learning technology for teachers, educators and trainers ............................... ... This book is intended for educators interested in using new technologies in ..... only one world, the world of objects and situations, many of our actions as humans are ...... nearly three quarters of secondary school senior leaders regarded the use.
1 Orazio Miglino, Maria Luisa Nigrelli, Luigia Simona Sica (Editors)
ROLE-GAMES, COMPUTER SIMULATIONS, ROBOTS AND AUGMENTED REALITY AS NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES: A GUIDE FOR TEACHER EDUCATORS AND TRAINERS.
2011
2
ISBN: 978-84-8021-848-1
3
INDEX Preface .............................................................................................................. 7
PART ONE THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL BASES OF LEARNING WITH NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Chapter I. Social, cultural and cognitive processes and new technologies in education ...................................................................................................... 13 John Jessel I.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 13 I. 2 Technology Enhanced Learning .................................................... 14 I. 3 Perspectives on learning ............................................................... 14 I. 4 The psychological dimension ........................................................ 15 I. 5 The social dimension: Sociocultural theory .................................. 19 I. 6 Dialogism ...................................................................................... 23 I. 7 Situated learning ........................................................................... 25 I. 8 A community of practice ................................................................ 26 I. 9 Theoretical perspectives: a summary ............................................ 30 I. 10 Using new digital technologies to support learning ................... 32 I. 11 Virtual Game-Based Learning .................................................... 37 I. 12 Role of the teacher ....................................................................... 40 I. 13 Role of the learner ....................................................................... 41 I. 14 Conclusion ................................................................................... 42
Chapter II. A classification scheme for using new technologies in educational practices: how to choose those most suitable ................................................... 49 Angelo Rega, Orazio Miglino II. 1 Introduction …………………………………………………… 49 II. 2 Experiment ................................................................................... 51 II. 3 Conduct relational experiences ................................................... 55 II. 4 Explore Worlds ............................................................................ 57 II. 5 Conclusion ................................................................................... 62
4
PART TWO HOW TO USE NEW TECHNOLOGIES: A TRAINING MODEL
Chapter III. A model for training in the use of new technology ...................... 67 Luigia Simona Sica, Maria Luisa Nigrelli, Orazio Miglino III. 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 67 III. 2 The importance of training in the use of new technologies ........ 68 III. 3 Proposal for a training model .................................................... 69 III. 4 Fundamental activities: getting to know the kinds of technology and choosing the most suitable ones ................................................... 70 III. 5 Where, how and for how long: the six days of training .............. 71 III. 6 Before and after: the importance of assessment ......................... 73 III. 7 Conclusion .................................................................................. 75
Chapter IV. Developing innovation in technology-use and learning in the school setting ................................................................................................................ 77 John Jessel IV. 1 The UK context ........................................................................... 77 IV. 2 Entering the school setting .......................................................... 79 IV. 3 Developing a training course ...................................................... 84 IV. 4 Course principles ........................................................................ 85 IV. 5 Summary ..................................................................................... 93
PART THREE EXAMPLES: THREE PILOT STUDIES IN GREAT BRITAIN, SPAIN AND ITALY
Chapter V. Trial with teachers in Great Britain. Innovative practice and technology: training as creative synthesis .............................................. 107 John Jessel V. 1 Introduction ............................................................................... 107 V. 2 Approaching schools ................................................................. 108 V. 3 A radio news programme ...........................................................112 V. 4 Using the VLE with mathematics teaching ................................ 117 V. 5 A poetry forum ........................................................................... 120
5 V. 6 Reflections on the course ........................................................... 124 V. 7 Summary and conclusion ........................................................... 131
Chapter VI. A training course in new learning technology for university teachers ...........................................................................................................137 Juana Bretón-López, Soledad Quero, Cristina Botella, Rocío Herrero, Luis Farfallini and Rosa Baños VI. 1 Introduction .............................................................................. 137 VI. 2 Our perspective on teaching .....................................................139 VI. 3 Our own experience ..................................................................140 VI. 4 The trainees and recruitment process ...................................... 145 VI. 5 The workshop ........................................................................... 145 VI. 6 Conclusion and discussion ....................................................... 151
Chapter VII. A training course in new learning technologies for Corporate Trainers .......................................................................................................... 157 Roberto Vardisio, Michela Fiorese VII. 1 Introduction ……………………………………………...….. 157 VII. 2 Didactical-training goals and choice of tools within TEL corporate programs ................................................................ 161 VII. 3 Delivery and management of corporate TEL initiatives ......... 169 VII. 4 Evaluation of a corporate TEL project ................................... 174 VII. 5 Conclusions ............................................................................. 184
Chapter VIII. A methodological framework to evaluate training courses in new learning technology for teachers, educators and trainers ............................... 189 Soledad Quero, Juana Bretón-López, Rosa Baños, Yolanda Vizcaíno, Cristina Botella VIII. 1 Introduction ........................................................................... 189 VIII. 2 A common methodology for e-learning training ................... 190 VIII. 3 Main results of the trials in the three contexts ..................... 195 VIII. 4 Final Reflections ................................................................... 198
Appendix A .................................................................................................... 203 Appendix B .................................................................................................... 207 Editors ............................................................................................................ 209 Chapter Author ............................................................................................... 211
6
7
Preface
The present handbook was created as part of the T3-Teaching to Teach Technology Project, which began in 2009 and ended in December 2011. The Project’s aim was to explore the use of new technologies (video games, robots, augmented reality and Web 2.0) in educational contexts at different levels (schools, universities and companies), and in three countries (Italy, Spain, and Great Britain). The project was divided into several elements, including: the creation of a taxonomy for technology selection; a final report on the results of trials in three different areas of training; case studies; training workshops for trainers; interviews with participants; as well as a number of inputs and materials (which can be found on-line); and, finally, the present book. More information on the T3-Teaching to Teach Technology Project is available at this link: http://www.t3.unina.it. This book is intended for educators interested in using new technologies in their curricula. It provides information for understanding the pedagogical benefits of new technologies and for learning how to use them as a teaching resource and as a means of promoting learning processes. The aim of this handbook is to enable trainers to select and use new technologies in learning environments (schools, universities, companies) in more competent way. More specific objectives are: to understand what benefits using new technologies can provide; to evaluate the effective use in different contexts, understanding differences between technologies and their respective advantages for the processes of teaching and learning; to choose more appropriate technologies; to become more familiar with them and to understand how to create and plan their educational uses in schools, universities, and companies.
8
The book is divided into three parts. The first contains: a description of a theoretical framework, specifying what is meant by the process of teaching and learning, and clarifying the most recent research paradigms in this field (Chapter I); a description of the technologies used in the training (Chapter II). The second part contains the results of trials performed in the T3 project, and, in more detail, proposes a model for using new technology in learning contexts: a basic course programme (Chapter III) and an applicative guide for traditional learning contexts (Chapter IV). The third part of the book presents a description of training courses conducted with secondary schools teachers in the UK (Chapter V), with university professors in Spain (Chapter VI) and corporate trainers in Italy (chapter VII). Finally, the book provides practical tools for the evaluation of educational experiments, illustrating how to obtain information on the success/failure of new tecnologies use, benefits of their use compared to traditional teaching methods, and practical suggestions for their management (Chapter VIII). In summary, this handbook is a practical guide aimed at spreading theoretical and practical information and providing a bibliography of resources such as articles, books and websites where to get further information. Additional contents, as well as a practical guide step by step guide for using new technologies in learning contexts together with examples can be found at: http://www.t3.unina.it/videototurial
O. Miglino, M. L. Nigrelli, L. S. Sica
9
T3- Teaching to teach with technology has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
10
11
PART ONE
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL BASES OF LEARNING WITH NEW TECHNOLOGIES
12
13
I. Social, cultural and cognitive processes and new technologies in education John Jessel
I.1 Introduction
Digital technologies are becoming increasingly diverse and increasingly available and their use is providing many new opportunities for learning. Computers continue to become ever smaller, more powerful and more economic and there is an array of highly portable devices available to a variety of users of all ages in the classroom, the workplace, the home and on the street. More recently, however, a key development that has occurred alongside digital technologies is connectivity. In contrast to earlier Web 1 technologies, the connectivity between digital devices that is afforded by Web 2.0 is two-way and as connectivity becomes faster, cheaper and more available we are drawn into a society that is networked in many ways. In particular the widespread use of Web 2.0 technologies can provide an ever-present communicative and collaborative and interactive dimension to learning. The speed and the power of digital technology also enables a viable multimedia dimension so that transactions in different modalities through a range of digital resources allows learning activity can take place in a variety of settings at any time and place. Through digital technologies that are connective, learning is no longer an entirely solitary relationship between the user and a computer. Through digital devices learning can now take on a social dimension in a way that even a few years ago would not have been feasible. Connectivity has its implications for learning both through networked
14 computers in the classroom as much as through hand held devices on the street. Regardless of institutional intervention, digital technology is used by one and all and recognizing and exploiting its potential for learning presents a creative challenge to teachers and learners alike.
I. 2 Technology Enhanced Learning
Technology is pervasive and, rather than being considered as a discrete topic or narrowly defined set of activities within a learning curriculum, ‘Technology Enhanced Learning’ is perceived as a broader and far-reaching vision regarding the impact on learning and also teaching (JISC, 2009). In turn, this implies that rather than regarding learning models specifically as e-learning models the approach adopted is the e-enhancement of models of learning that already exist (Mayes & De Fritas, 2004). However, the mere availability of technology is not a guarantee that effective learning will happen automatically. From experience we know that the methods of old technologies are an inheritance that is difficult to shake off. Connectivity in learning is a social and cultural process – for it to occur effectively requires a cultural shift where understanding and practices are shared and reciprocated. Although this process may evolve naturally, some understanding of it may be helpful in order to tap into it productively. In an attempt to capture the potential of new technologies in learning we may for a moment shift the focus from the technology itself towards ideas we have about learning and what we may want out of learning, and, the role of the teacher and the learner in relation to these.
I. 3 Perspectives on learning
What counts as learning can vary. On the one hand we might think of learning as the uptake and recall of factual content, while, equally, we
15 might regard learning to be about developing our ability to think critically and to be analytical, to use information effectively, to make decisions, to think imaginatively, creatively and critically and to be sensitive to situations when these qualities are applicable. Rather than a single theory being generated in an attempt to account for such an array of possibilities, different ideas about learning have emerged. These ideas have been grouped, for example, by Greeno, Collins & Resnick (1996) into three broad perspectives; associationist, cognitive and situative, the latter viewing learning as participation in social practice. While the associationist perspective is often regarded as ‘traditional’ more recently interest has shifted towards explorations of the social. dimension. This interest, as we shall see later, has been reflected in Sfard’s (1998) metaphor of learning-as-participation and contrasts with what she describes as an ‘acquisition metaphor’. In attempting to provide a perspective on different ideas about and approaches to learning this chapter will begin with a brief account of associationist assumptions before expanding of some of the ideas derived from cognitive psychology to include contributions from a sociocultural perspective before finally introducing the notions of situated learning and learning as participation. These groupings will also be looked at in terms of their implications for teaching and the role of technology.
I. 4 The psychological dimension
I. 4 a An associationist perspective In the mid 20th century a systematic approach to learning based upon association and repeated practice developed by behaviourists such as Skinner gained appeal in that learning could be treated as something relatively observable. The idea was to break down what was to be taught into a sequence of elementary tasks or behavioural objectives that were presented to the learner who was given immediate feedback on their responses. Patterns of tasks arranged in a ‘bottom-up’ fashion from those
16 more basic components to those of increasing complexity could be devised so that through repetition and reinforcement the learner’s behaviour was gradually ‘shaped’ towards that required. Hierarchical analyses of different learning outcomes that have been linked to this approach were carried out by those such as Bloom (1956) and Gagné (1985). The pedagogy based on associationist principles involves identifying component learning competences, sequencing these in terms of complexity, providing clear tasks and immediate feedback and then adjusting the sequence or ‘pathway’ according to the learner’s performance. This approach was reflected in the technology of the time: teaching machines were developed that were based upon learning principles such as simple repetition, feedback and reinforcement through external reward. The assumption was that learning was a matter of building on earlier behaviours; a quantitative increase where existing knowledge and procedures were merely added to. Although teaching machines may be historical artefacts, behaviourist principles continue to underlie methods such as Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) where rapid feedback is given on the ‘correctness’ of the learner’s response. Typical examples include drill-and-practice programs for learning spellings or vocabulary or mathematical routines and, more popularly, are often presented in the form of a game with extrinsic rewards such as a point scoring system. While there may be a role for behaviourist approaches, it also widely acknowledged that they are limited in many ways and leave little scope for higher order and more complex thinking and do not explain mental leaps that can occur in learning when suddenly, we see things differently (e.g., Nunes & McPherson, 2003). The pedagogy is essentially didactic with the learner regarded as passive recipient of knowledge that is transmitted. These sorts of criticisms led to an interest in mental representations and their manipulation that form the basis of cognitive psychology.
