry, UK: Becta. Retrieved January 18, 2003, from http://www.BECTA.org.uk/research/index.cfm British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) (2005). The Becta review 2005: evidence on the progress of ICT in education. Coventry, UK: Becta. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http:// www.becta.org.uk/research Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25(4), 313–339.

865

Compilation of References

Britt, M., & Gabrys, G. (2001). Teaching advanced literacy skills for the World Wide Web. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web (pp. 73-90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Brochner, S., Outhred, L., & Pieterse, M. (2001). A study of functional literacy skills in young adults with down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 48, 67-90. Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brooks, J. (1990). Teachers and Students: Constructivists Forging Connections. Educational Leadership, 47 (5), 68-71. Brooks, J. (2003). Schooling for life: Reclaiming the essence of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brooks, P. H., & McCauley, C. (1984). Cognitive research in mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 479-486. Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. Journal of Special Education, 37, 211-223. Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 392-408. Brown, A . & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowledge, learning and instruction (pp. 307-336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser. (Ed.). Advances in Instructional Psychology Volume 1. (pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

866

Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B. B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice reading (pp. 49–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Murphy, M. D. (1974). Keeping track of changing variables: Long-term retention of a trained rehearsal strategy by retarded adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 453-466. Brown, A. R., & Voltz, B. D. (2005). Elements of effective e-learning design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1). Retrieved June 1, 2007 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/ article/view/217/300 Brown, C., Hedberg, J., & Harper, B. (1994). Metacognition as a basis for learning support software. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(2), 3-26. Brown, J. S. & D Thomas, (2006). ‘You play World of Warcraft? You’re hired!’: Why multi-player games may be the best kind of job training. Wired, Apr 14, 2006. Brown, J. S., (2002). Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. United States Distance Learning Association Journal, 16 (2), 15-27. Retrieved on March 22 2008 from http://www. usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Brown, J., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 17-32. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from http:// www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Brown, T. (2007). Introduce him to the joy of reading: Great books for preteen boys.Retrieved August 28, 2007 from Http://att.iparenting.com/preteenagers/joyreading. htm. .

Compilation of References

Browne, D. L., & Ritchie, D. C. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: A model of staff development for implementing technology in schools. Contemporary Education, 63(1), 28-33. Bruce, H., Jones, W., & Dumais, S. (2004). “Information behaviour that keeps found things found.” Information Research, 10(1). Retrieved December 1, 2007from http:// InformationR.net/ir/101/paper207. html Bruenjes, L.S. (2002). A multi-case study investigating the disposition of faculty use of technology as a teaching and learning tool in the higher education classroom. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Lowell. UMI 3041377. Bruer, J.T. (1993). Schools for thought. A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Brufee, K, A.. (1993). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press Brumfield, R. (April 4, 2006). Thornburg: Ed tech stalled by ‘fear’. eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www. eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=36912& CFID=906452&CFTOKEN=45974173 Brummelhuis, A. C. A., ten (1995). Models of educational change: The introduction of computers in Dutch secundary education (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Twente, The Netherlands). Twente, The Netherlands: Twente University Press. Brun, A. (2007, March). Beyond Difference: Reconfiguring Education for the User-Led Age. Paper presented at Ideas, Cyberspace, Education (ICE) 3 Symposium, Scotland, UK. Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk. Learning to use language. Toronto, Canada: George J. McLeod Ltd. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G.A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Science Editions. Brunner, C. (1999). The new media literacy handbook: An educator’s guide to bringing new media into the classroom. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday. Brush, T. & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10 (4), 333-356. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M.H., Stock, L., & Sutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: the PT3@ASU Project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 57–72. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Raskind, M. H. (1998). Using assistive technology to enhance the skills of students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(1), 53-58. Bryant, L. (2007). Emerging trends in social software for education. In Emerging technologies for learning (Becta report Vol. 2/2007, pp. 9–18). Retrieved February 4, 2008, from http://partners.becta.org.uk/uploaddir/ downloads/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies07.pdf Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of childhood. Growing up in the age of electronic media. Cambridge: Polity Press. Buckingham, D., & Burns, A. (2007). Game literacy in theory and practice. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16, 323-349. Buckleitner, W. (1999). The State Of Children’s Software Evaluation – Yesterday, Today And In The 21st Century. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 211220. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://childrenssoftware.com/evaluation.html Build your own video streaming backbone (2008). Retrieved March 13, 2008 from http://education.apple.com/ streaming/backbone/ Bull, K., Shuler, P., Overton, R., Kimball, S., Boykin, C., & Griffin, J. (1999). Processes for developing scaffolding

867

Compilation of References

in a computer mediated learning environment. In Rural Special Education for the New Millennium. Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Albuquerque, New Mexico: March. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429765) Bullock, D. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that preservice teachers encounter as the attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during field placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211-237.

Burstein, J., and Chodorow, M. (1999). Automated essay scoring for nonnative English speakers. In ACL Conference, 1999. Burstein, J., Kukich, K., Wolff, S., Lu, C. & Chodorow, M. (1998) Enriching Automated Essay Scoring Using Discourse Marking. In Stede, M., Wanner L, and Hovy, E. Somerset, (Eds), Association for Computational Linguistics, New Jersey: Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers: Proceedings of the Conference (pp.15-21).

Bullock, D. W., LaBella, V. P., Clinghan, T., Ding, Z., Stewart, G., & Thibado, P.M. (2002). Enhancing the student-instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher, 40, 30-36.

Burstein, J., Marcu, D. and Knight, K. (2000) Finding the WRITE stuff: automatic identification of discourse structure in student essays. IEEE Intelligent Systems: Special Issue on Natural Language Processing, 18 (1), 32-39.

Bullough, R. V., (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision-making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 239-252.

Burstein, Jill, and Marcu, D.(2000) Benefits of Modularity in an Automated Essay Scoring System. In Coling-2000 Workshop on Using Toolsets and Architectures to Build NLP Systems, Luxembourg.

Burkhardt, H, Fraser, R., & Ridgeway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Development in school mathematics education around the world (vol. 2, pp. 3-29). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Burton, D. B. (2003). Technology Professional Development: A Case Study. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(2), 2378-2381.

Burnett, C., Dickinson, P., Merchant, G. & Myers, J. (2004) Digikids. The Primary English Magazine, 9(4), 16-20. Burnett, C., Dickinson, P., Merchant, G., & Myers, J. (2006) Digital connections: transforming literacy in the primary school. Cambridge Journal in Education, 36(1), 11-29. Burns, D.D., & Spangler, D.L. (2000). Does psychotherapy homework lead to improvement in depression in cognitive-behavioral therapy or does improvement lead to increased homework compliance? Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 59, 305-311. Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher, 39(1), 8-11. Burstein, J. (2003) Automated essay scoring. In M Shermis & J Burstein, (Eds.), Automated essay scoring (pp. 113-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

868

BusinessWeek. (2006, November 27). Second Life lessons. Business Week. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http:// www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_48/ b4011413.htm Butler, D. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 170-189. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and selfregulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors Influencing the Effective Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning: Lessons Learned from the SEIR*TEC Intensive Site Schools (2nd ed.). Greensboro, NC: Southeast Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno= ED471140

Compilation of References

Cabot, M. (2002). Princess in the spotlight. New York: HarperTrophy.

Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Cyprus, 2005.

Caftori, N. (1994). Educational effectiveness of computer software. THE Journal, 22 (1), 62-65.

Caravita, S. and O. Hallden (1994). ”Re-framing the Problem of Conceptual Change.” Learning and Instruction, 4, 89-111.

Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 715-729. Calder, J. (1994). Programme evaluation and quality: A comprehensive guide to setting up an evaluation system. London: Kogan Page. Caldwell, J.E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. Caldwell, W., Al-Rubaee, F. & Lipkin, L. (2006).Developing a concept mapping approach to mathematics achievement in middle school. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Calero, C., Moraga, M. A., Piattini, M. (2008). Handbook of Research on Web Information Systems Quality. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. California Department of Education. (2007). EETT competitive: Eligibility criteria. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org.http:// www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r5/eettc07elig.asp Callow, J. and Zammitt, K. (2002). Visual literacy: from picture book to electronic texts. In Monteith, M. (Ed.) Teaching Primary Literacy with ICT (pp.189-201). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Camp, B., & Bash, M. (1981). Think aloud: Increasing social cognitive skills: A problem-solving program for children. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Campbell, A., Ammann, R., & Dieu, B. (2005, September). Elgg—A personal learning landscape. Teaching English as a Second Language eJournal 9(2). Cañas, A. ., & Novak, J. (2005). A concept map-centered learning environment. Paper presented at the Symposium at the Eleventh Biennial Conference of the European

Carliner, S. (2005). E-Portfolios. Training & Development, 59(5), 70-75. Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 391-409. Carnevale, Dan (2005). Michigan Considers Requiring High-School Students to Take at Least One Online Course. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 14, 2005 from http://chronicle.com/ free/2005/12/2005121301t.htm Carr, N. G. (2001). Digital enterprise: How to reshape your business for a connected world.. Literacy for the 21st Century: An overview & orientation guide to media literacy education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved Nov 2006 from http://www. medialit.org/reading_room/article540.html Carrington, V. (2005). New textual landscapes, information and early literacy. In J. Marsh, (ed.) Popular Culture, New Media and Digital Literacy in Early Childhood. London: Routledge Falmer. Carrington, V. (2008) I’m Dylan and I’m not going to say my last name: some thoughts on childhood, text and new technologies. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 1-16. Carroll, J. B. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carroll, J. M. & D. Reese, D. (2003). Community collective efficacy: Structure and consequences of perceived capacities in the Blacksburg Electronic Village. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kona, Hawaii. Carroll, J. M., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Learning to use a word processor: By doing, by thinking, and by knowing. In J. C. Thomas & M. Schneider (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

869

Compilation of References

Carter, E.W., Lane, K.L., Pierson, M.R., & Glaeser, B. (2006). Self-determination skills and opportunities of transition-age youth with emotional disturbance and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 333246 Carter, L. (2003). Argument in hypertext: Writing strategies and the problem of order in a nonsequential world. Computers and Composition, 20(1), 3–22. Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 highperforming, high-poverty schools. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. Cartwright, V. & Hammond, M. (2007). ‘Fitting it in’: A study exploring ICT use in a UK primary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 390-407. Retrieved January 18, 2008 from http://www. ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/cartwright.html Cassell, J. (2004). Towards a model of technology and literacy development: Story listening systems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 75-105. Cassie, T. (2003). Reading and Navigating of documents: digital versus paper. Class Web pages for U Maryland, Computer Science. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/ cmsc838g-0101/StudentPapers/ReadingStudy.pdf Casson, L., Bauman, J., Fisher, E., Sumpter, J., Tornatzky, L. et al. (1997). Making Technology Happen. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern Technology Council. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.southern.org/ pubs/pubs_pdfs/mthappen.pdf Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2004). Paying attention to attention: New economies for learning. Educational Theory, 54, 381-397. Castellano, M., Stringfield, S., & Stone, J. R. (2002). Helping disadvantaged youth succeed in schools: Second year findings from a longitudinal study of CTE-based whole-school reforms. Columbus, OH: National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education. Castells, M. (2002). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

870

Catalan Open University (2004). La escuela en la sociedad red. Internet en el ámbito educativo no universitario. Barcelona: UOC. Retrieved July 10, 2006 from www. ouc.edu/in3/pic Cavanaugh, C. S., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on k-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Cavanaugh, T. & Cavanaugh, C. (2000). Interactive PowerPoint for Teachers and Students. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2000 (pp. 496-499). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman. Cecil, S. J., & Roazzi, A. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil. In J. S. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.). Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 74-100). Oxford, UK: Academic Press. Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST]. (1998). What is universal design for learning? Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www. cast.org/research/udl/index.html. Center for Universal Design [CUD]. (1997). Principles of Universal Design. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ Chambers, S., M. & Wickersham, L. E. (2007). The electronic portfolio journey: a year later. Education, 127(3), 351-360. Chaney, E.G. (2001). Web-based instruction in a rural high school: A collaborative inquiry into its effectiveness and desirability. National Association of Secondary School Principles (NASSP) Bulletin, 85, 20-35. Chang, C. (2001). A study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of web-based learning portfolio. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 435-458. Chang, C. K., Chen, G. D., & Li, L. Y. (2008). Constructing a community of practice to improve coursework activity. Computers & Education, 50, 235-247.

Compilation of References

Chang, C. Y., Sheu, J. P., & Chan, T. W. (2003). Concept and design of ad hoc and mobile classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 336-346. Charon, J. M. (1998). Symbolic interactionism (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chera, P.D.K. & Wood, C. (2003). Animated multimedia talking books can promote phonological awareness in children beginning to read. Learning and Instruction, 13, 33-52. Chera, P.D.K. (2000). Multimedia, CAL and Early Reading: Iterative Design, Development and Evaluation. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, UK. Chi, M. T. H. (1997).Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3),271-315 Chi, M. T. H., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 251-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477. Chickering, A.W., & Erhmann, S.C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6 Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. Ching, C., Basham, J., & Fang, E. (2005). The legacy of the digital divide: Gender, socioeconomic status, and early exposure as predictors of full-spectrum technology use among young adults. Urban Education, 40, 394–411. Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem-solving process: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 27-49. Chou, C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Developing Web-based curricula: Issues and challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 623-636.

Chou, C., Hsiao, M.-C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure experience: the Taiwan college students’ case. Computers and Education, 35(1), 65-80. Christensen, Clayton. “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns.” Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. Christensen, R.W., & Knezek, G.A. (2000). Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude scales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 327-336. Christie. J. (2003) Automated marking of essays for content. Presented at Symposium: Automated free text assessment, SCROLLA, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK. Chularut, P. & DeBacker, T. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248-263. Churchill, D. (2008). Learning objects for educational application via PDA Technology. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 5-20. Cicco, N. (2005). Librarians Look to Hook Boys on Books. Portsmouth Herald, September 4. Cipielewski, J & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children’s exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74-89. Clandinin, D .J, & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ Professional Knowledge Landscapes: Teachers Stories Stories of Teachers - School Stories - Stories of Schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: MacMillan. Clarke, J. (2007). Trajectories of participation: A pilot study of students’ behaviors in a multiuser, virtual environment. Poster presented at the 2007 American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL.

871

Compilation of References

Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2005, April). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using multi-user environment (MUVs) in middle school science. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Clearly, P., Pierce, G., & Trauth, E. M. (2006). Closing the Digital Divide: Understanding Racial, Ethnic, Social Class, Gender and Geographic Disparities in Internet Use Among School Age Children in the United States. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(4), 354-373. Clegg, S. (2001). Theorising the Machine: gender, education and computing. Gender and Education, 13, 307–324. Clouse, R. W., & Alexander, E. (1998). Classrooms of the 21st century: Teacher competence, confidence and collaboration. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 26(2), 97-111. Co:Writer. [Computer Software]. Volo, IL: Don Johnson. Cochrane, T. (2005). Interactive QuickTime: Developing and evaluating multimedia learning objects to enhance both face-to-face and distance e-learning environments. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved August 3, 2005 from http://ijklo. org/Volume1/v1p033-054Cochrane.pdf Coenders, A. (2002). Deskundigheidsbevordering omtrent ICT bij leraren in het primair onderwijs. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Foundation Ict op School. Cohen, D., & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 73–77. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Coiro, J. & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.

872

Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458–464. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. Cole, H., & Stanton, D. (2003). Designing mobile technologies to support co-present collaboration. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7, 365-371. Cole, J. (2005). Using Moodle: Teaching with the popular open source course management system. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. Cole, M. & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individualsocial antimony in discussion of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250-256. Coley, R.J.,Cradler, J. & Engel, R.K.(1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S schools (Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Colley, A. (2003). Gender differences in adolescents’ perceptions of the best and worst aspects of computing at school. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 673–682. Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students: What has changed? Educational Research, 45(2), 155–165. Collins, A. Brown, J. S., Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Mahwah: N J: Erlbaum. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of read-

Compilation of References

ing, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-493). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.

Conlon, T. (2004b). Not yet within the mainstream: Concept mapping in a Scottish high school. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.

Coltman, P., Anghileri, J., & Petyaeva, D. (2002). Scaffolding learning through meaningful tasks and adult interaction. Early Years, 22(1), 39-49.

Conners, F. A. (1992). Reading instruction for students with moderate mental retardation: Review and analysis of research. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 96, 577-597.

Comber, B., & Reid, J. (2006). Literacy education: What’s new and what needs to be new? In B. Doecke, M. Howie & W. Sawyer (Eds.), Only connect: English teaching, schooling and community (pp. 335-348). South Australia: Wakefield Press. Comber, C., Colley, A., Hargreaves, D. J., & Dorn, L. (1997). The effects of age, gender and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educational Research Volume, 39(2), 123–133.

Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12, 113–124. Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of Information and Communication Technologies? ALTJ, 12(2), 113-124.

Combes, B. (2007). Techno-savvy or just technooriented? ACCESS, 17(2), 17-20.

Conole, G. & Oliver, M. (2007). Introduction. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on practice. Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

Compton, V., & Harwood, C. (2003). Enhancing technological practice: An assessment framework for technology education in New Zealand. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(1), 1-26.

Conole, G. (2007). Briefing on the use of audio logs:. LXP project report. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton. Retrieved August 21, 2009 from www. jisc.ac.uk/elp_learneroutcomes.html

Concannon, F., Flynn, A. & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (3), 501-512.

Conole, G. (2008). International perspectives on e-learning: mapping strategy to practice., Paper presented at the CIDER Pan-Canadian E-Learning Research Agenda online conference. Retrieved from http://scope. lidc.sfu.ca

Conley, D. (2006). What we must do to create a system that prepares students for college success. San Francisco, CA: WestED. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED493061) Conlin, M. (2003). The new gender gap: From kindergarten to grad school, boys are becoming the second sex. Business Week, May 23, 2003. Conlon, T. (2004a). But is our concept map any good?: Classroom experiences with the reasonable fallible analyzer. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept

Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2006, November). JISC LXP: Student experiences of technologies (Draft Final Report). Southampton: University of Southampton. Retrieved August 21, 2009 from www. jisc.ac.uk/elp_learneroutcomes.html Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2008, February). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology.’ Computers and Education, 50(2), 511-524. 873

Compilation of References

Conrad, D. (2004). University instructors’ reflections on their first online teaching experiences. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 31-44.

Correia, A. M., Teixeira, J. C. (2003). Information literacy: an integrated concept for a safer Internet. Online Information Review, 27(5) 311 – 320.

Considine, D.M., & Haley, G.E. (1999). Visual messages: Integrating imagery into instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.

Costa, A. (2008). The thought-filled curriculum. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 20-24.

Cook J., Langone, J. & Ayres, K. M. (in review). Effects of UDL for improving comprehension of age-appropriate leisure reading material by students with intellectual disabilities. Cook, E., Tessier, A., & Klein, M. D. (2007). Adapting Early Childhood Curricula for Children with Special Needs (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Cook, J., White, S., Sharples, Davis, H. & Sclater, N. (2007). The design of learning technologies. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (eds), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on practice. Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347-362. Cooper, M.M., & Selfe, C.L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52, 847-869. Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan.

Coté, N., & Goldman, S. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children’s’ think-aloud protocols. In H. Van Oostendorp & S. R Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169–193). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cox, M., Preston, C., & Cox, K. (1999). What factors support or prevent teachers from using ICT in their classrooms? Paper Presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2–5, 1999. Cox, R. & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 239-302. Cradler, J. & Cradler, R. (1995). Prior studies for technology insertion. San Francisco, CA: Far West. Cradler, J. (2002). Research implications for preparing teachers to use technology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30 (1) 50-54. Cradler, J. (2003). Technology’s impact on teaching and learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, April, 54-57.

Copeland, S. R., & Keefe, E. B. (2007). Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Moderate or Severe Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Craft, J. (2004). A review about what video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Electronic Literacy, 8, 2004. Http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/currents/ fall04/craft.html.

Corcoran, C. A., Dershimer, E. L. & Tichenor, M. S. (2004). A teacher’s guide to alternative assessment taking the first steps. The Clearing House, 77(5), 213-216.

Craver, C.W. (1994). School library media centers in the 21st century: Changes and challenges. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development. The Consortium of Policy Research in Education. Retrieved on July 2, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/t61/index. html

Creanor, L., K. Trinder, Gowan, D., & Howells, C. (2006). LEX: The learner experience of e-learning (Final Project Report). Retrieved April 21, 2007 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/LEX%20 Final%20Report_August06.pdf

874

Compilation of References

Creemers, B. P. M. (2002). From school effectiveness and school improvement to effective school improvement: Background, theoretical analysis, and outline of the empirical study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8, 343-362. Creighton, T. (2001). The educator’s guide to using data to improve decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Crook, C. & Harrison, C. (2008). Web 2.0 Technologies for Learning at Key Stages 3 and 4: Summary Report. Conventry, UK: Becta. Retrieved November 11, 2008 from http://schools.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/ page_documents/research/web2_ks34_summary.pdf Cross, J., O’Driscoll, T., & Trondsen, E. (2006). Another life: Virtual worlds as tools for learning. E-Learn Magazine. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://elearnmag.org/ subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=44-1 Cross, P. K. (1999). What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know it? Innovative Higher Education, 23(2), 255-270. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977. Crystal, D. (2006b). The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot and Left. Oxford: University Press. Crystal, D. (2006a). Language and the Internet (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The gr8 Db8. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cuban L. & Tyack, D.B. (1995) Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. (2000). Oversold and Underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L. (2000). So much high-tech money invested, so little use and change in practice: how come? Retrieved

September 9, 2007 from http://www.edtechnot.com/ notarticle1201.html Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: reforming schools through technology, 1998-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. & Peck, C. (2001) High access and low use of technologies in High School classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813-834. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813–834. Cummings, H; Vandewater, E. (2007). Relation of adolescent video game play to time spent in other activities. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 7. Cunningham, W. (2007) Wiki history. Retrieved September 26, 2007 from http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiHistory Curley, K. F. & Pyburn, P. J. (1982). ‘Intellectual’ technologies: The key to improving white collar productivity. Sloan Management Review, 31- 39. Curriculum Planning & Development Division (2007). Draft science syllabus: Lower secondary Special/Express/Normal (Academic) 2008. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Cuthbert, A., & Hoadley, C. M. (1998, April). Designing desert houses in the knowledge integration environment.

875

Compilation of References

Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California.

and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 209-218.

Cuttance, P. (2001). School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Davies, D., Stock, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002b). Enhancing independent time management and personal scheduling for individuals with mental retardation through use of a palmtop visual and audio prompting system. Mental Retardation, 40, 358-365.

Cyber girls.(2006). Accountancy, 137(1354), 67. D’Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 22(4), 163-169. da Ponte, J. P., Oliveira, P., Varandas, J. M., Oliveira, H., & Fonseca, H., (2007). Using ICT to support reflection in pre-service mathematics teacher education. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 14, 79-89. Dahn, I. (2007). Specification Neutral E-Portfolios And Their Implementation With A Fedora Database. ePortfolio Conference, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~dahn/ articles/paperDahnEPortfolio2007.pdf Daiute, C. (1983). Writing and computers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Daly, J.A., & Miller, M.D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Journal of Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242-249. Danesh, A., Inkpen, K., Lau, F., Shu, K., & Booth, K. (2001). GeneyTM: Designing a collaborative activity for the PalmTM handheld computer. Proceedings of CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seattle: WA. Davenport, T.H. (1993). Process Innovation. Reegineering Work through Information Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Davidson, J.E & Sternberg, R. (1985). Competence and performance in intellectual development. In E. Niemark, R Delisi and J.L. Newman (Eds.) Moderators of competence (pp 43-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Davies, D., Stock, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002a). Enhancing independent task performance for individuals with mental retardation through use of a handheld selfdirected visual and audio prompting system. Education 876

Davies, H. & O’ Sullivan, O. (2002). Literacy and ICT in the primary classroom: the role of the teacher. In A. Loveless & B. Dore (Eds.). ICT in the Primary School. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Davies, J. & Merchant, G. (in press) Web 2.0 for Schools: social participation and learning. New York: Peter Lang. Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2007) Looking from the inside out – academic blogging as new literacy. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), The New Literacies Sampler (pp. 38 -46). New York: Peter Lang. Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37, 346-355. Davies, R., Pantling, C., & Charlton, T. (2004). Mobile phone ownership and usage among pre-adolescents. Telematics and Informatics, 21, 359-373. Davila T., M. J & Shelton, R. (2006). Making innovation work: How to manage it, measure it, and profit from it. Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing Davis, E.A., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompt for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837. Davis, F. B. (1942). Two new measures of reading ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 33, 365-372. Dawson, C. (2007, April 17). Playing Video Games -BBFC Publishes Research. Http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/ stories/20070417.html. Dawson, K., Pringle, R., & Adams, T. L. (2003). Providing links between technology integration, methods courses, and school-based field experiences: a curriculum-based

Compilation of References

and technology-enhanced microteaching. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20, 41–47. Dawson, V., Lederman, N.G., & Tobin, K. (2002). The nature of science. In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on the problems of practice (pp. 7-21). London: RoutledgeFalmer. De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249-266. De Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in Immersive Worlds: A review of game-based learning (Tech. Rep.). London: JISC e-Learning Programme. De Groot, S.A., & van den Elzen, G.J.F. (2003). De rol van ICT bij procesinnovatie. Case Argo Innovation Framework (AIF,) ( Rapport 7.03.07). Den haag, The Netherlands: LEI. de Jong T. & van Joolingen W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202. de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Ellen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107-128). Oxford: Elsevier. De Jong, T., & Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and Instruction with Computer Simulations: Learning Processes Involved. In E. de Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds) Computer-based Learning Environments and Problem Solving (pp. 411-429). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. de Jong.T. (2006). Computer simulations-Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533. de Laat, M. F., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons R.-J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35(3), 257-286. de Laat, M., Lally, V., Simons, R. J., & Wenger, E. (2006). A selective analysis of empirical findings in networked learning research in higher education: questing for coherence, Educational Research Review, 1(2), 99-111.

de Simone, C., Lou, Y., & Schmid, R. F. (2001). Meaningful and interactive distance learning supported by the use of metaphor and synthesizing activities. Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 85-101. Decrem, B. (2006). Introducing Flock Beta 1. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.flock.com/node/4500 Dede, C. (1995). Artificial realities, virtual communities, and intelligent artifacts: Implications for engineering education. In J.R. Bourne, A. Broderson, & M. Dawant (Eds.), The influence of technology on engineering education (pp. 36-65). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillenial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.)Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Dede, C. (2007). Introduction: A sea of change in thinking, knowing, learning & teaching In Salaway, G. & Borreson Caruso, J. The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Dede, C., Clarke, J., Ketelhut, D., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2006) Fostering Motivation, Learning and Transfer in Multi-User Virtual Environments. Paper given at the 2006 AERA conference, San Franscisco, CA. Dede, C., Clarke, J., Ketelhut, D., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005, April). Students’ motivation and learning of science in a multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec. Retrieved August, 16, 2006, from http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/muvees2003/ documents/motivation_muves_aera_2005.pdf Delfino, M., & Manca, S. (2007). The expression of social presence through the use of figurative language in a Web-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2190-2211. Delfino, M., & Persico, D. (2007). Online or face-to-face? Experimenting different techniques in initial teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 351–365. Delfino, M., Dettori, G., & Persico, D. (2008). Selfregulated learning in virtual communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(3), 195-205. 877

Compilation of References

Delfino, M., Manca, S., & Persico, D. (2007). Harmonizing the online and face-to-face components in a blended course on educational technology. In H. Uzunboylu, & N. Çavuş (Eds.), Proceedings of 7th International Educational Technology Conference, 3-5 May 2007, Near East University Cyprus (pp. 248-253). Cyprus: Near East University Demirli, C. & Gürol, M. (2007). An overview of the electronic portfolio process (Article No.: C0017). e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 2(3).. Department for Education and Employment (1998). The National Literacy Strategy – Framework for Teaching. London: DfEE. Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). (2004). Australia’s Strategic Framework for the Information Economy 2004-2006: Opportunities and Challenges for the Information Age. Retrieved viewed March 31, 2008 from http://www.dcita. gov.au/ie/framework at http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/20457/New_SFIE_July_2004_final.pdf Department of Education & Training, Australian Capital Territory. (2004). Learning Technologies Plan for ACT Government Schools and Preschools 2004-2006: Transforming the way we teach and learn. Retrieved from http://activated.decs.act.gov.au/admin/techplan/ Department of Education and the Arts, Queensland. (2001). School Reform Longitudinal Study: Final Report. Available at: http://education.qld.gov.au/public_media/ reports/curriculum-framework/qsrls/ Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002). Raising the Standards: a proposal for the development of an ICT competency framework for teachers. Canberra: DEST. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/ publications_resources/other_publications/raising_the_ standards.htm Department of Education, Training & Youth Affairs (DETYA). (2000). Learning for the knowledge society. An education and training action plan for the information economy. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www. dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_re-

878

sources/profiles/learning_for_the_knowledge_society. htm Department of Education, Training and the Arts (DETA). (2005). Learning with ICTs: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on September 9, 2007 from http://education.qld.gov.au/ smartclassrooms/strategy/sp_census_learning.html Department of Education, Training and the Arts (DETA). (2007). Smart Classrooms Goals. Retrieved on September 9, 2007 from http://education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/strategy/goals.html Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (2000). Good practice and leadership in the use of ICT in schools. Cited in Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002). Raising the Standards: a proposal for the development of an ICT competency framework for teachers. Canberra: DEST, p.20. Dessus,P. and Lemaire, B. (1999) APex, un systeme d’aide a la preparation d’examens. Sciences et techniques educatives, 6 (2), 409-415. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641. Detheridge, T. (1996). Developing literacy through symbols. Closing the Gap, 15(1), Apr/May, 12-14. Dettori, G., & Forcheri, P. (2004). Fostering prospective teachers’ abilities of learning to learn within an ICT preparation course. In Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, & P. T. Isaías (Eds.), Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA’04), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 15-17 December 2004, (pp. 91-98). IADIS. Dettori, G., Giannetti, T., & Persico, D. (2005). Communities of practice, virtual learning communities and self-regulated learning. In R. Carneiro, K. Steffens & J. Underwood (Eds.). Self-Regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (pp. 126-133). Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag. Deuker, C. (1994). Heart of a champion. New York: HarperTrophy.

Compilation of References

Dever, R. B., & Knapczyk, D. R. (1997). Teaching Persons with Mental Retardation: A Model for Curriculum Development and Teaching. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: Heath. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan. Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers a catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 221-239. Dias, L. B. & Atkinson, S. (2001). Technology integration: Best practices—Where do teachers stand? International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5 (10), ISSN 1206-9620. Retrieved August 21, 2001 from http:// www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll

Dimitracopoulou, A., & Bruillard, E. (2006). Interfaces de Forum enrichies par la visualization d’analyses automatiques des interactions et du contenu. Sciences et Technologies de l’Information et la Communcation pour l’Education et la Formation, 13. Dixon, J., & Johnson, J. (2001). Cyber spaces and learning places: The role of technology in inquiry. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2001 (39-44). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Dixon, M. and Kaminska, Z. (2007). Does exposure to orthography affect children’s spelling accuracy? Journal of Research in Reading, 30 (2), 184–197. Dobbins, K. (2005). Getting ready for the net generation. EDUCAUSE Review 40(5), 8-9. Dodge, B. (1996). Active learning on the Web. Retrieved May 23, 2008 from http://edWeb.sdsu.edu/people/ bdodge/active/ActiveLearningk-12.html

Dickey, M. D. (2004). The impact of Web-logs (blogs) on student perceptions of isolation and alienation in a Web-based distance-learning environment. Open Learning, 19 (3), 279-291.

Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 342-361.

Dickey, M.D. (2005) Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439-451.

Doll, B., Sands, D.J, Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S. (1998). Promoting the development and acquisition of self-determined behavior. In D. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.) Self-determination across the life span. Baltimore: Brookes.

Dickson, P. (2005). Toward a deeper understanding of student performance in Virtual High School courses: Using quantitative analyses and data visualization to inform decision making. In Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (Eds.), A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning (pp. 21-23). Naperville, Illinois: Learning Point Associates. Dikli, S. (2006) An Overview of Automated Scoring of Essays. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5 (1). DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital Inequality: From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social Inequality (355–400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Doolittle, P E (1999) Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education. 16(1), 23–46. Doolittle, P. & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72-104. Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31, 72-104. Doran, C.L. (2001). The effective use of learning groups in online education. New Horizons in Adult Education, 15(2).

879

Compilation of References

Dorman, S. M. (1998). Assistive technology benefits for students with disabilities. Journal of Health, 68(3), 120-124.

Dreyfus, H. L. (1999). Anonymity versus commitment: The dangers of education on the internet. Ethics and Information Technology 1(1), 15-20.

Dornish, M. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2006). Facilitating learning from technology-enhanced text: Effects of prompted elaborative interrogation. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 156–165.

Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. C. (2003) Moodle: Using learning communities to create an open source course management system. Proceedings of the EDMEDIA 2003 Conference, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://dougiamas.com/writing/edmedia2003/

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London and New York: Routledge.

Dovey, J. & Kennedy, H. W. (2006) Game Cultures: Computer Games as New Media. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Downes, S. (2003). Design and reusability of learning objects in an academic context: A new economy of education? USDLA, 17(1). Retrieved June 1, 2007 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN03_Issue/ article01.html Downes, S. (2005, October 17). E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine. Retrieved from, http://elearnmag.org/subpage. cfm?section=articles&article=29-1 Downes, S., (2006). E-learning 2.0. eLearning magazine: education and technology in perspective. http:// elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articlesandarticle =29-1 [20/04/07] Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, Oliver, et al. (2001). Making better connections: Models of teacher professional development for the integration of information and communication technology into classroom practice. Department of Education, Science and Technology. Doyle, C. (1992). Outcome measures for information literacy within the national education goals of 1990. Final report to the National Forum of Information Literacy: Summary of findings. (Eric Document Reproduction Service, ED 351 033). Draper, S.W., & Brown, M.I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81-94.

