Tag Archives: constructivist pedagogy

INF 533 – Task 4 – Part A – The thinking

Date
Posted by
Comments0

THE THINKING

Citation:  

Templeton, T. (2020). White Australia Policy [Sway]. Daramalan College Teacher Resources. Daramalan College Library. Canberra.

 The Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 was one of the first pieces of legislation created by the newly formed Australian Federal Government and is the main focus of this digital narrative (DN).  Commonly referred to as the White Australia Policy (WAP), the Act was designed to maintain racial homogeneity and the economic value of the Australian man (Fong, 2018).   Whilst the Act is addressed in Year 10 History and Senior Modern History, the cognitive and curriculum focus of this DST is aimed at the 9/10 History Unit of work – Australia – From Federation to the Bicentennial  (ACARA, 2014a; ACARA; 2014b).  The utilisation of a multimodal DN in a  flipped classroom (FC) dynamic was a strategic ploy to encourage student ownership of learning, approach sensitive content suitably, promote collegial discussion, and allow the teacher to meet the needs of a diverse classroom (Gonzales, 2016; Schmidt and Ralph, 2016, p.1).    

Pedagogy 

Digital storytelling (DST) is an emerging pedagogical practice that effectively combines technology and literary work for use in recreational, personal or educational endeavours (Ciccorico, 2012; Ohler, 2013, p.94).  It is the modern adaptation of oral traditions, and the use of the narrative structure promotes reflective processes whilst communicating content in a manner that meets the cognitive, behavioural and developmental needs of students (Vidales-Bolanos and Sadaba-Chalezquer, 2017).  DST promotes Information Communication Technology (ICT) acuity, competency in digital literacies and a participatory culture, as it encourages students to move beyond passive consumption and into interacting and creating with it (Leu et al., 2011; Hashim and Vongkulluksn, 2018).  

 A DN created with Microsoft Sway allows students to interact with the different literacies and interactive elements, furthering valuable 21st century skills and improving the quality of transactions between the narrative and the reader (Ciccorico, 2012; Moran et al., 2020).   The format allows for the successful integration of visual and audio resources, and the use of personal devices increases teen engagement because technology is intrinsically linked to a teen’s social capital  (Moran et al., 2020, p.6; Vidales-Bolanos and Sadaba-Chalezquer, 2017).    

 Classroom Context 

Flipped classrooms (FC) are a transformative student centred teaching strategy with two distinct components, an external technology-based component followed by an interactive section (Ozdamli and Asiksoy, 2016, p.99; Schmidt and Ralph, 2016, p1.).   This inverted learning sequence allows students to gain access to the content prior to the lesson, which then allows for the teacher to facilitate discussion and meet the varying needs of the students (Basal, 2015; Schmidt and Ralph, 2016, p.1).  Implementing FC also allows student learning and engagement to be observed, documented and any misconceptions clarified (Leask, 2014).   As Schmidt & Ralph (2006, p.1) point out, guided discussion is essential for all students but especially for low literacy and ability students.  FC are constructivist in nature, self-paced, promote student ownership of learning and build critical study skills which are essential for lifelong learning (Basal, 2015).  

  Digital Technologies 

Digital technologies and multimodal resources (MR) are an integral aspect of DN and other modern classroom pedagogies (Ibrahim, 2020).  MR can be static, such as picture books and graphic novels, or dynamic such as Sway, Powerpoint, Thinglink, digital textbooks, and interactive websites (Ibrahim, 2020).  This DN utilises Sway and Thinglink because the software programs embed together well, and their combined interactivity promotes engagement as well as encourage gestural manipulation to access information (Ibrahim, 2012; Heick, 2017).  

 The resources themselves do not espouse learning.  Instead it is the juxtaposition of media which conveys information at the correct level and the subsequent class discussion that has the greatest impact on student learning (Mayer and Morena, 2005; Ibrahim, 2012).  When multimodal information complement and enhance each other, the brain is able to decode, deduce, categorise and construct this new information efficiently upon prior knowledge and thereby reducing the cognitive load (Mayer and Morena, 2005; Ibrahim 2012; David, 2020).  But when the varying forms of media have less than optimum layout and delivery, the brain becomes overloaded and processing time increases leading to an increased cognitive load leading to lower comprehension and failure to make meaning (David, 2020).  Therefore, it is important that DN created for use in a classroom setting utilise the multimedia principles to ensure cognitive load is maintained for optimum intellectual performance (Ibrahim, 2012; Heick, 2017). 