17 I. 4 b A cognitive perspective
A cognitive perspective is concerned with inner mental functioning of a higher order such as thinking and reasoning and representation in memory. In contrast to learning as something than is merely handed on through the programming of observable behaviours, knowledge acquisition is seen as the development of schema or symbolic mental constructions. Such development can arise from active thoughtful participation whereby learning arises from the interaction of new experiences with existing schema. Over the last few decades, cognitive theories and the methods used to investigate them have proliferated and figures such as Piaget and Vygotsky are well known for their work on how cognition develops within the individual, and the social effects upon this. Those acting within a cognitive perspective are concerned with how we represent knowledge and develop our concepts and understandings. To this end cognitive approaches refer to notions such as perception, concept formation, mental models and our reflections on our own learning; our metacognitive processes. They also include the notion of learning styles, most notably developed as a theory of multiple intelligences by made popular through the work of Gardner (2006). Importantly, however, central to cognitive approaches is the idea of learning as the development of understanding through thoughtful interaction. We learn as a result of the interaction between new experiences and existing structures representing understandings that have already been created (McKendry, 2006). The application of cognitive theory places emphasis on mental activity such as reasoning and providing tasks that challenge learners, allowing them to work out their own rules through experience of interacting with materials in the learning environment. The possibility of understandings gained through activity rather than being delivered through instruction led to the development of constructivist approaches (Brown et al., 1989).
18
I. 4 c Constructivism
The qualities identified within the cognitive perspective provide a base from which constructivism has been developed. Constructivist approaches to learning focus on the role of the individual in the process of the continual building and development of mental structures. Teaching strategies based on constructivism encourage students to learn by taking initiative and becoming involved through self-directed activities including problem solving and experimentation. The idea is to encourage learners to build their own mental structures through interacting with an environment. Where possible, authentic contexts are used that are related to real-life situations which students can relate to with the point of the activity made evident. Importance is placed on learners finding out for themselves: they are encouraged to make their own discoveries, raise questions, test their own hypotheses, make their own inferences, and draw their own conclusions. The form of encouragement, however, is critical and in regard to this Wood et al. (1976) have used Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of ‘scaffolding’ to suggest that an apprentice role is taken by the learner who, with the assistance of someone more experienced, can achieve something they would be otherwise be unable to. The role of the teacher as scaffolder involves guiding students towards activities that they are likely to find engaging and from which they will learn. However, rather than playing a didactic role, the teacher may encourage students to think for themselves and raise issues and questions in relation to the activity and to identify problems which they can tackle. Effective scaffolding can occur as a learner’s abilities fall within a ‘zone of proximal (or potential) development’ (ZPD) and, as noted by McKendry 2006, the teacher’s role is to locate learning within that zone. In sum, constructivist pedagogy is based on:
• Creating an environment in which learners can become actively involved
19 • Setting up activities that encourage experimentation and discovery • Activities that are interactive and student-centred • Locating learning within the ZPD • Scaffolding through encouragement and support for raising questions and reflecting on principles
I. 4 d Constructivism and digital technology
With regard to new technologies, approaches based on constructivism have influenced the development of exploratory spaces such as some of the early educational computer-based simulations and microworlds within which learners can engage in problem-solving settings and in learning as experimentation, discovery and reflection (Crook, 2001). Crook also argues that constructivism has often reinforced a conception of knowledge as something to be acquired from autonomous and, often, solitary investigation. Intelligent Tutoring Systems have also been designed in an attempt to use technology to interact ‘intelligently’ with the learner in order to promoting explorative learning activity (Mandl & Lesgold, 1988). However, it may be the mode of use of the simulations rather than the simulations themselves that give rise to computer simulations being seen as a solitary activity.
I. 5 The social dimension: Sociocultural theory
While cognitive theory has been largely concerned with the development of the learner as an individual there has, arising from the work of Vygotsky (1978; 1934/86), been a distinct shift of emphasis towards learning arising within a social context through which individuals form their own understandings (Cole, 1991). Sociocultural theory is concerned with how society contributes to individual development – it emphasizes
20 the interaction between the learner and the culture in which they are located. In this sense, those playing a teaching role are also acting as agents of culture (Trevarthen, 1988). Another concept fundamental to sociocultural theory is that our relationship with others and with ourselves, and in turn our thinking, is mediated (Lantolf, 2000). Mediation occurs through the use of symbolic tools such as language. In this way language plays a central role – in addition to having a communicative function it allows us to represent and manipulate our ideas; it becomes an intellectual tool. More generally, then, language can be included along with other cultural tools and symbol systems which can be used in conjunction with new technologies for sharing and jointly developing knowledge as well as for organizing thoughts, reasoning, planning, and reviewing our actions (Conole et al., 2004). As language and other symbol systems are part of our cultural inheritance, Lantolf (2000) also points out that these along with other physical tools are also modified as they are used and passed on from one generation to another. An important implication of this is that what is learned and the tools for learning are not fixed or static; they change in relation to the needs and nature of society and that those taking the role of learners as well as teachers contribute to that change.
I. 5 a Social constructivism
In the constructivist approach outlined earlier, learning was seen as a process where meaning is created through the interactions of the individual within the world. Reflecting sociocultural approaches as opposed to cognitive approaches, social constructivism moves the emphasis away from the individual towards the group. For example, while scaffolding can be regarded as a two-way process, it is also about how one individual benefits from the interaction with another individual. Although the role of teacher as scaff older is interactive and could also be seen as collaborative, the emphasis is on a more knowledgeable member
21 of a society interacting with the learner. However, this view of scaffolding can be challenged, particularly with regard to its asymmetry and the relatively passive role of the learner that may be implied (Stone, 1998). If the learner is to take a more active role then a shift in the quality of the interpersonal dimension is needed. Rogoff (1990) has used the term ‘guided participation’ to suggest a more active role played by learners where they can collaborate with, as well as be guided by others. The symmetry implied in guided participation can be applied more broadly and, by contrast, social constructivism marks a shift from a relatively monological view of scaffolding to one where understanding evolves from more than one voice or viewpoint. There are different views on what counts as social constructivism (O’Connor, 1998). However, a general feature is that meaningful knowledge, as opposed to something that already exists and waiting to be passed on, is socially and culturally constructed on a more symmetrical basis: meanings are created through human interaction and with the environment (Kukla, 2000). Although this inevitably involves some form of communication, here communication is not regarded solely as the transfer of ready-made thoughts (Linnell, 2003). Knowledge emerges as it is ‘constructed and reconstructed between participants in specific situated activities, using the cultural artefacts at their disposal, as they work towards the collaborative achievement of a goal’ (Wells, 1999: 140). In turn, learning is also viewed as a social process through which individuals
become
meaningfully
engaged
and
form
shared
understandings (McMahon, 1997). In sum, while constructivism focuses mainly on the individual, social constructivism takes a step further towards explaining learning as a socially collaborative process. Social constructivist pedagogy is typically based on:
• Creating an environment in which learners can collaborate and become actively involved • Activities that encourage joint experimentation and discovery • Activities that encourage collaboration through sharing of ideas
22 • Use of language to share ideas and jointly develop knowledge • Use of language as an intellectual tool for thinking, reasoning, planning, and reviewing our actions • Encouragment and support for peer reflection, evaluation, experimentation and discovery
Some of the above qualities are shared with constructive approaches and the distinction between social constructivism and constructivism can sometimes become blurred with many so-called constructivist approaches reflecting those that could be characterized as social constructivist.
I. 5 b Social constructivism and digital technology
Collaboration and learning interactions can occur, at or around or in relation to the computer. However, these can also occur through computers (Crook, 1994). With regard to the connective affordances of new technologies there is a growing interest in the use of these to provide opportunities for the social dimension in learning. Asynchronous and synchronous communication can offer the potential for diverse and richer forms of dialogue amongst students, tutors and peers, as well as the access to a range of materials and resources (Conole et al., 2004). Although verbal text has been the dominant mode through which interactions take place, the speed and power of new technologies can provide a reliable infrastructure that allows a variety of other modalities such as auditory, and visual, including 3D graphics. Whilst the use of verbal text makes few demands in terms of the technology, the intellectual demands for the learner and the pedagogical and managerial demands for the teacher can present a challenge. These demands will be returned to after some other theoretical accounts stemming from sociocultural theory, namely, dialogism, situated learning, distributed cognition and activity theory have been introduced.
23
I. 6 Dialogism
Links can be made between social constructivism and Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism in that, in either case, meaning is generated through social interaction. Although Vygotsky’s contributions are frequently cited by many sociocultural theorists, Bakhtin’s work on dialogism could also provide a foundation for this (Wells, 1999). With dialogism, however, language is the prime vehicle through which meaning is negotiated. When introducing Bakhtin’s (2004) notion of dialogism Vaagan (2006: 168) draws attention to links in literary theory where ‘dialogue’ signifies ‘the interplay of different voices, minds or value systems in such a way that none is superior to another’.
He
contrasts this with the more classical notion of dialogue that was regarded by figures such as Socrates and Plato as a means of persuasion: the aim being for one person or group to accept the ideas of another. Vaagan also notes that through studying Dostoevsky’s novels, Bakhtin argued that dialogue is fundamental in literary language and that language originates in the interaction between two or more people. In turn the concept of ‘self” is dialogic; in a dialogic text the author’s views are not authoritative or final, as they would be in a monologic text, but only one among other voices in the dialogue that is presented.
I. 6 a Dialogism in practice
Bakhtin’s understanding of dialogue stresses mutual testing, contesting and creation of ideas (Vaagan, 2006). In attempt to provide a framework that can be applied to learning occurring among groups of children working with computers Wegerif and Mercer (1997) have drawn on Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism. Through this, thinking becomes a social
process
through
which
‘mutual
understanding’
or
‘intersubjectivity’ is achieved. Within this process language-use plays a central role – thinking as a mutual act is expressed through this mode of
24 communication. They also drew on work by Fisher (1997) who identified three types of educationally significant talk when working with children at computers: disputational talk, cumulative talk and exploratory talk. The types of talk cited by Wegerif and Mercer (1997: 53) ‘represent ways in which learners orient themselves towards each other’ and are presented in terms of ‘social modes or thinking’. The types of talk ‘represent ways in which pupils or students orient themselves towards each other’ and are presented in terms of ‘social modes of thinking’. It is not intended that all talk can be encoded as disputational, cumulative or exploratory but this offers reference points for analyses that emerged when learners talk together in collaborative activities. With regard to talk in the classroom, a further contribution comes from Alexander (2008) who distinguishes dialogic teaching from routines such as question-answer or listen-tell. For Alexander, the notion of dialogue is purposeful; ‘cumulation’ being central in that ideas or utterances from each individual can be linked into coherent line of enquiry. This can be contrasted with conversation which does not necessarily aim to lead anywhere, or debate, where the aim might be to persuade or posit one point of view over others, or dialectic insofar that logic or argument is used to resolve disagreement. Dialogic teaching is reciprocal and extended. In approaching this Alexander (2008: 112/113) has identified five fundamental principles underlying dialogic teaching:
1. collective:
teachers and children address learning tasks
together, as a group or as a class
2. reciprocal:
teachers and children listen to each other, share
ideas and consider alternative viewpoints
3. supportive:
children articulate their ideas freely, without fear
of embarrassment over ‘wrong’ answers; and they help each other to reach common understandings
25 4. cumulative:
teachers and children build on their own and each
other’s ideas and chain them into coherent lines of thinking and enquiry
5. purposeful:
teachers plan and steer classroom talk with specific
educational goals.
The place of dialogue is consistent with participation in learning that, again, places the emphasis on social rather than individual activity of the learner. Participation in learning has been developed in relation to the notions such as situated learning, learning as participation and a ‘community of practice’. These are now outlined.
I. 7 Situated learning
Situated learning relates to learning through activities directly relevant to how the learning is applied and that take place within a the applied setting and culture, or one similar to the context where the learning will be applied (Brown et al., 1989). Situated learning as taking place in an ‘authentic’ or real life setting can be contrasted with learning derived from principles that have been formalized or abstracted from a context of use. Working in the complexity of an authentic environment provides the opportunity not only to develop understandings but also to develop the skills needed to apply our understandings. Knowledge becomes contextualized; we can determine how and when the concept is used (Duffy and Jonassen, 1992). Cognitive apprenticeship has been proposed as an effective constructivist model of learning that attempts to ‘encultrate students into authentic practices through activity and social interaction in a way similar to that evident, and evidently successful, in craft apprenticeship’ (Ackerman, 1996: 25).
26 I. 7 aLearning as participation
Situated learning also includes participation as a key concept. In, contrast to what she describes as an ‘acquisition metaphor’ Sfard (1998) has developed a model of learning-as-participation. Here, participation is seen as ‘taking part’ and ‘being a part’ with contextualization in learning regarded as critical. Importantly, however, Sfard does not argue that one metaphor should necessarily be adopted at the exclusion of the other; in fact she argues (p. 10) ‘When a theory is translated into an instructional prescription, exclusivity becomes the worst enemy of success’. Teaching strategies based upon participation can encourage collaboration amongst learners and with practitioners (Lave & Wenger, 1991; McMahon, 1997). Notably, learners can become part of the community. The mechanisms for this can be illustrated through the notion of a ‘community of practice’.
I. 8 A community of practice
So far, learning has been characterized in terms of the uptake of information or the development of mental structures through interaction in the environment and the development of ideas through interaction with more knowledgeable others or developing ideas conjointly with others. More recently the notion of learning has been taken to include participation in and becoming part of a community. A community of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) occurs when people jointly engage socially in a common enterprise or activity, and through this learn together. Wenger (1998) describes three components that are necessary for the development of a community of practice:
1. A domain: an area of shared interest to which members of the community are committed. This could be a profession such as teaching or a sport or in area such as music or mathematics.
27 Importantly, however, it has to be more than a passing interest amongst random people or a group of friends.
2. A community: people need to interact, develop relations over a period of time, help each other and share information within shared activities and learn from each other and in this way become active members.