880

Dubois, M., Vial I. (2000). Multimedia design: the effects of relating multimodal information. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 157-165. Ducate, L. C. & Lomicka, L. L. (2005). Exploring the blogosphere: Use of Web logs in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 38 (3), 410-421. Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learnercentered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51-78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dufresne, R. J., & Gerace, W. J. (2004). Assessing-tolearn: formative assessment in physics instruction. The Physics Teacher, 42, 428-433. Dugger, W.E. (1995). Technology for all Americans. The Technology Teacher, 2, 3-6. Duit, R., & Treagust, D.F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 46-69). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education. Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (2nd Ed). London: NFER-Nelson. Dunn, R. (2007). Integrating technology into pedagogical practice. Digital Commons. Available at http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/educ_fac_pubs/60

Compilation of References

Dupper, D. (1998). An Alternative to Suspension for Middle School Youths With Behavior Problems: Findings From a “School Survival” Group. Research on Social Work Practice, 8(3), 354-366. Durkin, K. (1997). Misuse of the Internet by pedophiles: Implications for law enforcement and probation practice. Federal Probation, 61, 14-18. Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitude towards the internet and reported experience with the internet, by gender, in an east European sample. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18(5), 521-535. Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Rehak, D., & Robson, R. (2004). Learning objects symposium special issue guest editorial. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 331-342. Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology Magazine, 42 (1), 5-13. Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online learning. Communication Education 52(2), 87-105. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation, (pp. 105-121). New York: The Guilford Press. Edelblut, P. (2008) Personal communication. Edelson, D., Pea, R., & Gomez, L. (1997). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B.G.Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 151-164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Education Week (2007, November 30). Projects probe new media’s role in changing the face of learning. Education Week. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/12/05/14macarthur. h27.html?print=1 EduTools (2007). CMS: Feature definitions. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.edutools.com/ glossary.jsp?pj=4 Edyburn, D. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1-23. Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational Psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Ehri, L. C. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics: An explanation of the National Reading Panel meta-analyses. In P. McCardle & V. Chhadbra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 153-186). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Ehri, L. C., Gibbs, A. L. & Underwood, T. L. (1988). Influence of Errors on Learning the Spellings of English Words. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 236-253. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. ( 2001, Autumn). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393-447. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willow, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287.

Editorial. (1995, April 17). Now, reinvent the schools. Newsweek, p. 114.

Ehrlich, p. & Ehrlich,A. (2004). One with nineveh: Politics, consumption and the human future.Washington, DC: Island Press

Educase (2007). 7 Things You Should Know. EDUCASE Learning Initiative. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/7ThingsYouShouldKnowAb outSeries/7495

Eifler, K. Greene, T., & Carroll, J. (2001). Walking the talk is tough: From a single technology course to infusion. The Educational Forum, 65(4), 366-375.

881

Compilation of References

Eikeseth, S., & Jahr, E. (2001). The UCLA reading and writing program: An evaluation of the beginning stages. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 289-307.

Engestrom, E., Y. Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press

Elgan, M. (2006, September 14). Here’s the skinny on Web 2.0. Information Week.Accessed 10th August, 2008 from: http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/ open_source/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193000630

Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R. & R.L. Punamäki, (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Elliot, C. (1996). The British Ability Scales II. Windsor: NFER Nelson.

Engstrom, M. E., & Jewett, D. (2005). Collaborative learning the wiki way. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 49(6), 12-16.

Elliot, C. D. , Smith, P. , & McCulloh (1996). British Ability Scales II (BASII). , Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.

Entwistle, N.j. & Ramsden, P., (1983) Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm

Elliot, S. (2001) From here to validity. Presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Eom, W., Reiser, R. A. (2000). The effects of selfregulation and instructional control on performance and motivation in computer-based instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(3), 247-260.

Elliot, S. (2003) Intellimetric: From here to validity. In M. Shermis and J. Burstein, (Eds.) Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 71-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elliott, C. (2003) Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1(1), Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www. economicsnetwork.ac.uk/iree/i1/elliott.htm . Ellis, N. R. (1963). The stimulus trace and behavioral inadequacy. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency (pp. 134-158). New York: McGraw-Hill. El-Rady, J. (2006). To click or not to click: That’s the question. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 2(4). Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www.innovateonline. info/index.php?view=article&id=171 Encyclopaedia Britannica (2006). Fatally flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf. enGauge (2003). enGauge 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group. Retrieved January 17, 2008 from http://www.ncrel.org/engauge Enger, S., & Yager, R. (2001). Assessing student understanding in science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 882

ePortConsortium (2003). Electronic Portfolio White Paper (Version 1.0). Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://www.eportconsortium.org/Uploads/whitepaperV1_0.pdf Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). Developing a literacy program for children with severe disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 48, 676-684. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ermi, L., Heliö, S., & Mäyrä, F. (2004). Pelien voima ja pelaamisen hallinta. Lapset ja nuoret pelikulttuurien toimijoina [The power of games and the monitoring of games. Children and the young as actors in game cultures]. Hypermedia Laboratory Net Series 6. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from http://tampub.uta.fi/tup/95144-5939-3.pdf Erstad, O. (2007). Integrating institutional and educational practices - Norwegian experiences on ICT and teacher professional development. Unpublished manuscript, Summer Institute 2005, University of Oslo, Norway.. Ertmer P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Development Research and Development, 53, 25–39.

Compilation of References

Ertmer, P. (2003). Transforming teacher education: visions and strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 124–128. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Examining the effect of small discussions and question prompts on vicarious learning outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39(1), 66-80. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 25-39. Ertmer, P.E.A. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (1), 54-72. eSchool News. (August, 14, 2007). 96 percent of teens use social-networking tools: Survey reveals schools have a huge opportunity to harness technology for instruction. E-School News. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://www.eschoolnews.com//news/showstoryts. cfm?ArticleID=7304 Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 13(1), 93106. Eskelinen, M. (2005). Pelit ja pelitutkimus luovassa taloudessa [Games and game research in an innovative economy]. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from http:// www.sitra.fi/Julkaisut/Raportti51.pdf European Commission (1998). Employment in the Information Society. In W. Cortada (Ed.) Rise of the knowledge worker (pp. 189–198 ). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. European Commission (2002). eSafe Directions 20032004: Discussion Document. Presented at the eSafe Public Hearing. Retrieved from www.saferinternet.org/ downloads/eSafe-Directions-2003-2004.pdf

Eurydice (2005). Key data on education in Europe. The information network on education in Europe, EU Commission. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from http:// www.eurydice.org/ressources/eurydice/pdf/052EN/008_ chapD_052EN.pdf Evans, M.A., & Johri, A. (in press). Facilitating guided participation through mobile technologies: Designing creative learning environments for self and others. Journal of Computing for Higher Education. Evans, M.A., & Powell, A. (2007). Conceptual and practical issues related to the design for and sustainability of Communities of Practice: The case of e-portfolio use in preservice teacher training. Technology, Pedagogy, & Education, 16(2), 199-214. Evans, M.A., Ahuja, S., & Wu, D. (2008, November 4-8). Mobile Malawi Project: Local Knowledge, Global Technologies. Paper to be presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology International Conference, Orlando, FL. Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2000). Examining Information processing on the World Wide Web using think aloud protocols. Mediapsychology, 2(3), 219–244. Evenson, D., & Hmelo, C. (2000). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Everett, C., & Spear, R. (2008). Investigating the earth and its environment. Science Teacher, 75(1), 58-61. Ewing, S., Thomas, J. & Schiessl, J. (2008). CCi Digital Futures Report: The Internet in Australia. Kelvin Grove, Australia: Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation. Retrieved from www.cci.edu.au/projects/digital-futures Facer, K. (2002 February 19). What do we mean by the digital divide? Exploring the roles of access, relevance and resource networks. A collection of papers from the Toshiba/Becta seminar. Retrieved June, 29, 2005 from http://www.becta.org.uk/research/research. cfm?section=1&id=529 Facer, K. (2002, February 19). What do we mean by the digital divide? Exploring the roles of access, relevance and resource networks. A collection of papers

883

Compilation of References

from the Toshiba/Becta seminar . Retrieved June 29, 2005, from http://www.becta.org.uk/research/research. cfm?section=1&id=529

Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp 368-395). New York: Agathon Press.

Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong, R., & Sutherland, R. (2003). ScreenPlay: Children and Computing in the Home. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Feltovitch, P. J., Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., & Feltovich, J. (1996). Collaboration within and among minds: Mastering complexity, individually and in groups. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 25-44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Facer, K., Sutherland, R., Furlong, R., & Furlong, J. (2001). What’s the point of using computers? The development of computer expertise in the home. New media & society, 3, 199–219. Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 32, 175-187. Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287-322. Fang, 1996). Fang, Z. (1996). A Review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47-65. Farrell, I., & Moore, D. (2000). The effects of navigation tools on learner’s achievement and attitude in a hypermedia environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 29, 169-181. Fauske, J., & Wade, S.E. (2003-04). Research to practice online: Conditions that foster democracy, community, and critical thinking in computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 137-154. Faux, F., McFarlane, A., Roche, N., & Facer, K. (2006). Learning with handheld technologies: A handbook from FutureLab. Bristol, UK: FutureLab. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/ documents/handbooks/handhelds_handbook.pdf Federal Statistical Office (2007). Statistical Yearbook 2007. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt. Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P.

884

Ferdig, R. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37 (5), 749-760. Ferdig, R., & Trammell, K. (2004). Content delivery in the ‘blogosphere.’ T.H.E. Journal, February, 12-20. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://www.thejournal. com/articles/16626 Ferdig, R.E. & Roehler, L.R. (2003-04). Student uptake in electronic discussions: Examining online discourse in literacy preservice classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 119-136. Ferry, B., Hedberg, J. & Harper, B. (1997). How do preservice teachers use concept maps to organize their curriculum knowledge? Paper presented at ASCILITE conference, Perth, Australia. Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109. Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R. & Watson, G. (2006). Measuring Learning with ICTs: An external evaluation of Education Queensland’s ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument. Paper presented at The Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Education Research Creative Dissent: Constructive Solutions, The University of Western Sydney Parramatta Campus, Australia, November 27 – December 1, 2005. Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G. (2003). Recommendations for the Development of an ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument: Focusing on Student Use of ICTs. Proceedings of the annual conference for the Australian and New

Compilation of References

Zealand Associations for Research in Education (AARE – NZARE), Auckland, New Zealand. Finger, G., Russell, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Russell, N. (2007). Transforming Learning with ICT: Making IT Happen. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia. Finkelstein, E. & Samsonov, P. (2008). PowerPoint for Teachers: Dynamic Presentations and Interactive Classroom Projects. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. High School Students Bored, risk dropping out: Survey, 2007. (2007). Retrieved March 24, 2008 from http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2654590220070228 Finkelstein, E. (2005). Creative Techniques: Easily create a quiz in PowerPoint using Visual Basic for Applications. Presentations, January. Fischer, K.M. (1998). Pig tales: Literature inside the pen of electronic writing. In D. Reiss, D.Selfe, and A. Young (Eds.), Electronic communication across the curriculum. (pp. 207-220). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of English. Fish, T. R., Rabidoux, P., Ober, J., & Graff, V. (2006). Community literacy and friendship model for people with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation, 44, 443-446. Fishbein, M, A. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Fisher, K. (2006, Apr. 23). Michigan to require “online courses” for high school graduation. The Art of Technology. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http:// arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060423-6657.html Fisher, M. & Baird, D. (2005). Online Learning Design that Fosters Student Support, Self-Regulation, and Retention. Campus Wide Information Systems: An International Journal of E-Learning, 22. Fisher, M. & Baird, D. (2007). Making mLearning Work: Utilizing Mobile Technology for Active Exploration, Collaboration, Assessment and Reflection in Higher Education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(1).

Fisher, M., Coleman, P., Sparks, P. & Plett, C. (2006). Designing Community Learning in Web-based Environments. In B.H. Khan, (Ed.), Flexible Learning in an Information Society. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Fisher-Cox, A. (2008). Apple surpasses Dell to first place in education sales. Retrieved March 13, 2008 from http:// technorati.com Fishman, B. J. (2006). It’s not about the technology. Teachers College Record. ID Number: 12584. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from http://www.tcrecord.org Fitzallen, N. & Brown, N. (2006). What profiling tells us about ICT and professional practice. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Education Research Creative Dissent: Constructive Solutions, The University of Western Sydney Parramatta Campus, Australia, November 27 – December 1, 2005. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://www. aare.edu.au/05pap/abs05.htm#T Fitzgerald, G. (2004). Using technologies to meet the unique needs of students with emotional/behavioral disorders: Findings and directions. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice, (p. 335-354). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc. Fitzgerald, G., & Koury, K. (1996). Empirical advances in technology-assisted instruction for students with mild and moderate disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 526-553. Fitzgerald, G., & Koury, K. (2001-2002). The KidTools Support System (Project #H327A000005). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. Fitzgerald, G., & Koury, K. (2004-2005). The StrategyTools Support System (Project #H327A030044). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. Fitzgerald, G., & Semrau, L. (1998-2000). Virtual Resource Center in Behavioral Disorders (Project #H029K70089). Washington, D.C.:United States Department of Education. Fitzgerald, G., & Semrau, L. (2000). The development of KidTools. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3). 885

Compilation of References

Fitzgerald, G., & Werner, J. (1996). The use of the computer to support cognitive-behavioral interventions for students with behavioral disorders. Journal of Computing in Childhood, 7, 127-148. Fitzgerald, G., Koury, K., & Mitchem, K. (2008). Current research and directions for technology-assisted instruction for students with disabilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research 38(2). Fitzgerald, G., Mitchem, K., & Koury, K. (2006-2007). Implementation of Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools for Students with Mild Disabilities (Field-based Research Project #H327A050066). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. Fitzpatrick, C. (2000). Navigating a new information landscape. Social Education, 64, 33-34. Flavel, J.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Flick, L. (1998, April). Integrating elements of inquiry into the flow of middle level teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. Forcier, R.C. & Descy, D.E. (2008) The computer as an educational tool: Productivity and Problem Solving. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall. Fore, C. III, & Riser, S.E. (2005). Promoting maintenance and generalization through cognitive decision making training. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32, 127-135.

munication and cognition (pp. 323-347). Cambridge: Cambridge. Fors, A. C., & Jakobson, M. (2002) Beyond use and design: the dialectics of being in a virtual world. Digital Creativity, 13(1), 39-52. Forsythe, T. & MacKinnon, G. (2005) Technology & cooperative learning: The IIT model for teaching authentic chemistry curriculum. In R. Yager, Exemplary science in grades 9-12: Standards-based success stories (pp. 11-23.). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Foundation Ict op School (2006). Dutch ICT-Tools. http://web.kennisnet2.nl/portal/onderzoek/onderzoeken/ monitoring/dutchicttools Fox, D. (1983). Personal Theories Of Teaching. Studies in Higher Education. 8 (2), 151–163. Frank, M. & Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course for preservice science and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (1), 41-61. Frazier, W. & Sterling, D. (2008). Motor mania: Revving up for technological design. The Technology Teacher, February, 5-12. Frederickson, N., Frith, U., & Reason, R. (1997). Phonological Assessment Battery. Windsor, UK: NFERNelson. Free Wi-Fi may close the digital divide. (2006). BizEd 5(7), 58. Freedman, G., Darrow, R., & Watson, J., (2002). The California virtual school report: A national survey of virtual education practice and policy with recommendations for the state of California. Retrieved September 8, 2004 from http://www.uccp.org/docs/VHS_Report_lowres.pdf

Forgasz, H. (2006). Factors that encourage or inhibit computer use for secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 77–93.

Freeman, M., Bell, A., Comerton-Forder, C., Pickering J., & Blayney, P. (2007). Factors affecting educational innovation with in class electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 149-170.

Forman, E., & Gazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive values of peer interaction. In J. Wertsch’s (Ed.) Culture, com-

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing.

886

Compilation of References

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Frid, S. (2001). Supporting primary students’ online learning in a virtual enrichment program. Research in Education, 66, 9-27. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 173-191. Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (p. 227). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Frywell, D., & Kennedy, C. H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students’ social relationships. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 259-269. Fuchs-Kittowski, F., & Köhler, A. (2002). Knowledge creating communities in the context of work processes. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 23(3), 8-13. Fullan, M, (1999). Change Forces: the Sequel. London: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 420-423. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. The School Administrator, 10(63), 12-16. Fullan, M.G. & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’s worth fighting for? Toronto, ON: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation: OISE Press. Fultz, N. H., & Hertzog, R. (1991). Gender differences in affiliation and instrumentally across adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 6, 579-586. Fund, Z. (2000). Cognitive support for science problem solving in computerized environment: effects on cognitive and meta-cognitive skills. In P. Nasser, N. Hativa, & Z. Scherz (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Convention of the Israel Educational Research Association (pp. 259- 264). Tel-Aviv: Reches (Hebrew).

Fund, Z. (2002). Cognitive support in computerized science problem solving: Eliciting external representation and improving search strategies. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The Role of Communication in Learning to Model (pp. 127-154). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fund, Z. (2003). How to evaluate science problem solving in a computerized learning environment? Construction of an analyzing scheme. In C. P. Constantinou & Z. C. Zacharia (Eds.). Computer Based Learning in Science, conference proceedings 2003, Vol 1 (pp. 737-745). Nicosia: University of Cyprus. Fund, Z. (2007). The effects of scaffolded computerized science problem-solving on achievement outcomes: a comparative study of support programs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 410–424. Fund, Z. (2007). The effects of different scaffolding programs on meta-cognitive skills within computerized science problem-solving. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary. Fund, Z., Court, D., Kramarski, B. (2002). Construction and application of an evaluative tool to assess reflection in teacher-training courses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 485-499. Fung, P., Hennessy, S., & O’Shea, T. (1998). Pocketbook computing: A paradigm shift? Computers in the Schools, 14, 109-118. Funk, J; Chan, M; Brouwer, J; Curtiss, K. (2006). A biopsychosocial analysis of the video game—playing experience of children and adults in the United States. Studies in Media and Information Literacy Education, 6, 3. Funke, J., & Frensch, P. (1995). Complex problem solving research in North America and Europe: and integrative review. Foreign Psychology, 5, 42-47. Furney, K.S., Hasazi, S.B., & Destefano, L. (1997). Transition policies, practices, and promises: Lessons from three states. Exceptional Children, 63, 343-355. Fusco, J., Gehlbach, H., & Schlager, M. S. (2000). Assessing the impact of a large-scale online teacher

887

Compilation of References

professional development community. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (pp. 2178–2183). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

missed opportunities. In D. Wray (Chair), ICT in education. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction 2005 Biennial Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Gadanidis, G., Gadanidis, J. & Schindler, K. (2003). Factors mediating the use of online applets in the lesson planning of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 323-344.

Gansmo, H., Lagesen, V., & Sørensen, K. (2003). Out if the boy’s room? A critical analysis of the understanding of gender and ICT in Norway. NORA, 11, 130-139.

Gado, I., Ferguson, R., & van’t Hooft, M. (2006). Inquirybased instruction through handheld-based science activities: Preservice teachers’ attitude and self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 501-529. Gage, N.L. & Berliner, D.C. (1984) Educational Psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Gagne, R., Briggs, L, & Wager, W. (1974). Principles of Instructional Design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Gaide, S. (2006). ePortfolios Supercharge PerformanceBased Student Assessment. Distance Education Report, 10(2), 4-6. Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Computers & Education, 43, 63-79. Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., Goos, M. & Geiger, V. (2001). Integrating technology in mathematics learning: What some students say. In J. Bobis, B. Perry & M. Michael Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond: Proceedings of the 24nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 223-230). Sydney, Australia: MERGA. Galloway, H. (n. d.). Job-embedded professional development. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http:// www.txstate.edu/edphd/PDF/jobpd.pdf Ganesh, T. G. & Berliner, D. C. (2005). Practices of computer use in elementary education: Perceived and

888

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic. Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Garland, V. E. (2006). Digital literacy and the use of wireless portable computers, planners, and cell phones for K- 12 education. In L. Hin & R. Subramaniam, (Eds.), Literacy in Technology at the K-12 level: Issues and Challenges. (pp. 308-321). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 5171-529. Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 517–529. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2/3), 87-105. Garthwait, A. & Verrill, J. (2003). E-portfolios: Documenting student progress. Science and Children, 40(8), 22-27. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working Memory and Language. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Publishers.

Compilation of References

Gaver, W., (1991). Technology Affordances.’New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved February 2, 2009 from https://www.cs.umd.edu/class/ spring2001/cmsc434-0201/p79-gaver.pdf Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton MifflinHardy, J., Haywood, D., Bates, S., Paterson, J., Rhind, S., Macleod, H. & Haywood, J. (2008). Expectations and Reality: Exploring the use of learning technologies across the disciplines. Proceedings of the 6th International Networked Learning Conference, Helkidi, Greece. Gayeski, D., Golden, T., Andrade, S., & Mason, H. (2007). Bringing competency anaylsis into the 21st century. Performance Improvement, 46(7), 9-16. Ge, X., & Land, S. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(2), 5-22. Ge. X., & Land, S.M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38. Ge. X., & Land, S.M. (2004). A conceptual framework of scaffolding problem solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22. Ge. X., Chen, C-H., & Davis. K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Research, 33(2), 219-248. Gee, J. (2000). Discourse and socio-cultural studies in reading. In M. Kamil, B. Mosenthal, P. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. III). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gee, J. P. (2004) What Videogames Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Gee, James P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/ St. Martin’s. Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 162-170. Gery, G. (1991). Electronic performance support systems. Cambridge, MA: Ziff Institute. Gibbs, G. (1988). Creating a Teaching Portfolio (2nd ed). Bristol, UK: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.. Gibson, S. & Oberg, D. (2004). Visions and reality of Internet use in schools: Canadian perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 569-585. Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2006). New learning environments and constructivism: the students’ perspective. Instructional Science, 34, 213-216. Giles, J. (2005). Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head To Head. Nature, 438(7070), 900-901. Gillen, J., Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N. & Twiner, A. (2008). A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256. Gillespie, P. (1998). E-Journals: Writing to learn in the literature classrooms. In D. Reiss, D.Selfe, and A. Young (Eds.), Electronic communication across the curriculum. (pp. 221-230). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of English. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and woman’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gillingham, M.G., Garner, R., Guthrie, J.T., & Sawyer, R. (1989). Children’s control of computer-based reading assistance in answering synthesis questions. Computers in Human Behavior, 5, 61-75. Gilster, P. (1992). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing Co.

889

Compilation of References

Giroux, H. (1993). Border crossings: culture and the politics of education. New York: Routledge. Glanz, J. (1998). Action research: An educational leader’s guide to action research. Norwood MA: ChristopherGordon. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, L.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. Toronto, Canada: Harper & Row. Glasson, G.E., Frykholm, J., Mhango, N., & Phiri, A. (2006). Understanding the earth systems of Malawi: Ecological sustainability, culture, and place-based education. Science Education, 90 (4), 660-680. Global Kids Digital Media Initiative (2007). Engaging youth with a new medium: The potentials of virtual worlds. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.holymeatballs. org/2007/05/media_engaging_youth_with_a_ne.html Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: the pedagogical impact of the large scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(3) 257-276. Godwin-Jones, R. (2004). Emerging technologies: Language in action from WebQuests to Virtual Realities. Language, Learning & Technology, 8(3), 9-14. Goldman-Segall. (1998). Points of Viewing Children’s Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer’s Journey. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Goldstein, A., & Glick, B (1987). Aggression in replacement training: A comprehensive intervention for aggression youth. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers‘ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447-464. Good, G., & Beitman, B. (2006). Counseling and psychotherapy essentials. New York: Norton. Goodman, S. (2005, April 26-28). The Practice and Principles of Teaching Critical Literacy at the Educa-

890

tion Video Center. A collection of articles and chapters submitted by participants. 21st Century Literacy Summit, pp. 217-240. San Jose, CA. Goodson, I. F. (2003). Professional knowledge, professional lives: studies in education and change. Philadelphia: Open university press. Goodyear, P., de Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2006). Using pattern languages to mediate theory-praxis conversations in design for networked learning. ALT-J Research on Learning Technology, 14(3), 211-223. Goodyer, A. (1999) Workshop on Information and Communication Technologies and the Curriculum. Sydney, Australia: Office of the Board of Studies NSW. Retrieved from www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/docs_general/ occasionalp2_ict.html#heading2 Gooler, D., Kautzer, K., & Knuth, R. (2000). Teacher competence in using technologies: The next big question (PREL Briefing Paper). Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452 175). Gordijin, J., Wim, J. N. (2002). Effects of complex feedback on computer-assisted modular instruction. Computers & Education, 39(2), 183-200. Gordon, J., Powell, C., & Rockwood, K. (1999). Goal attainment scaling as a measure of clinically important change in nursing-home patients. British Geriatrics Society, 28, 275-281. Gore, J.M. & Zeichner, K.M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119-136. Gos, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23-38. Gouli, E., Gogoulou, A., & Grigoriadou, M. (2003). A coherent and integrated framework using concept maps for various educational assessment functions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 215-240. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://jite.org/indexes/ Vol2.htm.

Compilation of References

Gouveia, V. & Valadares, J. (2004). Concept maps and the didactic role of assessment.. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Goyne, J. S., McDonough, S. K., Padgett, D. D. (2000). Practical Guidelines for Evaluating Educational Software. The Clearing House 73 (6), 345-348. Grabe, M.& Grabe, M. (2007), Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning, (5th Ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin, Co. Grabowski, B., Koszalka, T., & McCarthy, M. (2007). Web-enhanced learning environment strategies handbook and reflection tool (12th ed.) University Park, PA: Penn State University. Graham, C. R., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools, 21(1/2), 127-148. Graham, M., Slocum, A., & Sanchez, R.M. (2007). Teaching high school students and college freshmen product development by deterministic design with PREP. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129-7, 677-681. Graves, M., Graves, M., & Braaten, S. (1996). Scaffolding reading experiences for inclusive classes. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 14-16. Gray, D. E., Ryan, M., & Coulon, A. (2004). The training of teachers and trainers: innovative practices, skills and competencies in the use of eLearning. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, II. Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Green & Hannon, (2007). Their Space: Education for the digital generation. London: DEMOS. Greene, J., and Winters, M. (2006, April). Leaving boys behind: Public high school graduation rates. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, No. 48, 2006. Http:// www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_48.htm

Greer, L., & Heaney, P. J. (2004. Real-time analysis of student comprehension: an assessment of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52 (4), 345-351. Gregório, R. & Freire, A. (2006). Reading and environmental education. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Gresham, F. (1985). Utility of cognitive-behavioral procedures for social skills training with children: A critical review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 411-423. Gresham, F. M. & Elliott, S.N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Griffiths, M., Wood, R. (2004). Risk Factors in Adolescence: The Case of Gambling, Videogame Playing, and the Internet. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(2-3) 199-225. Grigal, M., Test, D.W., Beqattie, J., & Wood, W.M. (1997). An evaluation of transition components of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 63, 357-372. Grimes, A. G., Hough, M. G., & Signorella, M. L. (2007). Email end users and spam: Relations of gender and age group to attitudes and actions. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 318–332. Grimes, D. J., & Boening, C. H. (2001). Worries with the Web: A look at student use of Web resources. College & Research Libraries, 62(1), 11–23. Groff, J. & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46 Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report? Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633–649. Grossman, H. J. (1983). Classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency. 891

Compilation of References

Grunwald, P. (2004). Children, families and the Internet. Bethesda, MD: Grunwals Association.

Gunter, B. (2004) Personal Communication.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gunter, G. & Kenny, R. (2004). Video in the classroom: Learning objects or objects of learning. Chicago: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED485139)

Guhlin, M. (1996). Stage a well designed Saturday session and they will come! Technology Connection, 3(3), 13-14.

Guppy, P. & Hughes, M. (1999). The Development of Independent Reading: Reading Support Explained. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Gülbahar, Y. & Köse, F. (2006). Perceptions of Preservice Teachers about the Use of Electronic Portfolios for Evaluation., Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 39(2), 75-93. Ankara, Turkey: Ankara University. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.education.ankara. edu.tr/ebfdergi/pdfler/2006_2/075-093.pdf

Gurian, M., & Stevens, K. (2004). With boys and girls in mind. Closing Achievement Gaps, 62(3), 21-26.

Gülbahar, Y. & Tinmaz, H. (2006). Implementing Project-Based Learning and E-Portfolio Assessment in an Undergraduate Course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 309-327. Gumpel, T. P. & David, S. (2000). Exploring the efficacy of self-regulatory training as a possible alternative to social skills training. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 131-141. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3). 8-26. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction model for examining the social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research 17(4), 397-431. Gunn, C. (2006). A 360 Degree Review of e-Portfolio Assessment. The 4th international ePortfolio conference, Oxford, UK. Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http:// www.eife-l.org/publications/eportfolio/proceedings/ ep06/ep2006_papers/gunn/attachment_download/file Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of Metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, Gunstone, R.F., White, R.T., The Content of Science: A Constructivist Approach to its Teaching and Learning. London: Falmer Press.

892

Gurian, M., Henley, P., & Trueman, T. (2001). Boys and girls learn differently! A guide for teahers and parents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391. Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748-750. Gustafson, K. (2000). Designing technology-based performance support. Educational Technology, 40, 38-44. Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1-44. Gyselinck V., Ehrlich, M.-F., Cornoldi, C., de Beni, R., Dubois, V. (2000). Visuspatial working memory in learning from multimedia. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 166-176. Habermas, J. (1987). Knowledge and Human Interests. Shapiro, J. (Trans.). London: Polity Press. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Ed.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hacker, D. J., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 53-63.

Compilation of References

Hadley, N. (2002). An empowering pedagogy sequence for teaching technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(1), 18-22. Hadley, N., Eisenwine, M., Hakes, J., & Hines, C. (2002). Technology infusion in the curriculum: Thinking outside the box. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 4(1), 5-13. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics text data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. Hakkarainen, K., Ilomäki, L., Lipponen, L., Muukkonen, H., Rahikainen, M., Tuominen, T., et al. (2000). Students’ skills and practices of using ICT: Results of a national assessment in Finland. Computers and Education, 34, 103–117. Hakkarainen, K., Järvelä, S., Lipponen, L., & Lehtinen, E. (1998). Culture of collaboration in computer-supported learning: Finnish perspectives. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9, 271–288. Hale, C. & Scanlon, J. (1999). Wired Style: Principles of English Usage in the Digital Age. New York: Broadway Books. Haley, D., Thomas, P., Nusibeh, P., Taylor, J., & Lefrere, P. (2003) E-Assessment using Latent Semantic Analysis. In Proceedings of the 3rd International LeGE-WG Workshop,Berlin. Swindon, UK: BCS Halford, G. (1993). Children’s understanding: The development of mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hall, H., & Davison, B. (2007). Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: The value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer support. Library & Information Science Research, 29, 163-187. Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117 Hallman, H. L. (2007). Negotiating teacher identity: Exploring the use of electronic teaching portfolios with preservice English teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6),474-485.

Halverson, R., & Collins, A. (2006). Information technologies and the future of schooling in the United States. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 145-155. Hamilton, A. (2000). Metaphor in Theory and Practice: the Influence of Metaphors on Expectations. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24(4), 237-253. Hannafin, R. D. (1999) Can teacher attitudes about learning be changed? Journal of Computer in Teacher Education, Winter, 15(2),7-13. Hara, N., Bonk, C.J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152. Hardy, J,V. (1998), Teacher attitudes toward and knowledge of computer technology. Computers in the Schools, 4(3-4), 119-136. Hargittai, E. (2003). How Wide a Web: Inequalities in Access to Information Online. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton. Hargrave, C. P., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303-314. Hargreaves, A. (1997). Going deeper and wider in the quest for success. In Hargreaves, A. (Ed). Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainable Educational Change: The Role of Social Geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3-4), 189-214. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the age of insecurity. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: education in the age of insecurity. Philadelphia: Open university press. Harlen, W., & Jelly, S. (1997). Developing science in the primary classroom. Essex, UK: Addison Wesley Longman.

893

Compilation of References

Harmer, A.J. & W.M. Cates (2007). Designing for learning engagement in middle school science: Technology, inquiry, and the hierarchies of engagement. Computers in the Schools, 105-124. Binghamton, NY: Harworth Press, Inc. Harmer, A.J. (2008). Educational efforts in K-12 nanoscaled science and engineering education and related research studies using remote electron microscopy. In A. E. Sweeney & S. Sudipta (Eds.), Nanoscale science and engineering education. Stevenson Ranch, CA: American Scientific Publishers. Harmon, S. (1999). The second “S”: Putting the system back in performance support. Retrieved from http:// itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper36/html. Harris, H., Wong, B., & Keogh, B.E. (1985). Cognitivebehavior modification with children: A critical review of the state of the art. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 329-476 Harris, J. B., & Grandgenett, N. (1996). Correlates among teachers’ anxieties, demographics, and tele-computing activity. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 300–317. Harris, L. (2000). Patterns of promise. Charleston, WV: AEL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447808) Harris, S. & Kington, S. (2002) Innovative Classroom Practices Using ICT in England. National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough, UK. Accessed 27th February, 2005 at: http://nfer.ac.uk/research/down_pub. asp Harrison, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Haw, K., Lewin, C., Lunzer, E., McFarlane A., Mavers, D., Scrimshaw, P., Somekh, B., Watling, R. (2003). ImpaCT2 The Impact of information and communication technologies on pupil learning and attainment. Annesley, UK: Department for Education and skills. Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction, 17, 465-477.

894

Harste, J. (2003). What do we mean by literacy now? Voices from the Middle, 10(3), 8-12. Hartley, J. (2007). Teaching, learning and new technology: a review for teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 42-62. Hartley, J. (2007). Teaching, learning and new technology: A review for teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 42-62. Hartley, K. (2001). Learning strategies and hypermedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 285-395. Hartman, J., Moskal, P. & Dziuban, C. (2005). Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. In D. Oblinger (Ed.) Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Harvey, J., & Purnell, S. (1995, March). Technology and teacher professional development. Report Prepared for the Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Hassel, B. C., & Terrell, M. G. (2004). How can virtual schools be a vibrant part of meeting the choice provisions of the no child left behind act? Virtual School Report. Retrieved September 6, 2004, from http://www.connectionsacademy.com/PDFs/VirtualNews704.pdf Hatch, J., Jensen, M., & Moore, R. (2005). Manna from heaven or clickers from hell. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(7), 36-39. Haughey, M., & Muirhead, B. (2005). Evaluating learning objects for schools. E-Journal of Instructional Sciences and Technology, 8(1). Retrieved June 1, 2007 from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/vol8_no1/ fullpapers/eval_learnobjects_school.htm Havers, F. (1995). Rhyming tasks male and female brains differently. The Yale Herald, Inc. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Hayes, D., Schuck, S., Segal, G., Dwyer, J. & McEwen, C. (2001). Net Gain?: The integration of computer-based learning in six NSW government schools 2000. Sydney: Australia: The University of Technology, Sydney Faculty of Education Change and Education Research Group.

Compilation of References

Haymore, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1992). Innovation and interaction: The relationship between technological innovation and collegial interaction (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Report No. 13). Retrieved August 4, 2008 from http://www.apple.com/education/ k12/leadership/acot/library.html Healy, A. (ed.) (2008). Multiliteracies and Diversity in Education. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Heath, M. (2005). Are You Ready to Go Digital?: The Pros and Cons of Electronic Portfolio Development. Library Media Connection, 23(7), 66-70. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedberg, J. G. (2006). E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 171-183. Heins, M., & Cho, C. (2003). Media literacy: An alternative to censorship. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/medialiteracy2d.html Helms, S., & Key, C. H. (1994). Are students more than customers in the classroom? Quality Progress, 27(9), 97–99. Hennessy, S. (2000). Graphing investigations using portable (palmtop) technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 243-258. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 701-732.

Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://blog.lib.umn. edu/blogosphere/women_and_children.html Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2006). What is an authentic learning environment? In A. Herrington & J. Herrington (Eds.), Authentic learning environments in higher education (pp. 1-13). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: 10 suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48. Herrington, J., Oliver, R. & Reeves, T. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 19(1), 59-71. Herrington, J., Oliver, R. & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19, 59-71. Retrieved November 11, 2004, from http://www.ascilite. org.au/ajet/ajet19/herrington.html Herrington, J., Reeves, T. Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing and Higher Education, 16(1), 3-29

Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & van Keer. (2008). Development of the beliefs about primary education scale: Distinguishing a developmental and transmissive dimension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 129-139.

Herz, J.C. (2001). Gaming the system: what higher education can learn from multiplayer online worlds. Educause, Publications from the Forum for the Future of Higher Education. Retrieved August 7, 2006, from Http://www. educause.edu/library/pdf/ffpiu019.pdf

Herring, S. C., Kouper, I., Scheidt, L. A., & Wright, E. L. (2004). Women and Children Last: The discursive construction of Weblogs. In L.J. Gurak, S. Antonijevic, L. Johnson, C. Ratliff, & J. Reyman (Eds.), Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of Weblogs.

Hew, K.F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55, 223-252.

895

Compilation of References

Hewett, S. M. (2004). Electronic Portfolios: Improving Instructional Practices. TechTrends, 48(5), 26-30. Hicks, D., Sears, P., Gao, H., Goodmans, P., & Manning, J. (2004). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to be socially and ethically aware producers and consumers of interactive technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 470-481. Higgins, K. (2000). Evaluating educational software for special education. Intervention in School & Clinic, 36(2), 109-115. Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1990b). Hypertext computer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and regular education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(9), 629-540. Higgins, K., Boone, R, & Lovitt, T.C. (2002). Adapting challenging textbooks to improve content area learning. In M. Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 755-790). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Hill, J., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), 37–64. Hill, S. & Broadhurst, D. (2002). Technoliteracy and the early years. In L. Makin & C. Jones Diaz (Eds.), Literacies in Early Childhood: Changing Views Challenging Practices (pp. 269–88). Sydney: McLennan & Petty. Hill, S. (2004). Hot diggity! Findings from the Children of the new millennium project. Paper presented at Early Childhood Organisation Conference EDC. Hiltz, S.R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Hintze J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 372-386. Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

896

Hlapanis, G. (2006). Creating learning communities by using communication technologies: The case study of a distance learning educational program, concerning further training of teachers in the use of information and communication technology in education. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of the Aegean, Greece. Hlapanis, G., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2006). A Course Model implemented in a Teachers’ Learning Community Context: Issues of Course Assessment. Journal of Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(6), 561–578. Hlapanis, G., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2007). A schoolteachers’ learning community: Matters of communication analysis. Journal of Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, Special Issue on Online Communities of Practice in Education, 16(2), 133-151. Hlapanis, G., Kordaki, M., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2006). Successful e-courses: The role of synchronous communication and e- moderation via chat. Campus-Wide Information Systems-The international journal of information and learning technology, Synchronous methods and applications in e-learning, 23(3), pp. 171-181. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. Golan Duncan, R. & Chinn, C.A (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. Hoban, G. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Philadephia: Open University Press. Hobbs, R. (1997). Expanding the concept of literacy. Media Literacy in the Information Age (pp.163-183). New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher. Hobbs, R. (2004). A review of school-based initiatives in media literacy education. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(42). 42-57. Hobbs, R. (2005). Media literacy and the K-12 content areas. In G. Schwarz & P. Brown (Eds.) Media literacy: Transforming curriculum and teaching (pp. 74-99). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Compilation of References

Hodas, S. (1993). Technology refusal and the organisational culture of schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1(10).

Hoover, W. (1996). The practice implications of constructivism. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Newsletter 10(3).

Hodges, M.E., & Sasnett, R.M. (1993). Multimedia Computing – Case Studies from MIT Project Athena. London: Addison-Wesley.

Hope, A (2006). School Internet use, youth and risk: a social-cultural study of the relation between staff views of online dangers and students’ ages in UK schools. British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 307–329.

Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalization and politisation of science education. Curriculum Studies. 2(1), 71-98. Hoek, D., van den Eden, P., & Terwel, J. (1999). The effects of integrated social and cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education. Learning and Instruction, 9, 427-448. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43-55. Hoffman, R. (2007). A wireless world: Charles County Public Schools makes wireless universal. Technology & Learning, 27(8), 27. Holahan, C. (2007). The Twitterization of Blogs. Business Week. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http:// www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/ tc20070604_254236.htm Holland, P. E. (2001). Professional development in technology: Catalyst for school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (2), 245-267. Hölscher, C., & Strube, G. (2000). Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks, 33(1–6), 337–346. Honey, M., & Moeller, B. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs and technology integration: Different values, different understandings (Technical Report 6). New York: Center for Technology in Education. Hoogeveen, F. R., & Smeets, P. M. (1988). Establishing phoneme blending in trainable mentally retarded children. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 45-53. Hoogeveen, F. R., Smeets, P. M., & van der Houven, J. E. (1987). Establishing letter-sound correspondences in children classifies as trainable mentally retarded. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22, 77-84.

Horrigan, J. (2008). Mobile access to data and information. Data memo. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http:// www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/244/report_display.asp Howard, P., & Massanari, A. (2007). Learning to search and searching to learn: Income, education, and experience online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3). Retrieved February 4, 2008 from http://jcmc. indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/howard.html Howard-Rose, D. & Harrigan, K. (2003). CLOE learning impact studies lite: Evaluating learning objects in nine Ontario university courses. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from http://cloe.on.ca/documents/merlotconference10.doc Howe, N, and Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books. Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next greatest generation. New York: Vintage Books. HPC Factor (2004). A brief history of Windows CE: The beginning is always a very good place to start. Retrieved October 12, 2004 from http://www.hpcfactor.com/support/windowsce/ Hsu, T. Y., Ke, H. R., & Yang, W. P. (2006). Knowledgebased mobile learning framework for museums. The Electronic Library, 25(5), 635-648. Hsu, Y.-C., Tsai, C.-C., & Chen, M.-J. (2002). A pilot study on mathematical creative analogy activities with networked peer assessment. Journal of Taiwan Normal University Mathematics & Science Education, 47, 1-14. (In Chinese) Hughes, J. E., McLeod, S., Brown, R., Maeda, Y., & Choi, J. (2005). Staff development and student perceptions of the learning environment in virtual and traditional secondary schools. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Learning Point Associates.

897

Compilation of References

Hughes, M., & Zachariah, S. (2001). An investigation into the relationship between effective administrative leadership styles and the use of technology. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5, 1-10. Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from, http:// chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/infoproc.html Humphreys, L. (2005). Cellphones in public: Social interactions in a wireless ear. New Media & Society, 7(6), 810-833. Hung, C.C. (2004). The use of WebQuests as a constructivist learning tool in secondary school geography in Singapore. Paper presented at ISTE Conference. Retrieved May 9, 2008 from http://www.iste.org/Content/ NavigationMenu/Research/ Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computermediated instructional technologies. Educational Media International, 38(4), 281-287. Hungerford, H. R. & Volk, T. L. (1989). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 8-21. Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creating socially supportive environments for fully included students who experience multiple disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 53-71. Hurd, P. (1997). Inventing science education for the new millennium: Ways of knowing in science series. Duschl, R. (Ed). New York: Teachers College Press. Hutchins, E. (1991). The Social Organization of Distributed Cognition: Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hutchison, D.(2007) An Evaluation of Computerised Essay Marking for National Curriculum Assessment in the UK for 11 Year Olds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 977-987.

898

IARE (Institute for the Advancement of Research in Education) (2003). Graphic organizers: A review of scientifically based research. Charleston, WV: IARE IHMC (2008). IHMC CMap Tools. Retrieved on March 6, 2008 from: http://cmap.ihmc.us/ Ikpeze, C. & Boyd, F. (2007). Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 644-654. Illinois Online Network (2007). ION’s Quality online course initiative. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http:// www.ion.uillinois.edu/initiatives/qoci/index.asp Ilomäki, L. & Rantanen, P. (2007). Intensive use of information and communication technology (ICT) in lower secondary school: Development of student expertise. Computers and Education, 48, 119–136. Ilomäki, L., & Lakkala, M. (Eds.) (2003). Computers in school’s daily life: A final report of the Educational Technology Project of City of Helsinki 1996-2000, (City of Helsinki Publication Series A3:2003). Available from http://www.hel.fi/wps/wcm/resources/file/ ebd08a4c2d77570/Loppuraportti_eng.pdf ImpaCT2 (2001). The impact of information and communications technology on pupil learning and attainment. NGfL research and Evaluation Series. Available from http://www.becta.org.uk/impact2 Ingebretsen, M. (2008). AI essay graders seek high marks for speed and accuracy. IEEE Intelligent Systems, May/June, 5-7. Ingram, A. L., Hathorn, L. G., & Evans, A. (2000) ‘Beyond chat on the internet.’ Computers and Education, 35, 21-35. Inkpen, K. (2001). Designing handheld technologies for kids. Personal Technologies Journal, 3, 81-89. Proceedings of CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA. Intelligent Assessment Technologies Ltd. (2006) Eassessment of short-answer questions. International Society for Technology in Education (2000). National Education Technology Standards for students. Retrieved, March 18, 2008, from http://www.

Compilation of References

iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/ NETS_for_Teachers.htm International Society for Technology in Education (2008). National Education Technology Standards for teachers. Retrieved, August 8, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/content/navigationmenu/nets/forteachers/2008standards/ nets_for_teachers_2008.htm International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards for students 2007. Retrieved June 30, 2008 from http:// cnets.iste.org/ International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Irby, B. & Brown, G. (2000). The career advancement portfolio. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ishioka, T. and Kameda, M., (2006). Automated Japanese essay scoring system based on articles written by experts. Proceedings of the 21st interational conference on computational linguistics and 44th annual meeting of the ACL, Sydney, (pp. 233-240). Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 6. ISTE (= International Society for Technology in Education) (2007). Profines for Technology (ICT) Literate Students. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS-S_2007_Student_ Profiles.pdf ISTE (2000). NETS-T 2000. Retrieved August 13, 2008 from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ NETS/ForTeachers/2000Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2000.htm ISTE (2007). National Educational Technology Standards. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/AM/Template. cfm?Section=NETS ISTE. (2001). National educational standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: ISTE NETS Project.

Jackson, M. (1987). Making sense of school. In A. Pollard (Ed.). Children and their primary schools: A new perspective. London: The Falmer Press. Jackson, M., Ganger, A. C., Bridge, P. D., & Ginsburg, K. (2005). “Wireless handheld computers in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Medical Education Online, 10 (5). Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www. med-ed-online.org/pdf/t0000062.pdf . Jamieson-Proctor, R. & Finger, G. (2006). Relationship between pre-service and practising teachers’ confidence and beliefs about using ICT. Australian Educational Computing - Special Conference Edition Of the Journal of the Australian Council for Computers in Education, 21 (2), 25-33. Jamieson-Proctor, R. & Finger, G. (2008). Measuring Student Use of ICT: A Summary of Findings of ICT Use in Queensland Catholic Schools. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Education Research Conference Research Impacts: Proving or improving? November 25-29, 2007, Fremantle, Australia. Jamieson-Proctor, R. M., Burnett, P. C., Finger, G. and 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. Retrieved from http://www. ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/jamieson-proctor.html Jamieson-Proctor, R. M., Burnett, P. C., 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., & Grimbeck, P. (2007). An investigation of the quantity and quality of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) use by students in Queensland Catholic schools. Report prepared for the Queensland Catholic Education Commission. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G., & Finger, G. (2003). Development of ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument for Education Queensland. Brisbane, Australia: Centre for Learning Research, Griffith University.

899

Compilation of References

Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G., & Finger, G. (2004). An external evaluation of Education Queensland’s ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument. Report prepared for the Institute of Educational Research, Policy and Evaluation. Brisbane, Australia: Centre for Learning Research, Griffith University. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G., and Finger, G. (2004b. Measuring Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Curriculum Integration. Computers in the Schools, 20 (4) 67 – 87. New York: The Haworth Press. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G., Finger, G., Grimbeek, P., & Burnett, P. (2007). Measuring the Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the Classroom. Computers in the Schools, 24 (1/2) 167 – 184. Jarvinen, D. W., & Nichols, J. G. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals, beliefs about the causes of social success, and satisfaction in peer relations. Developmental Psychology, 32, 435-441. Jenkins, C., Corritore, C. L., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). Patterns of information seeking on the web: A qualitative study of domain expertise and web expertise. IT & Society, 1(3), 64–89. Jenkins, E. (2000). ‘Science for all’: Time for a paradigm shift? In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 207-226). Buckingham , UK: Open University Press. Jenkins, H. (2005). Getting into the game. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 48-51. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. Jenkins, H. (2006). MySpace and the participation gap. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http://www. henryjenkins.org/2006/06/myspace_and_the_participation.html Jenkins, H. (2006). Threshold. New Media Literacies. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from http://www.projectnml.org/node/306/ Jenkins, H. Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. 900

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A.J., & Weigel, M. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://digitallearning. macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robinson, A. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.projectnml.org/files/working/ NMLWhitePaper.pdf Jensen, J., de Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (2003). ”Girl talk”: gender, equity, and identity discourses in a schoolbased computer culture. Women’s Studies International Forum, 26, 561-573. Jetton, T. L., & Soenksen, C. (2006). Creating a virtual literacy community between high school and university students. In L.T.W. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.) Handbook of research on literacy in technology at the K-12 level. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. Jetton, T.L. (2003-04). Using computer-mediated discussion to facilitate preservice teachers’ understanding of literacy assessment and instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 171-189. Jetton, T.L., & Alexander, P.A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290-308. Jewitt, C. (2002). The move from page to screen: the multimodal reshaping of school English. Visual Communication, 1(2), 171-195. Jewitt, C. (2003). Multimodality, literacy and computermediated learning. Assessment in Education, 10(1), 83-102. JISC (2007, September 6). Student expectations survey. Bristol, UK: JISC. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ publications/publications/studentexpectations.aspx Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Compilation of References

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning, (4th Ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, J.M. (2003). From Lofty beginnings to the age of accountability. Learning and Leading with Technology, April, 7-13. Johnson, L. (2006). The sea change before us. EDUCAUSE, March/April. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from www. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0628.pdf Johnson, R. L., McDaniel, F. & Willeke, M. J. (2000). Using Portfolios in Program Evaluation: An Investigation of Interrater Reliability. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(1), 65-80. Johnson, S. (2005). Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today’s Popular Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Merrill/ Prentice-Hall. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 63-85. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Transforming learning with technology: Beyond modernism and post-modernism or whoever controls the technology creates the reality. Educational Technology, 40 (2), 21-25.

Johnston, F.R., Invernizzi, M., & Juel, C. (1998). Book buddies: Guidelines for volunteer tutors of emergent and early readers. New York: Guilford Press.

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 43(2), 24-32.

Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking(2nd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., Wilson, B. G., & Pfeiffer, W. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research in Technology in Education, 35(3), 362-379.

Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.

Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 35(3), 362-381. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. ITForum. Retrieved 5 March 2008 from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper1/ paper1.html. Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40-73.

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Moore, J. & Marra, M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Jonassen, D., Peck, K. & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Columbus, OH: Upper Saddle River. Jones, C. (2004). Network theory and description–The Lancaster ALT masters programme. In L. Dirckinck–

901

Compilation of References

Holmfeld, B. Lindstro¨m, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/ Kaleidoscope. Jones, C., Connolly, M., Gear, A., & Read, M. (2001). Group integrative learning with group process support technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 571-581. Jones, M. & Marsden, G. (2006). Mobile interaction design. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Jones, M. G., Jones, B., & Hargrove, T. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Jones, S. & Fraistat, N. (2004). The MOO as an arcade: Minimalism and interpretive literary games. Text Technology, 2, 19-26. Jones-Kavalier, B. & Flannigan, S. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 2, 8 - 10. Jones-Kavalier, B. R., & Flanagan, S. L. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. Educause Quarterly, 29 (2), 8-10. Joseph, D. (2002). Passion as a driver for learning: A framework for the design of interest-centered curricula. Seattle, WA: John G. Nicholls Trust. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from http://tigger.uic.edu/~thork/Trust/ joseph.htm Joyce, B., Weil, M. & Calhoun, E. (2004). Models of Teaching. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. Judson, E. (2006). How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About Learning: Is There a Connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597 Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167-181. Jukes, I. (2007). Living on the future’s edge. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http://web.mac.com/iajukes/ thecommittedsardine/Handouts.html

902

Jukes, I. (2007). Understanding digital kids. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://web.mac.com/iajukes/ thecommittedsardine/Handouts.html Juliana, M. (2002). Deepening the impact of technology through an inquiry approach to teaching and learning: A cross-case analysis of three teachers’ experience. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002, 2031-2032. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Kaiser Family Foundation (2004). Survey snapshot: The digital divide. Retrieved February 23, 2008 from http:// www.kff.org/entmedia/7151.cfm Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (1996). Multiliteracies: Rethinking what We Mean by Literacy and What We Teach as Literacy –The Context of Global Cultural Diversity and New Communication Technologies (Occasional paper no. 21). Haymarker, Austraila: Centre for Workplace Communication and Culture. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Learning by Design Group (2005). Learning by Design. Melbourne, Australia: VSIC, Victorian Schools Innovation Commission. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & the Learning by Design Project Group (2005). Learning by Design. Altona, Australia: Common Ground Publishing with the Victorian Schools Innovation Commission. Kaleta, R., & Joosten, T. (2007). Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, (10), 1-12. Kamil, M.L., Intrator, S., & Kim, H.S. (2000). Effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr, (Eds.) Handbook of reading research, 3, (pp. 773-788). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Kankaanranta, M. & Puhakka, E. (2008). Kohti innovatiivista tietotekniikan opetuskäyttöä. Kansainvälisen SITES 2006 -tutkimuksen tuloksia. [Towards innovative use of ICT at teaching. Results of the international SITES 2006 study]. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research. Kennewell, S. & Morgan, A. (2006). Factors influencing learning through play in ICT settings. Computer & Education, 46, 265–279.

Compilation of References

Kankaanranta, M. (2007). Digital games and new literacies. In P. Linnakylä & I. Arffman (Eds.) Finnish Reading Literacy: When equality and equity meet (281-307). University of Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research.. Kankaanranta, M., (2005). International perspectives on the pedagogically innovative uses of technology. Human Technology, 1(2), 111-116. Kankaanranta, M., Kirjavainen, A., Nousiainen, T., & Ukkonen, M. (2006). Digitaaliset pelit nuorten arkipäivässä – Tapaus VisioCafe [Digital games in the everyday life of the young – The case of VisioCafe]. In M. Kylmäkoski, K. Lind, T. Hintikka T. & Aittola (Eds.), Nuorten tilat [Spaces of the young] (Humanistisen ammattikorkeakoulun sarja C. Oppimateriaaleja 9, pp. 125–148). Helsinki, Finland: Humanistinen ammattikorkeakoulu. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-75. Kaplan, J., & Carter, J. (1995). Beyond behavior modification: A cognitive-behavioral approach to behavior management in the school, (3rd Ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Karasavvidis, I. (2002). Distributed cognition and educational practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(1/2), 11-29. Katims, D. (1996). The emergence of literacy in elementary students with mild mental retardation. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 147-157. Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3-15. Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. A. (Eds.). (2002). Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2007c). Evaluating the learning in learning objects. Open Learning, 22(1), 5-28. Kay, R. H. (1989). A practical and theoretical approach to assessing computer attitudes: The computer attitude

measure (CAM). Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21(4), 456-463. Kay, R. H. (1992). An analysis of methods used to examine gender differences in computer-related behaviour. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 323-336. Kay, R. H. (1993). A critical evaluation of gender differences in computer-related behaviour. Computer in the Schools, 9(4), 81-93. Kay, R. H. (2008b). Exploring gender differences in computer-related behaviour: Past, present, and future. In T .T. Kidd & I. Chen, Social Information Technology: Connecting Society and Cultural Issues (pp. 12-30). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2005). Developing learning objects for secondary school students: A multi-component model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 229-254. Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007a). A Multi-Component Model for Assessing Learning Objects: The Learning Object Evaluation Metric (LOEM) (Unpublished manuscript submitted for publication, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada). Retrieved from http:// faculty.uoit.ca/kay/papers/LOES_Student_2007.doc/ MCV4.doc Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007a). Assessing learning, quality, and engagement in learning objects: The learning object evaluation scale for students (LOES-S) (Unpublished manuscript submitted for publication, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada). Retrieved Nov 1 from http://faculty.uoit.ca/kay/papers/ LOES_Student_2007.doc Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007). A systematic evaluation of learning objects for secondary school students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35 (4), 411-448. Kay, R. H., & Knaack. L. (2008). Appendix C: Secondary School Learning Objects. Retrieved Oct 19, 2008 from http://faculty.uoit.ca/kay/papers/AppendixC.html Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007). Evaluating the use of learning objects for secondary school science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 261-289. 903

Compilation of References

Kay, R. H., & Knaack. L. (2008). LORDEC Learning Object Collection. Retrieved Oct 19, 2008 from http:// www.education.uoit.ca/lordec/collections.html Kay, R. H., & Knaack. L. (2008). LORDEC Training for Use of Learning Objects. Retrieved Oct 19, 2008 from http://www.education.uoit.ca/lordec/lo_use.html Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimediasupported predict-observe-explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34, 427-453. Kearsley, G., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). Preparing K-12 teachers to teach online. Educational Technology 1, 49-52. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://home. sprynet.com/~gkearsley/TeachingOnline.htm Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G. & Wachira, P. (2008). The use of computer tools to support meaningful learning. AACE Journal, 16(1), 77-92. Keiler, L. S. (2007). Students’ explanations of their data handling: Implications for transfer of learning. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 151-172. Keith, T. (2003) Validity of automated essay scoring systems. In M. D. Shermis & J Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective, (pp. 147-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kellough, N.G., & Kellough, R.D. (2003). Secondary school teaching: A guide to models and resources. (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice-Hall Kember, D. & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5– 6), 469–490. Kendall, Lori. (2002). Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kennedy, C. H., Cushing, L. S., & Itkonen, T. (1997). General education participation improves the social contacts and friendship networks of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 167-189. Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students’ use of an electronic voting systems and

904

their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 260-268. Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Gray, K., Judd, T., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Dalgarno, B. & Bishop, A. (2006). Questioning the net generation: A collaborative project in Australian higher education.In Proceedings of the ASCILITE conference, Sydney, December 2006. Retrieved April 21, 2007 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/ proceeding/pdf_papers/p160.pdf Kennisnet (2007). Four in Balance Monitor 2007. ICT in Education in the Netherlands.Retrieved from http://web. kennisnet2.nl/portal/onderzoek/onderzoeken/monitoring/fourinbalancemonitor Kerewalla, L. & Crook, C. (2002) ‘Children’s Computer Use at Home and at School: context and continuity.’ British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 751-771. Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dede, C., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Inquiry teaching for depth and coverage via multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX. Ketelhut, D.J., Nelson, B., Dede, C., & Clarke, J. (2006). Inquiry learning in multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco, CA. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T.W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L. & Marttunen, M. (2008-2009). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of the Educational Computing Research, 39, 75-95. Killion, J. (2002). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Killion, J., & Bellamy, G. T. (2000, Winter). On the job: Data analysts focus school improvement efforts. Journal of Staff Development, 21(1), 27-31. Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35, 207-256.

Compilation of References

Kim, H.S., & Kamil, M.L. (2004). Adolescents, computer, technology, and literacy. In T. L. Jetton and J.A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice, 351-368. New York: Guilford Press. Kinchin, I. & Hay, D. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43-57. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307-317. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111-126. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects on teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368. King, J., Bond, T., & Blandford, S. (2002). An investigation of computer anxiety by gender and grade. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18, 69–84. King, M. B., & Newman, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 576-580. Kinnaman, D. E. (1990). Staff development: How to build your winning team. Technology and Learning, 11(2). Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kircher, G. & Fishburne, G. J. (1998). Physical education for elementary school children. (10th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual Space Search during Scientific Reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48. Klassen, S. (2006). Contextual assessment in science education: Background, issues, and policy. Science Education, 90(5), 820-851. Kliewer, C., & Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy instruction for young children with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66, 85-100.

Klopfer, E. (2007). Blurring lines with mobile games. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 43-46. Knapp, L. R., & Glenn, A. D. (1996). Restructuring schools with technology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of New Technologies on Teachers and Students. Education and Information Technologies, 7, 369–376. Knowles, J. G. (1994). Metaphors as windows on a personal history: A beginning teacher’s experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(1), 37-66. Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species, 4th edition. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, Book Division. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Illustrating principled design: The early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 161-179. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. Kong, S.C., & Kwok, L.F. (2005). A cognitive tool for teaching the addition/subtraction of common fractions: A model of affordances. Computers and Education, 45(2), 245-265. Konishi, M. (2003). Strategies for reading hypertext by Japanese ESL learners. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 97–119. Koppenhaver, D. A., Coleman, P. P., Kalman, S. L., & Yoder, D. E. (1991). The implications of emergent literacy research for children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1(1), 38-44. Koppi, T., Bogle, L., & Bogle, M. (2005). Learning objects, repositories, sharing and reusability. Open Learning, 20(1), 83-91. Korbin, D. (1992). In there with the kids: Teaching in today’s classrooms.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

905

Compilation of References

Korkmaz, H. & Kaptan, F. (2003). İlköğretim fen öğretmenlerinin portfolyoların uygulanabilirliğine yönelik güçlükler hakkındaki algıları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(13), 159. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://egitimdergi.pamukkale. edu.tr/makale/sayı13/13-portfolyo.pdf Korte, W. & Hüsing, T. (2007). Benchmarking access and use of ICT in european schools 2006: Results from head teacher and a classroom teacher surveys in 27 European countries. E-Learning Papers2(1). Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/ media/media11563.pdf Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive training on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225-250. Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Liberman, A. (2001). The effects of multilevel versus unilevel-metacognitive training on mathematical reasoning. Journal for Educational Research, 94(5), 292-300. Kress, G. & Jewitt, C. (Eds.) (2003). Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang. Kress, G. (2003). Literacies in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.

Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.) (2002). CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1996; 2006). Reading Images The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.

Kozma, R. B. (2005). National policies that connect ICTbased education reform to economic and social development. Human Technology Journal, 1, 117–156.

Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse. London: Routledge.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown Publishers.

Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning. The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London: Continuum.

Kramarski & Mizrachi, (2006). Online discussion and self-regulated learning: Effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 218-230.

Kress. G. (2000). Design and Transformation. New Theories of Meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies. Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London and New York: Routledge.

Kramarski, B. & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical e-learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24-33.

Ku, L. (1996). Social and nonsocial uses of electronic messaging systems in organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 297-326.

Kramarski, B. & Zeichner, O. (2001). Using technology to enhance mathematical reasoning: Effects of feedback and self-regulation learning. Educational Media International, 38(2/3), 77-82. Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281-310.

906

Kubek, J. E., Miller-Albrecht, S. A., & Murphy, M. D. (1999). Finding information on the World Wide Web: Exploring older adults’ exploration. Educational Gerontology, 25(2), 167–183. Kubey, R., & Baker, F. (1999, October 27). Has media literacy found a curricular foothold? Education Week, 19(9), 38-56. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http:// www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=09ubey2. h19&keywords=kubey

Compilation of References

Kubiatko, M. (2007). Information and computer literacy of high school students. Problems of education in the 21th century, 2, 31–36. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structures of scientific revolutions (2nd Ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press. Kulik, J. A. and Kulik, C.-L. C. (Eds.). (1989). Instructional systems [Special Issue]. International Journal of Educational Research: Meta-Analysis in Education, 13(3), 277-289. Kundu, R. & Bain, C. (2006). Utilizing technology in a constructivist manner to facilitate meaningful preservice learning. Art Education, 59, 2, 6 - 12. Kur, J. & Hietzmann, M. (2008). Attracting student wondering. Science and Children, 45(5), 28-32. Labbo, L. D., Eakle, A. J., Montero, M. K. (2002). Digital language experiences approach: Using digital photographs and software as a Language Experience approach innovation. Reading Online, 5(8). Retrieved May 21, 2008 from http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/ elec_index.asp?HREF=labbo2/index.html Labbo, L. D., Love, M. S., & Ryan, T. (2007). A vocabulary flood: Making words “sticky” with computer-response activities. Reading Teacher, 60(6), 582-588. Laffey, J. (1995). Dynamism in electronic performance support systems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8, 31-46. Lai, K. W., & Pratt, K. (2004). Information and communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: The role of the computer coordinator. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 461-475. Lai, S.-L. (1998). The effects of visual display on analogies using Computer-based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(2), 151-160. Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lakoff, G, & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Lallimo, J., Lakkala, M., & Paavola, S. (2004). How to Promote Students’ Information Seeking. European Schoolnet. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from http:// insight.eun.org/ww/en/pub/insight/school_innovation/ teaching_models/ernist_answers.htm Lambros, A. (2004). Problem-based learning in middle and high school classrooms: A teacher’s guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching with problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lampert. L. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29-63. Land, S., & Hannafin, M. (2000). Student-Centered Learning Environments. In Jonassen D. & Land S. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of Learning Environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Landa, L. (1974). Algorithmization in learning and instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Landauer T. K., Laham D, and Foltz P. W., (2003). Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Esay Assessor. In M. D. Shermis & J Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective, (pp. 87-112). Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284. Laney, K. (2008). Smartphones used in North Carolina high schools. Retrieved March 13, 2008 from http://www.convergemag.com/story.php?catid=231&storyid=106747 Langford, L. (1999). Information literacy? Seeking clarification. School Libraries Worldwide, 4 (1), 59-72. Langhorst, E. (2007). After the bell, beyond the walls. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 74-77. Langone, J., Shade, J., Clees, T., & Day, T. (1999). Effects of multimedia instruction on teaching funcational discrimination skills to students with moderate/severe

907

Compilation of References

intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 493-513. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies. Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007) New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the New” in New Literacies. In Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (Eds), A New Literacies Sampler (pp. 1-24). New York: Peter Lang Larkey, Leah and Croft, W. B. (2003). A text categorisation approach. In: Automated essay scoring: a crossdisciplinary perspective , edited by M Shermis and J Burstein, Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 55-70. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., Smith, S., & Butler, M. (1988). Problem solving as everyday practice. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The Teaching and Assessing of Mathematical Problem Solving, (pp. 61-81). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J. & Plomp, T. Eds. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings for the IEA SITE 2006 study. The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre. Lawless, K. A., Mills, R., Brown, S. W. (2003). Children’s Hypertext Navigation Strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education Spring, 34(3) 274-284.

Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson A. A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25(3), 205–224.

Lawson, T., Comber, C. (2000). Censorship, the Internet and schools: a new moral panic? The Curriculum Journal, 11(2), 273–285.

Latessa, R., & Mouw, D. (2005). Use of audience response system to augment interactive learning. Family Medicine, 37(1), 12 -14. Retrieved Nov 3, 2007 from http://www. stfm.org/fmhub/fm2005/January/Robyn12.pdf

Lazarinis, F. (2007a). Forming an instructional approach to teach Web searching skills to non-English users. Program: electronic library and information systems, 41(2), 170 – 179.

Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.

Lazarinis, F. (2007b). Web retrieval systems and the Greek language: Do they have an understanding? Journal of Information Science, 33(5), 622-636.

Laurentiis, E. C. (1993). How to Recognize Excellent Educational Software. Retrieved July 20, 2004 from http:// www.educ.sfu.ca/fp/tlite/pte/applunits/ed355932.pdf Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press Lave, J. (1991). Socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

908

Lazonder, A. W. (2005). Do two heads search better than one? Effects of student collaboration on web search behaviour and search outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 465–475. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-42. Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children’s discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62, 797-811.

Compilation of References

Leaper, C. (1994). Exploring the consequences of gender segregation on social relationships. In W. Damon, & C. Leaper (Eds.) New directions for child development: Childhood gender segregation: Causes and consequences (Vol 65, pp. 67-86). San Francisco: Josey Bass.

Lenhard, W. (2008). Bridging the gap to natural language: a review on intelligent tutoring systems based on latent semantic analysis. Unpublished research paper. Retrieved March 9 2008 from http://www.opus-bayern. de/uni-wuerzburg/volltexte/2008/2798/

Leaver, T. (2007). A broad band of ideas: Web 2.0@ the Learning Futures Symposium. Screen Education, (48), 74-77.

Lenhart, A, & Madden, M (2005). Teen Content Creators and Consumers. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/166/report_display.asp

Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Lee, L. (2005). Young people and the Internet: From theory to practice. Young Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 13(4), 315-326. Lee, R. (2006). Effective learning outcomes of ESL elementary and secondary students utilizing educational technology infused with constructivist pedagogy. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 87-93. Leigh, P.R. (1999). Electronic connections and equal opportunities: An analysis of telecommunications distribution in public schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (1), 108-127. Leinonen, P., Jarvela, S., & Lipponen, L. (2003). Individual students’ interpretations of their contribution to the computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 1-24. Leite, M., McNulty, A. & Brooks, D. (2005). Learning from WebQuests. International Society for Technology in Education Research Paper. Retrieved May 8, 2008 from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ Research/ Lemke, C. (2002). enGauge 21st century skills: Literacies in the digital age. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463 753). Lemke, Cheryl (2003), Standards for a modern world: Preparing students for their future. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(1), 6-9.

Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A.R., & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media: The use of social media gains a greater foothold in teen life as the embrace the conversational nature of interactive online media. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_ Social_Media_Final.pdf Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA. Leont’ev, A. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4-33. Leont’ev, Α. Ν. (1974).T he problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2),4-33. Lessig, L. (2004) Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin. Leu, D. (2001). Internet project: Preparing students for new literacies in a global village. The Reading Teacher, 54(6), 568-572. Leu, D. J., Jr (1996) ‘Sarah’s secret: Social aspects of literacy and learning in a digital information age.’ The Reading Teacher, 50, 162-165. Leu, D. J., Jr. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the internet. In Farstrup, A. E. and Samuels, S. J. (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd Ed.), 310-336. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y. & O’Neil. M. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In A. Berger, L. Rush & J. Eakle (Ed.), Secondary

909

Compilation of References

school reading and writing: What research reveals for classroom practices. Chicago, IL: National Council of Teachers of English/National Conference of Research on Language and Literacy. Leu, D., Mallette, M., Karcher, R., & Kara-Soteriou, J. (2005). Contextualising new literacies if information and communication technologies in theory, research and practice. In R. A. Karchmer, D. J. Leu, M. M. Mallette & J. Kara-Soteriou (Eds.), Innovative approaches to literacy education: Using the Internet to support new literacies (pp. 1-12). Newark: International Reading Association. Leu, Jr. D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Camack D. W. (2004). Towards a Theory of New Literacies Emerging from the Internet and Other Information and Communication Technologies. In R. B. Ruddell,and N. Unrau, (Eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading . Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Collaboration and sharing on the Internet. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J.B., and Mizell, A.P. (2005) Teaching and Learning with Technology. Boston: Pearson, Allyn-Bacon. Levin T. (1999). The Non linear Curriculum. In Sharan, S., Shachar, H. and Levin, T. The Innovative School: Organization and Instruction. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc. Levin, D; Araheh, S; Lenhart, A, & Rainie, L. (2002). The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between Internet-Savvy Students and their Schools. Pew Internet and American Life. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http:// www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=67 Levin, J. & Nolan, J. F. (2004). Principles of classroom management: A professional decision-making model. (4th Ed.). New York:Allyn & Bacon. Levin, T. & BenAmarBaranga, C. (2007, July 12-14). ICT and school change: A Dialogue between Changes at the School and the Individual Teacher Level. Paper presented at ICICTE conference, Crete, Greece. Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of teachers and students

910

in rich-technology-based classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 281-307. Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ Views on Learning Teaching and Technology use in Rich technology-based Classrooms: A Developmental Perspective. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39 (2), 159-183. 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), 233-263 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), 233-263. Levin, T. (2008, March 23-28). A Dialogical Perspective on ICT and School Change: Interpreting Relations between the Individual, Social, and Cultural Dimensions. Paper presented at the AERA conference, New York. Levin, T., & BenAmarBaranga. (2005, March 1-5). Patterns of Change in a School and among its Teachers. SITE 2005--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference held in Phoenix, AZ. Levine, R. (2002). Comparing problem based learning and WebQuests. Retrieved May 20, 2008 from http:// www.coollessons.org/compare.htm Levy, S. (2003) Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 6(1). Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.westga. edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm Lewin, C. (1998). Talking books design: what do practitioners want? Computers and Education, 30, 87-94. Lewin, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Harrison, C., Hawe, K., Lunzer, E., et al. (2004). The UK ImpaCT2 Project. Education, Communication & Information, 4(2/3), 336-340.

Compilation of References

Lewis, R. (2005). Classroom technology for students with learning disabilities. In Edyburn, D., Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (Eds.) The handbook of special education technology research and practice, 325-334. Liao, Y.-K. (1992). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(3), 367-379. Liedtke, J.A. (1995). Changing the organizational culture. The Technology Teacher, 3, 9-14. Lim, C. P. & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97–125. Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006) Gaming in a 3D multiuser environment: engaging students in Science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211-231. Lim, C.P., Lee, S.L. & Richards, C. (2006). Developing interactive learning objects for a computing mathematics models. International Journal on E-Learning, 5 (2), 221-244. Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F. & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Webbased peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 420-432. Lin, Y. (2007). In and beyond the classroom: Making informal learning truly ubiquitous with highly mobile devices. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 37-40. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.), pp. 163-188. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ling, R. & Baron, N. S. (2007). Text Messaging and IM: Linguistic Comparison of American College Data. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26, (3) 291-298 Linn, M. C., Davis, E.A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.),

Internet environments for science education (pp. 3-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Linn, M.C., Lee, H.S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J.L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313(5790), 1049-1050. Lipscomb, G. (2003). “I guess it was pretty fun”: Using WebQuests in the middle school classroom. Clearing House, 76(3),152-155. Lisowski, L., Lisowski, J., & Nicolia, S. (2006). Infusing technology into teacher education: Doing more with less. Computers in the Schools, 23(3/4), 71-89. Littleton, K. & Hoyles, C. (2002) Gendering IT. In N. Yelland and A. Rubin (eds.) Ghosts in the Machine Feminist perspectives on computing, (pp. 3-32). New York: Peter Lang. Littleton, K., & Häkkinen, P. (2003). Learning together: Understanding the process of computer-based collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 20-30). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Littleton, K., Wood, C. and Chera, P. (2004). Reading Together: Computers and Collaboration. In K. Littleton, D. Miell and D. Faulkner (Eds.) Learning to Collaborate, Collaborating to Learn, (pp. 31-47). New York: NOVA. Littleton, K., Wood, C., & Chera, P. (2006) Interactions with talking books: phonological proficiency affects boys’ use of talking books. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 382-390. Liu, C.-C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50, 627-639. Liu, M., Hsieh, P., Cho, Y. & Schallert, D. (2006). Middle school students’ self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3), 225-242. Livingston, A. (2008). Smartphones and other mobile devices: The Swiss army knives of the 21st Century.

911

Compilation of References

Retrieved March 13, 2008 from http://connect.educause. edu Livingston, L. A., Sandals, L. H. (1992). Monitoring the effect of color on performance in an instructional gaming environment through an analysis of eye movement behaviors. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 233-241. Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in Digital Inclusion: Children, Young People and the Digital Divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671-696. Livingstone, S. (2003). The Changing Nature and Uses of Media Literacy. MEDIA@LSE Electronic Working Papers. Retrieved 17 March, 2006 from http://ww.lse. ac.uk/collections/media@lse/pdf/Media@lseEWP4_ july03.pdf

Lorenzo, G. & Ittelson, J. (2005 July). An overview of e-portfolios (Paper 1). Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdf Lotherington, H. & Chow, S. (2006). Rewriting, Goldilocks” in the urban, multicultural elementary school. The Reading Teacher 60(3) 242-252. Louden, W. (1992) Understanding reflection through collaborative research. In A. Hargreaves & M.G. Fullan (Eds.). Understanding Teacher Development (pp. 178 215). New York: Teachers College Press. Loveless, A., DeVoogd, G.L., & Bohlin, R.M. (2001). Something old, something new…Is pedagogy affected by ICT? In A. Loveless & V. Ellis (Eds.), ICT, Pedagogy and the Curriculum. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Livingstone, S.& Bober, M. (2005) UK children go online: Final report of key project findings. Project Report. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

Luca, J. & Oliver, R. (2001). Developing generic skills through online courses. Proceedings of Ed-Media 2001 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Charlottesville, VA: AACE.

Lloyd, J., Forness, S., & Kavale, K. (1998). Some methods are more effective than others. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 195-200.

Luckasson, R., Coulter, D., Polloway, E. A., Reiss, S., Schalock, R. L., Snell, M. E., Spitalnik, D. M., & Stark, J. A. (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classifictation, and systems of supports. Washington, DC: AAMR.

Lloyd, M. (2006). Towards a definition of the integration of ICT in the classroom. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Education Research Creative Dissent: Constructive Solutions, The University of Western Sydney Parramatta Campus, Australia, November 27 – December 1, 2005. Retrieved September, 2007 from http://www.aare.edu. au/05pap/llo05120.pdf Lonsdale, D. and Strong-Krause D. (2003). Automated essay scoring for nonnative English speakers. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 workshop on Building educational applications using natural language processing, Vol. 2 (pp.61-67). Edmonton, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics. Lopez-Morteo, G. & Lopez, G. (2007). Computer support for learning mathematics: A learning environment based on recreational learning objects. Computers and Education, 48 (4), 618-641.

Luckie, D.B., McCray-Batzli, J., Harrison, S., & EbertMay, D. (2003). C-TOOLS: Concept-connector tools for online learning in science. International Journal of Learning, 10, 332-338. Luckin, R. (2001). Designing children’s software to ensure productive interactivity through collaboration in the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 13, 57-85. Luik, P. (2004) Õpitarkvara efektiivsed karakteristikud elektrooniliste õpikute ja drillprogrammide korral [Effective characteristics of educational software in the case of electronic textbooks and drills]. Tartu, Estonia: Tartu Ülikooli kirjastus. Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (2002). Further notes on the four resources model. Reading Online. http://www. readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.html Luke, A. (2001). Introduction to whole-school literacy planning. How to make literacy policy differentially:

912

Compilation of References

Generational change, professionalisation, and literate futures. Paper presented at the ALEA-AATE Conference, Hobart, Australia. Lundstrom, M. (2003). Moore’s Law forever? Science, 299(5604), 210-211. Lynch, L. L. & Purnawarman, P. (2004). Electronic portfolio assessments in U.S. educational and instructional technology programs: Are they supporting teacher education?. TechTrends, 48(1), 50-56. Mabrito, M. (2000). Computer conversations and writing apprehension. Business Communication Quarterly, 63, 39-49. MacArthur, C. A., & Malouf, D. B. (1991). Teachers’ beliefs, plans, and decisions about computer -based instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 25(5), 44-72. MacDonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers and Education, 40(4), 377-391. Macdonald, J., & Twining, P. (2002). Assessing activitybased learning for a networked course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 603-618. Mackenzie, J. (2005). Singular displeasure: Technology, literacy and semantic power plays. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal 14(5) Retrieved from http://fno.org/jun05/singular.html MacKinnon, G. & Keppell (2005). Concept mapping: A unique means for negotiating meaning in professional studies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 14 (3), 291-315. MacKinnon, G. & Provencal, V. (2009) Concept mapping as a means to stimultae thematic analysis in higher education: A study of greek gods. Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society. MacKinnon, G. (2001). A promising model for incorporating the computer in science learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(4), 395–404.

MacKinnon, G. (2002).Negotiative concept mapping. In D. Willis, J. Price & N. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, (pp. 2124-2125). Charlottesville, VA: AACE. MacKinnon, G. (2006). Contentious issues in science education: Building critical thinking patterns through two-dimensional concept mapping. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 15 (4), pp. 433-445. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 23, 38-41. Maddox, C.D., & Johnson, D.L. (2005). Information technology, type II classroom integration, and the limited infrastructure in schools. Computers in the Schools, 22(3, 4), 2-5. Maddux, C. & Cummings, R. (2007). WebQuests: Are they developmentally appropriate? The Educational Forum, 71(2), 117-127. Maddux, C.D., Johnson, D.L., & Willis, J.W. (1997). Educational Computing: Learning With Tomorrow’s Technology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Madill, L and Sanford, K. (2006). Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Toronto, Canada. Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. J., & Thagard, P. (1999). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. MaKinster, J. G., Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Why can’t I find Newton’s third law? Case studies of students’ use of the Web as a science resource. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 155–172. Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), B 26. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://chronicle. com/weekly/v53/i18/18b02601.htm Mancinelli, C. (2006). Learning while having fun: Conceptualization itineraries in kindergarten children experiences with c-maps in an Italian school. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology,

913

Compilation of References

Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica.

Marlow, B. & Page, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining a constructivist classroom, (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks California: Corwin Press.

Mancinelli, C., Gentili, M., Priori, G. & Valitutti, G. (2004).Concept maps in kindergarten. . In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.

Marlow, C., Naarman, M., boyd, d., & Davis, M. (2006) HT06, Tagging Paper, Taxonomy, Flickr, Academic Article, ToRead. Accessed 11th August, 2008 at: www. danah.org/papers/Hypertext2006.pdf

Mandryk, R. L., Inkpen, K. M., Bilezkjian, M., Klemmer, S. R., & Landay, J. A. (2001). Supporting children’s collaboration across handheld computers. Proceedings of CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA. March, T. (2004). The learning power of WebQuests. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 42-47. March, T. (2004). The learning power of WebQuests. Educational Leadership, December /January, 42–47. Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors Influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-237. Marcovitz, D. (2003). Making PowerPoint Powerful Using VBA To Add Interactivity. In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 2765-2767). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Marcovitz, D. (2004). Powerful PowerPoint for Educators: Using Visual Basic for Application to Make PowerPoint Interactive. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Markauskaite, L. (2007). Exploring the structure of trainee teachers’ ICT literacy: The main components of, and relationships between, general cognitive and technical capabilities. Education Technology, Research and Development, 55 (6), 547-572. Markoff, J. (2006, February, 2). Behind Bush’s new stress on science, lobbying by republican executives. New York Times. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://select. nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70815F8345B0C 718CDDAB08 94DE404482

914

Marsh, H. W. (1991). Multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: A test of alternative higher-order structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 285-296. Marsh, J. (2002). Popular culture, computer games and the primary literacy curriculum. In M. Monteith (Ed.), Teaching primary literacy with ICT. Buckingham: Open University Press, 127-143. Marsh, J. (2005). Digikids: Young children, popular culture and media. In N. Yelland (Ed.) Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education, (pp. 181-196). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Marsh, J. (2007, March). Play, Learning and Digital Cultures. Seminar presentation, Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln, UK. Martin, J. (2007, April). Described in a Seminar on Multimodality, University of Sydney, Australia. Martin. S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: a new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy, 41, 26-34. Martindale, T., & Wiley, D. A. (2005). Using Weblogs in scholarship and teaching. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 49(2), 55-61. Marton F. (1986) Phenomenography–A research approach to investigating different understanding of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–49 Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Compilation of References

Mason, C., Alibrandi, M., Berson, M., Diem, R., Dralle, T., Hicks, D., Keiper, T. & Lee, J. (2000). Waking the sleeping giant: Social studies teacher educators collaborate to integrate technology into methods’ courses. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International (SITE) Conference, 2000(1), 1985-1989. Mason, L., & Boldrin, A. (2008). Epistemic metacognition in the context of information searching on the Web. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 377-404). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Mason, O, and Grove-Stephenson, I. (2002). Automated free text marking with Paperless School. Proceedings of 6th Annual CAA Conference, Loughborough, UK. Mason, R., Pegler, C. & Weller, M. (2004). E-portfolios: An assessment tool for online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 717-727. Mason, R., Pegler, C., &Weller, M. (2005). A learning object success story. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1). Retreived June 1, 2007 from http://www. sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v9n1/v9n1_mason.asp Massachusetts Department of Education (June 2001). Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http:// www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0601.pdf Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006). 2005 Program Evaluation Findings Report. Available at http:// ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/FA49E066-B838-4985B548-F85C40B538B8/0/05_Prog_Eval_Report_Final. pdf (last accessed Sept. 19, 2006). Masters, J. & Yelland, N. (2002) Teacher scaffolding: An exploration of exemplary practice. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 313-321. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2007). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Matthew, K. (1997). A comparison of the influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks and traditional print storybooks on reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(3), 263-275.

Matthewman, S., & Triggs, (2004). Obsessive compulsory font disorder: the challenge of supporting writing with computers. Computers and Education, 43(1-2) 125-135. Matthews, J. (2005). Visual Culture and Critical Pedagogy in ‘Terrorist Times’. Discourse. Studies in the cultural politics of education, 26 (2), 203-224. Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 25-45. Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13 (2), 125-139. Mayer, R. E. (1985). Structural analysis of science prose: Can we increase problem-solving performance? In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 65–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. Mayer, R., Gallini, J. (1990). When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 715-726. Mayes, T. (2006). LEX methodology report. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_learneroutcomes.html Morice, J., (2000). Skills and preferences: learning from the Nintendo generation. In International Workshop on Advanced Learning Technologies: Design and Development Issues, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society. McArthur, D. (1987). Developing computer tools to support learning and performing complex cognitive tasks. In

915

Compilation of References

D. Berger and C. Pedzek (Eds.), Applications of Cognitive Psychology: Computing and Education (pp. 281-307). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Retrieved May 4, 2008 from http://www.ala.org/ala/ aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume9/ flexible.cfm

McBrien, J. (2005). Understanding media literacy. In G. Swartz & P. U. Brown (Eds.), Media literacy: transforming curriculum and teaching (pp. 18-34). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

McKenzie, J. (2004). Stuffing technology into the curriculum. The Educational Technology Journal, 13(8), 1-6. Retrieved November 4, 2004, from http://www.fno. org/jun04/stuffit.html

McCaw, D. S., Watkins, S. G., & Borgia, L. (2004). Providing more time for professional development. Learning Points and Associates (NCREL). Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/ issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd600.htm

McKeon, C.A. (1999). The nature of children’s e-mail in one classroom. The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 698-706.

McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 236-266. McCormick, R. & Li, N. (2005). An evaluation of European learning objects in use. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(3), 213-231. McCoy, L. P. (1996). Computer-based mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 438-460. MCEETYA. (2002). The national report on schooling in Australia: 2001. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs. Retrieved August 22, 2007 from http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/anr2001/ MCEETYA. (2005). The national report on schooling in Australia: 2005. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs. Retrieved from March 29 2008 http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/anr2005/

McLuhan, M. & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the message. New York: Random House. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill. McManus, T. F. (2000). Individualizing instruction in a Web-based hypermedia learning environment: Nonlinearity, advance organizers, and self-regulated learners. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 219-251. McMillan, K., & Honey, M. (1993). Year one of Project Pulse: Pupils using laptops in science and English: A final report (Tech. Rep. No. 26). New York: Center for Technology in Education. McNeal, T., & van ‘t Hooft, M. (2006, Winter). Anywhere, anytime: Using mobile phones for learning. Journal for the Research Center for Educational Technology. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.rcetj. org/?type=art&id=79575& McRobbie, C. J., Ginns, I. S., & Stein, S. J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 81-101.

McGinnis, E., & Goldstein, A. (1984). Skillstreaming the elementary school child: A guide for training prosocial skills. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Means, B. (2001). Technology use in tomorrow’s schools. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 57-61.

McGrath, D. (1992). Hypertext, CAI, paper, or program control: Do learners benefit from choices? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(4), 513-531.

Mechling, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2003). Multi-media instruction to teach grocery word associations and store location: A study of generalization. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 62-76.

McGrath, Diane (April 2003) Developing a Community of learners: What will it look like and how will it work? Learning and Leading with Technology, 42-45. McGregor, J. (2006). Flexible scheduling: Implementing an innovation. School Library Media Research, 9. 916

Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Langone, J. (2002). Computer-based video instruction to teach persons with moderate intellectual disabilities to read grocery aisle signs and locate items. Journal of Special Education, 35, 224-240.

Compilation of References

Media Literacy Clearinghouse. (n.d.). State Standards Which Include Elements of Media Literacy. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.frankwbaker.com/ state_lit.htm Medwell, J. (1998). The talking books project: some further insights into the use of talking books to develop reading. Reading, 32, 3-8. Medwell. J. (1996). Talking books and reading. Reading, 30, 41-46.

Merchant, G. (2001) Teenagers in cyberspace: language use and language change in internet chatrooms. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(3), 293- 306. Merchant, G. (2001). Teenagers in cyberspace: An investigation of language use and language change in Internet chatrooms [Special issue: Literacy, home and community]. Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 293-306. Merchant, G. (2003) E-mail me your Thoughts: digital communication and narrative writing. Reading, Literacy and Language, 37(3) 104-110.

Meelissen, M. & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 969–985.

Merchant, G. (2007) Writing the future. Literacy, 41(3) 1-19.

Meeus, W., Questier, F. & Derks, T. (2006). Open source eportfolio: Development and implementation of an institution-wide electronic portfolio platform for students. Educational Media International, 43(2), 133-145.

Merchant, G. (2008) Virtual Worlds in Real Life Classrooms. In V. Carrington & M. Robinson (Eds), Contentious Literacies: Digital Literacies, Social Learning and Classroom Practices (pp. 93-108). London: Sage.

Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 115-126.

Merlet, S. (2000). Understanding multimedia dialogues in a foreign language. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 148-156.

Meij, H. van der, & Boersma, K. (2002). E-mail use in elementary school: an analysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 189-200. Melkas, T. (2004). Leisure uses of ICTs among persons aged 15–34. In J. Nurmela, T. Melkas, T. Sirkiä, M. Ylitalo, & L. Mustonen (Eds.), Finnish people’s communication capabilities in interactive society of the 2000s. Reviews 2004/7. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Mellott, J. (2002). City ranks second in Virginia for ESL percentage. The Daily News Record, pp. 13-14. Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach. London: Routledge. Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999) Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.

Merrick, S. (2005). Videoconferencing k-12: The state of the art. Innovate: Journal of online education. Retrieved October 16, 2005, from http://innovateonline. info/index.php?view=article&id=24&action=articleNa tional Academy of Sciences. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Merril, M. D. (2006). Hypothesized performance on complex tasks as a function of scaled instructional strategies. In J. Ellen & R. E. Clark (Eds.). Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 265281). Oxford: Elsevier. Merscier, J., & Frederiksen, C. H. (2007) Individual differences in graduate students’ help-seeking process in using a computer coach in problem-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 184-203. Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(25). Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http:// PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25 .

917

Compilation of References

Metros, S. E. (2005). Visualizing knowledge in new educational environments: a course on learning objects. Open Learning, 20(1), 93-102.

Miller, R. L., Santana-Vega, E., & Terrell, M. S. (2006). Can good questions and peer discussion improve calculus instruction? PRIMUS, 16(3), 1-9.

Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41(3), 271–290.

Miller, T. (2003). Essay assessment with latent semantic analysis. Journal of Education Computing Research 29 (4), 495-512.

Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41, 271-290. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365-394. Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (1998). Learning to read in the computer age (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Meyer, K. (2003). Face to face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65. Mieg, H. A. (2001). The social psychology of expertise: case studies in research, professional domains, and expert roles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mikk, J. (2000). Texbook: Research and Writing. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, Europäiser Verlag der Wissenschaften. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Milken Exchange on Education Technology. (2005). Transforming learning through technology: policy roadmaps for the nation’s governors. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Retrieved from September 9, 2007 from http://www.mff.org/edtech Millard, E. (1997). Differently Literate: Boys, Girls, and the Schooling of Literacy. Philadelphia: RoutledgeFalmer, Tayler and Francis, Inc. . Miller, L., Blackstock, J., Miller, R. (1994). An exploratory study into the use of CD-Rom storybooks. Computers and Education, 22, 187-204.

918

Millis, B. J., & Cottrell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Mills, S. C. (2006). Using the Internet for Active Teaching and Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Milson, A.J. (2002). The Internet and inquiry learning: Integrating medium and method in a sixth grade social studies classroom. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30 (3), 330-353. Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2000). Learning in an online world: the school action plan for the information economy. Canberra, Austalia: DEETYA. Ministry of Education (2006). Science General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level 2008 Syllabus: 5116 Science (Physics, Chemistry), 5117 Science (Physics, Biology), 5118 Science (Chemistry, Biology). Singapore: Author. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from http://www.seab.gov.sg/ SEAB/oLevel/syllabus/2008_GCE_O_Level_Syllabuses/5116_5117_5118_2008.pdf Ministry of Education (2007). Baseline ICT standards: Guide to implementation (Primary School). Singapore: Author. Ministry of Education and Training. (March, 2004) Backgrounder. New foundations for Ontario education. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (2003). Digital horizons: learning through ICT. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Compilation of References

Mistler-Jackson, M. & Songer, N.B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459-479. Mitchell, T., Aldridge, Nicola, Williamson W., & Broomhead, P. (2002). Computer based testing of medical knowledge using short answer free-text items. SCROLLA Invited Paper. Mitchem, K., Kight, J., Fitzgerald, G., & Koury, K. (2007). Electronic performance support systems: An assistive technology for secondary students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(2), 1-14. Mitchem, K.J. & Young, K.R. (2001). Adapting selfmanagement programs for classwide use: Acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness. Remedial and Special Education, 22(2), 75-88. Mitchem, K.J., Young, K.R., West, R.P., & Benyo, J. (2001). CWPASM: A classwide peer-assisted, selfmanagement program for general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 111-140. Mobile Life Report. (2006). Retrieved 10 October 2006 from http://www.mobilelife2006.co.uk Moersch, C. (2002). Measures of success: Six instruments to assess teachers’ use of technology. Learning & Leading with Technology , 30 (3), 10-13, 24. Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (2000). Brain sex: The real difference between men and women. New York: Dell Publishing. Molebash, P. & Dodge, B. (2003). Kickstarting inquiry with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects. Social Education, 67(3), 158-162. Molebash, P. & Julius, J. (2004). Web inquiry projects: The Everest of online learning experiences. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004, 4209-4211. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Molebash, P. (2002). Web Inquiry Projects. Retrieved from http://Webinquiry.org/

Molebash, P. (2004). Web Historical Inquiry Projects. Social Education, 68 (3), 226-230. Molebash, P. (2005). Web Inquiry Projects: A Paper Submitted as Part of the Symposium “Multimedia, Historical Inquiry and Preservice Teacher Education”. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 3854-3855). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Molebash, P., Dodge, B., Bell, R., Mason, C., & Irving, K.(n.d.). Promoting student inquiry: WebQuests to Web inquiry projects (WIPs). Retrieved from http://edWeb. sdsu.edu/wip/overview.htm Monaghan, W. and Bridgeman B. (2005). e-rater as a quality control on huma scores. R&D Connections, April, 1-4. Monterey Institute for Technology and Education. (2006). Mite projects. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from http://www. montereyinstitute.org/index.html. Moodle (n.d.). Retrieved August 23, 2007, from http:// moodle.org/. Moore, J.L. & Marra, R.M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191-212. Moore, M.A., & Karabenick, S.A. (1992). The effects of computer communications on the reading and writing performance of fifth-grade students [Special issue: Computer use in the improvement writing]. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 27-38. Moran, D (2007). Goodbye Facebook Courses, Hello Facebook Platform Courses. The Facebook Blog. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://blog.facebook.com/ blog.php?post=4314497130 Morehead, P & LaBeau, B. (2005) Successful curriculum mapping: Fostering smooth technology integration. Learning and Leading with Technology , December/ January, 12-17 Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99-113.

919

Compilation of References

Moseley, V. P., Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (1997). Teaching sight words to students with moderate mental retardation. Reading Improvement, 34, 2-7. Moskal, B. M. (2003). Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(14). Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://PAREonline. net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=14 Moursund, D. (1992). Empowering teachers. The Computing Teacher, 20(4), 6. Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175-197. Müller, J., Sancho, J. M., Hernández, F., Giró, X., & Bosco, A. (2007). The Socio-Economic Dimensions of ICT-driven Educational Change. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1175-1188. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319-341. Munns, G., Arthur, L., Downes, T., Gregson, R., Power, A., Sawyer, W., Singh, M., Thistleon-Martin, J. and Steele, F. (2006). Motivation & engagement for boys. Evidencebased teaching practices. Canberra, Australia: DEST. http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/29CFF6D4-75674C06-A43C-A82079197F1F/13866/FinalReport1.pdf Mupinga, D. M. (2005). Distance education in high schools: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Clearing House, January/February, 105-108. Murphy (1992). School effectiveness and school restructuring: Contributions to educational improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(2), 90-109. Murphy, E., & Coffin, G. (2003). Synchronous communication in a Web-cased senior high school course: Maximizing affordances and minimizing constraints of the tool. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(4), 235-246.

920

Murry, R. (2006). WebQuests celebrate 10 years: Have they delivered? Action Research Exchange. Retrieved from http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/vol5no1/Thesis%20 PDF/MurryR_ARE.pdf Muzio, J. A., Heins, T., & Mundell, R. (2002). Experiences with reusable e-learning objects from theory to practice. Internet and Higher Education, 2002 (5), 21-34. Nachmias, R., Gilad, A. (2002). Needle in a hyper stack: Searching for information on the World Wide Web. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 475-486. Naested, I., Potvin, B., & Waldron. (2004). Understanding the landscape of teaching. Toronto, Canada: PearsonPrentice Hall. Nail, M. (2003). Facilitating inquiry through technology infusion. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003, 2048-2050. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Najjar L. J. (1996). Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 129-150. Najjar, L. J. (2001). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. In R. W. Swezey & D. H. Andrews (Eds.), Reading in training and simulation: A 30-year perspective (pp. 146-158). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Nardi, B. A. & O´Day, V. (1999). Information ecologies. Using technology with heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2006). The NAEP mathematics achievement levels. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ mathematics/achieve.asp National Center for Education Statistics (2005). National Assessment of Educational Progress: The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from Http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/lttnde/viewresults.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS).

Compilation of References

Retrieved July 8, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/ Results03.asp National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for Social Studies. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Education Association (NEA). (2006). Guide to online high school school courses. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.nea.org/technology/onlinecourseguide.html National Literacy Trust. (2008). Definitions of Literacy. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/quote.html. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Research Council. (1997). More than screen deep: Toward every--citizen interfaces to the nation’s information infrastructure. Washington DC: National Academy Press. National School Board Association (2007). Creating & Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social and Educational Networking. Retrieved August 14, 2007 from http://nsba.org/site/doc.asp?TRACKID=&VID=2 &CID=90&DID=41336 National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: scientific inquiry. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.nsta.org/main/forum/ showthread.php? t=1175 Navidad, Angela. Potentially Useful Data on Latin American Internet Culture. ad:tech Blog. Retrieved June 3, 2008 from http://www.adtechblog.com/archives/20080603/ potentially _useful_data_on_latin_american_internet_culture/

NCL Report (2006). Under 16s and the National Lottery. Retrieved from http://www.gamcare.com/pdfs/ NLCreport.pdf NCREL, (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. Retrieved January 18, 2005, from NCREL Web Site: http://www.ncrel. org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htm NECC_Research_Paper_Archives/NECC_2004/ChangChew-Hung-NECC04.pdf Neden, M.W. (1994). Technology 2000. The Technology Teacher, 9, 29. Needels, M., Knapp, M. (1994). Teaching Writing to Children who are Underserved. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (3), 339-349. Nelson, B. (2005). Investigating the impact of individualized, reflective guidance on student learning in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University, MA. Nesbit, J., & Belfer, K. (2004). Collaborative evaluation of learning objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online Education Using Learning Objects, (pp. 138-153). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Netcraft Ltd. (2006). November 2006 Web Server Survey. Retrieved September 4th, 2007 from http://news.netcraft. com/archives/2006/11/01/november_2006_Web_server_survey.html Neufeld, B., and Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity. Washington, DC: Annenberg Institute for School Reform. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92. Newby, T.J, Stepich D.A., Lehman, J.D., & Russell, J.D. (2006). Educational Technology for teaching and Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone. New York: Cambridge University Press.

921

Compilation of References

Newmann, F.M. & Associates (Ed.) (1996.) Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nicholls, C., Merkel, S. (1996). The effect of computer animation on students’ understanding of microbiology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 359-371. Nichols, J.W., Spang, L, & Padron, K. (2005/2006). Building a foundation for collaboration: K-20 partnerships in information literacy. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 18(1/2), 5-12. Nichols, P. (1999). Clear thinking- talking back to whispering shadows: A psychoeducational treatment. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2008). Testing the joy out of learning. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 14-18. Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457-473. Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15-31. Nielsen, J. (1995). Guidelines for Multimedia on the Web. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://useit.com/ alertbox/9512.html Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPACK. In Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (pp. 223-250). New York and London: Routledge for the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Nilsen, A., & Almås, A.(2003, June 30–July 2). Teaching Net Based In-Service Courses. In Proceedings of IASTED International Conference, Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, CATE 2003, Rhodes, Greece, (pp.115-120). Clagary, Canada: Acta Press. Nivala, M. (in press). Simple answers for complex problems: Education and ICT in Finnish information society strategies. Media, Culture and Society.

922

Njoo, M. & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory Learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 30, 821-844. Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education: Multicultural education series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The coordination of perspectives. The child’s concept of space (pp. 209246). New York, NY: Norton. Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2004). Envisioning the handheld-centric classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30 (4), 281-294. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty & the Internet in Democratic Societies. New York: Cambridge Press. North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) and Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2006, November). Virtual schools and 21st century skills. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/ documents/VSand21stCenturySkillsFINALPaper.pdf North American Council for Online Learning. (2007). National standards of quality for online courses. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from http://www.nacol.org/ North American Council for Online Learning. (2008). National standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.nacol.org/ North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, (2005, Oct. 5). North Carolina’s teacher turnover rate shows slight increase. Retrieved March 24, 2008, fromhttp:// www.ncpublicschools.org/newsroom/news/200506/20051005 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2005). Critical issue: Technology - A catalyst for teaching and learning in the classroom. Retrieved from http:// www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/ te600.htm North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) (2005). Critical issue: Using technology to improve student achievement. Naperville, IL. Learning Point Associates. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://

Compilation of References

www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/ te800.htm Northwest Media Literacy Center. What is media literacy? Retrieved Nov 2006 from http://www.mediathink.org/ Norton, P. & Wiburg, K. (2003). Teaching with technology: Designing opportunities to learn. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Novak, J. & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Novak, J. (1981) Applying learning psychology and philosophy to biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher 43(1) 12-20. Novoco, R. (1975). Anger control: The development and evaluation of an experimental treatment. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Nudell, H. (2004-05). Time to experiment: The role of exploration in professional development. Learning and Leading with Technology, December/January, 50-53. Nurmela, J. (1997). Suomalaiset ja uusi tietotekniikka [Finns and the new information technology]. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. Nurmela, J., Heinonen, R., Ollila, P., & Virtanen, V. (2000). Matkapuhelin ja tietokone suomalaisen arjessa. Suomalaiset ja tuleva tietoyhteiskunta -tutkimushanke, vaihe II raportti I [Mobile phone and computer in a Finn’s daily life. Finns and the future information society - research project, phase II report I]. Katsauksia 2000/2. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. Nurmela, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Developing tools for analyzing CSCL process. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, and U. Hoppe (Eds.). Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, (pp.333-342). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Nurmi, S., & Jaakkola, T. (2006a). Effectiveness of learning objects in various instructional settings. Learning, Media, and Technology, 31(3), 233-247. Nurmi, S., & Jaakkola, T. (2006b). Promises and pitfall of learning objects. Learning, Media, and Technology, 31(3), 269-285.

Nussbaum, E. (2004, January 11). My so-called blog. The New York Times. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http:// www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/magazine/11BLOG.html ?ex=1389762000&en=4c02ba67f747f9f8&ei=5007&pa rtner=USERLAND Nussbaum. E.M., & Sinatra G.M. (2002). On the opposite side: Argument and conceptual engagement in physics. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. O‘Brien, D. & Scharber, C. (2008). Digital literacies go to school: Potholes and possibilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 52(1), 66-68. O’Connor, A. (2005). Instant Messaging: Friend or Foe of Student Writing. Seattle, WA: New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved 10 October 2006 from http://www. newhorizons.org/strategies/literacy/oconnor.htm. O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. J. (2004, September 14). Identifying teacher, school and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n48/ O’Halloran, K. (2003). Intersemiosis in mathematics and science: Grammatical metaphor and semiotic metaphor. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Ser. 4(236), 337-366. O’Neill, D. K. & Polman, J.L. (2004). Why educate “little scientists?” Examining the potential of practicebased scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234-266. O’Reilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Accessed 10 April, 2007 at: http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/ oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/03/what-is-web-2.0.html O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation software. Retrieved July 27, 2007 from http://www.oreillynet. com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20. html O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software.