 School Context – Students:  

Daramalan College is a culturally diverse co-educational high school with many students’ descendants of the post war immigration schemes (ABS, 2016).  Therefore, discretion and finesse are required when addressing outdated perceptions of race and ethnic diversity.  The utilisation of a DST in a FC allows the student to process the information privately and then engage in discussion to develop further understanding.  

 School Context – Technology: 

Sway was selected due to its inclusion in the school’s subscription to Microsoft Office and that it can be successfully catalogued into the library management system.  This meets the requirements dictated by the school’s Collection Management and Development Policy.  Other benefits include its intuitiveness, ease of use and ability to integrate multimodal resources.   

REFERENCES: 

ACARA. (2014)a. HASS – History Curriculum. F-10 Curriculum. Educational Services Australia. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/history/ 

ACARA. (2014b). Modern History Unit 4 – HASS. Senior Secondary Curriculum. Educational Services Australia. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/senior-secondary-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/modern-history/ 

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). 2016 Census Quick Stats – Australia Capital Territory (No. 8ACTE). Retrieved from https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/8ACTE?opendocument. 

Basal, A. (2015). The implementation of a flipped classroom in foreign language teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 16 (4). DOI:: 10.17718/tojde.72185 

Ciccoricco, D. (2012). Chapter 34 – Digital fiction – networked narratives. In Bray, J., Gibbons, A., & McHale, B. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Experimental Literature. Taylor & Francis eBooks. Retrieved from CSU Library. 

Cornet, C. E. (2014). Integrating the literary arts throughout the curriculum. In Creating meaning through literature and the arts: arts integration for Classroom teachers (5th ed,) pp144-193. USA 

David, L. (2020). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer). Learning Theories. Retrieved from https://www.learning-theories.com/cognitive-theory-of-multimedia-learning-mayer.html 

 Fong, N. (2018). The significance of the Northern Territory in the formulation of ‘White Australia’s Policies’ 1880-1901. Australian Historical Studies, 49 (4), p.527-545. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1031461X.2018.1515963 

Gonzalez, J. (2016). Graphic novels in the classroom. [Blog] Cult of Pedagogy. Retrieved from https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/teaching-graphic-novels/ 

Hashim, A., & VongKulluskn, V. (2018). E reader apps and reading engagement: A descriptive case study. Computers and Education 125, pp.358-375. Retrieved from https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-and-education/ 

Heick, T. (2017). What is cognitive load theory? A definition for teachers. TeachThought. Retrieved from https://www.teachthought.com/learning/cognitive-load-theory–definition-teachers/ 

Ibrahim, M. (2012). Implications of designing instructional video using cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Critical Questions in Education 3(2), p.83-104. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1047003 

Leask, A. (2014). 5 reasons why the flipped classroom benefits educators. Enable Education – Online learning solutions. Retrieved from https://www.enableeducation.com/5-reasons-why-the-flipped-classroom-benefits-educators/ 

Leu, D.J., Forzani, E., Timbrell, N., & Maykel, C. (2015). Seeing the forest, not the trees: Essential technologies for literacy in primary grade and upper elementary grade classroom. Reading Teacher 69: (2), p.139-145. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1073399. 

Mannheim, M. (2020). Canberra is expanding Australia’s biggest free public WiFi network but how many people use it? ABC News Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-13/canberra-expands-free-wifi-but-fewer-people-are-using-it/12551266 

Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (1998). A Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning: Implications for Design Principles. CHI 1998. DOI:10.1177/1463499606066892 

Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2005). A cognitive theory of multimedia learning; Implications for design principles. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248528255_A_Cognitive_Theory_of_Multimedia_Learning_Implications_for_Design_Principles 

Moran, R., Lamie, C., Robertson, L., & Tai, C. (2020). Narrative writing, digital storytelling, and coding: Increasing motivation with young readers and writers. Australian Literacy Educators Association, 25 (2), p.6-10. Retrieved from https://primo.csu.edu.au/permalink/61CSU_INST/15aovd3/cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A627277934 

