Tag Archives: unit planning

Creating a digital narrative – The good, the bad and the ugly.

Date
Posted by
Comments0

Creating a digital narrative requires planning. 

Creating a digital narrative for classroom practice requires extensive planning.  

Creating a digital narrative for a university assignment that can also be used for classroom practice turns a teetotaler into a wino. 

The creation of a digital narrative (DN) for education practice requires the teacher to consider the curriculum content, the needs of the student, the digital technologies available and their own individual ICT acuity. 


It requires:

  1. A clear understanding of which parts of the curriculum need to be addressed, content or skills (or both)
  2. The cognitive, behavioural and developmental needs of the students.
  3. The technological capabilities of the school such as BYOD policies and wifi capabilities.
  4.   It also requires the educator to acknowledge their own capability and find ways to work within their capacity.  This last fact is often crucial as many teachers feel that creation of interactive media is beyond their capability and therefore abstain from using DST in classroom practice (Hyndman, 2018). 

Part 1: Curriculum 

Whilst there are many pedagogical strategies in which an educator can introduce DN or DST into classroom practice, the most effective method for teacher librarians to use is the Backwards Design Process (BPD), or otherwise known as backwards by design.  BPD can be utilised across all areas of the curriculum and is often used by teacher librarians as a method of developing information literacy lessons  (Gooudzward, 2019).  Therefore it seemed like the sensible way to create this DN due to my familiarity with the process. 

  • The identification of the learning outcomes in both content and skills strands of the 10 History curriculum (ACARA, 2014).  
  • Once the learning outcomes were identified, the method and process of evaluating these learning outcomes needed to be determined. 


  • Kurt (2018) and Gooudzward (2019) both point out the importance of ‘ranking’ the outcomes and then correlating them to the complexity of the assessment.  The use of Bloom’s taxonomy would be useful here to help differentiate the learning. 

  • Now the learning events can be planned.  Considerations should include the type of learning that would suit this unit such as blended learning, explicit instruction, inquiry learning or the use of flipped classroom.  

Part B – Student Needs – Pedagogy that works. 

When creating or using DST, acknowledging the needs of the students is a fundamental part of pedagogical practice.  The White Australia Policy was a very inflammatory legislation and requires finesse and discretion when addressing it in a classroom setting.  Students who are recent immigrants or those that were descendants of those restricted by the White Australia Policy may need time and space to process this information.  The use of a flipped classroom as a pedagogical strategy allows for the embedding of a DST for students to access prior to the lesson (Schmidt & Ralph, 2016, p.1).  This gives the student time and space to process the information privately and the integrated questions promote critical thinking.  This strategy also promotes analysis and evaluation of the policy as well as time for the teacher to facilitate class discussion and address the needs of a diverse classroom (Basal, 2015).

Part C: Technological capacities.  

The use of Microsoft Sway was based on expediency.  My school has a subscription to Microsoft and the students have already engaged with the program in other disciplines.  The format allows for the successful integration of images, videos, audio, hyperlinks and Thinglink.  It can be accessed from any personal device connected to the internet, is intuitive to use and can be successfully integrated into the school intranet, class pages and can be cataloged into the library management system.

The school has a BYOD policy and excellent wifi, so there should be minimal issues accessing this resource.

Part D:  Teacher Competence

Cantabrana et al., (2018) point out that the quality of education in the 21st century is directly linked to teacher education and training.  Teachers that have been supported in their professional learning and development to integrate DL into their practice are more likely to use it successfully (Cantabrana et al., 2018).   Competence in ICT involves positive attitudes to technology as well as combing conceptual and procedural knowledge (Cantabrana et al., 2018, p.77; McGarr & McDonagh, 2019, p.11).  This means that teachers that are reluctant to use ICT from either lack of knowledge or lack of interest are less likely to want to improve their capability and extremely unlikely to create and foster the use of DL and DST in their classroom practice.  

McGarr & McDonagh (2019)  point out that teacher competence should be framed around three main areas, technological, cognitive and ethical.  This makes sense as creating a digital narrative requires the teacher to be competent at combining curriculum with technology, whilst ensuring copyright is addressed appropriately (McGarr & McDonagh, 2019, p.13).  

References:

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

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

Cantabrana, JL., Rodriguez, M., & Cervera, M.G. (2018). Assessing teacher digital competence: the construction of an instrument for measuring the knowledge of pre-service teachers. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research. 8(1), p73-78. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1202957.pdf

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

Hyndman, B. (2018). Ten reasons teachers can struggle to use technology in the classroom. The Conversation [Blog]. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/ten-reasons-teachers-can-struggle-to-use-technology-in-the-classroom-101114

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

McGarr, O., & McDonagh, A. (2019). Digital competence in teacher education.  Output 1 of the Erasmus+ funded Developing Student Teachers’ Digital Competence (DICTE) project.  Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331487411_Digital_Competence_in_Teacher_Education

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

 

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