923

Compilation of References

Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.oreillynet. com/lpt/a/6228 Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (2007). Teaching to change the world (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Oblinger D. & Oblinger, J. (2006). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the net generation. CSLA Journal, 29(2), 8-16. Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps towards understanding the net generation. EDUCAUSE, 2.1-2.20

Ohio Department of Education (2002). Social Studies Academic Content Standards. Columbus, OH: State Board of Education. Ohlsson, S. (1993). The interaction between knowledge and practice in the acquisition of cognitive skills. In S. Chipman & A.L. Meyrowitz (Eds.). Foundations of knowledge acquisition - cognitive models of complex learning (pp. 147 - 208). MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Oblinger, D. G. (2005). Learners, learning and technology. EDUCAUSE review, September/October, 66-75.

Okojie, M, & Olinzock A. (2006). Developing a positive mind-set toward the use of technology in classroom instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 33-41.

Oblinger, D.G. & Oblinger, J.L., (2005). Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: Educause. Retrieved April 4, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/ pdf/pub7101.pdf

Okolo, C. M. (2000). Technology for individuals with mild disabilities. In J.D. Lindsey (Ed.), Technology and exceptional individuals, (3rd Ed.) (pp. 243-301). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Ochoa, T. & Robinson, J. (2005). Revisiting group consensus: Collaborative learning dynamics during a problem-based learning activity in Education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(1), 10-10.

Olds, A. & Lightner, R. (1995). Technology as a tool for learning. The Technology Teacher, 4, 23-28.

OECD (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World (Vol. 1).Paris: OECD. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/ dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf OECD. (2005). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris: Author. OECD. (2005a). PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Home Page: What PISA Produces – PISA 2003. Retrieved from September 9, 2007 from http:// pisaweb.acer.edu.au/oecd_2003/oecd_pisa_data.html OECD. (2005b). PISA 2003 Database. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://pisaweb.acer.edu.au/ oecd_2003/oecd_pisa_data.html Ofcom (2006). Media Literacy Audit: Report on media literacy amongst children. Retrieve January 2 2008 from http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/ medlitpub/medlitpubrss/children/ Oh, S., & Jonassen, D.H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2, 95-110.

924

Oliver, R. & McLoughlin, C. (1999). Curriculum and learning-resources issues arising from the use of Webbased course support systems. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 5 (4), 419-435. Olson, J. L., Platt, J. C., & Dieker, L. A. (2007). Teaching Children and Adolescents with Special Needs (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Olson, R.K., & Wise, B.W. (1992). Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 107-144. Olson, R.K., Wise, B., Ring, J. & Johnson, M. (1997). Computer-based remedial training in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: effects on the post training development of word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 235-253. Olsson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Thinking-out loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension processes. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 245–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Compilation of References

Oneca, M. & Poveda, M. (2006). Is it possible to improve meaningful learning in math in primary school learners? In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Ontario College of Teachers (2004). How to become a teacher. Retrieved March 23, 2004, from http://www.oct. ca/en/CollegePublications/PDF/becoming.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education (1994). The common curriculum. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education.. Ontario Royal Commission on Learning (1994) Ontario Royal Commission on Learning - For the love of learning. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer. Oosterwegel, A., Littleton, K., & Light, P. (2004). Understanding computer-related attitudes through an idiographic analysis of gender- and self-representations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 215–233. Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House Oravec, J. (2002). Bookmarking the world: Weblog applications in education. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(7), 616-621. Orfield, G., & Kornhaber, M. L. (Eds.). (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education. New York: Century Foundation Press. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)( 2004). Educational Policy Analysis. Retrieved January 21, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/ document/34/0,2340,en_2649_37455_34989090_1_1_ 1_37455,00.html

Orne, M. & Monroe, E. (2005). The nature of discourse as students collaborate on a mathematics WebQuest. Computers in Schools, 22(1/2), 135-146. Partnership for 21st century skills. (2004). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.21stcenturyskills. org/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2 54&Itemid=120 Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 239-250. Ortega, C.A. & Ortega, R. (1995). Integrated elementary technology education. The Technology Teacher, 2, 11-16. Osborne J. & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467. Osborne, J. & Hennessy, S. (2003). Literature review in science education and the role of ICT: Promise, problems and future directions. NESTA FUTURELAB SERIES (Report 6). Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www. futurelab.org.uk/download/pdfs/research/lit_reviews/ Secondary_School_Review.pdf Osborne, J. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53-82. Osborne, J. (2003). Making science matter. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education: Responding to the work of Peter Fensham (pp. 37-50). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Oshima, J., & Oshima, R. (1999, April). Scaffolding for progressive discourse in CSILE: Case study of undergraduate programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Programme for International Student Assessment: Paris, France.

Ottestad, G. (2008). Schools as digital competent organizations: Developing organisational traits to strengthen the implementation of digital founded pedagogy. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 4(4).

ORION. (2004, July). Orion research and discovery news. 2(7). 1-6. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www. orion.on.ca/newsletter/ordnjuly04.pdf

Otto, T. L., & Albion, P. R. (2002). Understanding the role of school leaders in realizing the potential of

925

Compilation of References

ICTs in education. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Nashville, TN.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ozbekhan, Hasan (1968). The triumph of technology “can” implies “ought”. In N. Cross, D. E. Nigel, & R. Roy (Eds.), Man-Made Futures: Readings in Society, Technology and Design. London: Hutchinson.

Palmer, J., Williams, R., & Dreher, H. (2002). Automated Essay Grading System Applied to a First Year University subject- How Can we do it Better? In Proceedings of Informing Science 2002 Conference, Cork, Ireland, June 19-21.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of Innovative knowledge Communities and Three metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research 74(4), 557-576. Pachler, N., & Daly, C. (2006). Online communities and professional teacher learning: affordances and challenges. In E. K. Sorensen & D. Ó Murchú (Eds.) Enhancing learning through technology (pp. 1-28). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Padilla, M. J. (1990). The science process skills. Research matters – to the science teacher. Available from http:// www.narst.org/publications/research/skill.cfm, last accessed 23 November 2007. Page, E. B. (2003). Project Essay Grade: PEG. In M.Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated Essay Scoring: e cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 43-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 118-125. Pajares, M. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Palumbo, D.B., & Prater, D.L. (1992). A comparison of computer-based prewriting strategies for basic ninth grade writers [Special issue: Computer use in the improvement of writing]. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 63-70. Pantelidis, V.S. (1993). Virtual reality in the classroom. Educational Technology, 33(4), 23-27. Papastergiou, M. & Solomonidou, C. (2005). Gender issues in Internet access and favourite Internet activities among Greek high school pupils inside and outside school. Computers & Education, 4, 377–393. Papert, Seymour. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2001). The role of selfregulated learning in contextual teaching: Principals and practices for teacher education (CIERA Archives 01-04). Ann Arbor, MI: CIERA. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/200104/0104parwin.htm Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293–316.

Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehensionmonitoring activities. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73 - 98.

Parkay, F. W., Hardcastle Stanford, B., Vaillancourt, J.P., & Stephens, H.C. (2005). Becoming a teacher. (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson.

Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73-98.

Parks Associates. National Technology Scan. Retrieved May 13, 2008 from http://newsroom.parksassociates. com/article_display.cfm?article_id=5067

Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Parrish, P. E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52 (1), 49-67.

926

Compilation of References

Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student teachers: Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 95-116.

T. Koschman, D. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The next 10 years (pp. 484-493). Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21st century. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from Partnership for 21st Century Skills Web Site: http:// www.21stcenturyskills.org.

Patel Stevens, L. (2007). Para una alfabetización crítica en Australia. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 374, 54-57.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). The competitive edge: Equipping students with 21st century skills. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http:// www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com_con tent&task=view&id=270&Itemid=140. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (Oct. 10, 2007). 21st Century Skills: Will Our Students Be Prepared? Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/ documents/p21_pollreport_2pg.pdf Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Paschal, C. B. (2002). Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Advances in Physiology Education, 26 (4), 299-308. Pascopella, A. (2006). School of the future arrives. District Administration, 42 (9), 36-37. Passey, D., Rogers, C., Machell, J., McHugh, G., & Allaway, D. (2003). The motivational effect of ICT on students. Annesley, UK: DfES Publications. Pata, K, Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2007) The formation of learners’ semiosphere by authentic inquiry with an integrated learning object “Young Scientist”. Computers & Education, 49 (4), 1357-1377. Pata, K., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). A Comparison of Reasoning Processes in a Collaborative Modelling Environment: Learning About Genetics Problems Using Virtual Chat. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11/15), 1347-1368. Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Archee, R. (2005). Collaborative Scaffolding in Synchronous Environment: Congruity and Antagonism of Tutor/Student Facilitation acts. In

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newberry Park, CA: Sage. Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: A new century text (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Paul, G., & Stegbauer, C. (2005). Is the digital divide between young and elderly people increasing? Firstmonday, 10(10). Retrieved October 19, 2005 from http://www. firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_10/paul/index.html Pearson. (2006, July 6) Write To Learn added to new digital learning series for middle and high school language arts. Press release, Pearson, San Diego, CA. http:// www.pearsoned.com/pr_2006/070606a.htm Pecheone, R. L., Pigg, M. J., Chung, R. R. & Souviney, R. J. (2005). Performance Assessment and Electronic Portfolios: Their Effect on Teacher Learning and Education. The Clearing House, 78(4), 164-176. Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2004). Developing Students’ Problem Solving Skills by Learning Simulation “Hiking across Estonia”. In C. P. Constantinou, & Z. C. Zacharia (Eds.) Computer Based Learning in Science. Conference Proceedings 2003. Volume II – The Educational Potential of New Technologies (pp. 218-228). Nicosia, Cyprus: University of Cyprus. Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2006a). The Factors Influencing the Outcome of Solving Story-Problems in a Web-Based Learning Environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 14, 2, 153-176. Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2006b). Developing an effective support system for inquiry learning in a Web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 42-67.

927

Compilation of References

Pedersen, S., Malmberg, P., Christensen, A. J., Pedersen, M., Nipper, S., Graem, C. D., & Norrgård, J. (Eds.). (2006). E-learning Nordic 2006: Impact of ICT on education. Copenhagen: Ramboll Management.

Pew Internet & American Life Project (2007). Latinos Online. Retrieved February 17, 2008 from http://www. pewInternet.org/pdfs/Latinos_Online_March_14_2007. pdf

Pelgrum, W. & Law, N. (2008). Introduction to SITES 2006. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.) Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 2–11). Hong Kong: Springer.

Pew Internet & American Life Project (2007). Tracking Survey. Retrieved February 17, 2008 from http://www. pewInternet.org/trends.asp

Pelgrum, W. (2008). School practices and conditions for pedagogy and ICT. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.) Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 67–120). Hong Kong: Springer. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37(2), 163-178. Pelgrum, W.J. & Plomp, T. (1993). The IEA study of computers in Education: Implementation of an innovation in 21 education systems. Oxford, UK: Pergamon press. Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(4), 315-346. Perez Diana, Alfonseca, E., Rodriguez, Pilar, Gliozo, A.,Strappavara C., & Magnini, B. (2005). About the effects of combining latent semantic analysis with natural language processing techniques for free-text assessment. Revista Signos, 38 (59),325-343. Perkel, D. (2007). Creativity and gaps in participation: Stories from the field. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/node/71 Persky, S. E. (1990). What contributes to teacher development in technology. Educational Technology, 30(4), 34-38. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2006). Data Memo: Internet Penetration and Impact. Retrieved January 27, 2007 from http://www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/ PIP_Internet_Impact.pdf

928

Phelps, R., Graham, A. & Kerr, B. (2004). Teachers and ICT: Exploring a metacognitive approach to professional development. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 49-68. Philips, M. & Chin, T. (2004). School Inequality: What Do We Know? In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social Inequality (467–519). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Phillips, R. (1997). The Developer’s handbook to Interactive Multimedia. A Practical Guide for Educational Applications. London: Kogan Page. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. Picciano, A. G. & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved May 27, 2008 http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/ survey/K-12_06.asp Picciano, A. G. (2003). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40. Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online teaching: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Retrieved August 26, 2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/ publications/survey/pdf/K-12_Online_Learning.pdf Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 41-50.

Compilation of References

Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pirolli, P. & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 235 - 275. PISA. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow. Further results from PISA 2000. Paris. Plante, J., & Beattie, D. (2004). Education, skills and learning – Research papers Connectivity and ICT integration in Canadian elementary and secondary schools: First results from the Information and Communications Technologies in Schools Survey, 2003-2004. Statistics Canada. Retrieved Aug 29, 2004 from http://www. schoolnet.ca/home/documents/Report_EN.pdf Plester, B., Wood, C. & Bell, V. (2008). Txt msg n school literacy: does mobile phone use adversely affect children’s written language attainment? Literacy, 42 (3). Plester, B., Wood, C. & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the Relationship between Children’s Knowledge of Text Message Abbreviations and School Literacy Outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27 (1), 145-161. Poldoja, H., Leinonen, T., Valjataga, T., Ellonen, A. & Priha, M. (2006). Progressive inquiry learning object templates (PILOT). International Journal on E-Learning, 5 (1), 103-111. Pollack, M. (1998). Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Polloway, E. A., & Patton, J. R. (1997). Strategies for teaching learners with special needs (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Pope, Ju st i n (20 06). Some St udent s P refe r Classes Online. ABC News. Retrieved January 15, 2006 from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ wireStory?id=1505420&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what preservice

teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191-203. Pope, S. (1996). Singing the praises of on-site training. Technology Connection, 3(3), 16-17. Posner, G. (1988). Models of curriculum planning. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), Curriculum: problems, politics, and possibilities (pp. 77-97). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 221-227. Postman, N. (1993) Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vantage Books. Postman, N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Knopf. Potter, C.S., Carragher, B., Carroll, L., Conway, C., Grosser, B., Hanlon, J., et al. (2001). Bugscope: a practical approach to providing remote microscopy for science education outreach. Microscopy and Microanalysis, 7(3), 249-252. Poulis, J., Massen, C., Robens, E., & Gilbert, M. (1998). Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback. American Journal of Physics, 66(5), 439-441. Poveda, M., Sanzol, n. & Oneca, M. (2006).A study of links in concept maps constructed by primary school learners. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Powers, D. E., Burstein J. C., Chodorow M., Fowles E, & Kukich, K. (2001). Stumping e-rater: Challenging the validity of automated essay scoring (GRE Board Professional Rep. No. 98–08bP)(Research Rep. No. 01–03). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Powers, D. E., Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., Fowles, E., & Kukich, K. (2002) Comparing the validity of automated and human scoring of essays. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26,407-425.

929

Compilation of References

Pradhan, A., Sparano, D., Ananth, C.V. (2005). The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention: an application to resident education. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193 (5), 1827-30. Prawat, R.S. (1992). Teacher’s Beliefs about Teaching and Learning: A Constructivist Perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-394. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. McGraw-Hill: New York. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Available from http:// www.marcprensky.com/writing Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 61-64. Prensky, M. (2006). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13. Prensky, M. (2007). Changing paradigms. Educational Technology, July-August.Retrieved March 20 2008 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/PrenskyChangingParadigms-01-EdTech.pdf Prensky, M. (2007). Changing paradigms. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www.marcprensky.com/ writing/ Prensky, M. (2008). Programming: The new literacy. Edutopia, 4(1), 49-52. Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 45-58. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 99–113. Preszler, R.W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C.B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response

930

systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29-41. Prime Minister’s Office. (2006). A renewing, humancentric and competitive Finland. The National Knowledge Society Strategy 2007–2015. Helsinki: Author. Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 417-444. Prout, A. (1998) Concluding remarks. Presentation at the Conference on Children and Social Exclusion, Centre for the Social Study of Childhood, Hull University, UK. Punie, Y. & Cabrera, M. (Eds.) (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the Knowledge Society. Luxembourg: European Commission. Queensland Catholic Education Commission (QCEC) (2006). Frequently asked questions about Catholic schools in Queensland. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://www.qcec.qld.catholic.edu.au/asp/index. asp?pgid=10602 Queensland Department of Education (2001). The New Basics Curriculum Organisers. Retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/ html/curric-org/curricorg.html Quintana, C., Reiser, B. Davis, E. Krajcik, J., Fretz, E. Dunca, R. et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244. Rainie, L. (2006, September 28). Digital ‘Natives’ Invade the Workplace. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/ pubs/70/digital-natives-invade-the-workplace Rainie, L., Hitlin, P., (2005, August 2). The Internet at School.Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/ PPF/r/163/report_display.asp

Compilation of References

Ramaswami, R. (2008). Fill ’er up! T H E Journal, 35(5), 32-38.

developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 333-358.

Randolph, J., & Gilbert M. Masters (2008). Energy for Sustainability: Technology, Planning, Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Reid, D. J. & Reid, F. J. M. (2005). Textmates and text circles: Insights into the social ecology of SMS text messaging. In A. Lasen and L. Hamill (Eds.), Mobile World: Past, Present and Future, (pp.105-118). London: Springer Verlag.

Read, D. & Cafolla, R. (1999). Multimedia portfolios for preservice teachers: From theory to practice. Journal of Technology in Teacher Education, 7(2), 97-113. Reay, N. W., Bao, L., Li, P., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005). Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73(6), 554-558. Rebell, M. (2008). Equal opportunity and the courts. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 (6), 432-440. Recesso, A. & Orrill, C. (2008) Integrating Technology into Teaching: The technology and learning continuum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Redecker, C. (2009). Review of Learning 2.0 practice, Learning 2.0 – the impact of web 2.0 innovations in education and training in Europe. Seville. Reeves, T. (1998). The impact of media and technology in schools. Retrieved January 10, 2008 from http://it.coe. uga.edu/~treeves/edit6900/BertelsmannReeves98.pdf Reeves, T. C. (2000) Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 101111. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the world wide web. In Bradual H. Kahn (Ed.), Internet-based instruction (pp.59-66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Rehak, D. & Mason, R. (2003). Chapter 3: Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2003 (1). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2003/1/reuse-05.html Rehfeldt, R. A., Latimore, D., & Stromer, R. (2003). Observational learning and the formation of classes of reading skills by individuals with autism and other

Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 9-20. Reid, R. (1996). Research in self-monitoring with students with learning disabilities: The present, the prospects, the pitfalls. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 89-103. Reif, F. (1995). Millikan lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal of Physics, 63(1), 17 - 32. Reigeluth, M. (1999). Principles for learning meaningful knowledge. Retrieved January 10, 2008 from http://www. indiana.edu/~idtheory/methods/m6c.html Reimer, K. & Moyer, P.S. (2005). Third-graders learning about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24 (1), 5-25. Reinhold, S., & Abawi, D. F. (2006). Concepts for extending Wiki systems to supplement collaborative learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3942, 755-767. Reinking D. (1997, May). Me and my hypertext:) A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy (sic). The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626-643. Reinking, D. (1998). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of reading time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 484-498. Reinking, D., & Rickman, S. S. (1990). The effects of computer-mediated texts on the vocabulary learning and comprehension of intermediate-grade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 33, 395-411. Reiser, R.A. & Dempsey, J.V. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

931

Compilation of References

Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality. (2001) Project overview. Retrieved August 4, 2008 from http://fp.uni.edu/itq/ Research Center for Educational Technology (2006). Ubiquitous computing: How anytime, anywhere, anyone technology is changing education. Kent, OH: Author. Revelle, B. Reardon, E., Green. M. M., Betancourt, J. & Kotler, J. (2007). The use of mobile phones to support children’s literacy learning. In Y. deKort, et al. (Eds.) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4744, (pp 253-258). Berlin: Springer. Revelle, G., Druin, A., Platner, M., Bederson, B., Hourcade, J., & Sherman, L. (2002). A visual search tool for early elementary science students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(1), 49-57. Reynard, Ruth. (2008). Social Networking: Learning Theory in Action. Campus Technology. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved May 29, 2008 from http://www.campustechnology.com/articles/63319/ Reynolds, D. Teddlie, C., Hopkins, D., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research. London: Falmer Press. Reynolds, G. (2008). Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery (Voices That Matter). Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press. Rice, D., Ryan, J. & Samson, S. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(10), 1103-1127. Rice, K. L. (2006). Priorities in K-12 Distance education: A delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research (UMI No. DP14642). Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest Information and Learning Company. Rice, M. L., & Wilson, E. K. (1999). How technology aids constructivism in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 90, 28-33. Rice, M. L., Wilson, E. K., & Bagley, W. (2001). Transforming learning with technology: Lessons from the

932

field. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (2), 211-230. Rice, R.E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14, 85-105. Rich, B. (Ed.). (2000). The Dana brain daybook. New York: The Charles A. Dana Foundation. Richards, C. N., & Ridley, D. F. (1999). Factors affecting college students’ persistence in online computer managed instruction. College Student Journal, 31, 490-495. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88. Richardson, J.T.E. (2006). Investigating the relationship between variations in students’ perceptions of their academic environment and variations in study behaviour in distance education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 867-893. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers’ College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640. Richardson, W. (2004). Blogging and RSS – The “what’s it?” and “how to” of powerful new web tools. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 11(1). Retrieved Sept. 10, 2007, from http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/jan04/ richardson.shtml Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Richmond, T. (2006, September 15). OER in 2010 – Wither Portals? Innovate Journal of Online Education, 3(1), October/November . Online wiki article retreived Sept. 21, 2006 from http://www.nostatic.com/wiki/index.php/ Main_Page Rideout, V, Roberts, D., & Foehra (2005). Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year Olds. Kaiser Family Foundation Study. Retrieved November, 24, 2005, from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/7251.cfm Rideout, V. J., Vandewater, E. A., & Wartella, E. A. (2003). Zero to six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Compilation of References

Riding, R., Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style, gender and learning from multi-media materials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 43-56.

Robertson, S. I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O’Shea, T., & Lambrechts, G. (1996). Pupils, teachers, and palmtop computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12, 194-204.

Rieber, L. P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and micro worlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 549568). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Roblyer, M. D. (2005), Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Riel, M. (1994). Educational change in a technologyrich environment. Journal of Research on Computers in Education, 26, (4), 452-474. Riffel, L., Wehmeyer, M., Turnbull, A., Lattimore, J., Davies, D., Stock, S., & Fisher, S. (2005). Promoting independent performance of transition-related tasks using a palmtop PC-based self-directed visual and auditory prompting system. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 5-14. Riley, J. (2006, July 8). Tagging. TechEssence.info. Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://techessence. info/ tagging Riley, M. S., & Greeno, J. G. (1988). Developmental analysis of understanding language about quantities in solving problems. Cognitive Instruction, 5, 49-101. Riley, N. & Åhlberg, M. (2004). Investigating the use of ICT-based concept mapping techniques on creativity in literacy tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20(4), 244-256. Ringlaben, R.P. & Weller, C. (1981). Mainstreaming special education. Education Unlimited. 3(4), 19-22. Risinger, F. C. (1998). Separating wheat from chaff: Why dirty pictures are not the real dilemma in using the Internet to teach social studies. Social Education, 62, 148-150. Robbins, C. (2006). Providing cultural context with educational multimedia in the South Pacific. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 202-212. Robertson, H. (2003). Toward a theory of negativity: Teacher education and information and communications technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 280-296.

Roblyer, M. D., & Marshall, J. C. (2003). Predicting the success of virtual high school students: Preliminary results from an educational success prediction instrument. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 241-256. Roblyer, M.D. (2006). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall. Rockman, I. (2004). Integrating information literacy into the higher education curriculum. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Roco, M. (2001). International strategy for nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 3(5-6), 353-360. Roe, K., & Muijs, D. (1998). Children and computer games: A Profile of the heavy user. European Journal of Communication, 13, 181. Rogers, C. R. & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to Learn (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan. Rogers, Y. (2006). Moving on from Weiser’s vision of calm computing: Engaging ubicomp experiences. In P. Dourish & A. Friday (Eds.), Ubicomp, LNCS 4206 (pp. 404–421). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2007). Using ubiquitous computing to extend and enhance learning experiences. In M. van ‘t Hooft, & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 460488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rogoff, B. & Gardener, W. P. (1984). Guidance in cognitive development: An examination of mother-child instruction. In B. Rogoff & J.Lave (Eds.). Everyday cognition: Its development in social contexts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

933

Compilation of References

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogow, F. (2005). Terrain in transition: reflections on the pedagogy of media literacy education. In G. Swartz & P. U. Brown (Eds.), Media literacy: transforming curriculum and teaching (pp. 282-288). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Rohena, E., Jitendra, A. K., & Browder, D. M. (2002). Comparison of the effects of Spanish and English constant time delay instruction on sight word reading by Hispanic learners with mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, 36, 169-184. Rojas-Drummond, S. & Anzures, A. (2006). Oracy, literacy and concept maps as mediators of the social construction of knowledge among peers. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., Robinson, B. F., Mervis, C. G., & Bertrand, J. (1996). Mapping the meanings of novel visual symbols by youth with moderate or severe mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 391-402. Rop, C.J. (1999). Student perspectives on success in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 221-237. Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In D. L. Day & D. K. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, Communication & Mental Models (pp. 13-25). London: Taylor & Francis.

dren learn in school with computer-based technologies. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76-101. Roschelle, J. M., Roy D. P, Hoadley, C.M., Douglas N. Gordin, D.N. & Means, B.M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2),76. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computersupported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1 (1), 145-168. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61 (5), 50-53. Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (1999). Children’s goals and strategies in response to conflicts within a friendship. Developmental Psychology, 35, 69-79. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Rosen, L. D. (2007). Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generation. New York: Palgrave. Rosenbluth, G.S., & Reed, W.M. (1992). The effects of writing-process-based instruction and word processing on remedial and accelerated 11th graders [Special issue: Computer use in the improvement of writing]. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 71-95. Rosenfeld, Barbara, Martinez-Pons, Manuel. (2005). Promoting Classroom Technology use. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, (6)2, 145-153. Ross, E. W. (2000). The promise and perils of e-learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28, 482492.

Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 260-272.

Rossett, A., Douglis, F., & Frazee, R. V. (2003, July). Strategies for building blended learning. ASTD: Learning Circuits. Retrieved on October 4, 2008, from http://www. learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/rossett.htm

Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what chil-

Roth, J. (2002). Patterns of mobile interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 282-289.

934

Compilation of References

Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5-30. Rothstein, R. & Jacobsen, R. (2006). The goals of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 88 (4). Retrieved March 5, 2008 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v88/ k0612rot.htm Rouet, J.-F. (2000). Guest editorial: hypermedia and learning – cognitive perspectives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 97-101. Roush, W. (2005). Social machines. Technology Review, 108 (8), 45-53. Rovai, A. P. (2001). Classroom community at a distance: A comparative analysis of two ALN-based university programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 4,105-118. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Rowan, L.; Knobel, M. et al. (2002). Boys, Literacies, and Schooling. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Rowntree, D. (1995). Teaching and learning online: A correspondence education for the 21st century? British Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 205-215. Rudner, L. M. & Liang, T. (2002). Automated essay scoring using Bayes’ theorem. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 1 (2),3-21. Rudner, L. M., Garcia, Veronica and Welsh, Catherine (2005). An Evaluation of Intellimetric™ Essay Scoring System Using Responses to GMAT® AWA Prompts (GMAC Research report number RR-05-08, 2005). http:// www.gmac.com/gmac/researchandtrends. Ruiz, E. (2008). Problem-based learning: A pedagogical strategy for active learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(3), 251-257. Ruiz-Primo, M. (2004). Examining concept maps as an assessment tool. . In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technol-

ogy. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Ruiz-Primo, M., & Shavelson, R. (1996). Problems and issues in the iuse of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(6), 569-600. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310. Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating Internet resources into classroom practice: pedagogical perspectives and strategies of secondary-school subject teachers. Computers and Education, 44, 1–34. Salmon, D., & Jones, M. (2004). Higher education staff experiences of using web-based learning technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 7(1),107-114. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Taylor & Francis. Salokoski, T. (2005). Tietokonepelit ja niiden pelaaminen [Playing computer games]. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 277. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G. (2000). It’s not just the tool, but the educational rationale that counts. Keynote address at Ed-Media, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http://www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/00/ salomonkeynote.htm Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 42(2), 71-75.

935

Compilation of References

Salomon, G. Perkins, D. & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2-9. Salpeter, J (Oct. 15, 2003). 21st Century Skills: Will Our Students Be Prepared? Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle. php?articleID=15202090 Salpeter Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J,D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-325. Sancho, J. M. (in press). Digital Technologies and Educational Change. In A. Hargreaves, M. Fullan, A. Lieberman, & D. Hopkings (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change. London: Kluwer Academic Press. Sanders, J. (2006). Gender and technology: A research review. In C Skelton, B. Francis, and L. Smulyan (Eds.), Handbook of Gender and Education. London: Sage. Sanders, J. (2006). Gender and technology: A research review. In C Skelton, B. Francis, and L. Smulyan (Eds.), Handbook of Gender and Education. London: Sage. Sandholtz, J. H. (2001). Learning to teach with technology: A comparison of teacher development programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (3), 349-374. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student– centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Sanford, K., & Madill, L. (2006). Resistance through video game play: It’s a boy thing. Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 287-306. Sanoff, Alvin. (2005). Survey: High School Fails to Engage Students. USA Today. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200505-08-high-school-usat_x.htm Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1996). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework.

936

Educational Technology, 35, 31-38. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledgebuilding communities. Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Sawyer, R.K (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press. Saye, J. (1997). Technology and Educational Empowerment: Students’ Perspectives, ETR&D, 45(2), 5-25. Saye, J. W. (1998). Creating time to develop student thinking: Team-teaching with technology. Social Education, 62, 356-362. Scanlon, D., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(1), 41-57. Scardamalia, K. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 6-10. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.) (pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. Distefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Compilation of References

Schackow, T. E., Milton, C., Loya, L., & Friedman, M. (2004). Audience response system: Effect on learning in family medicine residents. Family Medicine, 36, 496-504.

Schoner, V., Buzza, D., Harrigan, K. & Strampel, K. (2005). Learning objects in use: ‘Lite’ assessment for field studies. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 1-18.

Schaff, J., Bannan-Ritland, B., Behrmann, M., & Ok, S. (2005). Electronic performance support systems. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 493-506). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Schrage, M. (1990). Shared Minds. New York: Random House.

Schaffhauser, D. (2008). Small device, big appeal. T H E Journal, 35(9), 20-22.

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475. Schraw, G., (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125.

Schallert, D.L., Reed, J.H., & the D-Team. (2003-04). Intellectual, motivational, textual, and cultural considerations in teaching and learning with computer-mediated discussion. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (2), 103-118.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K.J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139.

Schauer, B. (2005). Experience Attributes: Crucial DNA of Web 2.0. Adaptive Path. Retrieved December 5, 2005 from: http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/ archives/000547.php

Schroeder, R. (2002) Social Interaction in Virtual Environments: Key Issues, Common Themes, and a Framework for Research. In R. Schroeder (Ed.) The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments, (pp.1-19). London: Springer.

Scherer, M. (2005). Keeping adolescents in mind. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 7. Scherz, Z. & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students’ images of science and technology. Science Education, 90(6), 965-985. Schetz, K. & Stremmel, A. (1994). Teacher-assisted computer implementation: A Vygotskian perspective. Early Education and Development, 5 (1), 18-26. Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Schneider, S.B., & Evans, M.A. (2008, October/November). Transforming e-learning into ee-learning: The centrality of sociocultural participation. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1). Retrieved October 30, 2008 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index. php?view=article&id=511. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D.A. Grouws, Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165-197). New York: MacMillan.

Schunk, D. (1983). Developing children’s self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 76-86. Schunk, D. (2004). Learning Theories: An educational perspective (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Schunk, D. H. (2007). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective (5th Edition). USA: Prentice Hall. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman B. J. (Eds.) (1998). Selfregulated learning. From teaching to Self-reflective practice. New York: The Guildford Press. Schwandt, T. A. (1994) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,.

937

Compilation of References

Schwartz, I. S., Garfinkle, A. N., & Bauer, J. (1999). The picture exchange communication system: Communicative outcomes for young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 144-159. Schwen, T.M. & Hara, N. (2003). Community of practice: A metaphor for online design? In S. Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.). Building online communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Scrimshaw, P. (2004). Enabling teachers to make successful use of ICT. Coventry, UK: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). Retrieved September 30, 2006 from http://partners.becta. org.uk/page_documents/research/enablers.pdf Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1998). What happens during instruction: Is any metaphor necessary? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 404-408. Searle, D. (1984). Scaffolding: Who’s building who’s building? Language Arts, 61(5), 480-483. Second Life. (2007). Education. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://secondlife.com/whatis/ Sedig, K & Liang, H (2006). Interactivity of visual mathematical representations: Factors affecting learning and cognitive processes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 17(2), 179-212. Sefton Green, J. (1999). Creativity, Young People and New Technologies: the Challenge of Digital Arts. London: Routledge. Sefton-Green, J., & Nixon, H. (2003). The challenge of popular culture, digital technologies and curriculum change. In B. Doecke, D. Homer & H. Nixon (Eds.), English teachers at work: narratives, counter narratives and arguments (pp. 242-254). Kent Town, Australia: Wakefield press/Australian association for the teaching of English. Seimens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning and Knowledge Today. Paper presented at Global Summit 2006: Technology Connected Futures, October, Sydney, Australia. Retrived August 19, 2008 from http://www. educationau.edu.au/jahia/Jahia/pid/305

938

Selwood, I., Mikropoulos, T., & Whitelock, D. (2000). Guest editorial. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 233-236. Selwyn, N. (1997). The continuing weakness of educational computing research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (4), 305-307. Selwyn, N. (2002). Learning to love the micro: the discursive construction of ‘educational’ computing in the UK, 1979–89. British Journal of Sociology in Education, 23, 427–443. Semel, T. (2006). Yahoo! Keynote at 2006 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES). Retrieved January 6, 2006 from: http://podcasts.yahoo.com/episode?s=fa8 8e89d49dbbdbc77221b561570105a&e=15 Semple, A. (2000). Learning Theories and their influence of the development and use of educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46 (3), 21-28. Setzer, C. J., & Lewis, L. (2005). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2002-2003 (No. NCES 2005-010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4-13. Shaffer, D.W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Shaffer, D.W., Squire, K., Halverson, R. & Gee, J.P. (2004). Video games and the future of learning. Madison, WI: Academic Advanced Distributed Learning CoLaboratory http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/ gappspaper1.pdf Shamburg, C. (2004). Conditions that inhibit the integration of technology for urban early childhood teachers. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 227-244. Shapiro, B. (1994). What children bring to light: A constructivist perspective on children’s learning in science. New York, NY: Teachers College.Tomlinson, C., & Doubet, K. (2005). To teach them. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 9-15. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society:

Compilation of References

The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Share, D., Jorm, A., MacLean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences in reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324. Sharma, M. D., Khachan, J., Chan, B., & O’Byrne, J. (2005). An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lectures. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21 (2), 137-154. Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Lessner, E. & DeCicco, E. (2005). Final report: Scoping study for the pedagogy strand of the JISC learning programme. Retrieved April 21, 2007 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/scoping%20study%20final%20report%20v4.1.doc Sharples, M. (2000a). Disruptive devices: Personal technologies and education. (Educational Technology Research Paper Series 11). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham. Sharples, M. (2000b). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers and Education, 34, 177-193. Sharples, M. (2007). How can we address the conflicts between personal informal learning & traditional classroom education? In M. Sharples (Ed.), Big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative (pp. 23-25). Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham Learning Sciences Research Institute. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007) A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews and C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of elearning research (pp. 221-47). London: Sage. Shea, P. J. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in an online learning environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35-44. Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A.M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice direction, Vol. 4 (pp. 279-312). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2004). Enhancing student satisfaction through faculty development: The importance of teaching presence. In J. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream, Vol. 5 (pp. 39-59). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes, 13, 5-31. Shelton, M., & Jones, M. (1996). Staff development that works! A tale of four T’s. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (582), 99-105. Shermis, M. D. & Burstein, Jill, (2003). Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sherry, L., Billig, S. H., & Tavalin, F. (2000). Good online conversation: Building on research to inform practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(nh1), 85-127. Shin, N., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2007). Findings from early research on one-to-one handheld use in K-12 education. In M. van ‘t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 19-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shure, M. (1992). I can problem solve: An interpersonal cognitive problem-solving program. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Shute, V. J. & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51-77. Siau, K., Sheng, H. and Nah, F. (2006). Use of classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49 (3), 398-403. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace. Retrieved March 3 2008 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Silver-Pacuilla, H., & Fleischman, S. (2006). Technology to help struggling students. Educational Leadership, 63, 84-85.