NSW Migration Heritage Centre. (2010). Australian migration history timeline – 1945-1965. Powerhouse Museum Collections. Retrieved from http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibition/objectsthroughtime-history/1945-1965/index.html 

Ohler, J.B. (2013). Digital storytelling in the classroom. New media pathways to literacy, learning, and creativity (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Retrieved from https://primo.csu.edu.au/permalink/61CSU_INST/1hkg98a/alma991012780180302357 

Ozdamli, F., & Asiksoy, G. (2016). Flipped classroom approach. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues. 8(2), p98-105. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1141886.pdf 

Schmidt, S. & Ralph, D. (2016). The flipped classroom: a twist on teaching. Contemporary Issues in Education Research. 9(1). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1087603.pdf 

Vidales-Bolanos, M., & Sadaba-Chalezquer, C. (2017). Connected Teens: Measuring the Impact of Mobile Phones on Social Relationships through Social Capital. Media Education Research Journal 53(25). Retrieved by https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1171085.pdf 

Going backwards to move forwards.

Date
Posted by
Comments0

 

I have often wondered how students can appear to be engaged and respond appropriately to a particular topic one day, and then the next day/week/month –  look at me perfectly blankly when I bring up the same topic for discussion. 

The blank faces and looks of confusion make me want to pull my hair out and develop a dangerous drinking habit.  It is very frustrating for teachers when students seem incapable of transferring gained information and knowledge from one class to the next class, let alone another subject or even the real world!

Bang your head just there…

 

As teachers we query our lesson structure, our pedagogical practice and our sanity for that matter! We wonder what is going on in the heads of our students and in our own!  

After all didn’t someone once say…

 

Well I am not Einstein but I am determined to make a change to my practice.  

One theory about this daily dilemma is that the curriculum and associated resources are often constructed with the focus on content rather than outcome (Fuglei, 2020).  This means that the learning outcomes of the lesson or unit of work can be missed as they were not explicitly addressed in the teaching and learning. 

This then poses the challenging question –

How do we increase the statistical probability of students achieving these learning outcomes?

The answer is… 

Backward design process, or commonly known as backward by design (Fuglei, 2020).  

The backward design process (BDP) is a strategy that focuses on the learning outcomes to be achieved by the students and then working it backwards to what the assessment criteria will be and then the pedagogical strategies that meet those needs (Ziegenfuss & LeMire, 2020).  It is the opposite of forward design that organises learning in the form of content, lessons and then exam.  Aviles & Grayson (2017) point out in forward design, student understanding and master is often misdiagnosed as the learning activities do not contain evidence of such learning.  BPD is very effective in classroom instruction as its student centered focus allows for the teaching and measuring of established learning outcomes (Ziegenfuss & LeMire, 2020).  Wiggins & McTighe (2012) cited in Aviles & Grayson (2017) point out that this student mastery can be observed and documented in discussion groups, formative and summative tasks, or anything that shows metacognitive awareness.  As comprehension and understanding is assessed throughout this process, the student is able to connect theory to applications, and this fosters knowledge acquisition, increases reflective practices and therefore becomes constructivist in nature (Ziegenfuss & LeMire, 2020).  

Aviles & Grayson (2017) indicate three roles in BPD. 

  1. Direct teaching – connecting and engaging students to the lesson. 
  2. Facilitating Learning – socratic seminars, reciprocal teaching, graphic organisers for conveying information, reflective practices
  3. Coach to student learning – provide feedback and opportunities for independent practice.  

The process of BDP makes it very conducive to education and library practices, as it requires the educator to identify the outcomes prior to planning the learning experiences and classroom resources (Gooudzward, 2019).  This means that the activities integrated into the teaching and learning are designed to meet the specified learning outcomes and the students cognitive needs(Ziegenfuss & LeMire, 2020).  Whilst BDP can be utilised in all curriculum areas, it has great value in the teaching and learning of information literacy (Ziegenfuss & LeMire, 2020; Fox & Doherty, 2012).  

Fox & Doherty (2019, p.145) point out that there are three definite stages in BPD.  