3. A practice: this moves beyond merely having an interest in something. Members should be practitioners so that they can develop a shared repertoire of resources such as helpful tools, ways of handling typical problems, recounts of experience. Development of practice may often occur informally through a variety of methods including solving problems together, using each other’s experience and through conversation.
At first, participation may be relatively peripheral as far as the main activities of the community are concerned. Through observation and practice, those participating become more ‘legitimate’ and take on the identity of the community as they become more central (Wenger 1998). Apprentices need opportunities to participate legitimately – even if these are low-risk activities. Through participation learning in effect can become an apprenticeship in thinking (Rogoff, 1990). Communities of practice can arise in a variety of ways, including taking part in everyday life. However, in the above respect ‘community’ is more than working proximity, or an organised group for a given purpose; its social fabric develops over time around things that matter so that it is possible to gain a sense of trust and belonging. Through this, a community of practice develops a ‘shared repertoire’ of resources, such as vocabulary, routines, understandings and artefacts, over an extended period. Rather than being an individual pursuit or academic exercise largely confined to the classroom, learning is ‘situated’ within the framework provided by the community of practice through which
28 participation can take place. Through this learning can be acquired incidentally rather than intentionally. In the above respects many traditional educational settings can be seen as fundamentally different to the joint enterprise of a community of people committed to a domain. However, with regard to education, there may be scope for developing some of these qualities. Two key concepts, then, may be drawn from the idea of a community of practice: learning as situated and learning as participation. These concepts entail forms of cooperation rather than competition and in that sense are nonindividualistic. A division of skills and acknowledgement of the complementary qualities of individuals replaces a more totalitarian role of the practitioner. In sum, situated learning is based on:
• Learners participating in the social practices of a community • Opportunities to develop enquiry and learning skills • Dialogue to facilitate learning Situated learning also involves immersion in a culture populated not only by human actors but with an array or artefacts and tools. Encompassing the complexities of this inherent in learning is a challenge to be faced at a practical as well as a theoretical level. With regard to the latter, distributed cognition and activity theory are now briefly outlined.
I. 8 a Distributed cognition
Distributed cognition is a theory that embraces social aspects of cognition as well as artefacts and the environment. It was developed by Hutchins in the 1980s at a time when cognition and the processing of information was generally regarded as localized within the individual. Importantly, then, cognition could be seen as something distributed among people, sets of representations, tools, technological artefacts and other objects within the environment. Salomon (1993) regards cognition occurring, for example, among people to be ‘shared’ through
29 conversation around a common activity. Through this interaction a continual change in cognition can arise as ideas arising from more than one person are clarified and ‘tools’ such as note taking or a calculator allow some of the cognitive demands to be ‘off-loaded’, the notes also acting as an extension of memory. An insight offered through the idea of distributed cognition is the interconnectedness of learners, artefacts and culture. While this can offer some important insights (Halverson, 2002), in practice analyses of distributed interactions may not be straightforward (Nardi, 2002).
I. 8 b Activity theory
Activity encompasses a set of principles for understanding how a wide range factors work together to impact on humanwork or activity. It was initially developed by the Soviet psychologist A. N. Leontiev (1978) and also leads on from the work of Vygotsky. Insofar that it relates to the development of human culture and the individual it can be regarded as sociocultural. Bannon & Bødker (1991) give an account of human activity as the basic unit of analysis which is driven by certain needs in order to achieve a certain purpose. Crucially, human activity is usually mediated by instruments or tools. In contrast to animals that are perceived as having only one world, the world of objects and situations, many of our actions as humans are informed from prior experience or history brought into the into the current activity; the World Wide Web greatly expanding the range of this uniquely human capability (Ryder, 1998). Ryder uses picking mushrooms for eating as an example of an activity that is illadvised without some form of mediation such as a guide book, prior education, or advice from an experienced mushroom forager. As teachers our actions would be similarly informed through language, books, pictures and diagrams. Such artefacts are not only available to us when introduced to an activity but can also be a product of, and changed through, the activity: this view of ‘mediation’ being regarded as essential
30 in the ways artefacts can be understood through activity theory (Bannon & Bødker, 1991). Engeström (1987) has developed a model of an activity system which emphasises the social aspect of mediation. An activity is undertaken by a human agent (subject) who is motivated toward the solution of a problem or purpose (object), and mediated by tools (artifacts) in collaboration with others (community). The structure of the activity is constrained by cultural factors including conventions (rules) and social strata (division of labor) within the context. Engeström calls attention to the mediational role of the community and that of social structures including the division of labor and established procedures. Engeström’s model attempts to describe how a wide range factors may work together to impact upon an activity, how that activity is mediated by artefacts, the organization or community, the rules that affect activity and how a participant works as part of the community to achieve an object and any division of labour involved.
I. 9 Theoretical perspectives: a summary
In looking across the range of perspectives on learning offered above I have moved from different psychological accounts of learning which range from the acquisition or as uptake of reified information by the tutored individual through to a more constructive model where the position of the learner to take initiative and set directions in their own learning is acknowledged. Moreover, I have also included a social and cultural dimension where interaction with others is seen as central to the learning process, and, that a more symmetrical view recognising the learner’s own contributions in this process are recognised through joint collaboration and participation. Along this journey I have also acknowledged the situated nature of learning – learning that is less abstract and formal and that may be picked up incidentally through practice. I have also looked at accounts that draw into this forum the broader role of cultural tools and artefacts. Inevitably the different
31 accounts of learning overlap in many respects and the intention is not to claim exclusivity or superiority of one over another. Moreover, within the space of this chapter it is not intended to present a detailed practical application of each theoretical perspective. Instead, the intention is to open up a range of perspectives upon activities that could count as learning and to acknowledge the range of influences on these. This chapter, then, is intended to present a context from which a discourse on learning and new technologies can be developed. A framework that attempts to summarize the main learning perspectives is shown in Figure 1. It is designed to provide a convenient reference and basis for conceptualizing, articulating and developing a discourse amongst those interested in promoting effective learning using new technologies.
Figure 1 A framework for mapping technology-use according to learning perspective (Jessel, 2011)
Rather than regarding different technologies as having intrinsic properties in relation to the kind of learning they may support, the
32 framework places emphasis on how a technology is used. Digital technologies, like any other resource, can be mapped into the space delineated by the two axes, but only according to how they are used. In other words, according to use, a given technology could take up one of many different positions, or spread over a more inclusive area. Extending this notion, any one learning episode can take on a range of cognitive and sociocultural qualities that can be cycled through as learners and teachers engage within an activity. Learning paradigms arranged along the horizontal axis begin with those aligned with an associative perspective. The remainder of the axis, however, is representative of a cognitive or constructivist perspective and acknowledges an increasing level of initiative and creativity on behalf of the learner. Although the kinds of learning are reminiscent to those identified by Bloom (1956) the perspective can be regarded as primarily cognitive. The social and cultural dimension is marked out on a vertical axis. In its most basic form, social involvement in learning is characterized by a relatively didactic transmission of information at the lowest point of the axis. Moving up the axis is the kind of interaction characteristic of scaffolding within a social constructivist approach where a teacher or more experienced peer engages within an activity so that learners are helped to develop their own understandings. Further up the axis social and cultural engagement becomes more symmetrical, dialogic and participatory in nature. Participatory approaches can entail an authentic quality (Brown et al., 1989) and, of course, notions of distributed cognition and activity would include cultural tools and artefacts. For simplicity, however, these elements has not been represented explicitly on the axes shown and could be represented along a third orthogonal axis.
I. 10 Using new digital technologies to support learning
In this second part of the chapter an outline some of the implications of the above theoretical perspectives for new connective digital technologies will be presented. This will also include the impact
33 that different uses of these may have on the role of the teacher and the learner. In particular the emphasis will be on the role of the learner as an active agent in their own development in a sociocultural setting which includes the role of new digital technologies which offer connectivity.
I. 10 a Computer-supported collaborative learning
The term ‘computer-supported collaborative learning’ (CSCL) has been used to describe an emerging area of interest that focuses on how learning can take place among people with the help of computers. The interest in CSCL marks a move away from the learner as an isolated individual with the computer: it aims to bring learners together through creative activities involving intellectual exploration and social interaction (Stahl et al., 2006). This is also seen by Stahl et al. to contrast with a vision e-learning as a means of dissemination of classroom content to large numbers of students, avoiding logistical costs such as buildings and transport and with little continuing involvement of teachers. In view of the learning perspectives implicated it also implies changes in the role of educational institutions and the role of teachers and learners. Drawing on sociocultural theory, CSCL can allow learning to be socially
constructed
through
knowledge-building
communities
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994) where interaction can occur with others with other resources allowing cognition to be distributed. In many educational institutions participation in learning could occur through digital networks such as virtual learning environments (VLEs) and the Internet. Although online learning provides scope for learners to collaborate at a distance there is also a role for CSCL within the same institution or classroom. Here, the mode of communication through, for example, collaborative writing and discussion forums taking place through a network can enhance the way language is used through peer interaction. In terms of the exchange of written text, building a common ground is considered an essential part of coordinating collaborative
34 activities and knowledge sharing (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Dillenbourg & Traum, 1999; Koschmann, et al., 2001). Students and teachers need to develop reciprocal learning relationships through language and other means (Wolfe et al., 2008). This necessitates creating through networked learning environments expressions that can act as indicators of reciprocal interaction and understanding. This is a key challenge which, apart from requiring further exploration, may have influenced the relatively slow take-up of CSCL. The importance for teachers to agree on rules for talk and establishing a collaborative ethos ‘with a view to discovering new and better ways of jointly making sense’ has been noted by Mercer (1995). Weinberger & Fischer (2006) have analysed multiple process dimensions of knowledge construction in CSCL, namely (1) the participation dimension, (2) the epistemic dimension, (3) the argument dimension, and (4) the dimension of social modes of co-construction. Blogs have become established as interactive spaces which many learners already use to share and develop ideas and expertise. In this way the potential for learning offered by the technology is distinct (Lehtinen et al., 1999). Among the possible benefits for CSCL cited by Lipponen (2002) are that by removing time and space constraints computer networks break down physical and temporal barriers of learning. Asynchronous communication allows time for reflection in interaction and writing as a visible record can help students reflect on their own and others’ ideas and share expertise. Shared discursive spaces can offer multiple perspectives for students with varying knowledge and competencies, greater opportunities to share and solicit knowledge and the stored communications can function as a collective memory for a learning community and allow revisions and future use. CSCL can also be extended to include the shared exploration of a virtual world or environment within which problems may be encountered and solved collaboratively. As noted below, some elements of this connect with the idea of virtual game based learning.