939

Compilation of References

Simpson, A. (2005). Booktalk ‘on line’. Learning about literature through ‘book raps’. In L. Unsworth, A. Thomas, A. Simpson, & J. Asha, Children’s Literature and Computer Based Teaching. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Simpson, O. (2004). The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning. Open Learning 19(1), 79-96. Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 187-208. Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality online learning: Scaffolding, planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-148. Singer, J., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J., & Chambers, J.C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-178. Singh, J. & Singh, N. N. (1985). Comparison of wordsupply and word-analysis error-correction procedures on oral reading by mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 64-70. Singh, N. N., & Singh, J. (1984). Antecedent control of oral reading errors and self-corrections by mentally retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 111-119. Singh, N. N., & Singh, J. (1988). Increasing oral reading proficiency through overcorrection and phonic analysis. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 312-319. Singh, N. N., Winston, A. S., & Singh, J. (1985). Effects of delayed versus immediate attention to oral reading errors on the reading proficiency of mentally retarded children. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 6, 283-293. Siqueira, S. W. M., Melo, R. N., & Braz, M. H. L. B. (2004). Increasing the semantics of learning objects. International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 17(1), 27-39.

Sirvanci, 1996 Sirvanci, M. (1996). Are students the true customers of higher education? Quality Progress, 29(10), 99–102. Sivin-Kachala, J., Bialo, E. (1998). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 1990-1997. Washington, DC: Software Publisher’s Association. Skiba, D. & Barton, A. (2007). Adapting your teaching to accommodate the net generation of learners. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11(2), 15. Skynner, R. & Cleese J. (1993). Life and how to survive it. London: Methuen. Slain, D., Abate, M., Hidges, B. M., Stamatakis, M. K., & Wolak, S. (2004). An interactive response system to promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68 (5), 1-9. Slavin, R. (1987). Cooperative learning: Can students help students learn? Instructor, March, 74-78. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69. Slough, S. W., Chamblee, G. E. (2000). Implementing technology in secondary science and mathematics classrooms: A perspective on change. Proceeding of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego, 1-3, 1021-1026. Smeets, E. (2004). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education, 44, 343-355. Smith, C.A. (2007). Transactions and transformations on electronic message boards: Portraits of high school students’ asynchronous computer-mediated discussions of literature, ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University, Delaware). Smith, H., Cooper, A. & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case study from psychology. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 71-81. Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional Design, (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

940

Compilation of References

Snyder, I. & Prinsloo, M. (2007). Young people’s engagement with digital literacies in marginalContexts in a globalised world. Language and Education, 21(3), 171-179. So, H.J., & Kim, B. (2005, May 30). Instructional methods for cscl: Review of case studies. In Chan T., Suthers D. & Koschmann T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Taipei, Taiwan, (pp. 607-616). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. So, W. W., & Kong, S. (2007). Approaches of inquiry learning with multimedia resources in primary classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 329-354. Soares, M. & Valadares, J. (2006). Using concept maps to teach physics, in particular the topic of acoustics. In A. Cañas & J. Novak, (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Solmon, L. C., & Wiederhorn, J. A. (2000). Progress of technology in the schools: 1999. Report on 27 states. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Retrieved on October 4, 2008, from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ Progress_27states.pdf Soloway, E. (2004, May). Why handhelds? Keynote at the America’s Future Classroom: Advancing Learning with Handhelds Conference. Oklahoma City, OK. Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2001). Log on to education: Handheld devices are ready-at-hand. Communications of the ACM, 44 (6), 15-20. Song, L., Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2007). Rconciling beliefs and practices in teaching and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 55(1), 27-50. Sonnenwald, D. H., Maghlaughlin, K. L., & Whitton, M. C. (2004). Designing to Support Situation Awareness Across Distances. An Example from the Scientific Collaboratory. Information Processing and Management, 40, 989-1011.

Sormunen, E., & Pennanen, S. (2004). The challenge of automated tutoring in Web-based learning environments for information retrieval instruction. Information research, 9(2). Retrieved from October 11, 2007 from http://informationr.net/ir/9-2/paper169.html Sosteric, M & Hesemeier, S. (2004). A first step towards a theory of learning objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects (pp. 43-58). London: Routledge Falmer. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) (2006). Checklist for evaluating online courses. Retrieved August, 19 2007 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/ pubs/2006Pubs/ChecklistEvaluateOnlieCourses.asp Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) (2006). Online teaching evaluation tool.Retrieved August, 19 2007 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/ pubs/2006Pubs/OnlineTeachingEvaluationSVS.asp Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2006). Report on state virtual schools. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/SVS/ State_Virtual_School_Report_06.pdf Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) (2006). Standards for quality online courses. Retrieved August, 19 2007 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/ pubs/2006Pubs/StandardsQualityOnlineCourses.asp Speck, M. (1996, Spring). Best practice in professional development for sustained educational change. ERS Spectrum, 33-41. SPIRE (2007) Results and analysis of the Web 2.0 services surveyundertaken by the SPIRE project (Report for the JISC-funded SPIRE project). Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/ digital_repositories/spiresurvey.doc Spivak, G., Platt, J., & Shure. M. (1976). The problem solving approach to adjustment. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Sprague, D. & Dede, C. (1999). If I teach this way, am I doing my job: Constructivism in the classroom. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(1), 6-9.

941

Compilation of References

Squire, F. (1999) Action research and standards of practice fro the teaching profession: Making connections. The Ontario Action Researcher (6)1,4. Retrieved October 17, 2003, from http://www.nipissingu.ca/oar/oarArch99-20/ webArc-99-20.html Squire, K. (2002) Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games. Game Studies. Accessed 12th May, 2007 at http:// gamestudies.org/0102/squire/ Squire, K.D., & 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. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 191–210. Stager, G. S. (1995). Laptop schools lead the way in professional development. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 78-81. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-425). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ståhle, P. (Ed.). (2007). Five Steps for Finland’s Future. Technology Review 202. Helsinki: Tekes. Stainthorp, R. (1997) A Children’s Author Recognition Test: a useful tool in reading research. Journal of Research in Reading, 20 (2), 148-158.. Stanford, L. & Clements, D. (2007, Mar. 5). Childhood obesity: A growing epidemic. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/ AdviceFromDoctors/YourChildsHealth/obesity Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1989) Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 400-433. Stanovich, K. E. (1986) Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

942

Star Chart. (2007) Texas Education Agency. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://starchart.esc12.net/faqWhy. html Starker, S. (1989). Evil influences: Crusades against the mass media. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Starr, M. & Krajcik, J. (1990). Concept map as a heuristic for science curriculum development: Toward improvement in process and product. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 987-1000. Stead, G. (2006). Mobile technologies: Transforming the future of learning. In Emerging technologies for learning (pp. 6-15). Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/ emerging_technologies.pdf Steinhert, Y., & Snell, L. S. (1999). Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher, 21(1), 37-42. Steinkuehler, C. (2007) ‘Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming as a Constellation of Literacy Practices.’ Elearning, 4(3), 297-318). Stella, A., & Gnanam, A. (2004). Quality assurance in distance education: The challenges to be addressed. Higher Education, 47, 143-160. Stephen, C., McPake, J., Plowman, L. & Berch-Heyman, S. (2008). Learning from the children: Exploring preschool children’s encounters with ICT at home. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6(2), 99-117. Stepulevage, L. (2001). Gender / technology relations: complicating the gender binary. Gender and Education, 13, 325–338. Sterling, D. (2007, December). Modeling problem-based instruction. Science and Children, 4, 50-53. Sternberg, R. (2008). Interdisciplinary problem-based learning. Liberal Education, Winter, 12-17. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Compilation of References

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Principles of teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 65-72.

Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (2004). What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

Sternberg, R.J. (1989). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Strough, J., & Berg, C. A. (2000). Goals as a mediator of gender differences in high-affiliation dyadic conversations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 117-125.

Stiggins, R. (2000). Student-involved classroom assessment (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., & Canaday, D. (2000). Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning - a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1221-1246. Stodolsky, S. S. (1984). Frameworks for studying instructional processes in peer work-groups. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.) The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes (pp. 107-124). New York: Academic. Stow, W. (1997). Concept mapping: A tool for selfassessment? Primary Science Review, 49, 12-15. Stoyanova , N. (2000). Group interaction as a predictor of learning effectiveness in a computer supported collaborative problem solving design. Proceedings of Ed-Media 2000 Montreal, Canada, (pp 1716-1717). Charlottesville,VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Stoyanova, N. & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13 (1/2), 111-133. Strand, S. (2006). Comparing the predictive validity of reasoning tests and national end of Key Stage 2 tests: which tests are the ‘best’?. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 209-225. Street, B. (1995). Social Literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. London: Longman. Strickland, J. (2005). Using WebQuests to teach content: Comparing instructional strategies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 138-148.

Strough, J., Berg, C. A., & Meegan, S. P. (2001). Friendship and gender differences in task and social interpretations of peer collaborative problem solving. Social Development, 10, 1-22. Strudler, N., Archambault, L., Bendixen, L., Anderson, D., & Weiss, R. (2003). Project THREAD: Technology helping restructure educational access and delivery. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 39-54. Stuart, S. A. J., Brown, M. I., & Draper, S.W. (2004). Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: one practitioner’s application. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20 (2), 95-102. Sugar, W., Crawley, F., & Fine, B. (2004). Examining teachers’ decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology and Society, 7(4), 201-213. Sukkarieh, J. Z. Pulman, G., & Raikes, N. (2003). Automarking: using computational linguistics to score short, free text responses. Proceedings of 29th International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) Annual Conference, Manchester, UK. Surgenor, E. (1992). Designing learning systems. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Sutherland, J. (2002, 11 Nov). Cn u txt? Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved 31 May 2007 from www.guardian. co.uk/technology/2002/nov/11/mobilephones2 Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the Literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 662 – 669. Svinicki, M. D. (1999). New directions in learning and motivation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 5-27. Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning: The effects of

943

Compilation of References

model regression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8(3), 235-252. Swan, K., & Shih, L. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136. Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Schenker, J., Cook, D., & Lin, Y. (2007). The ubiquitous classroom: A glimpse of the future today. In M. van ‘t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 362-402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Swan, K., Kratcoski, K., & van ‘t Hooft, M. (2007). Highly mobile devices, pedagogical possibilities, and how teaching needs to be reconceptualized to realize them. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 10-12. Swanson, H. & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277-321. Swartz, R. & Parks, S. (1992). Infusion critical and creative thinking into secondary instruction: A lesson design handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication. Sweat-Guy, R. & Buzzetto-More, N. A. (2007). A Comparative Analysis of Common E-Portfolio Features and Available Platforms. In Proceedings of Informing Science and Information Technology Conference - InSITE 2007, Ljubljana, Slovenia, (pp. 327-342). Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://proceedings.informingscience.org/ InSITE2007/IISITv4p327-342Guy255.pdf Swedish National Agency for School Improvement (SNASI) (2008). Effective Use of ICT ini Schools: Analysis of International Research. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from http://www.skolutveckling.se/publdb-portlet/ fileDownload?publ_id=594&file=publication Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. Sweller, J., Kirshner, P.A., & Clark, R.E. (2007). Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115-121. 944

Szabo, M., Poohkay, B. (1996). An experimental study of animation, mathematics achievement, and attitude toward computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 390-412. Szabo. M. (2002). Ecducational reform through instructional technology: Part I. Development of a training system based on innovation diffusion theory. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta, Department of Educational Psychology. Talley, B. & Brunner, C. (n.d.). New Media Literacy. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://main.edc.org/ mosaic/Mosaic2/media.asp Tally, B. (2007). Digital technology and the end of social studies education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 305-321. Tan, K.C.D., & Koh, T.S. (2008). The use of Web 2.0 technologies in school science. School Science Review, 90(330), 113-117 Tan, K.C.D., Hedberg, J.G., Koh, T.S., & Seah, W.C. (2006). Datalogging in Singapore schools: Supporting effective implementations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(1), 111-127. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw Hill. Tarhan, L., Ayar-Kayali, H., Urek, R. & Acar, B. (2008). Problem-based learning in 9th grade chemistry class. Research Science Education, 38, 285-300. Tatar, D., Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., & Penuel, W. R. (2003). Handhelds go to school: Lessons learned. IEEE Computer, 36 (9), 30-37. Taylor, S. (2002). The tending instinct. New York: Times Books. Tearle, P. (2004) Implementation of ICT in UK secondary schools. Presented at Becta Research Conference, Coventry, UK. Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework for implementing change in ICT in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 331-351. Teasley, S.D., Finholt, T.A., Potter, C.S., Carragher, B., Carroll, L., Conway, C., et al. (2000). Participatory science

Compilation of References

via the internet. In B. Fishman & S. O’Conner-Divelbiss (Eds.), 4th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 376-383), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thomas, E. (1986, Spring). Blueprint for response-ability. Media & Values, 35. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article185.html

Teclehaimanot, B., & Lamb, A. (2004, March/April). Reading, technology, and inquiry-based learning through literature-rich WebQuests. Reading Online, 7(4). Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/ art_index.asp?HREF=teclehaimanot /index.html

Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351-366.

Teh, G. P. L., Fraser, B. J. (1995). Gender differences in achievement and attitudes among students using computer-assisted instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22(2), 111-115. Templer, R., Klug,, D., & Gould, I. (1998). Mathematics laboratories for Science Graduates. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the Mathematics Curriculum (pp. 140-154). London: Falmer Press. Tennyson, R. D. & Nielsen, M. (November/December, 1998). Complexity theory: Inclusion of the affective domain in an interactive learning model for instructional design. Educational Technology, 38(6), 7-12. Tepper, M. (2003). The rise of social software. netWorker, 7(3), 18-23. Tergan, S. & Keller, T. (2005). Knowledge and information visualization: Searching for synergies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). A theory of teaching as assisted performance. In P. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (eds) Learning to Think (pp. 42-62). London & New York: The Open University. The New Media Consortium. (2007). The 2007 Horizon Report. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from http://www.nmc. org/horizon/2007/report The OECD Program Definition and Selection of Competencies (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies. Executive summary. 30th June, 2005. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf Thoman, E. & Jolls, T. (2005). Literacy for the 21st century: An overview & orientation guide to media literacy education. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from the Center for Media Literacy: http://www.medialit.org

Thomas, M.J.W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351-366. Thompson, A. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 127-146) New York: MacMillan. Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38-64. Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 73-89. Thornburg, D. D. (2006). Emerging trends in educational computing. Educational Technology, 46 (2), 62-63. Thorpe, M., Conole, G. and Edmunds, R. (2008), Learners’ experiences of blended learning environments in a practice context. Proceedings of the 6th International Networked Learning Conference, Helkidi, Greece. Thorpe, M., Kubiak, C., & Thorpe, K. (2003). Designing for reuse and versioning. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources, (pp.116-120). London, UK: Kogan Page. Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s textmessaging. Discourse Analysis Online, 1 (1). Retrieved 24 March 2006 from http:// www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003paper.html Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), article 1. Retrieved 16 April 2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol11/issue3/thurlow.html

945

Compilation of References

Tichenor, P., George D., & Olien, C. (1970). Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth of Knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159-170.

the Student Perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol31.3/tosh.html

Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 371-384.

Tovote, C. (2001, August). Customer or refined student? Reflections on the “customer” metaphor in the academic environment and the new pedagogical challenge to the libraries and librarians. Paper presented at the 67th International Federation of Library Associations General Conference, Boston, MA.

Tierney, R., Bond, E. & Bresler, J. (2006). Examining literate lives as students engage with multiple literacies. Theory Into Practice, 45(4) 359-367. Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11. Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). Exploring the link between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2541-2553. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Curricula and the use of ICT in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 962-975. Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J. en Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51, 212-223. Topping, K. (1991). Achieving more with less: raising reading standards via parental involvement and peer tutoring. Support for Learning, 6, 112-115. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities, Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276. Torkzadeh, R., Pflughoeft, K., & Hall, L. (1999). Computer self-efficacy, training effectiveness and user attitudes: An empirical study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18(4), 299–309. Tosh, D. & Werdmuller, B. (2004). Creation of a learning landscape: Weblogging and social networking in the context of e-portfolios. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from: http://www.eradc.org/papers/Learning_landscape.pdf Tosh, D., Light, T. P., Fleming, K. and Haywood, J. (2005). Engagaement with Electronic Portfolios: Challenges from

946

Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university course using student response systems. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32(1), 21-40. Treuer, P. & Jenson, J. D. (2003). Electronic Portfolios: Need Standards to Thrive. Educause Quarterly, 2, 34-42. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0324.pdf Trinidad, S., Newhouse, P., & Clarkson, B. (2006). A framework for leading school change in using ICT: Measuring change. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Education Research Creative Dissent: Constructive Solutions, The University of Western Sydney Parramatta Campus, Australia, November 27 – December 1, 2005. Retrieved from September 9, 2007 from http://www.aare.edu. au/05pap/abs05.htm#T Trotter, Andrew (2007). Digital Divide 2.0. Education Weeks Digital Directions, 1, 26-28. Retrieved January 25, 2008 from http://www.edweek.org/dd/ articles/2007/09/12/02divide.h01.html Tsai, C.-C. (2001). A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in Internet-assisted chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 970-974. Tsai, C.-C. (2001). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to Internetbased instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 401-415. Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools: the use of the Internet as an “epistemological” tool

Compilation of References

for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 525-536. Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Information commitments in Webbased learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 105-112. Tsai, C.-C. (2008). The use of Internet-based instruction for the development of epistemological beliefs: A case study in Taiwan. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 273-285). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, C.-C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37, 293-310. Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S.S.J., & Tsai, M.-J. (2001). Developing an Internet attitude scale for high school students. Computers & Education, 37, 41-51. Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S.S.J., & Yuan, S.-M. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 38, 241-252. Tsai, C.-C., Liu, E. Z.-F., Lin, S.S.J., & Yuan, S.-M. (2001). A networked peer assessment system based on a Vee heuristic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38, 220-230. Tseng, S.-C. (2004). The instruction of high school computer science assisted by a networked peer assessment system: An analysis of the effects and peer feedback. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49, 1161-1174. Tu, Y.-W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Eighth graders’ Web searching strategies and outcomes: the role of task types, Web experiences and epistemological beliefs. Computers & Education, 51, 1142-1153. Tucker, B. (2007). Laboratories of reform: Virtual high schools and innovation in public education. Wash-

ington DC: Education Sector. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.educationsector.org/research/ research_show.htm?doc_id=502307 Tuijnman, A.C., & Brummelhuis, A.C.A. ten (1992). Determinants of computer use in lower secondary schools in Japan and the United States. Computers in Education, 19, 291-300. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 49, 433-460. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-480. Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. U. S. Department of Education. (May 24, 2007). ED.gov. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program Web site: http:// www.ed.gov/programs/javits/funding.html U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (2005). Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2003 Current Population Survey Reports (CPS). Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/ p23-208.pdf U.S. Department of Education (2004). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twenty-sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2002. Retrieved August 30, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/ tables/dt419.asp U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington DC: Author.

947

Compilation of References

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Mapping Virginia’s educational progress 2008. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ results/progress/virginia.pdf

Unsworth, L. (2003). Re-framing research and literacy relating to CD ROM narratives: Addressing ‘radical change’ in digital age literature for children. Issues in Educational Research, 13(2), 55-70.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: the role of the public workforce system in a national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://www.doleta.gov/ youth_services/pdf/STEM_Report_4%2007.pdf

Unsworth, L., Thomas, A. and Bush, R. (2004). The role of images and image-text relations in group ‘basic skills tests’ of literacy for children in the primary years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 27(1), 46-65.

Uden, L., Campion, R. (2000, December 11-14). Integrating Modality Theory in Educational Multimedia Design. ASCILITE 2000, learning to choose and choosing to learn, Coff’s Harbour, Australia. Retrieved January 12, 2008 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/ coffs00/papers/lorna_uden.pdf Uhari, M., Renko, M., & Soini, H. (2003). Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Medical Education, 3 (12), 1-6. Ullman, C., & Rabinowitz, R. (2004, Oct. 1). Course management systems and the reinvention of instruction. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http:// www.thejournal.com/articles/17014 Ullman, Craig, (2005). Tech Monster in a Box. Distance Learning, 3(2), 36. Underwood, J. (2002). Computer support for reading development. In M. Monteith (Ed.) Teaching Primary Literacy with ICT. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. UNESCO (1985). Technology education as part of general education. Paris: UNESCO. University of Newcastle, Australia (2005). Are we teaching boys as if they were girls? A keynote address given Tuesday, April 5, 2005 at the University of Newcastle’s 4th Biennial Working with Boys Building Fine Men. Retrieved September 5, 2007, from Http://www.newcastle. edu.au/news/2005/04/teachingboys.html. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

948

US Department of Education. (n.d.). Enhancing Education through Technology (Ed-Tech) State Program. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/ index.html Uzunboylu, H. (2006). A review of two mainline eLearning projects in the European Union. International Review, 54(2), 201-219. Uzunboylu, H. (2007).Teacher attitudes toward online education following an online in service program. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(2), 267–277. Vadeboncoeur, J. A., & Patel Stevens, L. (Eds.) (2005). Re/ Constructing ‘the Adolescent’. New York: Peter Lang. Vahey, P., & Crawford, V. (2002). Palm Education Pioneers: Final Evaluation Report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Vahey, P., Tatar, D., & Roschelle, J. (2007). Using handheld technology to move between the private and public in the classroom. In M. van ‘t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 273-302). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Valadares, J.,Fonseca, F., & Soares, M. (2004). Using concept maps in physics classes. In A. Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., & Diáz, S. (2002). Palm Education Pioneers: Final Report (Unpublished Report, Kent State University, Kent, OH). van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., & Kelly, J. (2004). Macro or micro: Teaching fifth-grade economics using handheld computers. Social Education, 68 (2), 165-168.

Compilation of References

van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., & Vahey, P. (2007). Introduction to special issue on mobile computing. Educational Technology, 47(3), 3-5. van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., Diáz, S., Andrews, S. (2003). Byte-sized learning: Handhelds in K-12 classrooms. Learning Technology, 5 (2), 37-38. van ‘t Hooft, M. A. H., Diáz, S., Swan, K. (2004). Examining the potential of handheld computers: Findings from the Ohio PEP project. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30 (4), 295-311. van ‘t Hooft, M., Swan, K., Cook, D., & Lin, Y. (2007). What is ubiquitous computing? In M. van ‘t Hooft, & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 3-17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van Daal, V.H.P., & Reitsma, P. (1990). Effects of independent word practice with segmented and whole word sound feedback in disabled readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 13, 133-148. van Dijk, J. & Hacker, K. (2003). The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315–326. van Dijk, J. A.G.M. (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. van Dijk, J. A.G.M. (2006). Digital Divide Research, Achievements and Shortcomings. Poetics, 34, 221-235. Van Dijk, L. A., Van Den Berg, G. C., & Van Keulen, H. (2001). European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 15-28. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. van Weert, T., & Pilot, A. (2003). Task-based team learning with ICT: Design and development of new learning. Education and Information Technologies, 8(2), 195-214. Vander Wal, T. (2005). Folksonomy definition and Wikipedia. Retrieved August 26, 2007, from http://www. vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1750

Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Hermans, R. (2007). School conditions fostering the implementation of a new technology curriculum: Development of a theoretical framework. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications (AECT), USA, Anaheim, October, 23rd-27th. Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2008 September 8-12). ICT Policy Planning in Primary Schools: Tool Development and Case-Study Research. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ACER), Göteborg, Sweden. Vappula, H., Morrison, J., Hutchison, D. & Boyle, A. (2004). Adaptive Tests- the way forward. NFER Annual Report 2004. Vavoula, G., Sharples, M., Rudman, P., Lonsdale, P., & Meek, J. (2007). Learning bridges: A role for mobile technology in education. Educational Technology, 47 (3), 33-37. Veermans, K. (2002). Intelligent support for discovery learning (Doctoral dissertation). Twente, The Netherlands: Twente University Press.. Veermans, K., de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2000). Promoting self-directed learning in simulation-based discovery learning environments through intelligent support. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 229-255. Vekiri, I. & Chronaki, A. (in press). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education. Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40, 281-290. Venetzky, R. & Davis, C. (2001)’Que Vademus? The Transformation of Schooling in a Networked World. Unpublished research report, OECD/CERI. Available http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/20/2073054.pdf Viadero, D. (March 29 2007). Collecting evidence. Education Week, 26(30), 30, 32-3. Vilela, R. Austrilino, L. & Costa, A. (2004). Using concept maps for collaborative curriculum development. In A.

949

Compilation of References

Cañas, J. Novak & F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Virginia Department of Education. (1999). Fall 1999 Membership by School Division. Retrieved April 11, 2002, from the Virginia Department of Education Web site: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/dbpubs/ Fall_Membership/ Virginia Department of Education. (2000). Fall 2000 Membership by School Division. Retrieved April 11, 2002, from the Virginia Department of Education Web site: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/dbpubs/ Fall_Membership/ Vlachopoulos, P., & McAleese, R. (2004). E-moderating in on-line problem solving: a new role for teachers? In M. Gregoriadou, S. Vosniadou, C. Kynigos & A. Raptis, (Eds.), Proceedings of 4th Hellenic Conference with International Participation, on ICTs in Education, Athens, Vol. 1 (pp.399-406). Volk, K. (1995). Necessary skills for high school graduates. The Technology Teacher, 2, 37-38. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Why constructivism must be radical. In M. Larochelle, Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 23–28). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77-90. Voogt, J. & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology, 1, 157–175. Vrasidas, C., & Zembylas, M. (2003). Complexities in the evaluation of distance education and virtual schooling. Educational Media International. Retrieved September 22, 2004 from the International Council for Educational Media Website: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals . Vreman-de Olde, C & de Jong, T. (2004). Studentgenerated assignments about electrical circuits in a computer simulation. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 859-873.

950

Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. J., Zech, L., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser, (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305-346). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Waag Society (2007). Het effect van mobiel onderwijs met multimedia: Een onderzoek naar de leereffecten van het mobiele stadspel Frequency 1550 [The effect of mobile education with multimedia: An investigation of the learning effects of the mobile city-game Frequency 1550]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Waag Society. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://waag.org/download/32736 Wade, A., Abrami, P. C. & Sclater, J. (2005). An Electronic Portfolio to Support Learning. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). Retrieved August 12, 2006, from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol31.3/ Wagner, R. K. , Torgeson, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Walen, S., DiGiuseppe, R., & Dryden, W. (1992). A practitioner’s guide to rational-emotive therapy. New York: Oxford University Press Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses and the “third space”. Science Education, 88(6), 901-914. Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the Web: Students Online in a Sixth-Grade Classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 75–115. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of

Compilation of References

problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 623–648. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 623-648. Walsh, M. (2006). The ‘textual shift’: examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 24-37.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Warschauer, M. (2007). Technology and writing. In C. Davison & J. Cummins (Eds.), The International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 907-912). Norwell, MA: Springer. Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: defining the classroom agenda. Language teaching research, 10 (2),1-24.

Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have meerged: classroom evidence of changed literacy practices. Literacy, 42(2), 102-108.

Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.

Walsh, M., Asha, J., & Sprainger, N. (2007). Reading digital texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(1), 40-53.

Washington Post. (2008, February 6). Spies’ battleground turns virtual. Washington Post. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503144_pf.html

Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computermediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

Waters, J. (2007). Classroom collaborators. THE Journal, 34(2), 44-45.

Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Waters, M. (1998). Daniel Bell and the post-industrial Society. In W. Cortada (Ed.) Rise of the Knowledge Worker (pp. 167–181). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Wan, Z., Fand, Y. & Neufeld, D. (2007). The role of information technology in technology-mediated learning: A review of the past for the future. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 183-192.

Watson, D. (2000). Editorial. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 231-232.

Wang, Q., Ross, M. W. (2002), Differences between Chat Room and E-mail Sampling Approaches in Chinese Men Who Have Sex with Men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 14(5), 361-366. Warlick, D. (2006, October 15), A Day in the Life of Web 2.0. Tech & Learning. Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=193200296 Warschauer, M. (2000). Technology and School Reform: A View from Both Sides of the Tracks. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(4). Retrieved Feburary 15, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n4.html Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Watson, D. (2006). Understanding the relationship between ICT and education means exploring innovation and change. Education and Information Technologies, 11, 199-216. Watson, J. F. (2007). A national primer on online K-12 education. Washington DC: North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www.nacol.org/docs/national_report.pdf Watson, J., & Ryan, J. (2007). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and practice. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.nacol.org/ docs/KeepingPace07-color.pdf Waxman, H. C., Connell, M. L., & Gray, J. (2002). A quantitative synthesis of recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student

951

Compilation of References

outcomes. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Laboratory.

Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265 (3), 94-95, 98-102.

Way, J. & Webb, C. (2007). A framework for analysing ICT adoption in Australian primary schools. Australian Journal for Educational Technology, 23(4), 559-582.

Weiss, R., Knowlton, D. S., Morrison, G. R. (2002). Principles for using animation in computer-based instruction: theoretical heuristics for effective design. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(4), 465-477.

Way, J. & Webb, C. (2007). Innovation with e-Learning in Australian Primary Schools. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 3(5), 105-116. Way, J. & Webb, C. (2007) Pedagogy, Innovation and e-Learning in Primary Schools. Annual Conference of the Australian Association of Research in Education, Adelaide, Australia, November 2006. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/way06728.pdf Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implication for integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705-735. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S., (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.).Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841873). New York: Macmillan. Web-based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice. Retrieved August 15, 2005 from http://interact. hpcnet.org/webcommission/index.htm Webopedia (2008). Wiki. Retrieved October 07, 2008 from http://Webopedia.com/TERM/W/wiki.html Webster, J. (1996), Shaping Women’s Work: Gender Employment and Information Technology. London: Longman. Wehmeyer, M.L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Teaching self-determination to students with disabilities: Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore: Brookes. Wei, R., & Lo, W. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8(1), 53-72. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 325–327). New York: Macmillan.

952

Weissman, J. (2006). Presenting to Win: The Art of Telling Your Story. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Welk, D.S (2006, Winter). The trainer’s application of Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” in asynchronous online training of faculty facilitators. Online Journal of Distance Learning administration 9 (4). Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.westga. edu/~distance/ojdia/winter94/welk94.htm Weller, H. G. (1996). Assessing the impact of computerbased learning in science. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 461-485. Weller, L.D., Carpenter, S., & Holmes, C.T. (1998). Achievement gains of low-achieving students using computer-assisted vs. regular instruction. Psychological Reports, 83(4), 1440-1441. Weller, M. (2007). The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning. Computers and Education, 40, 148–159. Weller, M. (2007, September). The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning. Computers and Education, 49(2) 148-159. Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wells, G. (Winter, 1990). Talk about text: Where literacy is learned and taught. Curriculum Inquiry, 20(4), 369-405. Wen, L.M.C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Online peer assessment in an inservice science and mathematics teacher education course. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 55-67. Wen, L.M.C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51, 27-44.

Compilation of References

Wen, L.M.C., Tsai, C.-C. & Chang, C.-Y. (2006). Attitudes towards peer assessment: A comparison of the perspectives of pre-service and in-service teachers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43, 83-92. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center. Retrieved February 12, 2008 from ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/technolog.pdf Wentworth, N. & Monroe, E. E. (2008). Preservice teachers focus on inquiry learning using technologyenhanced mathematics lessons. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008, 4599-4605). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Wentworth, N., & Waddoups, G. L. (2003). The promise of technology: Are technology-rich units changing learning environments? Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2003, 790-793. Wentworth, N., Tripp, T, & Graham, C. (2008). Using preservice teacher work samples as a means for assessing and improving technology integration in field experiences. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2007, 22792285. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Whine, M. (1997), The Far right on the Internet. In B. Loader (Ed.) The Governance of Cyberspace (pp. 209–227). London: Routledge. Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a Web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5-22. Whipple, G. (Ed.). (1925). The twenty-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Report of the National Committee on Reading. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing. Whitelock, D., & Scanlon, E. (1998). The roles of gaze, gesture, and gender in CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 158-165. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1-22. Whittier, K.S. & Hewit. (1993). Collorative teacher education: The elementary education/special education connection. Intervention in School and Clinic, 2(29), 84-897. Whitworth, S. & Berson, M. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(4), 472-509. Wikeley, F., Stoll, L., & Lodge, C. (2002). Effective School Improvement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4, 363-385.

Wepner, S. B., Ziomek, N., & Tao L. (2003). Three teacher educators’ perspectives about the shifting responsibilities of infusing technology into the curriculum. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 53-63.