  1. Identify the results (learning outcomes, curriculum outcomes, general capabilities)
  2. Determine mode/format of evidence (Aviles & Grayson, 2017)
    1. Assessments of learning – Summative
    2. Assessments for learning – Class discussion/Socratic seminars 
    3. Assessments as learning – reflective practices/ metacognitive process 
  3. Plan teaching and learning activities that meet those needs.  

 

Kurt (2018) and Gooudzward (2019) both indicate that a hierarchical scale needs to be used to determine curriculum content priorities in determining which learning outcomes are crucial and which are just worth being familiar with.  Once these outcomes have been determined, assessments or evidence of learning needs to be appropriately linked to them.  

As the stages indicate, the primary focus of the BPD is on what the students learn or achieve rather than what the teacher thinks is important.  This makes BPD a student centred approach to learning, and as it requires the teacher to understand the student’s level of understanding prior to commencing the lesson.  Therefore this process aligns with the constructivist approach to education. 

 

References:

Aviles, N., & Grayson, K. (2017). Backward planning – How assessment impacts teaching and learning. Intercultural Development Research Association. Resource Centre. Retrieved from https://www.idra.org/resource-center/backward-planning-assessment-impacts-teaching-learning/

Fox, B., & Doherty, J. (2012). Design to learn, learn to design: Using backward design for informational literacy instruction. Communications in Information Literacy 5 (2).   144-155. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/193813175.pdf

Fuglei M. (2020). Begin at the end: How backwards design enriches lesson planning. The Resilient Educator.  Retrieved from https://resilienteducator.com/classroom-resources/backwards-design-lesson-planning/

Goudzwaard, M. (2019). Slides: Backward design for librarians. New England Library Instruction Group 2. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=nelig

Jensen, J., Bailey, E., Kummer, T., & Weber, K. (2017). Using backward design in education research: A research methods essay. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 18(3), pp1-6. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5976040/pdf/jmbe-18-50.pdf

Kurt, S. (2018). What is backward design. Educational Technology. Teaching and Learning Resources.  Retrieved from https://educationaltechnology.net/backward-design-understanding-by-design/

NSW Department of Education. (2019). Backward design model. Teaching & Learning – Professional Learning. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/professional-learning/teacher-quality-and-accreditation/strong-start-great-teachers/refining-practice/planning-a-sequence-of-lessons/backward-design-model

Ziegenfuss, D., & LeMire, S. (2020). Information Literacy and Instruction: Backward Design: A Must-Have Library Instructional Design Strategy for Your Pedagogical and Teaching Toolbox. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 59(2), 107-112. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.59.2.7275

 

 

Inquiry learning – thinking about it – Module 4.1b

Date
Posted by
Comments0

PoseMuse / Pixabay

 

Standardised testing has been present in Australia for almost two centuries.  From parochial schools and their itinerant school inspectors; external examination boards and modern day NAPLAN; testing was designed to determine the quality of teaching and learning (Munro, 2017).  This trend has lead to schools and teachers being held accountable for what students learn and achieve within the classroom, often to the detriment of learning. Often this scenario is described as high stakes, as test scores often correlate to level of status for student, teacher and school.  Unfortunately, this accountability has inadvertently forced many teachers and schools to ‘teach to the test’ to bolster up their average scores. Teaching to the test as Popham (2001) points out is when teachers use learning activities that mimic the test conditions in that the cognitive demand is unchanged between the learning activity and the test.    

A curriculum based on content is easier to teach and to test.  Facts and figures are straightforward to assess compared to creativity and critical thinking which require understanding of nuances and emotional intelligence.  This is especially true for automated tests in which answers are displayed in a multiple choice format. But are standardised test truly identifying if learning is actually occurring?

Education is changing and it is inevitable in this information age that fundamental basis of teaching and learning practices is to prepare students for the future.  This preparation should include the opportunity to generate ideas, build creativity and encourage critical thinking as a process in order to create either a product or an idea (Markham, 2013).  Markham (2013) even goes further to suggest that skills based assessments will eventually overtake content as markers of achievement.

Skills that are easily acquired, explained, evaluated and estimated are known as hard skills.  These skills can be quantified and scaled against other people’s results. As this competence can be taught in stages, it can also be assessed with ease.  Soft skills though are harder to teach as it requires more than just rote learning (Doyle, 2019). It requires a student to actively engage with the information and using their own cognition, construct this new information into their knowledge bank in order to create something from it.  In this process of learning, students assemble their own learning content and develop a mastery of skills. Constructivist pedagogy is based upon the theory that people build or construct their own understanding of their world based upon what they already know and experience and what they discover in their learning (McLeod, 2018).  Constructivism is the foundation of inquiry learning.