35 I. 10 b The VLE as a space for dialogic interactions (using electronic text):
With regard to new technologies, Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism can be applied to language and other forms of communication occurring in a variety of modes conveyed through a range of technologies. Internet, e-mail, SMS and chat groups. VLEs as a CSCL facility are available in many institutions and also offer access to those participating outside. Through the VLE a variety of materials such as images, wtitten documents, video or sound files can be uploaded or tagged with sutable brief descriptions. The VLE can act as a forum for reciprocal teaching or peer collaboration; learners can help each other to solve a problem more effectively than if they had worked alone. The technology can also support cognitive apprenticeships, problem-based instruction, webquests or enquiry-oriented activities where most of the information is from the Web (Shunk, 2000). Some key attributes offered through VLEs:
• A means of communication • Peer interaction and peer-teacher interaction • Learning as knowledge building rather than merely being ‘delivered’ • Electronic chat that can be retained for reflection (talk is more ephemeral) • Users can pause and have time to think before replying • …but replies can also be relatively immediate • Contributed ideas can accumulate and used or selected according to need • Arguments can be rehearsed • Learning can be connected to own experiences However, dialogic interactions have to be sustained. This raises a range of strategic pedagogical issues:
36
• Dialogue can be resourced (e.g., multimodally) • Teacher seen as committed (e.g., daily logging on to a discussion forum) • Teacher can provide questions/activities that give structure to students’ learning • Teacher strategy might be to ask questions only • Use activities that require sharing of information and joint decision making (Mercer, 1995) • Teachers agree on rules for talk and establishing a collaborative ethos ‘with a view to discovering new and better ways of jointly making sense’ (Mercer, 1995) • Strategies needed to guide the dynamics of interaction • Strategies needed to sustain dialogue With regard to the role of the teacher, some strategies that can be derived from Alexander’s (2008) work on dialogic teaching can also be applied within a digitally connected setting such as a VLE can be summarised as:
• Prompting and challenging thinking and reasoning • Use questions that are structured to provoke thoughtful answers • Use leading questions sparingly • Students ask questions and provide explanations • Answers are used to provoke further questions to act as building blocks for further dialogue • Ideas contributed by individuals are chained into coherent lines of enquiry • Maintaining a balance between encouraging participation and extending understanding • Establish a shared routines for turn taking that avoids competitive bidding
37 • Allowing students to have the confidence to make mistakes and learn from them • Respect minority viewpoints • Encourage students toparticipate and share ideas • Encourage students to build on contributions • Provide feedbackthrough using
praise discriminatingly and
appropriately
I. 11 Virtual Game-Based Learning
Another possible forum for learning that has gained interest is the game. The idea of learning through play has remained an attractive one within education. The notion of play is often associated with pleasure; play is invariably self-chosen and enjoyable rather than imposed (Lindon, 2001). In turn games have evolved as a means of formalizing many of the qualities of play, often through setting goals to be achieved within a set of constraints or rule systems (Dempsey et al., 1996). Games can also have a competitive element and can take place in a variety of settings which can motivate through challenge, fantasy and curiosity (Randel et al., 1992). In many respects digital technology acts as yet another medium through which games can be expressed. As Buckingham (2007) has noted, play invites experimentation, learning by doing and can involve cognitive activities such as remembering, hypothesis testing, predicting and strategic planning. At a more basic level games allow the possibility of repetition: in addition to an associationist reinforcing of behaviours that allow a particular goal to be achieved, when these are not successful then a game can be repeated and different strategies adopted. The qualities that games bring to learning appear in Prensky’s (2001) characterisation of computer games as six structural elements, namely,
rules,
goals
and
objectives,
outcomes
and
feedback,
conflict/competition/challenge/opposition, interaction, representation or
38 story. These elements act together to motivate and engage. Prensky used the term ‘digital game-based-learning’ and, similarly, the term ‘virtual game-based learning’ (VGBL) has become synonomous and this can include ‘serious games’ or computer games for educational rather than entertainment purposes. The array of digital games can include drill-andpractice and knowledge games, training simulations or modelling, games which can invoke role play such as adventure games, management and strategy games (Kaptelinin & Cole, 2001). ‘Edutainment’ refers to those games that link educational objectives with entertainment elements and the range of commercial computer games, sometimes referred to as ‘video games’, that put the player in a virtual environment where they have to act against some form of opposition (Griffiths, 1996). An important feature of VGBL is that it can create a learnercentred, learner-guided environment insofar that learners can have control over where they go and what they do within a game. The virtual game setting can also provide a context for problem solving; it can also allow the freedom to explore and experiment. As the learner plays the game, he or she may adapt to the environment, infer the rules and pick up relevant vocabulary. Through those games that are connected by narrative learners may undertake tasks, accept rewards and progress to more complex levels. Many digital games can be thought of as simulations in that they can be said to model some aspect of the real world. Through this, learners can study phenomena that otherwise would be less accessible because of such factors as expense or time scale. Additionally, simulations can allow exploration within a safe environment. Through inviting role-play and participation VGBL may also offer an element of experiential learning through a setting within which learners can engage. VGBL can also be regarded as a form of situated learning in that it actively engages learners with an environment which they can explore and make decisions. As learners interact with the game environment, they appropriate information and adapt new knowledge to fit what they already know, which are also key elements of situated learning environments (Kirshner & Whitson, 1998). Playing a game also requires
39 constant readjustment arising from the causes and consequences of each interaction (Gee, 2003) that in turn could act as a model for proactive self-reflective critical learning (Begg, Dewhurst & Ellaway, 2003). Through digital devices that are connected VGBL can easily take place among a number of players. In this way VGBL also provides a social area where shared methods and resources for constructing and communicating meaning are developed and, in turn, a literacy needed to operate in terms of the meanings accepted within that domainis acquired (Gee, 2004). Within this social arena ideas have to be articulated and decision making needed to agree goals. With game-based learning around the computer, or through digital connectivity, the social dimension can also become manifest through working as a team when playing against others. Williamson (2009) has identified some of the major ideas underlying games and learning. With regard to the construction of knowledge he argues that games encourage exploration, trying out ideas, communicating and decision making. Through this, players become ‘active in the construction of knowledge’. With some games the social and participative dimensions can be expressed through players working as a team, as in ‘SimCity’, ‘Urban Science’ and ‘Civilisation’ to create a complex economic system and to review and revise these in the light of testing them out. Williamson also acknowledges the capacity of games to offer situated or authentic practices. However, Buckingham (2007) has warned of the dangers where computer games enthusiasts can over-claim the value of games and typically set these in contrast to a caricature of classroom practice as abstract and divorced from reality. The role of the teacher is important here and strategies for management this may need to be carefully planned. The list of potential benefits may appear to be a long one, however, VGBL is not without its critics. As McFarlane (2002) has noted, games demand substantial investments of time, both by teachers when preparing to introduce them in an educational setting and by learners when using them. This applies particularly to more complex games which require a sustained period of apprenticeship (Gee, 2004). McFarlane et al. (2002)
40 also questions whether in view of the relatively large time investment, any generic thinking and collaborative skills acquired are enough to justify their use. Although engagement and immersion have an appeal, debriefing is important and likely to be difficult unless time is carefully set aside. Additionally, gender issues are also a consideration. In relation to the virtues of a meaningful situated learning context, Buckingham (2007) reminds us of the necessity of the practice of abstract decontextualized skills such as playing scales on a musical instrument or techniques in a sport such as football. Also, with regard to collaboration, problem solving skills, risk taking and decision making that may characterize some aspects of VGBL, transfer may not be automatic: the learning being situated or embodied and specific to particular social practices. In other words, as Buckingham suggests, there is a place for a structured curriculum with specialist teachers who have the necessary theoretical and conceptual knowledge to act as guides as to what is important to learn.
I. 12 Role of the teacher
Innovation arising from new technologies makes a variety of demands upon the role of the teacher. At one level, teachers may need to become acquainted with the technology themselves in order to be able to support and relate to learners in the many ways required within and without the classroom setting. While familiarity with today’s technologies may be acquired by tomorrow’s teachers, technologies continue to evolve and, in turn, new technical demands will continue to arise. At another level, the introduction of innovation makes major demands upon teachers’ pedagogical, professional and managerial skills. Insofar that teachers can also play a managerial role outside the classroom and operate at policy level within an institution a further set of demands can be made. Returning to the classroom, a shift towards the role of teacher as facilitator and maintaining engagement of the students by prompting discussion while students are carrying out activities
41 (DeVries et al., 2002) has implications for online learning as well as traditional face-to-face contexts (Bailey & Card, 2009). The possibilities that new technologies allow for learning through participation make demands on the actions of teachers as social managers as well as managers of resources for learning. Although students may be able to work together and generate their own knowledge and understandings, this may not happen automatically. If a community of practice model is adopted then this will entail a new role for the teachers: a different set of pedagogical skills is required that focus on helping students collaborate with each other in order to develop personal understanding of course content, linking to learning resources and encouraging initiative (Knowlton, 2000; Knowles et al., 2008).
I. 13 Role of the learner
A consideration within the context of innovation that should not be forgotten is the role of the learner. Learners, whether they are young or old, will have to some extent become encultrated into the practices of the classroom, formed expectations about what is required of them as learners and, in turn, formed expectations of what they require from teachers. Changes in approaches to learning through the introduction of new methods arising from new technologies carry implications for the learner’s role such as the student as a collaborator in learning in view of the interaction modalities afforded CSCL. Learners have to organize their skills in complex ways, suitably to differing contexts and changing needs. For example, to what extent do new technologies allow learners to be self-directed, to be a resource for their own learning, to learn from peer feedback and apply their learning to real-world problems? These so called ‘andragogic principles’ (Knowles, 1980) have hitherto been primarily associated with adult learners. Knowles also refers to learners as being transformed from simple ‘containers’, passive in learning, to protagonists of education. Learners need to operate in many different modes; sometimes they may feel part of a community while at other
42 times they may want autonomy. Sometimes learners may want to be told, at others they may want to find out things themselves or with others. This, perhaps, returns us to the role of the teacher who may also need to recognize the flux of different modes and understand when to intervene and when to let go.
I. 14 Conclusion
In this chapter an outline of the many ways that learning can be accomplished and the thinking behind these have been presented. Accounting for the mechanisms of learning has been a challenge that has been addressed by many theorists. The views on learning that have been presented range from those located within the learner to those where learning is distributed across society, culture and a potentially huge array of tools and artefacts – all which can be seen to be an integral part of the learning process. It is not surprising, then, that new technologies can also play a part. The part that they play could depend upon the technologies themselves. However, by virtue of human ingenuity the part that new technologies can play can vary according to the context in which they are used. This presents an interesting challenge both to teachers and to learners – one that will be addressed in the remainder of this book.
43 References
Ackerman, E. (1996). Perspective Taking and Object Construction: Two Keys to Learning. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World (pp. 2535). New Jersey: Lawrence Earbaum Associates. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk (4th Edition) Cambridge: Faculty of Education (Dialogic Teaching), Shaftesbury Road. Bailey, C., Card, K. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception of experienced instructors. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 152-155. Bakhtin, M. M. (2004) Dialogic Origin and Dialogic Pedagogy of Grammar: Stylistics in Teaching Russian Language in Secondary School, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42.6: 12-49. Bannon, L.J. and Bødker, S. (1991) Beyond the Interface: Encountering Artifacts in Use, in J. Carroll (ed.) Designing Interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface. New York: Cambridge U.P. Begg, M. Dewhurst, D., and Ellaway, R. (2003). Process, Truth and Consequences; informal reflections on games, game communities and their use within higher education: College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41. Buckingham, D. (2007) Beyond Technology: Children’s Learning in the Age of Digital Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press. Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine and S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cole, M. (1991). On socially shared cognitions. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Behrend (Eds.), Socially shared cognitions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M. and Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design, Computers & Education 43 (2004) 17–33. Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.
44
Crook, C. (2001) The Social Character of Knowing and Learning: implications of cultural psychology for educational technology, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 10, Nos 1&2, 2001 Dempsey, J.V., Lucassen, B.A., Haynes, L.L. and Casey, M.S. (1996) Instructional applications of computer games. New York: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 500). DeVries, R., Zan, B., Hildebrandt, C., Edmiaston, R. and Sales, C. (2002). Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: Practical principles and activities. New York: Teachers College Press. Dillenbourg, P., and Traum, D. (1999). Does a shared screen make a shared solution. In C. Hoadley (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL '99: The Third International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duffy, T.M. and Jonassen, D.H. (1992) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit). Fisher, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2006). Teachers Learning with Digital Technologies: A review of research and projects. Bristol: Futurelab. Fisher, E. (1997). Educationally Important Types of Children's Talk. In R. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Gagné, R. M. 1985.The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. 4th edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: BasicBooks. Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. London: Routledge. Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: MacMillan. Griffiths, M.D. (1996). Computer game playing in children and adolescents: a review of the literature. In T. Gill (ed) Electronic children: how children are responding to the information revolution. London: National Children’s Bureau.
45 Halverson, C. A., (2002), Activity theory and distributed cognition: Or what does CSCW need to DO with theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11:243-267. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jessel, J. (2011). The virtual learning environment: directions for development in secondary education. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on e-Learning (Brighton, November, 2011). Reading: Academic Publishing Ltd. JISC (2009) Effective Practice in a Digital Age: A guide to technologyenhanced learning and teaching. JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) Innovation Group, Bristol: University of Bristol. Kaptelinin, V. and Cole, M. (2001). Individual and collective activities in educational computer game playing. In T. Koschmann and R, Hall (eds.) CSCL2 Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kirshner, D., and Whitson, J. A. (1998). Obstacles to understanding cognition as situated.Educational Researcher, 27(8), 22-28. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to androgogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books. Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F. and Swanson, R.A. (2008). The adult learner (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Knowlton, D. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A defence and delineation of a student-centred pedagogy. New directions for teaching and learning, 84, 5-14. Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C., and Feltovich, P. (2001). Dissecting common ground: Examining an instance of reference repair. A paper to be presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edinburgh. Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46 Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., & Muukkonen, H. (1999). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A review of research and development (The J.H.G.I Giesbers Reports on Education, 10). Netherlands: University of Nijmegen, Department of Educational Sciences. Leont'ev, A. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. English translation, Moscow: Progress Press (Russian original 1947). Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Lindon, J. (2001). Understanding Children’s Play. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Linnell (2003). Evaluation of Capacity Building: Lessons from the Field. Washington, DC: Alliance for Nonprofit Management Lipponen, L. (2002) Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, International Society of the Learning Sciences. Mandl, H., and Lesgold, A. (1988). Preface. In H. Mandl and A. Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems, (pp. v-xiii). New York: Springer-Verlag. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayes, T. & De Fritas, S. (2004). JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study. Available http://tinyurl.com/3xqeq3 Date of access: 5:6:11. McFarlane, Angela, Sparrowhawk, Anne & Heald, Ysanne (2002). Report on the educational use of games. Teachers Evaluating Educational Multimedia. http://www.teem.org.uk/howtouse/resources/teem_gamesined_full.pdf, Date of access: 5:6:11. McKendry, E. (2006). Immersion Education: An Introductory Guide for Teachers, Belfast: School of Education, Queen’s University. McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia. McManus, M., & Aiken, R. (1995). Monitoring computer-based problem solving. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 307-336. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
47
Nardi, B. A., (2002) Coda and response to Christine Halverson, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11:269-275. Nunes, M.B. and McPherson, M. (2003) Constructivism vs. Objectivism: Where is difference for Designers of e-Learning Environments? Proceedings of the The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’03). O’Connor, M.C. (1998). Can we trace the ‘efficacy’ of social constructivism? Review of Research in Education, 22, 1-47. Prensky, M. (2001) Digital game-based learning, New York: McGraw-Hill Randel, J.M., Morris, B.A., Wetzel, C.D. and Whitehill, B.V. (1992) The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: a review of recent research. Simulation and Gaming, 23(3) 261-76. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ryder, M. (1998). Spinning Webs of Significance: Considering anonymous communities in activity systems. Paper presented to the Fourth Congress of the International Society for Cultural Research and Activity Theory. Aarhus, Denmark, June 7-11. Salomon, G. (1993) No distribution without individuals’ cognition: a dynamic interactional view 111-138 in Salomon, G. (ed.) (1993). Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledgebuilding communities, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 3: 26583. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Coming to terms with motivation constructs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (116-119). Sfard, A. (1998) On two mwtaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educational Researcher, 27, 2, 4-13. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stone, A. (1998) The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its Utility for the Field of LearningDisabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol 3, No 4 pp 344-364
48 Trevarthen, C. (1988), Universal cooperative motives: How infants begin to know languageand skills and culture. In: Acquiring Culture: CrossCultural Studies in Child Development, ed. G. Jahoda & I. M. Lewis. London: Croom Helm, pp. 37–90. Vaagan, Robert W. (2006). Open Access and Bakhtinian Dialogism, Proceedings ELPUB2006 Conference on Electronic Publishing, Bansko, Bulgaria, June 2006. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/1986).Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Wegerif, R. and Mercer, N. (1997). A Dialogical Framework for Investigating Talk. In Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom, edited by Wegerif, R. and Scrimshaw, P. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Weinberger, A., and Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71-95. Wells, G. (1999). Language and education: Reconceptualising education as dialogue, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 135-155. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williamson, B. (2009) Computer games, schools, and young people. Bristol: Futurelab Wolfe, S. with Alexander, R.J. (2008) Argumentation and dialogic teaching: alternative pedagogies for a changing world. www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk Date of access: 5:6:11. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
49
II
A classification scheme for using new technologies in educational practices: how to choose those most suitable. Angelo Rega, Orazio Miglino
II.1. Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to enable teachers, university professors and corporate trainers to use, implement and integrate new learning technologies in their teaching curricula. So the technological solutions that may actually be proposed must be easy to understand, low cost and widespread. Fortunately there is a wide range of valid technological systems that can be easily retrieved and used for relatively low costs. In addition, a substantial scientific literaturehas shown that technologies developed for other purposes (commercial, recreational and research) can be effectively used in educational and training courses. However, most of the technologies used for the objectives of the Project belong to one of the following families: a) Open systems (high-level programming languages, authoring systems, hybrid construction kits of equipment hardware and software);
b) Closed systems (commercial games, serious games, robots, etc.).
