Why do we use Web 2.0 Technologies in the Classroom?

Web 2.0 technologies have assisted teachers to implement engaging directed and constructivist pedagogical approaches toward classroom teaching. Directed methods include drill and practice software such as multiple choice quizzes, cloze passages, games and tutorials to encourage mastery and help with the assessment of course concepts and outcomes (Roblyer and Doering, 2013). Constructivist methods utilise Web 2.0 technologies to encourage and engage students in higher order thinking skills by ‘Flipping’ classrooms (The University of Queensland, n.d) and engaging students in collaborative blogs and wikis with opportunities for self directed learning. Puentedura (2013) identifies the integration of technology to achieve creative learning outcomes as addressing Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK (2006) and an example of a redefinition of the traditional approach to learning tasks using the SAMR model of pedagogical design.

Web 2.0 technologies such as social media have become increasingly popular among students and it is important for education institutions to develop their staffs’ skills in their use. The development of Web 2.0 platforms such as micro/ blogs and social media have made significant changes to the way education institutions can seek to engage students. Lifelong learners will identify with the need to develop skills in the use of Web 2.0 platforms because they offer a rich and more democratic organisation of knowledge that can be shared through collaboration. Educators who are seeking to use Web 2.0 technologies in their classroom are demonstrating that there may not be a digital divide between Prensky’s (2001) digital natives and digital immigrants. Haigh (2011) argues that attitude toward the use of technology is an important factor in dispelling the myth of teachers being digital immigrants. Teachers who adopt a lifelong approach to learning will necessarily demonstrate responsible, positive, democratic and constructive attitudes toward Web 2.0 technologies that are so important with 21st C learners. In this way, Josie Fraser (cited in Anyangwe, 2012) of Leicester City Council outlines the needs and advantages of working with Web 2.0 environments that can be more flexible for educators seeking to keep up with social change and remain relevant to their audiences who engage with mobile technologies on a daily basis. Helen Beetham (cited in Anyangwe, 2012) also highlights the personal, cultural and social aspects of integrating technology in classrooms ethical ways are important considerations for teachers so that a more student centred approach can be achieved.

 

References:

 

Eliza Anyangwe (2012). ’20 ways of thinking about digital literacy in higher education’. The Guardian Newspaper. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/may/15/digital-literacy-in-universities.

 

Haigh, G. (2011). Open University research explodes myth of ‘digital native’. Retrieved from: http://www.agent4change.net/resources/research/1088

 

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054. Retrieved from: http://www.sharonzspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/mishra-koehler-tcr2006.pdf

 

Puentedura, R. (2013_a). SAMR and TPCK: A Hands-On Approach to Classroom Practice. Retrieved from: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/12/11/SAMRandTPCK_HandsOnApproachClassroomPractice.pdf

 

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved from: http://www.nnstoy.org/download/technology/Digital%20Natives%20-%20Digital%20Immigrants.pdf

 

Roblyer, M. and Doering, A. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Education Limited. Kindle Edition.

 

The University of Queensland (n.d.) About Flipped Classrooms: What is a ‘flipped classroom’?. Retrieved from: http://www.uq.edu.au/tediteach/flipped-classroom/what-is-fc.html
Roblyer, M. and Doering, A. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Education Limited. Kindle Edition.

Addressing the Issues of Copyright and Plagiarism when using the Internet for Research in Year 11 Modern History

Addressing the issues of copyright and plagiarism in the introduction of Year 11 Modern History can also provide teachers with a valuable opportunity to explain the positive and negative aspects of using the internet for research. Roblyer and Doering (2013) suggest that teachers address copyright and plagiarism issues by teaching students about the rules and using websites designed to check for plagiarism and copyright issues. In the introduction to any internet based activity it would be useful for teachers to revise the rules of copyright and plagiarism briefly and if further clarification was needed, students could be referred to an educational tutorial called All My Own Work’  by the New South Wales Board of Studies [NSW BOS] (2011) that has been designed to address these issues. All My Own Work’ is an engaging set of internet self- paced tutorial style modules for students to complete at the conclusion of Year 10. Modules three and four address Plagiarism and Copyright (NSW BOS, 2011). Brief revision of this tutorial as a class activity when introducing internet based activities in Year 11 Modern History may encourage students to develop their referencing skills and help them avoid issues of plagiarism and copyright.

 

References:

 

Roblyer, M. and Doering, A. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Education Limited. Kindle Edition.