Inquiry learning as defined by LEQ (n.d.) is a constructivist approach in which the goal of learning is that students construct their own meaning from the task.  As the learning is student centred, it requires the teacher to set the parameters and guide the students through the process as their motivation is intrinsic. The Melbourne Declaration of 2008 clearly describes the goals of education as enabling young Australians be successful in their learning, confident and creative in their endeavours and active and informed citizens (MCEETYA, 2008).  Therefore, this form of learning has been included into the Australian national curriculum but only recently aligned with subject areas (Lupton, 2014). Whilst the research shows the widespread benefits to inquiry learning in schools there are a several barriers into implementing this process across the country.

The main issue with the implementation of inquiry learning is that it requires the teacher to hand over control of the learning to the student.  The power of a content based curriculum lies within a teacher, and it’s entrenched traditions of ‘chalk & talk’ and ability to control learning outcomes within a prescribed time frame.  It requires the teacher to understand that each student will maximise their learning if it is their individual third space and that collaboration is essential. Another facet of this disinclination in implementing inquiry learning is that teachers can be confused as to what aspects of the content needs to be taught explicitly and what strands need to be discovered.  This is a fine art as Markham (2013) points out. In some circumstances, content is best taught explicitly before and or during an inquiry project. In other times, it can be taught at at the end of a unit as a ‘mop up lesson’ to address any learning outcomes that were accidentally missed. In some cases the skills need to also be taught such as the ability to question prior to commencing a task. This shift of educational thinking is more psychological rather than logistical.  

Inquiry learning requires teachers to work along with their colleagues and para-professionals.  Once again, it is a psychological shift in thinking that forces a teacher to realise that they are not the only font of all information but rather it is the collaboration of minds that build the best teaching and learning experiences for students.  Classroom teachers who practice inquiry learning in its entirety need to be open to collaborating with their teacher librarian and other teachers. They need to create a safe learning space for their students to engage with other members of staff and not feel like its a personal rebuke.  This can be difficult for many practitioners who through their teaching years have isolated themselves within their departmental and or classroom silos.

Inquiry learning requires redefining success within teaching and learning as measures of success cannot be simplified to a percentage or a score, but rather a demonstrated ability on a rubric (Markham, 2013).  A performance rubric that identifies a students level of expertise in an individual strand. As the current standardised testing is aimed at an individual’s ability to address content, it needs to evolve to identify student’s cognitive ability along a continuum of growth and not restricted to age levels like the current system of NAPLAN.  

References:

Doyle, A., (2019) The hard skills employers seek. The Balance Careers. Retrieved from https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-are-hard-skills-2060829

The Educator (2018) Inquiry based learning: what the research says. Retrieved from https://www.theeducatoronline.com/au/news/inquirybased-learning-what-the-research-says/255693

Lupton, M., (2014) Inquiry skills in the Australian Curriculum v6: a bird’s eye view. Access November 2014. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/78451/1/Lupton_ACCESS_Nov_2014_2pg.pdf

Lutheran Education Queensland (n.d.) Approaches to learning. Inquiry based learning. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/1360/lutheran-education-queensland-inquiry-based-learning.pdf

MCEETYA (20019) MCEETYA four-year plan 2009 – 2012. Retrieved from http://scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20and%20publications/Publications/National%20goals%20for%20schooling/MCEETYA_Four_Year_Plan_(2009-2012).pdf

McLeod, S., (2018) Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

Markham, T., (2013) Inquiry learning vs. standardised content: Can they coexist? KQED. Retrieved from https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/28820/inquiry-learning-vs-standardized-content-can-they-coexist

Munro, J., (2017) Support for standardised tests boils down to beliefs about who benefits from it. Retrieved from  https://theconversation.com/support-for-standardised-tests-boils-down-to-beliefs-about-who-benefits-from-it-86541

Popham, W., (2001) Teaching to the test. Educational leadership. 58:6. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar01/vol58/num06/Teaching-to-the-Test%C2%A2.aspx