50 The first are development environments to create educational materials, training (TEL Serious Games or systems) that can be used even by non-experts in computer science (a particular example of this category is the programming language LOGO1); the second areselfcontainedapplicationsthat proposeactivities in a particulardomainand precisespecification, for example, the video game SimCity
2
has been
frequently used as a laboratory for the exercise of managerial skills. In January 2008, the company that developed SimCity decided to distribute, free of charge, its own games for educational use based on the product which had been used in many learning contexts. It should be emphasised that, as we will describe later, open systems have an increasingly high level of interactivity and ease of use. In this way teachers can use them both to develop their own teaching materials, and for supervising a group of learners to whom is entrusted the task of creating a particular application (computer simulation of a given phenomenon, realisation of a particular role-playing game, development a three-dimensional digital world, etc.). The classification method we propose can be considered as a useful frame of reference for understanding the macroscopic properties of each technology and, especially, the pedagogical uses. Table 1 summarises a way of classifying and identifying learning technologies and indicates some particularly representative and prototypical systems. The following pages explain the contents of the table in more detail.
1
Logo: a programming language with a strong focus on graphics. The basic geometry has been developed with the aim of being clear and simple, so that it can be easily learnt. 2 SimCity: a video game that allows the player to take the role of the mayor of a virtual city and have to deal with all kinds of problems arising in that situation. The player is put in a position where they need to carefully plan every move so that they can meet the needs of citizens without sending the municipality into bankruptcy.
51
Type of teaching Verify/construct
Closed Type
Experiencinginterp Explore worlds
hypotheses
ersonal dynamics
Avida
Dread-Ed 3
Age of Empires 4
NetLogo 5
Eutopia 6
E-adventure 7
of System
technology Open System
Table 1: Classification and identification of appropriate learning technologies to support the processes of teaching and learning centered on the direct experience of the learner.
II.2. Experiment
The heart of teaching in many disciplines is primarily to conduct experiments. In fact, the design of an experimental session takes place in parallel to the assimilation of a general body of theory that explains the generative mechanisms of a given phenomenon. An understanding of the theory can lead to the prediction of empirically observable behaviors. The experimental verification of research hypotheses is therefore based 3
Dread-Ed: is a piece of software developed as part of a European project of the same name. It consists of a virtual environment through which students and educators work together online and learn to understand, communicate and decide quickly in the face of stressful or emergency situations (earthquakes, fires, etc.). Web Site: www.dread-ed.eu 4 Age of Empires: is a real-time strategy game (RTS) in a historical setting. In this game you control a civilisation that will progress from the Stone Age, through the Classical Age, to the Iron Age, trying to become strong economically and militarily. Web Site: http://www.microsoft.com/games/empires/ 5 NetLogo: is a modeling language designed for teaching simulation in many fields. You can download a version of the software at: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/ 6 Eutopia: is a software platform for creating and organising role playing (EMORPG) according to a psycho-pedagogical methodology. This approach allows a small group of people to organise sessions for a role-playing game online, or for psychological or educational purposes, through the use of immersive three dimensional graphics. Web Site: http://www.nac.unina.it/eutopia/ 7 E-Adventure: is a research project that aims to facilitate the integration of educational games and simulations in educational processes in general and in virtual learning environments (VLEs) in particular. Web Site: http://e-adventure.e-ucm.es/
52 on the controlled and repeated manipulation of one or more independent variables that go to influence the observable behavior of one or more dependent variables. In recent decades, thanks to the enormous increase in computing power, many scientific theories relating to different fields of knowledge have been transformed into computer programs or reified in the form of physical machines. The scientist of our time often performs experiments in these"simulations"of reality. This methodology can be applied with relative ease to the teaching and learning context. In fact, you can find professional software offering "virtual" laboratories for a variety of disciplines. This kind of software falls into the category of closed systems (see Table 1) as a focusin the reproduction of a very specific"piece of reality”. Robofarm8 is a good example of this approach; it is an integrated software/hardware system where a player or trainer raises robots to achieve, as quickly as possible, a goal. The robot, once trained, can challenge others robots in a webtournament. The winner is the player who has trained their robots to move through the space in an optimal manner. The users or players, playing with Robofarm, learn some of the methods of artificial intelligence and robotics, and this may reflect on the mingling between engineering, biology and psychology. Generally, because robots are programmed by humans using appropriate programming languages they decide the robot's behaviour in detail. In contrast, with Robofarm the behaviour is shaped indirectly by two techniques: the selection of behaviours and artificial evolution. With the first technique, the player can select the robot that appears best, make duplicates and apply small random changes to their systems of control in an attempt to improve their behaviour. With the second technique this process is automatic for several generations of robots. Having finished this ‘training’ process, each player’sthe robots can challenge those of the other players in a tournament online, (Figure 1).
8
Web Site: http://eutopia.unina.it/robofarm
53
Figure 1: Screenshot of the first version of Robofarm during the challenge of a robot opponent
With Robofarm, in addition to using a virtual lab, teachers and learners have the ability to independently explore artificial models of different types of phenomena. In fact, programming and development environments are available that enable the development of computer simulations and physical machines (like robots), even for those without highly technical-computing skills. Teachers and students through these platforms (similar to the type of open systems, see Table 1) can choose freely, natural events orpsychological and social factors to be played on a small scale in an artificial way. In short, they assume the role of the scientist-modeller. Once created, the artificial model must still be evaluated in terms of its adherence to empirical data and it is therefore necessary to carry out a true experimental design. The artificial models built directly by teachers and students become a virtual lab where experiments can be performed. The NetLogo programming language and the Lego-Mindstorms construction kit are good examples of this particular type of learning technology. The NetLogo is a programming environment for agent-based simulations and was developed by the Centre for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modelling at Northwestern University. NetLogo was designed with the aim of the realisation of simulation agents to explore and experience emerging phenomena that evolve and develop
54 over time. For this purpose, it is equipped with a large library that is useful when reproducing experiments in economics, biology, physics, chemistry, psychology and other branches of natural and social sciences. With this tool you can pass instructions to hundreds of independent agents that can operate in a concurrent and collaborative way. The environment available in NetLogo makes this possible, therefore, exploring the connection between the micro level of individual behaviour / agency with the macro patterns that emerge from the interaction of many individuals / individual agents. NetLogo is available free of charge and is being used in a wide range of educational settings ranging from the primary school to the university. Many teachers make use of NetLogo in their educational programmes with the aim of providing students with a simulation environment in which to perform experiments with the support of the simulation. In this way you can experience a phenomenon or behavior in a variety of conditions (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Screenshot of a simulation of conduction in metals developed with NetLogo
Lego MindStorms9 allows apreviously developed artificial modelto be experimented with in real environment. The product, sold specifically for educational purposes, consists of a set of bricks, sonar sensors, motors and a programmable central unit, thus providing everything needed to build integrated intelligent systems that can exhibit behaviours and can interact with the surrounding environment. Thanks to Lego 9
Web Site: http://mindstorms.lego.com/
55 Mindstorms you have the opportunity to build and program robots that act in the environment and change their behaviour in relation to a continuous and dynamic interaction with it. The sensors are the elements that allow the robots to explore and interact with their surroundings and react accordingly. Engines allow the movement of the robot, and its central processing unit (brick) contains the entire program that processes information from sensors and determines the dynamic behaviour. In the current context, the use of new educational technologies in robotics education is gradually acquiring a prominent position because through this discipline learners can understand a natural phenomenon through a rebuilding process that passes through its imitation, simulation and emulation in the form of a machine (in software or hardware form). In short, Lego Mindstorms kits offer different opportunities to restructure and articulate concepts and to experiment with different levels of complexity.
II. 3 Conduct relational experiences
In addition to theoretical knowledge and technical education, training agencies are now required to transfer to students a set of skills for relating with professional communities and social culture. Examples of such skills (commonly referred to as soft skills) include the ability to cope with emergency situations, the ability to conduct a negotiation, the ability to take part in collective decisions and the willingness to understand a point of view. In general, the teaching of soft skills is mainly experiential where a teacher organises, supervises and encourages small groups (in some cases consisting of dyads) of learners in activities that take the form of group games and particular types of representations (sociodrama, role playing, etc.). Most of these techniques for teaching or training of soft skills are easily transferred to technology platforms. There are many educational games where the player-learner assumes a particular role and must pursue the objectives assigned by the teacher or trainer. Again you can find the games that are dedicated to a particular segment of the transfer of knowledge or skills (closed systems) and
56 platforms that allow teachers and learners to develop their own educational scenarios (open systems). An example of the first type of learning technology is represented by Dread-Ed (Figure 4). Dread-Ed is a multi-useronlineSerious Game. The game objective is to manage unexpected situations, making decisions as a group under conditions of limited communication and knowledge. Each learner or player takes on the role of an area manager in an organisation and has to decide, together with colleagues, how to employ their own staff.
Figure 3: Main software screen of Dread-Ed
Playing with Dread-Ed a small group of learners is guided in the acquisition of soft skills such as collective decision making, effective communication, sharing and proper management of common resources (information, time, personnel to be used, etc.). This activity, carried out under a project with the same name and funded by the European Community, has been tested and validated in business contexts (Ahlstrom-France), non-profit organisations (Civil German Defence and Civil Protection of Abruzzo-Italy) and in academia (University of Naples and Duissburg). The platform Eutopia, however, is an example of a learning technology defined as an open system. It is an online platform that allows you to organise simulations or role-playing games with educational
57 goals. The methodology of educational role-playing allows a small group of actors or students to stage a story and develop it for experiment (and learn) various soft skills (such as: the ability to conduct a negotiation, the ability to make collective decisions, the power to mediate between various requirements, etc.). The actors / learners are represented by 3D avatars that "act" in a three-dimensional virtualenvironment (scene). A teacher writes the plot of the story (writer), organises, and in some cases drives the stage action (act), and finally analyses the play from a psychopedagogical point of view (debriefing10). Eutopia, was presented at the Universal Exhibition in Shanghai 2010 and is currently used in educational contexts of different countries of the European community.
Figure 4: Screenshot of Eutopia.
II. 4 Explore Worlds
Humans share with many other animals an innate propensity to explore environments within which they are located. Many educational practices exploit the exploratory instinct of people to transfer knowledge and skills. Perhaps the best known example of this is represented by the many versions of the ancient educational treasure hunt. In this game one 10
Il Debriefing: is a structured psychological intervention on a group, led by an expert psychologist, and aims to analyze the emotional consequences and / or what is generated by psychological experience.
58 or more players-students are encouraged to explore a space where there are scattered and hidden items of information which, if collected, will allow the treasure to bereached. The space can be of arbitrary dimensions (a room, a garden, a country, etc.), and the retrieval of information can take different forms (resolution of puzzles, answering questions, passing a test of physical ability, etc.). This traditional recreational activity is the basis of a widespread class of games known as Adventure Games11. In this context, the pattern of the treasure hunt is used in the design of games that take place within artificial universes and digital worlds that can be fantastic and surreal. Paradoxically, in recent years, the appearance on the market of advanced, low cost technology products is making the treasure hunt game a tangible reality. However, it is a reality that is modified and enhanced by technology. The player or explorer is immersed in an environment where there are dispersed invisible systems of sensors and actuators that can be activated and simultaneously produce a variety of responses (lights are lit, sound propagates, doors open, etc.).Augmented Reality12, as we define the experiences described above, is where the player moves in a world full of technology that provides useful information to enrich their own feelings and perceptions. Adventure Games and Augmented Reality platforms with educational purposes are now numerous. Age of Empiresis a good example for this type of closed systems. Age of Empires is a strategy game in a historic setting. The player controls civilisations (Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Phoenicians, etc.) That will move from the Stone Age, through the classical age to the Iron Age, trying to become strong economically and militarily. Many historical matrix games are used in school curricula in order to convey educational content through these historically rooted forms of video games. They allow us to study, in a playful context, the 11
Adventure Game: a game where the player assumes the role of protagonist in an interactive story 12 Augmented reality: (augmented reality in English, abbreviated RA) is the superposition of levels of information (multimedia and virtual elements, geo data, etc.) on actual every day experience. The elements that "increase" the reality may be added through mobile device, such as a cell phone, generation.