NSW BOS (New South Wales Board of Studies) (2011). HSC: All My Own Work. Retrieved from: http://amow.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/index.html

Planning Lessons with Technology

Planning lessons with technology can provide teachers with an exciting opportunity to efficiently cover the course syllabus (content) while using the latest student centred (pedagogical) approaches. Recent scholarship has focused on constructing frameworks for a more standardised approach to the use of innovative technologies as a response to education policy developments that advocate the increased use of classroom technologies (Gonski, et al. 2011). The TPACK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006), TIP (Roblyer and Doering 2013), and SAMR (Puentedura, 2013) models of technological integration in the classroom offer viable frameworks for implementing and innovating classroom practice for educators as a response to policy developments. Jimoyiannis (2010) highlights the importance of effective lesson preparation for teachers implementing these policy changes and integrating technology into classrooms to support active learning and avoid the disassociation that can occur when the pedagogical approach is not coherent with course content because of a lack of technological knowledge. Scholarly research on the affordances of classroom technologies such as interactive whiteboards (Jang, 2010; Jang and Tsai, 2012) have highlighted the important role that TPACK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006) can provide in analysing the use of technology in relation to course content and pedagogy. Analysing the specific uses of technology by comparing content and pedagogical uses of technology using the TPACK framework helps teachers to develop their appropriation of the latest digital knowledge so that a disassociation between the technology and the content/ pedagogy can be avoided. Ideally then teachers can use TPACK to clearly and directly identify the technology knowledge needed to make the use of that technology transparent and seamless across content and pedagogy. In this way Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber and Miller (2009) suggest that TPACK is a useful metacognitive tool for teachers to develop lessons that incorporate new technologies to efficiently address the learning outcomes of students using the affordances of technologies to move toward more student centred learning environments. Roblyer and Doering (2013) propose a combined directed and constructivist approach toward technology integration strategies such as the TPACK framework because it affords the use of technologies for increasing knowledge and fostering collaborative skills needed in student centred learning environments.

There is an increasing focus on research into the TPACK framework with the aim of developing clearer and more direct assessment criteria for teachers to implement technology in meaningful and measurable ways (Archambault and Crippen, 2009; Archambault and Barnett, 2010; Kabakci- Yurdakul, et al., 2011; Kabakci- Yurdakul, et al., 2012; Cox and Graham, 2009; Graham, 2009; Graham, 2011). Graham (2011) highlights the difficult nature of implementing TPACK for an analysis of the use of technology within the realms of content and pedagogical knowledge because the are significant areas that overlap and increase the complexity of the framework to an unsustainable level. Graham (2011) does however argue that the popularity of TPACK as an integrative [metacognitive] framework is because it has a high degree of parsimony. The TPACK model then offers a potential standardisation for a flexible approach toward the integration of technology not only within but also across curriculum areas because it simplifies direct relationships between syllabus content and the use of technology. The conceptual nature of TPACK also provides a framework that is less restricted by boundaries between content and pedagogy that can inhibit the necessary changes needed in the definition of WHAT technologies are being used in the classroom as new methods become popular. Roblyer and Doering (2013) suggest that teachers utilise TPACK to measure their ‘tech’ knowledge in Phase One of the Technology Integration Planning Model (TIP) (See Image Two).

Measuring levels of ‘tech’ knowledge can assist in identifying areas where improvement is needed when employing the affordances of digital technologies in student centred learning environments. Roblyer and Doering’s (2013) Phase Two and Three of the TIP model involve a balance of both directed and constructivist pedagogical approaches to the presentation and assessment of curriculum content using frameworks such as Bloom’s Taxonomy and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences. Puentedura (2013) argues that teachers who employ ‘tech’ frameworks [such as TPACK and TIP] can develop more student centred approaches using the SAMR model (See Image Three) that are more in line with the development of Bloom’s higher order thinking skills because they utilise new technologies as valid components of formative assessment. Roberts (2013) suggests that further innovations can be made by applying SAMR more directly to the innovation of pedagogical approaches toward student centred learning tasks (See Image Four and this video) that Pink (2009) argues offer a more intrinsic set of motivators for achievement because they are more autonomous and self directed.

Kathy Schrock (2014) has identified a significant amount of overlapping in Puentedura’s (2013) SAMR model (See Image Five) and Robert’s TECH model (See Image Six) when comparing the features to Bloom’s taxonomy and this is comparable to the complexity identified by Graham (2011) with TPACK for teachers when analysing the distinct definitions of ‘tech’ content and pedagogy. The TPACK, TIP and SAMR frameworks provide teachers with more standardised approaches to iterative implementation and innovation with the use of technology for classroom learning environments but as Lightle (2011) argues – it is not all about the technology. Teachers can utilise the TPACK, TIP and SAMR frameworks to develop the latest technologies such as IPad, Android, Windows and other Web 2.0 applications as they relate to higher order thinking taxonomies. Penney (2013) has developed an interactive web page that links a range of Web 2.0 apps for education according to their placement on Churches’ (2009) revised Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy pyramid (See Image Seven). Schrock (2013) has further assembled a range of Ipad, Android and Google apps for levels of digital taxonomies (See Images Eight, Nine and Ten respectively). Carrington (2012, 2013) has further developed Schrock’s SAMR model taxonomy to directly relate the new digital affordances of mobile IPad technologies for educational pedagogies (See Image Eleven).