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2007). History of virtual learning environments. Wikipedia. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ virtual_learning_environments

Wertsch, J. V. (1979). The regulation of human action and the given-new organization of private speech. In G. Zivin (Ed.), The development of self-regulation through private speech (pp.79-98). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wikipedia (2007a). Blogsphere. Retrieved September 09, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogosphere

Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2000). Teaching students with severe disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Wikipedia (2007b). Comparison of wiki farms. Retrieved September 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Comparison_of_Wiki_farms Wikipedia (2007d). Tag. Retrieved September 09, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_%28metadata%29

Wexler, D. (2000). Integrating Computer Technology: Blurring the Roles of teachers, Students, and Experts. Educational Studies, 31, 33–43. 953

Compilation of References

Wikipedia (2007e). Web 2.0. Retrieved September 09, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 Wikipedia (2007f). Wikipedia. Retrieved September 09, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia, (2006). Mashup (Web application hybrid). Retrieved (n.d.), from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Mashup_(Web_application_hybrid) Wikipedia, (2006). RSS (file format). Retrieved (n.d.), from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_ file_format Wikipedia, (2007). Multiple Learning Styles. Retrieved (n.d.) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligence Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2008, July 23). Wiki. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wiki Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2008, July 24). Social Bookmarking. . Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Social_bookmark Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved July, 1, 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Williams R. (2001, February 7-9) Automated essay grading: an evaluation of four conceptual models. In A. Hermann & M. M. Kulski, Expanding horizons in teaching and learning: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2001. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology. Williams, B. (2004). We’re getting wired, we’re going mobile, what’s next? Eugene, OR: ISTE Publications. Williams, B. C. (1991). Moodle 1.4.3 for teachers and trainers. Boston, MA: Free Software Foundation. Retrieved Sept. 10, 2007, from http://download.moodle.org/ docs/moodle_1.4.3_for_teachers_and_trainers.pdf Williams, C. J., Brown S. W. (1990). A review of the research issues in the use of computer-related technologies for instruction: An agenda for research. International Journal of Instructional Media, 17(2), 95-108. Williams-Boyd, P. (2004). Empowerment: a transformative process. In J. Kincheloe & D. Weil (Eds.), Critical thinking and learning (p. 207-211). Westport, Co: Greenwood Press. Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2007). Building technology facilitators and leaders: A standards-based approach. Learning and Leading with Technology, August, 2226.

Wiley, D., Waters, S., Dawson, D., Lambert, B., Barclay, M., & Wade, D. (2004). Overcoming the limitations of learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 507-521.

Wilson, B., & Myers, K. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wiley, J., & Bailey, J. (2006). Effects of collaboration and argumentation on learning from Web pages. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology. Rutgers invitational symposium on education series (pp. 297–321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72 (2), 131-175.

Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311.

Wingood, G., DiClemente, R., Bernhardt, J., Harrington, K., Davies, S., Robillard, A. & Hook, E. (2003). A Prospective Study of Exposure to Rap Music Videos and African American Female Adolescents’ Health, American Journal of Public Health, 93(3), 437-439.

Wilhelm, J. D. (1997). You Got to Be the Book: Teaching Engaged and Reflective Reading with Adolescents. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Winters, N. (2007). What is mobile learning? In M. Sharples (Ed.), Big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence

954

Compilation of References

Mobile Learning Initiative (pp. 7-10). Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham Learning Sciences Research Institute.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1978). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Wise, B, Olson, R., Ansett, M., Andrews, L., Terjak, M., Schnieder, V., et al. (1989). Implementing a long-term computerized remedial reading program with synthetic speech feedback: hardware, software and real world issues. Behaviour Research methods, Instruments and Computers, 21, 173-181.

Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teacher’s perceptions: barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 183-206.

Wiske, M., Franz, K., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Wiske, S. Booth Sweeney, L & Moore, J. (1998). Education with New Technologies: Rationale for the Design of an Online Learning Environment. Retrieved from: http:// learnweb.harvard.edu/ent/library/avdreport_feb.html Woelders, A. , & Moes, E. (2002). Testing that undermines education in Korea. Teacher Newsmagazine for the B.C. Teachers’ Federation, 14 (4), 20. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M. L. (2008). Online “predators” and their victims: Myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63(2) Feb-Mar, 111-128. Wolak, J., Kimberly, J. M., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26(1), 105-119. Wollman-Bonilla, J., & Werchadlo, B. (1999). Teacher and peer roles in scaffolding first graders’ responses to literature. The Reading Teacher, 52(6), 598-607. Wood, C. (2005). Beginning readers’ use of ‘ talking books’ software can affect their reading strategies. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 170-182. Wood, C., Littleton, K., & Chera, P.D.K. (2005). Beginning readers’ use of talking books: styles of working. Literacy, 39, 135-141. Wood, D. (2001). Scaffolding, contingent tutoring and computer-supported learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 280-292.

Wood, F. H., & McQuarrie, F. (1999, Summer). On-the-job learning. Journal of Staff Development, 20(3), 20-22. Wood, G.H. (1992). Schools that work. New York: Penguin Books. Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96. Woodward, H. & Nanlohy, P. (2004). Digital portfolios: fact or fashion? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(2), 227-238. Woodward, J., & Rieth, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 503-556. Worrall, N., & Singh, Y. (1983). Teaching TMR children to read using integrated picture cueing. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 422-429. Write Out Loud. [Computer Software]. Volo, IL: Don Johnson. Wu, H., Larsen, S. & Andersson, G. (2003, June 30–July 2). Web-based learning in teacher education: Advanced technology and appropriate tackling. Proceedings of IASTED International Conference, Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, CATE 2003, Rhodes, Greece, (pp.155-160). Calgary: Acta Press. Yahoo & OMD (2005). Truly, Madly, Engaged: Global Youth, Media, and Technology. Retrieved May 9, 2008 from us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ adv/tmde_05/ truly_madly_final_booklet.pdf Yang, Y.-F., & Tsai, C.-C. (in press). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Intruction.

955

Compilation of References

Yang, Y.-F., Liang, J.-C., Tsai, C.-C., & Tseng, S.-C. (2008). The roles of Internet self-efficacy and preferences toward Internet-based learning environments in students’ progression through online peer assessment. Paper presented in Ed-Media conference in Vienna, Austria. Yarmosh, K. (2006, July 26). Smart Social Networks. ReadWriteWeb. Retrieved from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/smart_social_ne.php Yelland, N. & Masters, J. (1995). Learning without limits: Empowerment for young children exploring with technology. Proceedings of Australian Computers in Education Conference (pp. 79-93), Perth, Australia. Yelland, N.J. & Masters, J.E. (1994, December). Innovation in practice: Learning in a technological environment. Paper presented at AARE, Newcastle. Yelland, N.J. & Masters, J.E. (1995). New ways with Logo: Powerful problem solving for young children. Quick, 54, 4-7. Yelland, N.J. & Masters, J.E. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding with technology. Computers in Education.48(3), 362-382. Yelland, N.J. (2007). Shift to the future: Rethinking learning with new technologies in education. New York: Routledge. Yelland, N.J.(1998). Empowerment and control with technology for young children. Educational Theory and Practie,20(2), 45-55. Yoder, M. (2004). Inquiry based learning enhanced and invigorated by the internet: Research, resources, WebQuests. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004, 2775-2778. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Young, A. (1997). Higher-order learning and thinking: What is it and how is it taught? Educational Technology, 37(4), 38-41. Young, K. (2004), Internet Addiction: A New Clinical Phenomenon and Its Consequences. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(4), 402-415. Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. J., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting Theoretical and Empirical Founda-

956

tions for Assessing Scientific Inquiry and Discovery in Educational Programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 938-962. Zeichner, K. & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: what we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613-621. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. Zhang, D., & Benz, M.R. (2006). Enhancing selfdetermination of culturally diverse students with disabilities: Current status and future directions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 38(9), 1-12. Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 269-282. Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 269-282. Zhang, Y. (2005). Age, gender, and internet attitudes among employees in the business world. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 1–10. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (2001). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. Zook, K. (2001). Instructional design for classroom teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Zucker, A. (2005). A study of student interaction and collaboration in the virtual high school. In R. Smith, T. Clark, & B. Blomeyer (Eds.), A synthesis of new research in K–12 online learning (pp. 43-45). Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

1

About the Contributors

Leo Tan Wee Hin has a PhD degree in marine biology. He holds the concurrent appointments of President of the Singapore National Academy of Science as well as professor of biological sciences and director of Special Projects in the Faculty of Science at the National University of Singapore. Prior to this, he was director of the National Institute of Education and director of the Singapore Science Centre. His research interests are in the fields of marine biology, ICT in education, science education, museum science, telecommunications, and transportation. He has published numerous research papers in international refereed journals. R. Subramaniam has a PhD in physical chemistry. he is an associate professor at the National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University and honorary secretary of the Singapore National Academy of Science. Prior to this he was acting head of physical sciences at the Singapore Science Centre. His research interests are in the fields of physical chemistry, ICT in education, science education, museum science, telecommunications, and transportation He has published several research papers in international refereed journals. *** Kevin M. Ayres, PhD is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education at the University of Georgia. He actively researches behavioral applications of technology to augment classroom instruction. His two primary foci are on the use of electronic text supports to aide comprehension for learners with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities as well as the use of video and computer based instruction to teach functional life skills. Derek E. Baird, M.A. is an educational media technologist, speaker, and author specializing in mobile tech, Gen Y, educational technology/media, youth trends, and online communities. Since 2002 he has been writing about these and other topics on his popular blog, The Barking Robot ( www.debaird. net). As the founder of Barking Robot Media he has designed interactive learning environments and online communities for US and international clients in both the corporate and non-profit sectors. Recent clients include: Yahoo!, The Museum of Tolerance, Stone Yamashita Partners, Pearson Education, The Digital Alliance, PBWiki, Kia Motors America, Yahoo! Southeast Asia, PBwiki, Knowledge Essentials, The Highway Girl and YackPack. As sr. educational technologist at Yahoo! he co-designed Yahoo! For Teachers, a social network for educators, parents and students. In addition, as one of the lead architects of the Yahoo! Youth & Education Initiative, he designed a national Yahoo! Teachers Tour where he taught educators how to integrate new media technologies into their classroom. In addition, Derek Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

About the Contributors

has published articles on education technology, new media, mobile and online communities in several peer reviewed journals including: Campus-Wide Information Systems, TechLearning, The Journal of Education Technology Systems and YPulse.com He also is a contributor to Didactics World, a magazine focused on education, ICT and eLearning in the Middle East and India. Derek E. Baird M.A.Founder, Barking Robot Media, [email protected], http://www.linkedin.com/in/derekbaird Art Bangert is an associate professor in the Department of Education at Montana State University where he teachers course in educational statistics, research methods and assessment. His research interests include designing, teaching and evaluating online learning environments and developing methods for assessing informal science learning environments. Samantha Bowyer is a graduate of Coventry University and has worked as a research assistant in the Reading and Child Development Applied Research Group since graduating. She has also worked as an Assistant Clinical Psychologist, ABA therapist and has research interests in the area of Autistic Spectrum Disorders and challenging behaviour in adults and children. Johan van Braak is full time professor at the Department of Educational Research at Ghent University. He teaches curriculum development, educational innovation and educational effectiveness. He is the coordinator of the research group ‘Innovation in Compulsory Education’. His research interests include ICT integration, educational beliefs, parental involvement and the relation between educational research and practice. Catherine E. Brawner is president of Research Triangle Educational Consultants. Dr. Brawner specializes in evaluation of programs in the use of technology in education, engineering education, and teacher education. She was a site evaluator for two elementary schools receiving Enhancing Education Through Technology grants and has also evaluated a number of programs funded by the US Department of Education in technology and teacher education. She currently acts as the evaluator for grantees of the US National Science Foundation-sponsored Broadening Participation in Computing; Course, Curriculum, Laboratory Improvement; and Gender Studies in Education programs. Dr. Brawner has also served as adjunct faculty in the College of Education and the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at North Carolina State University. She received her PhD in Educational Research and Policy Analysis from North Carolina State University, Master of Business Administration from Indiana University (Bloomington) and Bachelor of Arts from Duke University. Rebecca Brent is president of Education Designs, Inc., a consulting firm in Cary, North Carolina. She has 30 years of experience in education and specializes in staff development in engineering and the sciences, teacher preparation, evaluation of educational programs at both precollege and college levels, and classroom uses of instructional technology. She has published roughly 100 articles on those topics and has given several hundred teaching workshops on campuses and at conferences around the world. She is co-director of the National Effective Teaching Institute, which has been given annually since 1991 under the auspices of the American Society for Engineering Education. Prior to her work in consulting, she was an Associate Professor at East Carolina University. Dr. Brent received an EdD from Auburn University, MEd from Mississippi State University and a BA from Millsaps College, and holds a Certificate in Evaluation Practice from the Evaluators’ Institute at George Washington University.

2

About the Contributors

Alfons ten Brummelhuis is head of research at Kennisnet: the national ICT support institute for primary, secondary and vocational education in the Netherlands. His interest span issues of educational change and effectiveness of ICT for teaching and learning. He is responsible for a research program that has to provide deeper insight in what works with ICT in schools. In the Netherlands he initiated a monitoring system for the use of ICT in education. Pav Chera (PhD) has experience ranging from innovative interface design, development and evaluation, including authoring and publishing, pioneering interactive multimedia ‘talking books’ for reading instruction, and teaching at all stages throughout higher education in business, computing/IT and education. She is an active researcher of e-learning opportunities and is a strong authority at under and post graduate levels regarding curriculum design, development, implementation, evaluation, recruitment, marketing and senior management activities at national and international levels of higher education. Currently, she is working as an independent educational multimedia consultant. Yu-Hui Ching is a PhD candidate in Instructional Systems program at Penn State University. Her research interests include technology integration for effective teaching and learning, ill-structured problems solving, and self-regulated learning. At Penn State University, she has co-taught both faceto-face and online courses on instructional design and technology integration. She currently serves as a graduate consultant at Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence at Penn State University. She holds a master’s degree in TESOL from SUNY at Buffalo, and BBA of management information systems from National Central University, Taiwan. Arno Coenders is projectmanager and advisor at Kennisnet: the national ICT support institute for primary, secondary and vocational education in the Netherlands. He developed several online tools. His interests are in the field of school professionalization with ICT. Gráinne Conole is professor of e-learning in the Institute of Educational Technology at the Open University in the UK. Previously she was professor of educational innovation in post-compulsory education at the University of Southampton and before that director of the Institute for Learning and Research Technology at the University of Bristol. Her research interests include the use, integration and evaluation of information and communication technologies and e-learning and the impact of technologies on organisational change. Two of her current areas of interest are focusing on the evaluation of students’ experiences of and perceptions of technologies and how learning design can help in creating more engaging learning activities and open educational resources. Updates on current research and reflections on e-learning research generally can be found on her blog www.e4innovation.com. She has extensive research, development and project management experience across the educational and technical domains; funding sources have included the EU, HEFCE, ESRC, JISC and commercial sponsors). She serves on and chairs a number of national and international advisory boards, steering groups, committees and international conference programmes. She has published and presented over 300 conference proceedings, workshops and articles, including over 100 journal publications on a range of topics, including the use and evaluation of learning technologies. She is co-editor of the recently published RoutledgeFalmer book ‘Contemporary Perspectives on E-Learning Research’.

3

About the Contributors

Quintin Q. Davis is an intensive intervention teacher at Christa McAuliffe Middle School in Stockton, CA, where he works with students who present behavioral challenges. He received a BS Ed in special education from Elizabeth City State University in 2006, and then taught at River Road Middle School in Elizabeth City, where he wrote and received a Hewlett Packard Technology for Teaching Grant. He is currently enrolled in a distance learning MEd program. He and his wife recently moved to Stockton, CA so that she could pursue a professional basketball career. Manuela Delfino, PhD in “Language, Culture, and Information and Communication Technology” at the University of Genova, is a researcher for the Institute for Educational Technology of the Italian National Research Council (CNR) and a secondary school teacher of humanities. Her current research focuses on the use of ICT in school settings, on initial teacher training and on different linguistic facets of written asynchronous interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Angelique Dimitracopoulou is professor [“Design of Technology Based Learning Environments”] of the School of Humanities, University of the Aegean, in Greece. She is also a foundational member of the Learning Technology and Educational Engineering Laboratory (LTEE lab; http://www.ltee.gr). She holds a degree in physics sciences (University of Patras, Greece, 1986), a master’s and a PhD in information and communication technologies in education (University of Paris 7, France, 1995). She is the author of more than 130 scientific publications related to the design of technology-based learning environments, the implementation of ICTs in educational contexts and teachers’ education via communities of learning. Her research interests include design of technology based learning environments, collaborative systems, modeling environments, mobile (wireless) environments, environments of distance education, interaction analysis tools, learning activities, teachers’ roles and strategies, students’ modeling in science education, learning effects of technological environments, evaluation of technology based learning environments and science education [www.ltee.gr/adimitr]. Karen H. Douglas, MEd is a doctoral student studying special education at the University of Georgia. Her research interests include technology, literacy, and transition for students with significant cognitive disabilities. She is a member of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) along with the Technology and Media Division (TAM) and the Division for Developmental Disabilities (DDD). She has contributed to professional journal articles and has presented at annual conferences for closing the gap and DDD-CEC. Michael A. Evans is an assistant professor in the instructional design and technology program at Virginia Tech. Research and teaching interests include human learning theory, and emerging instructional media and technologies. He is currently working on a mobile learning project, Learning Without Boundaries, where instructional multimedia in elementary and middle school mathematics and language arts is being developed for the Apple iPod Touch. Before arriving in Blacksburg, Dr. Evans was a research scientist in the Pervasive Technology Labs at Indiana University, where he worked on a three-year telemaintenance project for the US Navy Smartships Program. Dr. Evans received his doctoral degree from the department of instructional systems technology at Indiana University, Bloomington. Glenn Finger Dip. T., B. Ed. St. (Qld), M. Ed. (UNE), Ph. D. (Griffith), FACE, MACCE, ACCE Associate, Deputy Dean (Learning and Teaching), Faculty of Education, Griffith University - Dr. Glenn

4

About the Contributors

Finger is deputy dean (learning and teaching) in the Faculty of Education at Griffith University. Dr. Finger lectures in, and has extensively researched, published, and provided consultancies in the area of ICT curriculum integration and more recently in creating transformational stories of the use of new and emerging technologies, such as theorising ePortfolio approaches to enable rich, multimedia personal stories of deep learning. For his outstanding teaching related to ICT, Dr. Finger was awarded the Australian teacher education association teacher educator of the year award and an Australian Learning and Teaching Council Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning in 2008. He is the lead author of the book Transforming Learning with ICT: Making IT Happen, published by Pearson Education Australia in 2007. His passion is to promote teaching as the most important profession. Mercedes Fisher, is an associate dean of teaching and learning technology for Wisconsin’s largest technical college MATC. She is also an associate professor at Pepperdine University in the field of e-learning and educational technology. She is best known for her research on interactive learning environments with a focus on learning, facilitated, but not controlled, by technology. She has spent the majority of her 15-year career as a distinguished professor teaching master’s and doctoral courses. She has held appointments as professor at Colorado State University, Marquette University, and Pepperdine University. She is past director of the EdTech master’s program at Pepperdine University and has been teaching online since 1997. As a Fulbright Scholar she taught at the University of Sydney in 2002, National College of Ireland, Trinity College, Dublin City University and the Limerick Institute of Technology in 2005-2006. She has lectured and published widely and is the author of two internationally used graduate textbooks on learning, technology, and design. She has worked with grants from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice programs, US Department of Justice, Microsoft Corporation, NASA, The US Department of Education, Technology Literacy Challenge, Wisconsin Dept of Public Instruction, Digital Action and Knowledge Economy Skills Passport in Ireland. Milwaukee Technical [email protected] Gail Fitzgerald is professor in the School of Information Science & Learning Technologies in the College of Education, University of Missouri. Her primary teaching areas include instructional design, software development for students with special needs, and research on technology integration in the classroom. She has extensive experience in the design and development of interactive, multimedia training electronic performance support systems (EPSS) for students with special needs. She is recognized at the national level as an expert in technology applications for learners with disabilities and the use of interactive, multimedia cases in the preparation of teacher educators. She is the recipient of ten US Department of Education research and development technology grants. Zvia Fund is a lecturer and head of the department of teacher training in chemistry and physics in the School of Education at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. She has been involved in Prolog in education project in the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. Her current research projects include cognitive and meta-cognitive aspects of teaching and learning in general and specifically in science education: Reflection in science problem solving and in teacher education; Evaluative tools of reflection in teacher training and in science problem solving; Models of cognitive support in computerized science problem solving; Analyzing schemes of computerized science problem solving; Peer feedback. Besides her academic work, she serves as a member in two professional committees (Science & Technology Curriculum of Junior high Schools; National Assessment in Science & Technology) of the Ministry of Education, Israel. 5

About the Contributors

Virginia E. Garland, PhD is coordinator of graduate programs in educational administration and supervision at the University of New Hampshire, USA She has been a scholar in the United States, England, China and Japan. Professor Garland was a visiting professor of educational technology at the Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai Institutes of Education in China; and, she taught in the Cross-Cultural Studies Department of Kobe University in Japan. Professor Garland has many international publications on the role of technology in educational administration, teacher supervision, curriculum planning, and crisis management in schools. She dedicates this chapter to her own Net Generation, Micki, Queenie, and Jinx. Susan Gibson is a professor in the Department of Elementary Education in the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta, Edmonton Alberta, Canada. She teaches social studies education in the undergraduate teacher education program and curriculum development in the graduate program. Her research over the last 15 years has been in the areas of infusing technology into teaching and learning and preparing pre-service teachers for teaching in a digital age. Juana M. Sancho Gil. educational technologies professor at the University of Barcelona. Coordinator of the Quality Research Group Education, Training, Innovation and New Technologies (FINT-Formación, Innovación y Nuevas Tecnologías) http://fint.doe.d5.ub.es integrated by 35 researchers participating in several national and international projects. Co-director of the Centre for the Study of Change in Culture and Education http://www.cecace.org at the Scientific Park of the University of Barcelona. She has a long and steady experience in promoting research policy at institutional level, advising research programmes and projects, and assessing and managing research projects. She won the first national educational research award in 1987 and the second in 2003. She co-directs the book series “Repensar la educación” (Rethinking education) published by Octaedro and have published a good number of books and articles both nationally and internationally. Barbara Grabowski, PhD, Professor of education in the instructional systems program, College of Education at Penn State University, also currently serves as president of the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction (ibstpi). She has had other academic appointments at Syracuse University and the University of Maryland School of Medicine. At the University of Maryland University College, she designed, developed and evaluated a distance delivery program for nuclear reactor operators, and designed multimedia materials for industry, the military, and medical environments. She has been nationally and internationally recognized by the University Continuing Education Association, for the innovative programs she has designed; by NASA IITA for outstanding support of their program, and by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology for two outstanding book awards on books that she has co-authored. Lee Grafton is currently the instructional technology specialist at Palm Springs Unified School District and a member of the Adjunct Faculty at California State University, San Bernardino. Dr. Grafton develops and coordinates the Palm Springs School District¹s educational technology professional development programs and technology planning/assessments. She has secured and administered over $8.5 million in federal and state grants for the district, including the Enhancing Education Through Technology Grant.

6

About the Contributors

Charles R. Graham is an associate professor of instructional psychology and technology at Brigham Young University with interest in technology-mediated teaching and learning. Charles studies the design and evaluation of blended learning environments and the use of technology to enhance teaching and learning. He has authored articles in many journals including: Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Educause Quarterly, Small Group Research, Educational Technology, TechTrends, Educational Technology Research & Development, Active Learning in Higher Education, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, Computers in the Schools & the International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Charles has also published work related to online and blended learning environments in edited books including Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice, Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, The Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, the AECT Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology and the Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. Yasemin Gülbahar graduated from the Middle East Technical University in 1992 with a BS in mathematics. In 2002, she earned a PhD in computer education and instructional technology from the same university. Yasemin Gülbahar is working as assistant professor at the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology at Baskent University, in Ankara-Turkey. Her research areas are e-learning, web-based instructional design, adult education, technology integration, technology planning and technology-based assessment methods. Nancy Hadley is a tenured associate professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Angelo State University located in San Angelo, Texas, USA. Before joining the faculty at Angelo State University, she served as a computer programmer/analyst, a technology consultant/instructor, as well as a secondary mathematics teacher. She coordinates and teaches the technology coursework offered by the College of Education. Receiving her bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas, Austin, TX., USA and master’s degree from Angelo State University, San Angelo, TX., USA, Dr. Hadley completed her education by earning a doctor of education in curriculum & instruction with technology & cognition specialization from the University of North Texas, Denton, TX., USA. Journal articles authored by Dr. Hadley have appeared in national and international publications. She has authored a textbook for her technology courses and has co-authored several books on standardized testing and test-taking skills. Andrea J. Harmer is an assistant professor of instructional technology and library science at Kutztown University in Kutztown, Pennsylvania. She also facilitates educational outreach activities related to science and nanotechnology for Lehigh University’s Center for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology in Bethlehem, PA. Her research interests include facilitating collaborations between university researchers, middle school students, and teachers, both pre-service and in-service. Furthermore, she is interested in bringing advanced scientific instrumentation into the K-12 classroom to allow students to engage in and contribute to true scientific discovery and problem solving at a much younger age. In her free time, Dr. Harmer enjoys being with her family, boating, and skiing. Leaunda S. Hemphill teaches K-12 technology integration, visual design, and instructional design courses in the Instructional Design and Technology Department at Western Illinois University in Macomb, Illinois. She has a PhD in instructional technology and has worked in instructional design, training delivery, and cutting-edge technology in corporate and academic organizations. She has a MS in English, a BS in secondary education (teaching certification in English and Earth Science), and a BS in geology. Dr. Hemphill’s current research includes the development of K-12 online teaching modules, construction

7

About the Contributors

of an instrument to assess the interactivity of online instruction, development of scoring protocols for evaluating the quality of student online writing products, evaluation of online informal science education sites, and evaluation of technology workshops for K-12 teachers, principals, and parents. Fernando Hernández. Full professor at the Unit of Art Education at the Fine Arts Faculty of the University of Barcelona. Director of an Interuniversity Master and Doctoral program on “Visual Arts and Education: a constructionist perspective”. Co-coordinator of the Quality Research Group Education, Training, Innovation and New Technologies (FINT-Formación, Innovación y Nuevas Tecnologías) http://fint.doe.d5.ub.es. Co-director of the Centre for the Study of Change in Culture and Education http://www.cecace.org at the Scientific Park of the University of Barcelona. He directs and participates in several national and international projects. He won the second national educational research award in 2003. He co-directs the book series “Repensar la educación” (Rethinking education) and directs the book series “Intersecciones” about visual culture both published by Octaedro; and have published a good number of books and articles both nationally and internationally. Jan Herrington is a professor in IT in education in the School of Education at Murdoch University, Australia. The last 20 years of her professional life has been devoted to the promotion and support of the effective use of educational technologies in authentic learning environments in schools and universities. She has extensive experience in the instructional design, teaching and researching of online and multimedia learning environments, and in teaching research approaches and methodologies. For her research on authentic learning environments using technology, she was awarded the AECT Young Researcher of the Year Award in Houston Texas in 1999, and she won a Fulbright Scholarship in 2002 to conduct research at the University of Georgia, USA. Jan’s current research focuses on the use of authentic contexts and problem-based scenarios as a central focus for web-based delivery of unit, and the use of design-based research approaches in higher degrees. She is a reviewer for five international refereed journals in educational technology and research, and has published widely in the area. Stephenie Hewett is in her twenty-first year of service at The Citadel. She has been involved in the development and implementation of school partnerships throughout her career at The Citadel. She is the Academic Coordinator for the GEAR UP Program, a US Department of Education initiative that funds a partnership between St. Paul’s Constituent School District and The Citadel. She has also been instrumental in integrating the Stewards of Children training into the School of Education’s curriculum. She is also the founder of the Low Country Higher Education consortium for the Protection of Children. Giorgos Hlapanis is a teacher of informatics in a high-school in Greece. He is also a tutor counselor of the Hellenic Open University and a member of the Learning Technology and Educational Engineering Laboratory of the University of Aegean (LTEE lab). He holds a degree in Computer Science (University of Crete, Greece, 1991) and a PhD in learning communities used for education of teachers in ICT (University of Aegean, Greece, 2006). His research interests include learning communities and communities of practice, design of technology based learning environments, learning activities, learning effects of technological environments, evaluation of technology based learning environments. Mark van ‘t Hooft, PhD, conducts research in RCET studies, provides technical support in the AT&T Classroom, and is a founding member and current chair of the Special Interest Group for Handheld

8

About the Contributors

Computing for the International Society for Technology in Education. His current research focus is on ubiquitous computing environments and the use of wireless mobile devices for teaching and learning. Prior to his work at RCET, Mark taught middle school and high school social studies and language arts. He holds a PhD with a dual major in curriculum and instruction, and evaluation and measurement from Kent State University. Lyn C. Howell is an associate professor and the chair of the area of education at Milligan College, Tennessee (USA) where she teaches educational technology and research among other courses. She has taught in middle and high schools in states from Alaska to Florida and currently works with teachers and pre-service teachers helping them to integrate technology into their curriculum. Her research interests include many areas of teacher effectiveness Yu-Chang Hsu is a PhD Candidate of instructional systems program at Penn State University. His research interests include Web 2.0 technology innovation in learning and instruction, self-regulated learning (SRL) in the web-based environment, self-regulatory processes in the integration of multiple external representations (MERs), and student success and retention in the STEM field. At Penn State University, he has co-taught both face-to-face and online courses on technology integration and instructional design. He currently serves as the assessment coordinator for the NSF-funded TOYS ‘n MORE (TOYS and MATHEMATICAL OPTIONS for RETENTION in ENGINEERING) project at the School of Engineering Design, Technology, and Professional Programs (SEDTAPP). He holds both master’s degrees in TESOL and in education and technology from SUNY at Buffalo. David Hung is head, Learning Sciences Lab at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. His research interests in learning include social cultural orientations to cognition and communities of practice. He is also currently a contributing editor of Educational Technology. Dougal Hutchison is the chief statistician and the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales. He has published articles on a range of topics in books and learned journals in a range of topics including measurement error, multilevel modelling, IRT, international comparisons and value added, but is interested in just about anything. He has recently become interested in automated essay scoring systems. Liisa Ilomäki (PhD) is a researcher at the Dept. of Psychology, University of Helsinki. Currently she co-ordinates a large EU-supported project Knowledge Practises Laboratory (KP-Lab, years 2006-2011). She has been responsible for national evaluation studies about ICT in school, and she has participated in several European research projects. Her research interests are focused on the issues related in school and ICT, e.g. the innovations and changes in education. Romina Jamieson-Proctor Dip. T., B. Ed.(Griffith), Grad. Dip. Ed. (Computing) (QUT), M. Ed. (QUT), Ph. D. (QUT), MACE, MACCE - associate professor Jamieson-Proctor (PhD), is the associate director of education at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. She has had first-hand involvement with the use of computer-based technologies in classrooms since 1980. She has also been extensively involved in teacher education programs and professional development activities focusing on the use of ICT in education and demonstrating to teachers how they can effectively integrate and create

9

About the Contributors

ICT applications that transform curriculum, teaching and learning to meet the needs of 21st-century learners. Associate professor Jamieson-Proctor has also had extensive experience managing national and industry-sponsored research projects investigating the impact of ICT on teaching and learning. Tamara Jetton currently holds the position of Berrell Endowed professor of developmental literacy at Central Michigan University. She has held positions at the James Madison University, University of Utah and Texas A&M University. Her research interests include understanding how adolescents learn with text in a variety of learning environments, and how they engage in discussions both in the classroom and in online environments. She has published in several journals and edited volumes that include Reading Research Quarterly, Journal of Educational Psychology, Review of Educational Research, Educational Psychology, Educational Psychology Review, Handbook of Reading Research, and Handbook of Discourse Processes. Marja Kankaanranta (PhD) is a senior researcher at the Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Kankaanranta leads multidisciplinary laboratory for game design and research (Agora Game Lab) at Agora Center, JyU. She acts also as an adjunct professor in educational sciences at the University of Oulu and in computer sciences at the University of Jyväskylä. Currently, her main research areas are innovative uses of information and communication technology (ICT) in education, international comparison of ICT use in education, game-based learning and authentic assessment, e.g. digital portfolios. Robin Kay has published over 40 articles in the area of computers in education, presented numerous papers at 15 international conferences, is a reviewer for five prominent computer education journals, and has taught computers, mathematics, and technology for over 18 years at the high school, college and university level. Current projects include research on laptop use in teacher education, learning objects, interactive classroom communications systems (audience response systems), gender differences in computer related behaviour, discussion board use, emotions and the use of computers, and factors that influence how students learn with technology. He completed his PhD in cognitive science (Educational Psychology) at the University of Toronto, where he also earned his masters degree in Computer Applications in Education. He is currently an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa, Canada. Lisa Kervin is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Wollongong. She has worked as a teacher, teaching from kindergarten to grade six, and has been employed in consultancy roles. She has researched her own teaching and has collaborative research partnerships with teachers and students in both tertiary and primary classrooms. Lisa is currently the New South Wales president of the Australian Literacy Educators Association. Her current research interests are related to the literacy development of children, the use of technology to support student learning and teacher professional development. Carita Kiili is a PhD-student in the Department of Educational Sciences at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. At the moment she works as a researcher in a project funded by the Academy of Finland. Her main research interests are collaborative reading, reading on the Internet, scaffolding internet reading and writing by argument visualization.