59 geographical position and the political, economic, social and religious culture of situations arising within the game. Such tools also provide a supplement to the lesson in terms of fun and functionality, allowing you to use a student-centred approach that gives learners or players the chance to explore a world of thousands of years ago. The spread of this type of instrument is demonstrated by the existence of specific manuals that give clear indications of how to integrate traditional video games in school curricula. In the case of Age of Empires a manual was developed entitled"Age of Empires - Age of Kids: a teacher guide"13. There are open systems that allow trainers to create adventure games in a digital environment (computer software) such as EAdventure, and also tools to develop augmented reality games usingthe Sony PSP console, mobile and smartphones, or I-Phone. Here the player can use a mobile device andexplore the world through it to get more information about the surroundingobjects. The platform E-Adventure, for example, is the result of a research project aimed to facilitate the integration of educational games and simulations in educational processes in classical and virtual learning environments (VLEs). It was developed by e-UCM, a research group on e-learning from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, with three main objectives: reducing the cost of game development in education, integration of features specific to learning in a development tool and promoting the integration of video games and educational games in elearning courses. E-Adventure (Figure 5) allows the creation of interactive adventure games "point and click" providing a complete development environment that follows the teacher / developer throughout the process of creating the game, from the definition of scenarios, rules and content, until export of the finished project for integration using e-learning systems such as SCORM and Docebo. Researchers have developed E-Adventure with the idea that the use of interactive adventure games makes the process of 13
Download manual at : http://www.brainmeld.org/TeachingGuideLibrary/BrainMeldAgeOfEmpires-Newmark.pdf
60 learning not only fun, but can stimulate cooperation and competition, promote the development of adaptive learning and can even provide an innovative mechanism for evaluating the learned skills.
Figure 5: Screenshot of the software design of E-Adventure
In the same category of open systems for making games based on the principle of augmented reality is RoboProf
14
. This is an integrated
system of sensors, actuators and software with which you can build augmented reality environments that can be used for the purposes ofrecreation, education and rehabilitation. In essence, RoboProf allows you to enhance the usual living spaces (games room, classrooms, gyms, etc.) with objects that, when touched and stimulated by the user-player, respond in various ways (such as producing sounds, turning on lights, opening boxes, triggering video clips and making robots move). With this instrument the educator or trainer can develop a type of "technology" treasure hunt where players-students are encouraged to actively explore the environment in which they are immersed, and the same exploratory behaviour gradually puts them in contact with educational content and teaching. For example, you can engage learners in acquiring the 14
Web Site: http://www.nac.unina.it/wandbot
61 vocabulary of a foreign language, in logical-mathematical problems and in solving increasingly complex conceptual relationships between different types of objects. Currently, RoboProf is at the prototype stage and is being tested in different institutions such as Italian schools, laboratories for cognitive rehabilitation centres, and science centres (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Image showing a game designed with RoboProf for a famous science center
In the same category as RoboProf are various forms of application of QRCode (Figure 6). A QR Code is a two-dimensional matrix barcode consisting of black and white modules arranged in a square pattern. These codes are used to store information that is generally intended to be read with devices such as a mobile phone, smartphone or handheld gaming consoles like the Sony PSP. The name is an acronym for QR quick response, as the code was developed to allow rapid decoding of its content. This application is already in use within curricula as it allows easy provision of an immediate link to multimedia content. QRCode labels can be used in addition to the normal paragraphs of text books so
62 as to provide links to other media formats (often Web sites or video) on the subject matter. The QR Code can be implementedby using software that generates the matrix with the link to the media. This can then be printed on plain or adhesive paper and applied to various objects such as books, maps, periodic tables and other models. Although this type of tool is spreading due to its ease of use, more importantly, this may be due to the fact that the decoding uses devices now available to everyone such as the modern cell phone.
Figure 7: QR Code image
II.5. Conclusion
We have briefly presented and classified which types of video games, programming environments and serious games can represent new experiences in education and training. We have also tried to define how new learning technologies can be integrated into a training plan. However, the proposed classification is not intended to provide a strict definition of categories. In fact, there are role-playing games that incorporate computer simulations, or "closed" systems that allow the user a high degree of customisation. It should also be noted that the proposed technologies may only be a useful for introductory training, and with familiarity, trainers will consciously and autonomously find the best solution to their teaching contexts.
63 References
Greitzer F. L., Kuchar A. O. & Huston K. (2007). Cognitive science implications for enhanc ing training effectiveness in a serious game al of Educational Resources in Computing, 7(3). Lund, H. H, Miglino, O., Pagliarini, L., Billard, A., Ijspeert A. (1997). Evolutionary Robotics. - A Children Games. Proceedings of International Conference on Evolutionary. Computation 1997, pp. 100-104. IEEE Computer Society Press. Miglino O., Di Ferdinando A., Rega A. & Benincasa B. (2007). SISINE: teaching negotiation through a Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on eLearning, pp. 439-448, Academic Conferences Limited, Reading (UK). Miglino O., Di Ferdinando A., Rega A. & Ponticorvo M. (2007). Le nuove macchine per apprendere: simulazioni al computer, robot e videogiochi multi-utente. Alcuni prototipi. Sistemi Intelligenti 1: 113-136. Miglino, O., Rega, A., Nigrelli, M. (2010). Quali videogiochi possono essere usati a sostegno dei processi di insegnamento/apprendimento. Una prima classificazione. In Ferrari,G. ,Bouquet, P. ,Cruciani, M. ,Giardini, F. (Ed.) Pratiche della Cognizione (pp. 62-66). ISBN 978-88-8443-349-7 Miglino, O., Walker, R., Venditti, A., Nigrelli, M., Rega, A. (2010). Teaching to teach with technology – An EACEA project to promote advanced technology in education. In A. Jimoyiannis (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Pan-Hellenic Conference with International Participation «ICT in Education», vol.I, pp. 171-175 Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Rega, A., Iacono, I., Scoppa,A., (2009) .Magic Glove: An Interactive Hardware/Software System to Animate Objects. An Exploratory Study in Rehabilitation Setting. In Proceedings of IDC 2009 – The 8th International Conference on Interaction Design for Children pp. 313-316 .New York, NY, USA: ACM – ISBN:978-1-60558-395-2 Sica, L. S., Nigrelli, M. L., Rega, A., & Miglino, O. (2011). The “Teaching to Teach with Technology” Project: Promoting Advanced Games Technologies in Education. In Editore, S. (editor), ICT for Language Learning
64 Sitography
Teaching to Tech with Technology (2010). T3 Project Home Page. Retrieved 1 Semtember 2010 from http://www.t3.unina.it Digital Evolution Laboratory (2008). Avida Software home Page. Retrieved 1 October 2010 from http://devolab.msu.edu/ TILS (2009). The Dread-Ed Project. Retrieved 10 September 2010 from http://www.dread-ed.eu Wikipedia (2010).Age of Empites pages. Retrieved 1 October 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires Uri
Wilensky(2010). NetLogo-multi-agent programmable modeling environment. Retrieved 1 Semtember 2010 from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
Eutopia-MT (2009). The Eutopia MT Project. Retrieved 10 June 2010 from http://www.lanas.unina.it/eutopia (2010). Educational game engine. Retrieved 1 Semtember 2010 from http://e-adventure.e-ucm.es/
65
PART TWO
HOW TO USE NEW TECHNOLOGIES: A TRAINING MODEL
66
67
III
A model for training in the use of new technology Luigia Simona Sica, Maria Luisa Nigrelli, Orazio Miglino
III.1. Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to provide a guide to training in the use of new technology in learning contexts. As seen in the previous chapters, the teaching and learning processes described use technology in ways that have been developed with the aim of improving results. However, these days the use of new technology in different learning contexts seems to follow an improvised, unstructured path based more on the initiative of teachers interested in technological development than on an approved programme or previously established results. For this reason, the T3 Project has tested a training model in different learning scenarios (universities, schools and businesses) that has led to a training programme of our own being drawn up. This chapter briefly describes the results of work carried out in the T3 project, describing the training procedure that was drawn up after the European experimentation (Sica, Rega, Nigrelli & Miglino, 2011). In subsequent chapters in the third part of this volume, the tests performed during the project in three European contexts are described in detail. These chapters serve to exemplify how to design, conduct and complete a training programme.
68
III.2. The importance of training in the use of new technologies
The principles governing education and training programmes, as seen in Chapter I, take into account not only the teacher’s attributes and students’ demands, but also the context in which the educational/training interaction takes place and the means used to foster this interaction. Furthermore, the purpose of any training process is to achieve optimal results, which in practice means effective learning by students, whether this is in terms of understanding or in terms of reproduction and use of the content learnt. For this reason it seems appropriate to choose and use suitable means of fostering learning (Sica, Delli Veneri and Miglino, in press). To do this, in addition to traditional teaching and training tools, it is possible to introduce innovative technological tools that can add to traditional curricula new ways of creating knowledge, stimulating the motivation to learn not only in “extrinsic” terms but also in “intrinsic” terms such as enjoyment and “fun” while learning. This does not necessarily mean that enjoyment and fun cannot be produced, obtained and stimulated through traditional teaching methods, but we believe that in some specific contexts - and particularly with young people today - the use of new kinds of technology may be a means of communication with which they are more familiar in ordinary, daily life. We therefore consider that introducing new technology may lead to new communication tools being used that already exist in other areas of everyday life, a way of experimenting with new forms of knowledge production and, not least, the possibility of creatively stimulating new ideas and ways of teaching. But to begin using new technology in real contexts it is necessary to start by taking a step back, in other words not using direct experimentation in learning contexts, but training the teaching staff and all those who intend to use new technology in their own classes.
69 This training seems even more urgent, when teaching staff may not be familiar with the use of technology in the way that, for generational, cultural and educational reasons, many students are today.
III.3. Proposal for a training model
In putting forward a programme we first focus directly on training teachers and then, indirectly, on applying new technology in teaching contexts with students such as in schools, universities and businesses. Teachers are therefore our first training priority. The six-day training programme we propose below is based, as noted, on an experiment carried out in the European context. In view of this, we regard it as valid in that it leads to tangible results and, above all, that it can be carried out in a short time, attracting the interest of teaching staff.
III.3.a. Who is it for?
This training programme can be used in any learning context, i.e., in all settings aimed at providing not only the theory and content associated with the learning of a subject, but also acquiring empirical knowledge through experimentation. Within the scope of our T3 Project, we have worked experimentally with school teachers, university lecturers and business trainers. In all cases, the results have been positive. As seen in the last chapter of this text, the programme has attracted the interest of teaching staff and encouraged them to use technology in ‘real’ learning contexts with students. It has resulted in the creation of specific curricula and motivated teaching staff to introduce some specific kinds of technology as part of their own teaching or training methods. In summary, we have obtained encouraging results that have reaffirmed our approach to this training programme itself as the basis for drawing up training curricula that can be changed and adapted according to real, specific teaching/learning situations.
70 III.3.b. Before starting
At this point, before explaining the training programme, it should be noted that any learning environment requires flexibility on the part of teachers and progressive knowledge of the context in which to plan a training course that takes into account students’ resources and strengths, but also their limitations and shortcomings. Any didactic or pedagogical training in practice is based on this knowledge of the context and the ability to stay flexible and in keeping with the context of the teacher, lecturer or trainer. Any programme is therefore intended as a guide, a starting point, a move towards creating and adapting one’s own specific programme. However, there are some guidelines in the training programme for using new kinds of technology that have already been experimented with and recorded. This provides a starting point and a means of avoiding getting bogged down in unsuitable or ineffective initiatives. We ask you to find a balance between individual creativity and drawing up prescribed guidelines! It is also important to note that the process of knowledge creation is never a one-way process in which one simply transfers content to another, but above all it is a process of joint construction of meaning and content where all parties are involved and actively participate in producing knowledge. Thus, teachers and students are involved in the same way in the teaching and learning process and both are involved in building a programme to be followed in order to achieve a common goal: to know more about a particular topic.
III.4. Fundamental activities: getting to know the kinds of technology and choosing the most suitable ones
In order to suggest using new technology in any learning environment, it is necessary to know the potential this technology has and its purposes, as well as to understand what it is for, how it is used,
71 and to assess how it can be used effectively in the particular "classroom" context. Therefore, we encourage all teachers firstly to explore new kinds of technology, trying out some games and using some augmented reality systems. To do this, you can find useful instructions in Chapter II of this volume and in the interactive content on the net.
⇒See the online contents at this link: http://www.t3.unina.it/videototurial
Exploring how the chosen kinds of technology work enables one to understand their advantages and disadvantages, their potential and limitations, and also the effect their use has on students. The choice of technology, as explained in detail in Chapter II, is a very delicate decision because we have to consider the suitability of a technology’s functions to the purpose for which we intend to use it. Not all kinds of technology serve the same teaching or training purpose or are handled in the same way, or enable the same level of teacher/trainer intervention. It is therefore important to carefully read the functions of various types of technology before planning how to use them (see Chapter II) and adapt them to the learning processes one aims to encourage and facilitate (see Figure 1, Chapter II). After choosing and experimenting with the most suitable technology depending on the teaching or training purpose, one can plan to use and experiment with the technology in the learning contexts available.