Teachers can utilise new pedagogical frameworks such as TPACK, TIP and SAMR to help encourage the appropriate use of technology so that curriculum content is innovative and engaging for student centred learning environments.

Images:

 

Image Five: Bloom’s and SAMR: My thoughts – Schrock (2013)

Copyright: Please visit: Bloom’s and SAMR: My thoughts, Bloomin’ Apps

Image Six: Bloom’s and TECH: My thoughts, Bloomin’ Apps – Schrock (2013)

Copyright: Please visit: Bloom’s and TECH: My thoughts, Bloomin’ Apps

 

References:

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88. Retrieved from: http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm

 

Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656– 1662. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131510002010

 

Carrington, A. (2012). The Padagogy Wheel … it’s a Bloomin’ Better Way to Teach. Retrieved from: http://www.unity.net.au/allansportfolio/edublog/?p=324

 

Carrington, A. (2013). The Padagogy Wheel v. 3. Retrieved from: http://www.unity.net.au/padwheel/padwheelposterV3.pdf”

 

Churches, A. (2009). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Retrieved from: http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v3.01.pdf

 

Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. Tech Trends, 53(5), 60–69.

 

Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319–346.

 

Dunn, J. (2013), Integrate iPads Into Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy With This ‘Padagogy Wheel’. Edudemic: Connecting Education and Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.edudemic.com/integrate-ipads-into-blooms-digital-taxonomy-with-this-padagogy-wheel/

 

Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: measuring the TPCK confidence of inservice science teachers. Tech Trends, 53(5), 70–79.

 

Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953-1960.

 

Gonski, D., K. Boston, K. Greiner, C. Lawrence, B. Scales, and P. Tannock (2011). Review of Funding for Schooling – Final Report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Retrieved from: http://www.appa.asn.au/content/gonski-report/Review-of-Funding-for-Schooling-Final-Report-Dec-2011.pdf

 

Jang, S. J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744–1751.

 

Jang, S. J., & Tsai, M. F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327-338.

 

Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269

 

Kabakci Yurdakul, I., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education 58 (3), 964-977.

 

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101-111). Springer New York.

 

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (in press). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Knowledge. In AACTE (Eds.). The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators. To be published by AACTE and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

Lightle, K. (2011). More than just the technology. Science Scope, 34(9), 6-9. Retrieved from: http://cmapspublic2.ihmc.us/rid=1KLP3DK45-28LFPZJ-19T4/More%20than%20Just%20the%20Technology.%20pdf.pdf

 

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054.

 

Penney, S. (2014). Bloom’s Taxonomy Pyramid. Retrieved from: http://faculty.indstate.edu/spenney/bdt.htm

 

Pink, D. (2009). The puzzle of motivation. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y#t=835

 

Puentedura, R. (2013_a). SAMR and TPCK: A Hands-On Approach to Classroom Practice. Retrieved from: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/12/11/SAMRandTPCK_HandsOnApproachClassroomPractice.pdf

 

Puentedura, R. (2013_a). Technology In Education: A Brief Introduction. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMazGEAiZ9c&feature=youtu.be

 

Roberts, J. (2013). Turning SAMR into TECH: What models are good for. Literacy, Technology, Policy, Etc….A Blog. Retrieved from: http://www.litandtech.com/2013/11/turning-samr-into-tech-what-models-are.html

 

Roblyer, M. D. and Doering, Aaron H. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Education Limited. Kindle Edition.

 

Schrock, K. (2014). Bloom’s and TECH: My thoughts, Bloomin’ Apps. Kathy Schrock’s Guide to Everything. Retrieved from: http://www.schrockguide.net/bloomin-apps.html