10

About the Contributors

Rebecca Kirtley has BA and MEd degrees from the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. With thirty-six years experience in elementary and middle school education, she is in her tenth year as a facilitator of gifted education, working with both students and teachers on challenging opportunities. In addition to classroom and gifted education, she has served as an instructional specialist, a mentor to new teachers, and an in-service instructor for teachers. Elizabeth City State University partnered with her for a technology grant. She loves to read, travel, collect antiques, and spend time with her husband and son. Thiam Seng Koh is an associate professor in the Natural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group and deputy director, National Institute of Education. His research interests are on policy studies on the effective implementation of ICT in education, development of innovative ICT-enabled pedagogies to enhance science education and ICT-enabled professional learning communities. Kevin Koury is professor and acting dean of the College of Education and Human Services at California University of Pennsylvania. He has extensive experience in the design and development of electronic performance support systems (EPSS) and development and implementation of learning strategies and transition services for students with disabilities. He has also worked extensively in the field with pre-service teachers and general/special inclusion teams, and conducted research in computer applications with students with learning disabilities. He is the recipient of six US Department of Education research and development technology grants. Bracha Kramarski’s field of research focuses on investigation of meta-cognition in learning environments. Some of her recent studies focus on the effects of the IMPROVE method on mathematical reasoning, problem solving, and mathematical communication in different learning environments, such as, advanced technologies. Other studies investigate teachers’ education and professional development. All of these studies are published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and presented in many international conferences. Dr. Kramarski has won several prestigious grants from the chief scientist in the Ministry of Education. She was the chief researcher of the Program for International Students Assessment of Reading, Mathematics and Science Literacy (PISA). The research is conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with the participation of 40 countries. Dr. Kramarski currently participates as a member in many international professional organizations, such as International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME). In Israel she belongs to the Professional Committee for Developing Mathematical Curriculum and Assessment. She participates now as the head of Innovative Projects in Mathematics, as well as the project head of Teacher Professional Development of Mathematical School Teachers. Dr. Kramarski is currently the deputy-director in the School of Education and Head of the Department for Teacher Education at Bar-Ilan University. John Langone, Ph.D. is currently professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education at the University of Georgia. He is past president of the Technology and Media Division (TAM) of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Dr. Langone’s research efforts include the investigation of how technology-based instruction with digital video anchors effects the learning of students who have disabilities. In addition, Dr. Langone has studied the efficacy of behavioral methods for teaching individuals with disabilities and technology applications for helping special educators to become better teachers. Dr. Langone has been awarded a number of federally funded grants in the areas

11

About the Contributors

of secondary education/transition to adulthood, special education technology, computer-based video supported instruction, and web-based instruction for teachers. He is a consistent contributor to the professional literature, authoring three books and numerous chapters and articles. Leena Laurinen (PhD, professor in education, special field: Research on learning and development) has been working at the Department of Educational Sciences in the University of Jyväskylä since year 1989. She started her research activity in 1976 in the University of Helsinki concerning psycholinguistic research on sentence elaboration (i.e. verbal inferences) and text understanding. On the basis of her results she developed teaching methods for schools concerning reading strategies in mother tongue (Finnish) and foreign language learning. Thereafter she has concentrated on collaborative learning and writing as well as argumentative interaction both in secondary school classrooms and in university lecture rooms. Fotis Lazarinis holds a PhD in Web retrieval and is a part-time lecturer at a Greek Technological and Educational Institute. He is also a final year PhD student in the area of Adaptive Hypermedia in Education. He is the main author of more than 35 papers in refereed journals, conferences and workshops, 3 book chapters in research handbooks and more than 15 papers in national journals and conferences. He has participated as an organizer or reviewer to a number of international conferences and workshops related to search engines and information and communication technologies in education. He has also single authored 18 Computer Science educational books in Greek. His main research interests are Web searching, ICT in education, Safer Internet access for students, Image searching in e-museums. Amy Leh is a professor in instructional technology at the College of Education at California State University San Bernardino. She has taught technology courses to credential students at three universities. She has also instructed a variety of graduate educational technology courses and served on several doctoral students’ dissertation committees. She has written more than 30 articles and made more than 80 presentations at international/national conventions. Her research interests include technology and learning, distance education, web-based instruction, interaction in web-based learning environments, computer-mediated communication (CMC) and social presence, technology integration, and telecommunication technologies in foreign (second) language acquisition. Tamar Levin is a professor and chair of Information and Communication Technologies Graduate program in the School of Education at Tel Aviv University, Israel. Her fields of expertise are: Instructional Science, Educational Evaluation and Curricular ideologies and development. Her major research topics and publications include: characteristics of social constructivist-based schooling and evaluation; philosophical and psychological dimensions of teaching, learning and assessment in relation to teachers’ cognition and to students’ and teachers’ educational and epistemological beliefs; the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) to enhance school learning; characteristics of dynamic, interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary curriculum; evaluation and research methodology, focusing mainly on mixed-methodology studies, and a variety of topics related to characteristics of student performances with emphasis on multi-modal representation and cultural-diversity in science and mathematics achievements among native, immigrant and minority students. She is the elected editor of the Journal “Studies in Educational Evaluation” beginning January 2009.

12

About the Contributors

Joseph A. Lisowski is a professor of English at Elizabeth City State University, a position he has held since 2002. He has many years of teaching experience in high school, college, and university settings, and is especially interested in modeling and developing 21st century literacy skills in his university writing classes. His pedagogical interests involve the development of critical thinking skills, technology as a tool to enhance collaboration, and the effective teaching of writing. He is a novelist and a poet, and has published three novels and 13 chapbooks of poetry. Linda R. Lisowski is an associate professor of education at Elizabeth City State University where she has been teaching in the Special Education Program since 2002. She received a BA in English and an MA in education from the University of the Virgin Islands and a PhD in instruction and learning from the University of Pittsburgh, and has over 10 years of PK-12 teaching experience, primarily in the US Virgin Islands. Her current research interests involve improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities, specifically through technology integration, and improving the teaching of writing to students with learning disabilities. Karen Littleton (PhD) is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her research interests concern the psychology of education and she has co-edited Learning with Computers (1999) with Paul Light; Rethinking Collaborative Learning (2000) with Richard Joiner, Dorothy Faulkner and Dorothy Miell; Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn with Dorothy Miell and Dorothy Faulkner (2004) and Creative collaborations (2004) with Dorothy Miell. She is the co-author, with Paul Light, of Social Processes in Children’s Learning (1999) and with Neil Mercer Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking (2007). Wei-Ying Lim is a lecturer at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. She has research interests in communities of practice, socio cultural notions of learning, teacher learning and identities. She is currently pursuing a PhD in the area of teacher identities, using concepts from discourse/conversation analysis and ethnomethodology. Piret Luik PhD in education, associate professor in educational technology, has specialized in elearning and research methods in education. She has experience to teach computers and mathematics in comprehensive school for 6 years and has been one of the key trainers in initial teacher training system for last seven years. She has taken part in European projects, has been edited collections and is currently a member of the Editorial Board of Open Education Journal. Gregory R. MacKinnon, PhD is a professor of science & technology education at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada. Acadia was the first institution in Canada to employ laptop computers across the entire curriculum beginning the process of implementation in 1996. Dr. MacKinnon undertakes research on the impact of technology on classroom instruction both in higher education and in public schools. His particular areas of interest include applications of technology to science education, the promise of communication technologies, electronic discussion coding and concept mapping. Jessica Mantei teaches in the Faculty of Education at the University of Wollongong, Australia. As a primary school teacher, she taught Kindergarten to Year 6 and Reading Recovery, worked as a teacher mentor and professional development facilitator within and across schools. As a tertiary educator, Jes-

13

About the Contributors

sica teaches undergraduate and postgraduate education students in research methods, curriculum and pedagogy subjects. Jessica’s Master’s of education (research) thesis investigated the role of computer based technologies in children’s literacy learning. Her PhD project explores the ways that teachers plan, organise and facilitate authentic learning experiences in their primary school classrooms. Miika Marttunen (DEd) is working as a professor at the Department of Educational Sciences in the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Previously he has been working as a senior researcher of the Academy of Finland. He started his research activity in 1990, and completed his dissertation in 1997 on the use of e-mail in teaching argumentation skills in higher education. Currently his main research interests include collaborative learning, argumentation, and network interaction both in secondary and higher education studies. Jennifer Masters is a senior lecturer in educational innovation and the Undergraduate Course Coordinator at Latrobe University, Bendigo. She has taught in schools at both Early Childhood and Primary levels and specialises in the integration of ICT in curriculum. Her research interest areas include informal learning and social constructivism, social networking, using ICT for “real” purposes, publishing and presenting with computers and computer-based problem-solving opportunities. She completed her Ph. D thesis relating to young children using computers, with a focus on how teachers can “scaffold” or support children working with computers. Her thesis was published as a book in 2008 - Teachers scaffolding children working with computers: An analysis of strategies. Jennifer’s current research relates to the use of computers and associated technologies in informal contexts. She is particularly interested in children engaging in social networking and the use technology for creative purposes, such as digital story telling and animation. Donna McCaw teaches graduate and doctoral coursework in educational leadership at Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL. She has been the principal investigator for the ISAMS project – a science and math teacher professional development project funded by the Illinois Board of Higher Education: No Child Left Behind Teacher Improvement Grant. Dr. McCaw received her doctorate in curriculum and instruction from Illinois State University. She has a M.A. in counseling, a M.S.Ed. and a B.S. in speech and language pathology. Before teaching at the university Dr. McCaw served as an elementary school principal and director of curriculum. She has worked extensively with schools and districts on continuous improvement, professional development, and literacy. She has co-authored a 2007 book: Accountability for Results: The Realities of Data-Driven Decision-Making. Guy Merchant is a principal lecturer in research development at Sheffield Hallam University, where he coordinates the work of the Language and Literacy Research Group. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on digital literacy and is co-editor of the Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. His research focuses on children and young people’s uses of on-screen writing and how this can be incorporated into the school curriculum. He is co-author (with Julia Davies of the book Web 2.0 for Schools: Social Participation and Learning). Steven Mills is director and CEO of the Ardmore Higher Education Center (The University Center of Southern Oklahoma). Prior to his current appointment, Mills was a research professor at the University of Kansas where he conducted research focused on technology and online learning in K-12 classrooms

14

About the Contributors

and managed a media department providing video, graphic arts, and Web publishing services. Mills has made numerous national presentations on the subjects of technology integration and Web site design. He has authored and been awarded numerous grant proposals relating to technology in classrooms. He has authored several journal articles and two college textbooks on using technology in the K-12 classroom. Mills was an instructor of computer technology for five years and an administrator for ten years at the Southern Oklahoma Technology Center in Ardmore, a K-12 vocational-technical school. Mills has a PhD in instructional psychology and technology from the University of Oklahoma. Katherine Mitchem is associate professor and chair of the Special Education Department in the College of Education and Human Services, California University of Pennsylvania. Her primary teaching areas include applied behavior analysis, single subject research design, autism, and instructional strategies for inclusive classrooms. She has extensive experience in the implementation and evaluation of interactive, multimedia training electronic performance support systems (EPSS) for students with special needs. She has published widely in the area of self-management interventions, effective professional development, and sustaining change in teacher practice. She is the recipient of four US Department of Education research and development technology grants. Eula Monroe, formerly a classroom teacher in her native Kentucky, is now a professor and teacher educator at Brigham Young University (BYU) in Provo, Utah. She has devoted her career to education at virtually all levels. An author, speaker, and consultant, she is especially interested in the intimate link between language, mathematics, and technology. She claims that “Math is all about relationships” – it’s no wonder she sees the wonder and interconnectedness of nature through the eyes and mind of a mathematician during her world travels. Recent publications include “Preservice Teachers Focus on Inquiry Learning Using Technology-Enhanced Mathematics Lessons” in Technology and Teacher Education Annual and “Integrating Technology and a Standards-Based Pedagogy in a Geometry Classroom: A Mature Teacher Deals with the Reality of Multiple Demands and Paradigm Shifts” in Computing in the Schools. Jörg Müller. Sociologist working as a senior researcher at the University of Barcelona in the Center for the Study of Change in Culture and Education (http://www.cecace.org). PhD in communications at the European Graduate School (EGS) in Switzerland. He has participated in various national and international research projects on the impact of ICT in education, specializing on the socio-economic evaluation of ICT-driven innovations. He holds teaching appointments at the Media Studies department of the New School University in New York, and EGS in Switzerland. Cheah Horn Mun’s previous research work includes the microwave properties of High Tc Superconductors and the Josephson Junction Array System. Since joining NIE, he has been actively involved in educational work, both within NIE and at the national level. From being a member of the NIE committee that drew up its first NIE IT Plans in 1996, he had been actively involved in integrating IT into teaching, learning and administration in NIE; first as Sub Dean for the then School of Science (1999-2000), and as the Divisional Director for Academic Computing and Information Services (2000-3). As dean of Foundation Programmes (2003-8), he led a review of all initial teacher preparation programmes which were subsequently introduced in 2005. This work also led to the development of the Values, Skills and Knowledge framework that provided the basis upon which the programmes were built. He is currently the director of the Educational Technology Division at the Ministry of Education. 15

About the Contributors

Margus Pedaste is a senior researcher of educational technology at the University of Tartu in Estonia. He has been involved in international research community related to computer based learning environments, problem solving, and inquiry learning. He is an author of many research papers in this field and is actively participating in European Association for Research of Learning and Instruction. His main interest is to study the processes of computer-supported inquiry learning and problem solving in classroom settings. The recent research is on adapted support systems that are appropriate for increasing the effectiveness of students’ learning in technologically enhanced learning environments. At the same time he has been working as a regular teacher at school and for some years he has been the president of the Association of Estonian Biology Educators. Donatella Persico is senior researcher at the Institute for Educational Technology of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). She has been active in the field of educational technology, theory and applications, since 1981. Her major interests include instructional design, computer-supported collaborative learning, teacher training and self regulated learning. She is the author of educational material and scientific publications of various kinds, including books, educational software, multimedia material and research papers concerning aspects of educational technology. She serves as a member of the editorial board of international and national journals on Educational Technology and has been in charge of several national and international projects. Beverly Plester is a senior psychology lecturer at Coventry University in the UK, and has also taught psychology in the USA. Her major areas of research have been in developmental psychology, with children’s use of text message language being the most recent. Other areas have been young children’s understanding of aerial photographs and what a promise means. Yufeng Qian holds an EdD in educational technology from Lehigh University. She is currently an assistant professor in the School of Leadership Studies at St. Thomas University, where she teaches educational research and instructional technology courses and has developed the MS in education with a concentration in Instructional Technology program. She is also a member of the doctoral faculty in the EdD program in educational leadership. She lives with her family in Miami, Florida. Kerry Rice is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Technology at Boise State University where she teaches in an online Masters of Educational Technology program. Her interests include policy development and accountability processes in K-12 online education with a primary research focus on evaluating the quality of online teaching and the professional development needs of K-12 online teachers. Thomas G. Ryan, Ed.D. (OISE/UT) associate professor is teaching at Nipissing University (Laptop Program – Graduate Studies) – Faculty of Education in North Bay, Ontario, Canada. He is the author of The Reflexive Classroom Manager, The Reflexive Physical Educator, and The Reflexive Special Educator and teaches on-line with Campus Alberta. He can be reached at [email protected] Dr. Pavel Samsonov is an associate professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. His field of teaching and research is educational technology. Before his appointment at the University of Louisiana in August 2001 Dr. Samsonov taught computer literacy at a charter school in Texas. Since the beginning of his appointment Dr. Samsonov has been actively involved in teaching educational technology to

16

About the Contributors

in-service and pre-service teachers and in the research in this field. One of the aspects of his research is PowerPoint in education. With Ellen Finkelstein Dr. Samsnonov co-authored the book “PowerPoint for Teachers: Dynamic Presentations and Interactive Classroom Projects (Grades K-12),” Jossey-Bass Teacher, 2008. Tago Sarapuu is a full professor of educational technology in science and the head of the Centre for Science and Technology Education at the University of Tartu, Estonia. His research interests have been related to the influence of scaffolding on the solving model-based problems, support systems for problem solving activities in web-based simulation environments, and the role of contextualization of learning objects and support elements on the effectiveness of computer-based inquiry learning. He has been a chair of a number of Estonian projects of educational technology and he has participated in several international projects as well. He is also one of the developers of the biology curriculum for Estonian schools and the author of several biology textbooks. Kim Chwee Daniel Tan is an associate professor and deputy head (teaching and curriculum matters) in the Natural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group, National Institute of Education. His research interest are in the areas of students’ learning of science and their alternative conceptions, multimodality in science teaching and learning, and the use of information and communication technologies in science. Jo Tondeur is assistant professor at the Department of Educational Studies at Ghent University in Belgium. His research interests are in the field of school development, school improvement and instructional design. His actual field of research focuses now on the integrated use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in education. Chin-Chung Tsai holds a BSc in physics from National Taiwan Normal University. He received a master’s of education degree from Harvard University and a master’s of science degree from Teachers College, Columbia University. He completed his doctoral study also at Teachers College, Columbia University, 1996. From 1996 to 2006, he joined the faculty of Institute of Education and Center for Teacher Education at National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan. He is currently a chair professor at Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan. His research interests deal largely with constructivism, epistemological beliefs and Internet-based instruction. He is currently the associate editor of International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (published by Springer). In recent five years, he has published more than fifty papers in English-based international journals. His research work has been published in Science Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, International Journal of Science Education, Instructional Science, Teaching & Teacher Education, Computers and Education, British Journal of Educational Technology, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Computers in Human Behavior, Journal of Curriculum Studies and some other educational journals. Claudia C. Twiford is currently the Director of Instructional Technology at Elizabeth City State University, a position she has held since 2000. Before that, she taught in the public schools of North Carolina for almost 30 years, both as an elementary teacher and as a technology facilitator. She has

17

About the Contributors

a master’s degree in elementary education from East Carolina University and Computer Certification from the state of North Carolina, and is a member of the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) and Delta Kappa Gamma Pi Chapter. Her current interests include the Golden Leaf Elearning Hands-On Science for Elementary Teachers project, and the Adopt-a-School International Outreach partnership with Sosua, Dominican Republic. Ruben Vanderlinde is research assistant at the Department of Educational Studies at Ghent University, Belgium. His research focuses on ICT curriculum development and ICT policy planning. Maureen Walsh is associate professor and assistant head of the School of Education (NSW) at ACU National. Her position includes research project management, doctoral supervision, course coordination, course development and lecturing in Literacy Education, English Curriculum and TESOL in undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Walsh was a recipient of a Carrick Institute Australian Award for University Teaching in 2006 for ‘creative and sustained contribution to the field of literacy teacher education.’ She is an associate director of ACU National’s Mathematics and Literacy Education Research Flagship. Her doctoral research was in second language reading and her publications have been in second language learning, reading education, visual literacy and children’s literature. For some time her research interests and publications have focused on multimodal literacy and have featured in the journals Literacy, The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, and Synergy. Jennifer Way is currently a senior lecturer in mathematics education at the University of Sydney, Australia, and a vice president of the Mathematics Education Group of Australasia. She has current research projects in quality teaching, teacher professional development, multi-media learning object design and ICT education. Her previous major projects include the NRICH Internet project at the University of Cambridge (UK), co-editing of the book ICT and Primary Mathematics (Open University, UK), and co-editorship of the Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom journal. Nancy Wentworth is the associate dean of the McKay School of Education and professor of educational studies at Brigham Young University with interest in mathematics education and technology integration in inquiry learning. She was a co-editor of the book Integrating Information Technology into the Teacher Education Curriculum: Process and Products of Change. She has authored book chapters including Modeling Technology Integration In Instruction: Inquiry Learning In Teacher Education Courses in Integrated Technologies, Innovative Learning: Insights from the PT3 Program edited by S. Rhine & M. Bailey, and Faculty Learning To Use Technology: PT3-Supported Systemic Reform Initiative In Teacher Education in Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 2003 edited by M. A. Fitzgerald, M. Orey, & R. M. Branch. Several articles on integrated technology have been published in Computers in the Schools, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2008, and Theories & Practices in Supervision and Curriculum. Clare Wood (PhD) is reader in developmental psychology at Coventry University and has conducted research in the area of children’s reading for 15 years. Her research interests focus in particular on the development of phonological awareness, the contribution of speech skills to reading ability and the potential of new technology to support reading development. She has co-edited Developmental Psychology in Action (2006) and Psychological Development and Early Childhood (2005).

18

About the Contributors

Nicola Yelland is research professor of education in the School of Education, at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia. Her multidisciplinary research focus has enabled her to work with early childhood, primary and middle school teachers to enhance the ways in which ICT can be incorporated into learning contexts to make them more interesting and motivating for students, so that educational outcomes are improved. Her latest publications are Rethinking Learning in Early Childhood Education (OUP) and Rethinking Education with ICT: New Directions for Effective Practices (Sense Publishers). She is the author of Shift to the Future: Rethinking Learning with New Technologies in Education (Routledge, New York). She is also the author Gender in Early Childhood (Routledge, UK), Innovations in Practice (NAEYC) Ghosts in the Machine: Women’s Voices in Research with Technology (Peter Lang) and Critical Issues in Early Childhood (OUP). Nicola has worked in Australia, the USA, UK and Hong Kong.

19

1

Index

Symbols 21st century skills 607, 617, 618, 620, 630, 807, 820 3-Dimentional (3-D) online environments 256 A academic levels 217, 221, 222, 225, 226, 227 achievement 217, 220 action research 89, 92, 93, 98, 149, 163, 808 activity theory 154, 160, 162, 680, 773 adult learning theory 808 adult material 457, 459, 463, 465, 466 animations 21, 122, 136, 168, 175, 177, 178, 188, 197, 340, 351, 464, 474, 488 assistive technology 528, 542, 543, 546 asynchronous discussions 636 audio logs 668, 673, 676, 679, 681 authentic assessment 324, 701, 709, 718 authentic learning 65, 82, 122, 203, 206, 207, 208, 212, 213, 252, 302, 374, 591, 605, 654, 687 automated essay scoring 776, 777, 790, 791, 792 B barriers 419 Bayesian classification 781 black box 784, 786 blended learning 809, 811, 849

blogs 1, 3, 6, 7, 33, 34, 48, 51, 52, 56, 57, 59, 62, 79, 102, 111, 120, 130, 132, 133, 143, 200, 243, 258, 311, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 319, 358, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 371, 372, 373, 376, 377, 378, 380, 381, 386, 387, 459, 471, 475, 625, 627, 633, 670, 671, 675, 676, 684, 812, 821 book buddy 632, 638, 639, 644, 648, 649 bookmarking 316, 318, 319, 355, 373, 379, 380, 387 brain differences 297 C case studies 672, 673, 676, 677, 721, 774 classroom culture 157, 158 cognitive 216, 217, 218, 220, 221 collaborative concept mapping 513, 517, 520 collaborative documents 358, 360 collaborative inquiry 128, 129, 136, 142, 143, 273 collaborative planning 552, 555, 558 communities of practice 6, 76, 128, 129, 139, 140, 243, 366,674, 744, 843, 849 community of inquiry 688, 689, 695, 699, 841, 852 community of inquiry model 689, 699 computer assisted courses 297 computer mediated communication (CMC) 491 computer mediated conferencing 689, 691, 696, 699

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Index

computerized learning environments 216, 217 computer-meditated discussions 637 concept map 504, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 518, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524 constructively responsive reading 653, 655, 663, 666 constructivism 307, 322, 324 constructivist orientation 153, 155 constructivist-based teaching practices 687, 688, 692 context-aware guiding service 444 continuous improvement framework 816, 817 course assessment 760, 773, 774 course model 755, 756, 758, 759, 761, 763, 764, 771, 772 critical inquiry 688, 689, 692, 695 critical thinking 246, 294, 354, 363, 368, 371, 373, 377 cross-validation 778, 783 cultural gender differences 298 curriculum 190, 191, 192 cyberbullying 459, 463, 469 D design-based research 128, 131, 139 developmental disability (DD) 15 dialog box 482, 485 DIDL curriculum 196, 198 digital competence 103, 106 digital divide 52, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 85, 86, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 132, 190, 472, 477, 592, 670, 678 digital equity 73 digital games 107, 108, 438 digital generation 587, 588, 598, 601 digital immigrants 146, 214 digital immigrants 680 digital information 192, 195, 197 digital information driver’s license (DIDL) 194 digital literacy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 47, 402, 403, 407, 408, 414, 435, 439, 446, 450, 470, 471, 474,

2

476, 520, 607, 668, 677 digital literacy skills 403, 414, 435, 439, 450, 471, 668 digital portfolio 478 digital skills 103, 111, 118 digital texts 5, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 214, 455 distance education 680, 684, 686, 693, 695, 698 distributed cognition 439, 505, 507, 519, 522 E educational equity 620 educational software 16, 102, 105, 145, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 176, 177, 179, 180, 185, 186, 287, 344, 345, 400, 471 educational software 848 educational technology 851 educational technology 90 educational video games 298 edutainment 288, 298 elaborative text-processing strategies 657, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664 electron microscope 299, 300, 302, 303, 308, 317 electronic performance support system (EPSS) 528 electronic portfolio 702, 704, 708, 709, 714, 716, 717 empowerment 159, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 262, 302, 304 empowerment curriculum 194 empowerment rationale (ER) 192 e-pedagogy 591, 595, 598, 601 epistemic tool 748 epistemological beliefs 745, 753 epistemological views 152, 753 e-portfolio software 707, 708, 709, 711, 712, 713 ethics 91, 94, 121, 301, 310 external representation 224, 235 external standard 783

Index

F Facebook 33, 48, 52, 54, 55, 63, 66, 111, 243, 314, 316, 317, 381, 382 feedback 170, 171, 172, 173 field experience 822, 823, 824, 825, 829, 834, 835 filtering tool 456, 465, 467 flexible scheduling 554, 558, 559, 569, 570, 571 Flickr 12, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 130, 316 , 319, 356, 357, 358, 382, 383 folksonomic tagging 379, 386 folksonomy 352, 353, 355, 356, 357, 379, 386 formative assessment 719, 720, 722, 728, 731, 733, 734, 735, 740, 776 Frequency 1550 445, 446, 447, 454 G Gen Y 48, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 60, 63, 65 Global Positioning System (GPS) 444 “good faith” essays 785, 787 grant 575, 576, 577, 578 graphics 16, 21, 33, 36, 37, 39, 43, 44, 47, 60, 91, 122, 124, 168, 169, 170, 171, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 188, 197, 198, 208, 210, 292, 380, 386, 419, 422, 424, 434, 470, 472, 478, 480, 488, 516, 589, 704, 811, 812, 813 H higher level thinking 403, 405, 407, 408, 411, 414, 447, 706, 832 hotspot 482, 483, 484 hyperlinks 7, 23, 174, 176, 209, 210, 362, 363, 366, 478, 482, 485, 486, 599 hypermedia 529, 530 I ICT attainment targets 400 ICT coordinator 401 ICT infrastructure 391, 593, 594, 596

ICT integration 401, 596, 605 ICT policy plan 401 ICT skills 103, 106 illustrations 168, 169, 179 improper advertisements 460, 463, 464 Improved Student Achievement in Math and Science 809 informal learning 3, 6, 106, 107, 109, 113, 438, 444, 445, 452, 453 informal learning 493, 671, 672 information and communication technology (ICT) 101, 114, 132, 148, 633 information evaluation 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662 information searching 653, 654, 752 information society 102, 108, 112, 116, 118, 664 inquiry learning 154, 216, 217, 235, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 279, 281, 282, 411, 413, 415, 416, 433, 752, 793, 794, 796, 800, 801, 802, 823, 827, 828, 834, 835, 836, 852 inquiry skills 261, 267, 282 inquiry-based science learning 324 Institute for Educational Technology 838, 839 instructional design 69, 133, 136, 186, 200, 202, 213, 215, 277, 278, 307, 366, 367, 374, 422, 429, 434, 529, 585, 667, 685, 690, 813, 831, 839, 841, 842, 843, 845, 848 instructional technology 288, 298 interactive classroom communication systems (ICCS) 719, 737 Interactive Digital Media (IDM) 120, 121 interactive literacy environments 648 interactive video conferencing 628 interactive whiteboard 551, 566, 605, 648 interactivity 419, 422, 479, 480, 486, 487, 599, 636, 694, 720, 735, 737, 740 International Society for Technology in Education 403, 415, 449, 452, 576, 826, 837 Internet reading 654, 663, 664 ISTE NETS-T 825, 837

3

Index

Italian National Research Council 838, 839 J job-embedded professional development 808 K Kaiser Family Foundation 50, 57, 64, 67, 74, 85, 254 Kendall, Lori 53 knowledge society 102, 113, 118, 254, 399, 603, 838 L latent semantic analysis 788, 790, 791, 792 learner control 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 184, 185 learner voice 669, 671, 675, 676, 681 learner-centered instructional practices 683, 687 learner-centered knowledge building environment 257 learning communities (LC) 755 learning community 258, 271, 313, 357, 365, 376, 381, 384 learning object 418, 420, 421, 422, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 431, 432, 433, 434 learning platforms 6, 11 learning technologies 102, 253, 419, 672, 679, 680, 774 learning while mobile 438 literate activity 203, 204, 212 longitudinal study 147, 818 LXP project 668, 673, 679, 681 M mathematical learning 793 media sharing 377, 382, 383 meta-cognitive 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 230, 233, 234, 235, 237 metacognitive strategies 636, 655, 656, 657, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663 methodological approaches 668, 676, 681

4

methodology 190, 192, 200 middle school 260, 266, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 307, 316, 320, 360 mild disabilities 528, 529, 542, 544, 546 mindtool 520 moderation 754, 756, 758, 759, 760, 761, 764, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773 Moodle 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 819, 820, 821 multiliteracies 32, 34, 43, 46, 47, 80, 81, 86, 213 multimedia literacies 470, 471, 474, 475, 476 multimedia-based environment 271 multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) 759 multiple means of representation 22, 23, 24, 25 museum 442, 444, 446, 455 MyArtSpace 441, 442, 446, 455 N nanotechnology 299, 300, 301, 303, 305, 308 National Education Association (NEA) 685, 697 National Literacy Strategy 343, 349 National School Board Association 54, 66 natural language processing (NLP) 778 Net Generation 470, 471, 473, 474, 478, 492, 502, 504, 669, 670, 680 networked learning (NL) 839 new literacies 11, 12, 46, 86, 120, 127, 204, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212 new media 1, 2, 5, 22, 43, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 60, 65, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 83, 127, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 200, 242, 243, 246, 248, 253, 257, 264, 265, 266, 299, 352, 354, 361, 402 new media 503, 606, 607, 608, 615, 616, 618 new media literacy 72, 73, 79, 82, 83, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 200, 264, 265, 361, 402, 606, 607, 615

Index

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 554, 620, 807 North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) 685, 699, 820 O Online course management systems 809 Online gaming & gambling 459, 463 online tools 388, 401 Outdoor Location-Aware Learning System (OLALS) 444 P page test 782, 786 paradigm 32, 34, 145, 150, 157, 159, 160, 190, 205, 314, 322, 370, 385, 438, 451 participatory Web 353 pedagogy 9, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 65, 80, 86, 102, 116, 122, 125, 126, 133, 146, 147, 153, 192, 201, 236, 237, 246, 292, 307, 309, 315, 320, 321, 325, 326, 329, 354, 372, 374, 385, 404, 415, 447, 516, 551, 567, 572, 587, 590, 591, 592, 593, 595, 596, 598, 601, 602, 605, 633, 671, 680, 681, 686, 688, 693, 753, 826, 830, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837 peer feedback 745, 746, 747, 753 PEP research 447, 448 Pew Internet & American Life 66, 86, 130, 141 phonological awareness 341, 342, 343, 344, 347, 348, 349 podcast 383, 387 post-graduate school in secondary teaching 839 PowerPoint 479, 480, 481, 484 presentation of specific stereotypes 460, 463 pre-service teachers 621, 623, 626, 628, 629, 714 prior knowledge 405, 406, 506, 509, 511, 514, 520, 521, 527, 598, 639, 654, 655, 658, 659, 662, 663, 667, 702, 745, 746, 748

problem-solving 215, 216, 217 procedural knowledge 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 238 profanities 463 professional development 607, 609, 611, 685, 688, 693, 694, 703, 705, 706, 707, 7 11, 807, 808, 809, 810, 813, 817, 81 8, 819, 820, 821, 839, 843, 851 Q Quality Teaching and Learning (QTL) 567 R racism 460, 463 raters 726, 778, 781, 783, 785 re-access strategies 656, 657, 665 reading assessments 298 reading difficulties 341 reading strategies 343, 347, 348, 350 regression 781, 783 RSS feeds 316, 317, 373, 378, 379, 382, 384, 387 rubric 708, 710, 711, 813, 817, 831, 832 S safer Internet 457, 465, 468 scaffolding 216, 217 school-wide projects 555, 561, 564, 565, 566, 572 science education 141, 237, 254, 266, 267, 281, 309, 321, 322, 323, 324, 417, 525, 666, 736, 751, 752, 802, 804 search actions 656, 660, 661, 662 Second Life 3, 33, 48, 62, 63, 64, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 265, 266, 267, 316, 320 second marker 787 self-determination 535, 546, 547 self-efficacy 687, 688, 697, 705, 707, 745, 750, 753, 824, 835 self-regulated learning (SRL) 838, 839 self-regulation 523, 529, 533, 542, 772, 774, 794, 795, 800, 803, 804, 839, 848, 850

5

Index

seven principles of effective teaching 683, 687, 694 sexual discrimination or favouritism 459, 463 shared vision 389, 391, 395, 396, 561, 563, 569, 575, 579, 580, 582 short message service 492 simulation-based learning 236, 269, 275 singular value decomposition (SVD) 780 situation awareness 271, 276, 277, 278 slide 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484 smart phones 478 social bookmarking 316, 318, 319, 324, 373, 379, 380, 386, 387 social inclusion 73, 79, 82 social network analysis (SNA) 759 social networking 1, 2, 3, 33, 34, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 63, 67, 130, 261, 301, 307, 309, 313, 314, 315, 317, 372, 373, 377, 381, 382, 383, 385, 387, 471, 605, 670, 671, 674, 679, 810 socio-economic status (SES) 73 Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) 685, 698 space holder 481, 482, 483, 484, 485 special needs 404, 440, 529, 530, 531, 537, 538, 541, 542, 599 speech feedback 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 347, 348, 350, 351 staff development 552, 554, 555 STaR (School Technology and Readiness) 576 Student Evaluation of Online Teaching Effectiveness (SEOTE) 692 student-centered approaches 694 subject-matter component 219, 220, 221, 224, 231, 232, 233, 234 sustainable change 84 T tag cloud 357 tagging 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 369, 370, 379, 382, 384, 386 talking books 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350

6

teacher work sample (TWS) 822, 823, 824, 831, 837 teacher-centered methods 145 technology coach 574, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583 technology integration 150, 153, 162, 295, 368, 399, 438, 446, 521, 550, 551, 552, 554, 558, 561, 562, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 572, 575, 577, 582, 585, 607, 609, 610, 619, 620, 621, 626, 627, 628, 629, 808, 809, 825, 826, 827, 829, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 843, 850 technology integration course 826, 837 technology-enhanced classrooms 153 technology-enhanced environments 151 text categorisation (TCT) 780 text messaging 436, 470, 474, 478, 492, 493, 496, 498, 502 text-based literacy 14 texting 449, 450, 472, 474 texting 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 588 textism 496, 497, 498, 499 think-aloud method 663 traditional literacy 298 transition planning 530, 532, 533, 540 transmedia literacy skills 261, 268 Turing test 782, 786, 787 Twitter 48, 63, 64 type II technology 620, 621, 622, 628 U ubiquitous computing 437, 438, 439, 446, 450, 451, 453, 454 ultramobile computers 478 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 299 universal design for learning (UDL) 16 V video logs 676 videoblog 384 virtual learning community 632, 648

Index

virtual learning environments (VLE) 48 virtual worlds 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 126, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 265, 266, 267, 373, 506, 588, 684 visual literacy 298 visual representations 609 Vygotskian theory 243 W water quality 443 Web 2.0 1 Web Inquiry Projects (WIPs) 413 Web-based instruction 683, 687, 692, 695 Webcast 383 Webconference 384 WebQuest 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 416, 417, 712, 828

whole-person development wikis 3, 6, 33, 102, 132, 258, 313, 317, 318, 353, 354, 358, 359, 366, 372, 373, 381, 625, 627, 670, 684,

125, 133, 319, 360, 387, 812

126 143, 243, 352, 361, 365, 471, 474,

Y Yackpack 48, 58, 62 Yahoo! 48, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 67 Z zone of proximal development 238, 243, 244, 254

7