III.5. Where, how and for how long: the six days of training
Table 1 summarises the six steps proposed for training in the use of new forms of technology. This lasts for six meetings, of about six hours' duration each, during which one becomes familiariar with and reflects upon new kinds of technology and upon experimentation with them in context.
72
PHASES
ACTIVITIES
AIMS
Step one
Selection of participants (volunteers)
Use means of invitation: E.g.: E-mail invitation
1. Finding participants actually interested in using new technologies. 2. Creating a training group
Step two
Needs analysis
Introduction to the course
Step three
Step four
Step five
1. Discovering the participants’ different Using questionnaires about interests as regards the new technology: technological E.g.: Questionnaires in applications used in Appendix a teaching practice 2 Assessing their prior knowledge about using technology 3. Exploring one’s own experience as regards technology in general Presenting Drawing up an example of Going from theory to each kind of applying the different kinds practice, creating technology in of technology to one’s own practical examples detail, educational subject or accompanied content by specific Group discussion on what exercises has been drawn up Creating Practical sessions: Giving the participants scenarios Brainstorming on the the opportunity to create content real scenarios that can Choice of technology for be used in their own each student learning contexts Creating scenarios Assessment through group discussion of the scenarios created Final Assessment questionnaire: Drawing conclusions assessment See Appendix b, Verifying the effects of "Satisfaction with the training technology questionnaire", "Course evaluation questionnaire"
TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 1. Time and space links. 2. Outsourcing options. 3. Number of people participating in the course 4. Planning group or individual activities 5. Planning activities: motivational aspects
PRELIMIN ARY PHASE ORGANIS ATION & PLANNIN G
INTROD UCTION [FIRST DAY)
DAY 2-3
1. Feedback (to involve, motivate or correct); 2. Instruments and styles for teaching (directed, supportive, or participative)
Table 1– The training programme.
DAY 5-6
DAY 6
73 The next chapter explains the programme in detail with the school used as an example of a learning setting. The methodological approach is regarded as transferable and can be used in any setting that intends to encourage learning with new kinds of technology. The details that appear in Chapter IV can be used as a guide and in the third part of this volume there are specific examples of how to apply the model in school, university and business settings. Box 1 gives a summarised guide of the main steps in the training of teaching staff.
III.6. Before and after: the importance of assessment
Any programme carried out for a specific purpose, as when planning an educational/training programme, needs to compare the "before" and "after", i.e., to be able to assess and verify if the stated objectives have been achieved completely, partially or not at all. Assessment is a very important point that provides useful indicators for changing the programme, and also for discovering what students’ needs may be, what skills the programme has effectively stimulated, and therefore for assessing how to act in future with creativity and innovation in teaching processes. For this reason, we suggest that before an educational course begins, useful materials are used to gather information (see Appendix a), with the help of specific questionnaires that enable one to describe the basis the users have as regards the exact content one intends to promote in the course. On completion of the training, some of the materials or questionnaires can be used again to assess gains (either in quantitative or qualitative terms) in knowledge about the specific content that one intended to promote using new kinds of technology (see Appendix b).
III.7. Conclusions
This chapter has presented the guidelines for a training model for teaching staff. This outline is given in greater detail in Chapter IV. The
74 model proposed provides a basis applicable to settings such as schools, universities and businesses. Moreover, when planning it is always necessary to consider features related to the context and users, and to make a final choice regarding the kinds of technology that can be used to meet the educational objectives and to motivate students. It is also advisable to conduct "pre-" and "post-" training assessment in order to provide clues that may help in subsequent training and suggestions for introducing new kinds of technology in real contexts and for creating customised curricula. It should also be noted that the most important step is to learn to become familiar with new technology and to be aware that these are the means, instruments and tools that enable content to be transmitted and to create new content. Technology is not content in itself, nor does it substitute the ongoing dialogue between teacher and student. The latter is in the end a unique system in which knowledge is constructed jointly and not simply transmitted.
75 References
Sica, L. S., Delli Veneri, A., Miglino, O. (in stampa) “Exploring new technological tools for education: Some prototypes and their pragmatical classification”. In Elvis Pontes (eds.),E-learning / Book 1 , Technological Research Institute of São Paulo (IPT), São Paulo, Brazil. ISBN 979-953307-241-7. Sica, L.S., Nigrelli, M.L., Rega, A., Miglino, O. (2011). The “Teaching to Teach with Technology” Project: Promoting Advanced Games Technologies in Education. Proceedings International Conference “The future of Education”, Firenze, Italy: Simonelli Editore - University Press, vol. 2, 169-173.
76
77
IV
Developing innovation in technology-use and learning in the school setting John Jessel
IV.1. The UK context
The school setting is one that is unique in terms of its breadth of compass. Unlike other workplaces or other educational settings, schools in the UK, as well as in many other countries, are entrusted with the responsibility of enabling students to become conversant with and to develop understandings in a variety of fields or subject areas and to develop in their maturity as learners and as expressive and creative individuals. In addition to this the school curriculum is also one that is charged with attending to the pastoral needs and moral welfare of students, as well as to their development in their own right as citizens. The school has also to cater for students with very differing backgrounds, interests, abilities, ages and very differing levels of maturation. Over their years of schooling, students will have developed markedly and in many different ways. Regardless of any technology, the implications of this for methods of teaching and learning are huge.
78 In this chapter the challenges of introducing a new technology into the school setting are examined. At one level there are the issues connected with finding opportunities for schools and teachers to take up and develop the use of a new technology. At another level consideration has to be given to the design of a training programme for teachers so that the technology can be utilised effectively for student learning. In view of the range of demands upon schools it would perhaps be surprising if the introduction of any new technology into the school setting would be met with predictable and uniform widespread success. Indeed, despite major investment, the use of innovative technology and e-learning is relatively patchy (Ofsted, 2009). Moreover, each school is very different: while a given technology for learning may work effectively in one setting this does not guarantee it will work well in another. The need for the effective integration of technology in the UK school curriculum has been a recurrent concern of different governments over recent years. In a strategy paper published in 2005 the belief was stated that future development of ICT in education could ‘transform teaching and learning and help improve outcomes for children and young people, through shared ideas, more exciting lessons and online help for professionals’ (DfES, 2005: 4). Although there has since been a change of government, with the current Schools White Paper (DfE, 2010) not directly specifying a role for technology, the pervasiveness and availability of technology made available through initiatives following the 2005 Strategy raises key questions about the part technology can continue to play. With regard to promoting the use of new digital technology in the school setting, successful innovation in teaching and learning does not occur in isolation. It has long been recognised that innovation involving a new technology brings with it new materials, new practices and new beliefs and understandings (Fullan & Smith, 1999). This means that simply knowing how to use a new piece of hardware or software is not enough to enable teachers to use the technology effectively in the classroom. In particular, as Oswald (2003) has reported, it is the pedagogical issues rather than the technological changes that are
79 essential to technology integration into classrooms. With the current availability of advanced technologies, knowing how to use a piece of equipment may be acquired through personal use. However, closing the gap between this and classroom use requires teachers to develop their knowledge of pedagogical practices across many aspects of their planning, implementation and evaluation (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The notion of innovation within the remit of the T3 Project, then, is expressed as much by the teaching approaches disseminated as it is by the technologies themselves. There is, however, a further element in the successful introduction of new practices involving technologies that are widely and readily available in the real world. This relates to the fact that teachers and students already live in a world that is pervaded by the discourse and artefacts of innovation. In view of this they will have already developed knowledge, understandings and perceptions drawn from a variety of sources. We are therefore operating within a landscape of attitudes and expectations that have to be acknowledged and managed. A successful teaching programme then, in addition to taking account of the technology and the pedagogy, will also need to take account of the social and cultural dynamics to which all those involved, including partners on the T3 Project, will inevitably contribute. In sum, developing innovative practice is a potentially sophisticated and complex process that has to be negotiated rather than imposed.
IV.2. Entering the school setting
The focus of the T3 Project in the UK is on mainstream secondary schooling. This represents an important stage before students enter further or higher education such as university and where, to a greater extent, they will be expected to work independently. With regard to the use of technology, it is at this stage where establishing more productive patterns of technology-use can have lasting benefits. As noted, secondary schools in the UK typically have an intake of students with a wide variety of interests and abilities and from a wide variety of backgrounds,
80 and these are reflected in the demands that are made upon teachers. Students usually fall within the 11 to 18 age-range and for their first five years up to the age of 16 follow a wide range of subjects across the curriculum before specialising in a smaller subset of subjects for their final two years up to the age of 18. Teaching is largely subject-based with maths, English and science regarded as a core. Some teaching may be cross curricula, such as in the form of a project, and other work of a cross-curricula nature may occur in schools that have some form of a baccalaureate scheme, but these instances are less frequent. For students up to the age of 16, schools are required to meet the requirements of a National Curriculum which stipulates the provision of the range of subjects. Concepts and content are outlined for each subject but schools may use different teaching approaches and different course materials. In addition to regular assemblies with larger groups of students, many schools also have short ‘form’ or ‘tutor’ period on a daily basis where, in addition to administrative matters such as registration, activities of a more general or pastoral nature may take place. The schools that were targeted were either in, or close to London and could be regarded as fairly typically mainstream. Apart from one being for girls and another for boys, the remainder of the schools that participated were non-selective with pupils of mixed sex from a variety of backgrounds. The main computer facilities in these schools, again fairly typical, consisted of one or two rooms dedicated as IT suites with approximately thirty machines, thereby allowing individual student access for those classes that were booked these facilities. An alternative provision in these schools, and representative of a current trend, was a set of laptop computers that could be borrowed and used in the normal class setting. Apart from the larger clusters of computers, most classrooms had a single machine with a data projector. All computers were networked. Access by students to IT equipment outside of lesson time was usually limited to a handful of machines in locations such as a library.These might be available during breaks between lessons but not usually after school hours.
81 IV.2.a. Selecting a technology to be developed by teachers
Rather than imposing the use of a specific technology regardless of expressed need, initial investigations was carried out in order to find out what technologies might be regarded as innovative or advanced, but were also currently available in schools and where there might be benefits from further development of their use. Staff from the City Learning Centre for the area were consulted about possible candidate technologies. The Centre supported the development of the use of digital technologies across all schools covering the area of London for which it had responsibility. Staff from the Centre worked closely with teachers on a frequent and regular basis and were considered to be aware of current needs and classroom concerns. It was also regarded as important to gauge directly from teachers what technologies teachers they might be interested in using and so discussions were also carried out independently with teachers in prospective schools in order to identify any other technologies they might suggest. There appeared to be a widespread interest in developing the use of the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). This technology was also in line with a need expressed as part of a strategy by the UK Government’s then Department for Education and Skills (DfES, 2005) for a common digital infrastructure or ‘learning platform’ to support transformation and reform within schools. Rather than being a singular product, learning platforms were taken to include a collection of tools, integrated webbased applications and interactive online services. Also referred to as Virtual Learning Environments, or sometimes as Managed Learning Environments (MLEs) or Managed Virtual Learning Environments (MVLEs), the intention was that these could provide teachers, learners, parents and others involved in education with information, tools and resources to support and enhance teaching and learning as well as its management and administration (Jewett et al., 2009). VLEs are typically closed to an institution and in that sense regarded as relatively secure and different rights can be given to users such as students, teachers and more remote potential users such as parents or carers. Well-known systems in
82 the UK university sector are Blackboard and Moodle, while systems such as Frog, Fronter and SIMS Learning Gateway are available in many schools. Although there are differences between each system, most have the facilities noted above and for the purposes of this article VLEs will be treated generically. In the years following the 2005 Strategy, VLEs have been introduced into the primary and secondary sectors and the number of schools equipped in England and Wales has increased steadily. According to a survey carried out by Becta in 2010, ownership of a VLE had reached 67 per cent for primary and 93 per cent for secondary schools, an increase of 14 per cent from the previous year (Becta, 2010). While the use of VLEs in universities and colleges is relatively established (UCISA, 2008; 2010), this is not the case in many schools today (Ofsted, 2009). According to the 2010 Becta survey, while the use for uploading and storing digital learning resources for lessons and homework is frequent, communication between learners and discussion forums are used less frequently. The same survey also reported that nearly three quarters of secondary school senior leaders regarded the use of a learning platform as a top priority for the coming three years (Becta, 2010). There is therefore scope for exploring the potential of VLE technology to be used in ways that meet the wide range of demands within schools in terms of curriculum and approaches to teaching and learning. In terms of innovation, the importance of VLEs arises from their connectivity; as computer-based systems they offer facilities such as e-mail, bulletin boards, forums and newsgroups together with ways of storing and presenting course materials. In many respects, and in contrast to the internet of the last decade, as a manifestation of Web 2.0 technology they allow exchanges that are many to many or ‘interactive’ rather the than one-to-many characteristic of a ‘broadcast’ (Selwyn, 2008).
83 IV.2.b. Needs analysis
Following the initial discussions about a possible candidate technology, a needs analysis that included a small-scale survey was given to a sample of 30 teachers representing a range of curriculum specialisms and teaching experience in the 5 schools that would be participating in the T3 Project. The questionnaire used for the survey was designed to find out what kind of technology was available, whether it was currently used and whether the technology itself, or its use, were perceived as innovative. Further questions addressed those technologies teachers were interested in becoming more familiar with. With regard to the VLE, it was found that the technology was available in all of the schools surveyed and that it had been used by around half (17) of the teachers.All of the teachers reported their perceptions of the technology as innovative but only three teachers regarded their own use as innovative. Most teachers (28) stated that they were interested in finding out more about VLEs. Use of the VLE was also of interest insofar that it encompasses a range of other technologies; in particular, the communicative potential of the VLE was recognised and linked to the read/write capabilities of Web 2.0 technologies. Some teachers, for example, regarded the classroom use of YouTube as innovative and they saw the use of this kind of facility as something that could be embedded within the VLE. Similarly, it was felt that links between the use of hand-held devices such as smartphones and Play Station Portables could also be made with the VLE.