Benefits and Challenges of BYOD

Public schools in NSW have recently modified their approach toward the use of digital devices in their networked classrooms by implementing ‘Bring Your Own Device’ (BYOD) policies. Previous digital device policies that were developed as part of the Digital Education Revolution (DER) initiative (2009- 2013) took a more conservative approach to the use of NSW Department of Education and Communities (DEC) school networks because wireless communications are more vulnerable to security risks. The DER laptops were ‘locked’ to prevent students from installing 3rd party software that may be a threat to the network. The DER initiative was maintained at our school with little interruption from security threats and a majority of students began their journey of digital identity development with their new laptops. Each year the laptops issued had better specifications with more memory and speed, however as the Digital Education Advisory Group (2013) suggest, they were expensive to maintain and new BYOD initiatives were developed to mitigate this growing cost. The locking of laptops, while understandable also became the catalyst for a manifestation of what Buchanan (2011) describes as a paradox in ethical approaches to digital pedagogy for teachers. Students pushed the boundaries of the laptop loan agreements by attempting a range of methods to unlock their device mostly in a benign attempt to install games and the laptops had to be re-imaged or in some cases even damaged physically in the process of removing security features on the motherboards. Students were prevented from playing games on the laptops, however, they were also prevented from using non- commercial operating systems such as those based on Linux that facilitate what Giroux (2004) describes as ‘public pedagogy’ and the development of an ethical approach to the use of technology in the classroom. Paradigm shifts toward the sustainable use of technology with Web 2.0 tools that avoid the need for particular operating systems and proprietary software have seen an explosion in collaborative projects over the internet. Web 2.0 has facilitated cross platform technologies where people using Apple computers can chat, talk, video conference, collaborate and work with colleagues using Microsoft and or Linux operating systems. Web 2.0 tools have also made collaborative activities easier through the use of word processor style graphical interfaces similar to word document software without the need for it to be installed on a computer. Buchanan (2011) argues that Web 2.0 tools facilitate the pedagogical process of education institutions who seek to involve students in critical thinking that can “enable them to both read the world critically and participate in shaping and governing it”. Social networking applications such as Facebook and Twitter have been instrumental in facilitating the engagement of students in ethical social action (Boyd and Ellison, 2008; Collin & Apple, 2010; Ledesma, 2010). Recent social networking on twitter (Law, 2014; Ruppert, 2014)

#illridewithyou

#illridewithyou #illridewithyou

has demonstrated a paradigm shift toward a more culturally aware society that can be achieved through the use of technology that utilises innovative and responsible mobile technologies. The Digital Education Advisory Group (2013) have highlighted the importance of mobile technologies in classroom environments and the subsequent need for modifications to classroom pedagogy that facilitate the use of smart devices. The Digital Education Advisory Group (2013) suggest that smart mobile devices and innovative technologies like Twitter can be used to address outcomes related to collaborative learning skills through group learning, role plays and simulations. For students who are using the DEC network at NSW public schools social media and networking websites are blocked by the proxy filters and are therefore unable to be accessed in a reliable and cost effective way for classroom use, however this may soon change. The challenge for educators is to develop meaningful ways for students to address the syllabus outcomes of the courses that they are completing while using technology in socially responsible and ethical ways. Roblyer and Doering (2013) outline a range of challenges for the classroom teachers when using social networking applications in BYOD environments (Goodman, 2011; Mitchell, Wolak and Finklehore, 2007; Levy, 2010; Juvon and Goss, 2008) and argue that successfully navigating a way through related social equity issues can be facilitated with an ethical approach to technology use in the classroom.

 

References:

 

Ballagas, R., Rohs, M., Sheridan, J. G., & Borchers, J. (2004, September). Byod: Bring your own device. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Ubiquitous Display Environments, Ubicomp (Vol. 2004).

 

Boyd, d.m. & Ellison, N.B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer – Mediated Communication, 13, 210 – 230.

 

Buchanan, R. (2011). Paradox, Promise and Public Pedagogy: Implications of the Federal Government’s Digital Education Revolution. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 67-78.

 

Collin, R. & Apple, M.W. (2010). New Literacies and New Rebellions in the Global Age. In M.W. Apple (Ed.), Global Crises, Social Justice, and Education. London: Routledge.

 

Digital Education Advisory Group (DEAG) (2013). Beyond the classroom: A new digital education for young Australians in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/deag_beyond_the_classroom_2013.pdf

 

Giroux, H.A. (2004). Cultural Studies and the politics of public pedagogy: Making the political more pedagogic al. Parallax, 10 (2), 73- 89.

 

Law, J., (2014) #illridewithyou: Twitter sprouts anti-Islamophobia campaign. Retrieved on 15-12-14 from: http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/illridewithyou-twitter-sprouts-anti-islamophobia-campaign/story-fnjwnhzf-1227157197523

 

Ledesma, P. (2010). Facebook: Empowering Student Government and Democracy. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/leading from the classroom/2010/11/facebook empowering student government democracy.html

 

Roblyer, M., and Doering, A. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: International Edition, 6th Edition, Pearson.

 

Ruppert, B., (2014) Martin Place siege: #illridewithyou hashtag goes viral. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/martin-place-siege-illridewithyou-hashtag-goes-viral-20141216-127rm1.html