IV.2.c. VLE as the focus technology
In view of the widespread availability and interest it was decided to focus on the VLE within the T3 Project. A further quality of the VLE is that together with its associated technologies its use could be developed within and across a range of curriculum areas. The Project work would therefore explores the issues of VLE-use at a time when the technology is expected to play a major role in learning. In particular, attention would
84 also be given to the communicative function of the VLE at a time when strategies for realising its potential for learning are relatively unexplored.
IV.3. Developing a training course
Given the choice of the VLE as the focus technology, the main challenges are two fold. Firstly, strategies for using it effectively in the school setting have to be identified, developed and imparted. Connected with this is the need to understand more fully why the technology may or may not function as anticipated in different teaching contexts and, in the light of this, to develop methods that might help establish ways or working that may take advantage of the distinctive contributions that elearning technology could make. Secondly, the development of innovation in technology use has to be done in a way that empowers teachers. In relation to this, attention would also be given in trying to understand the issues facing teachers in the classroom. In addition to the above main aims it was also intended to monitor how the course worked at teacher and student level and how the work might interlock with senior management and at policy level. With regard to the school setting, for any one subject, students attend lessons spread over many months and which are punctuated by lessons in other subjects that might not be related. This stands in contrast to some of the shorter intensive training programmes that may exist in industry. The value of a given technology may be enhanced if it can be used over a period of time and adapted in relation to different needs within a given subject area. In turn, assessment of the effectiveness of the technology will need to embrace a variety of learning outcomes; some developing slowly (and not always easily identifiable) over a longer period of time. Distributed use, as opposed to intensive use, relates to different parts of a curriculum area with a wide range of learning outcomes that could involve different modes of use of a technology. It could take time for teachers to establish how particular technologies may be applied and used effectively with a large number of students where the availability of
85 resources may be limited. The limited availability and reliability of resources may also compromise extended habitual or coherent use of a given technology. While some of these problems may be offset with students in further or higher education having access to the technology outside timetabled sessions, these may be less easy to resolve in the secondary schools where alternative access to equipment could be very limited.
IV.4. Course principles
Teachers as experts
Developing the use of a technology in the school setting not only requires expertise in the technology itself, but also an expertise in the curriculum to be taught and the school context, including what can be expected from a widely varying group of students. A training course must therefore recognise and build on the expertise of teachers. Cuban (2001) regards teachers’ perspectives as essential to the success of integrating technology into the classroom. In this case he has noted that the kinds of questions teachers ask when considering the use of computer technology in their classrooms range from its reliability to its versatility, whether the technology can be used in more than one teaching situation, and whether the use of the technology will weaken classroom authority. Without attention to these kinds of details the risk of earlier failures in the uptake of a new technology are liable to be repeated. In addition to the teacher’s agenda there is, of course, the agenda of a training program. Rather than being at odds, these agendas can be seen in terms of a common purpose. Through this common purpose there is scope for ownership, where training is negotiated according to need rather than pre-defined. In Chapter 1 the idea that practice could be improved by people who have a common professional goal engaging in shared enquiry and learning was considered in relation to a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; 1998). This idea is also echoed in Newmann, King & Young’s (2000) contention that innovation in the
86 work setting can be realised through becoming part of such a professional community. With regard to new technologies, Schlager and Fusco’s (2004) view of a community of practice as evolving and selfreproducing
and
distinct
from
and
extending
beyond
formal
organisational structures is also pertinent. Members of a community can come from different organisations drawn together for social and professional reasons. New practices are brought into the community by leaders, newcomers and outsiders and adopted by the community through the discourse of its members and the evolution of practice over time. From the perspective of a community of practice, work and professional development are inextricably linked with those with whom one works. This confluence can also be seen as central to the development of innovative practice in schools. Teachers will bring experience and expertise into the group setting and contribute along with those who have expertise in the technology. In this sense the training course can be seen as a community of practice where experts work together to further develop their expertise. However, this process of development is also ongoing. For example, Mueller et al., (2008) have noted that because the available technology is always being developed then teachers are perpetual novices in the process of technology integration. Mueller at al.’s observation can also apply to the trainer’s role when introducing the technology. In this sense teachers and technology specialists can be seen as both experts and novices. This was seen as an important guiding principle in terms of how the T3 Course was approached.
In situ training and sustainability
Teaching demands can vary considerably according to each school. Although the requirements of the National Curriculum have to be met, the way these are achieved will vary and may depend, for example, on the nature of the students and the materials and resources available. In view of this, there could be cosiderable benefits in situating the training as far as possible within the school setting normally used by the teachers and in relation to the teaching methods and materials used in different
87 curriculum areas. A uniform or common training input delivered off-site to a group was considered to be less likely to be effective. Although more labour intensive, it was judged that the costs would be offset through not having to rely on third party facilities and, importantly, through the level of commitment and ownership that might occur. Training could be adjusted in accordance with local conditions and needs with an increased element of realism. Such an approach is supported by empirical evidence of the effectiveness of ‘authentic professional learning’ that is situated within the workplace (Webster-Wright, 2009). Here, genuine problems can emerge with individuals engaged in addressing these as part of their professional practice (Burbank & Kauchak, 2003). It was thought that training situated in this way could engage teachers to the extent that they would, in turn, further disseminate or cascade their skills to others within the same institution. This has implications for sustainability and also attunes with the growing move within schools towards more internal continuing professional development. Linked in more formally at policy level, such as through a school’s development plan there is the possibility of establishing a self-perpetuating model.
Curriculum-led Of importance to teachers is the curriculum that is taught, and part of situating training in the school setting is acknowledging that curriculum. Although the nature and content of a curriculum can vary, the key point here is that the intention is not to introduce the technology as an entity that is separated from its use. Many attempts have been made to teach computers and information technology as a separate subject. However, the success of such a decontextualized approach relies heavily on learners being able to transfer of what is taught to other subject areas. Hammond and Mumtaz (2001), for example have noted that, with this approach, not only were the purposes of learning about the various IT applications not likely to be communicated to students but also transfer of what was learned in IT as a separate subject to other subjects was often problematic.
88 In view of the importance of subject-based aspects of the secondary curriculum the strategies adopted within the T3 Project were designed to accommodate this. As the school curriculum can include elements than span different subject areas, and also includes PSHE and other activities outside the subject classroom such as tutorial sessions, it was recognised that, in turn, a curriculum-led approach could also addess these aspects. The starting point, then, was that any innovative methods would initially relate to existing curriculum objectives and their assessment. Through this the technology-use could be regarded as an essential component that could play an enhancing role rather that something of interest but ultimately dispensable when teachers are faced with other pressures.
Curriculum transformation Strict adherence to an existing curriculum, however, is ultimately backward-looking in nature and would fail to take account of any new challenges and practices that arise as a result of the impact of technology itself. In this sense the scope for curriculum transformation and the consolidation of this are also regarded as important. A curriculum-led approach is therefore seen more as a starting point. The notion of curriculum transformation brings with it questions regarding what is meant by ‘curriculum’ and views on this vary widely (e.g., Marsh, 2009; Pinar, 2004). In a formal sense, a curriculum can specify the learning that is expected to occur during a course or programme of study. Taken at this level the curriculum would be no more than a content list, or syllabus, with little guidance to distinguish between items judged to be more important and those more trivial. If what is to be learned is seen simply as a body of content then education becomes a matter of transmission or delivery and how this can be made most effective (Blenkin et al., 1992). The idea of curriculum as the achievement of an end product has emerged from the work of those such as Bobbitt (1918; 1928) and Tyler (1949). This linked closely with analysing various tasks into component parts that could be systematically managed. Many training programs of the day were concerned with systematic management of the uptake of
89 these component elements within the work setting. While this might have been seen as a recipe for efficiency for particular groups of employees in certain work settings, it leaves very little scope for the learner to have a ‘voice’ and operate creatively. Taken to extreme there is very little room for manoeuvre in the role of the teacher who would then become an administrator. More recently, elaborated sets of end products or behavioural objectives developed by those such as Bloom (1956) have continued to have influence, and learning objectives and competences remain a live part of educational discourse. While there are attractions in the preciseness to which learning can be specified and assessed, the criticisms that are often voiced refer to an undue emphasis on long lists of trivial competences that are easily measurable while higher levels of learning involving problem solving and creativity that are more difficult to express satisfactorily as behavioural objectives can be marginalised (Kelly, 2009; Marsh, 2009). An alternative to a product model is a process model (Stenhouse, 1975) whereby students and teachers can play a part in deciding the nature of the learning activities they engage in and where the emphasis is more on learning skills as students and teachers work together. Here there is also scope for raising the level of activity in terms of cognitive involvement through problem solving and creativity as well as scope for the teacher to bring their own vision into the learning arena. As Stenhouse would acknowledge, to be effective this can make greater demands upon the teacher, and, finding suitable content in some areas to which activities can be related can have its difficulties (Neary, 2002). The part played by social context in relation to the curriculum has been emphasised by Cornbleth (1990: 5) as ‘an ongoing social process comprised of interactions of students, teachers, knowledge and milieu’. Similarly, if there is scope for the voice of the student and the teacher then a variety of attributes such as learning styles, strengths, preferences and age will influence the way people receive, create and share knowledge which in turn will impact upon the curriculum (Dede, 2005).
90 The curriculum then, far from being a fixed entity, can be viewed as something that is negotiable and shaped by context. With regard to the communicative technologies characteristic of Web 2.0 the fluidity of the curriculum is further extended. Curriculum experiences are no longer confined to the school or the classroom. As Kennedy (2005) has noted, there is an increasing gap between ‘official’ knowledge imparted by the school and ‘real-world’ knowledge available to students through technology that in turn raises curriculum issues where individual control is more powerful. A ‘hidden curriculum’ arising from exposure to a physical or social environment, or the ‘culture and ethos of an organisation’ such as a school, can bring with it norms, beliefs, attitudes and values and expectations that may be acquired (Seddon, 1983). Similarly, the impact of technology on the modus operandi of learning can bring with it a hidden curriculum where attitudes to knowledge, its arbiters and its availability are taken for granted and in turn impact upon more formal aspects of a curriculum. In sum, the curriculum is not a singular agreed entity. There may be very little consensus on what should be learned and the way that it should be learned. While some aspects of the curriculum may be subject to conscious control others may elude this. In turn the impact of technology may be wide-ranging; sometimes in ways that are predictable and sometimes less so. The experience of learning can also in turn be impacted upon by the existence and use of technology. Sometimes the use of technology may enhance learning by allowing it to take place more efficiently and reliably. Alternatively, in view of the different forms that a curriculum can take, the use of technology could also transform learning.
From whole to part Technological devices can appear very complex; exploration of the menus of even the most familiar applications such as wordprocessors and spreadsheets very quickly reveals an overwhelming range of options and facilities, many of which are likely to appear meaningless to many users. The VLE is no exception. When confronted by such a technology it may
91 appear inherently logical to analyse in detail how it can be operated and then present a sequence of tasks of increasing difficulty and technical complexity until a complete end goal is reached when the learner is assumed to be in total control. This thinking underlies a ‘systems approach’ or instructional design (Gagné, 1985) based on a hierarchical model of tasks and can be a tempting feature in training programs. An alternative to approaching technology-use by beginning with an extensive series of sub-skills is through taking a conceptual approach where certain procedures are used in relation to a need or intention arising within a meaningful context of use. The ‘concept’ in this case would relate to a particular function of the technology rather than precisely how it might be achieved. This approach can be linked to a constructivist perspective (e.g., Brooks & Brooks, 1993) with the learner moving from whole to part by initially seeking larger patterns that have meaning within which something new can be integrated. A more meaningful framework for new knowledge is likely to be constructed if this is driven more directly and interactively by our own ideas (Johannsen et al., 1999). Using either a systems approach or a constructivist approach can be seen as extremes and many approaches to learning and teaching can fall in between. Grubb (2008) for example refers to evidence of the positive effects of more ‘balanced’ approaches that are applicable in a variety of learning contexts and where teachers have more control over the curriculum. In these cases, though, specific skills and procedures are acquired in combination with a broader conceptual understanding. The ideas and thinking and the intentions for their own classrooms that teachers bring to the implementation of new technology are important driving forces in its uptake. In view of this an approach that emphasises the move from whole to part was to be adopted in the T3 course. Although concerns could arise as a result of apparent gaps in operational knowledge of the technology, within the time available it was thought more productive to encourage the development of a broader conceptual frame within which meaningful use of the VLE could be sited. The parallel that came to mind was that many seasoned users of
92 applications such as wordprocessors and spreadsheets manage very successfully without needing to know all the operational intricacies.
A theoretical framework A further design consideration underlying the T3 course concerned the quality of student engagement and learning. In response to the earlier suggestion that pedagogical issues rather than technological changes are essential to effective technology integration (Oswald, 2003) there are grounds for invoking some of the differing perspectives on learning that underlie pedagogical practice. These, of course, were introduced in Chapter 1 and the summary diagram (Figure 1 in that chapter) was considered a central component of the course. The idea was not to introduce any of the learning perspectives in detail but to use the diagram as a means of activating the key concepts and a means of articulating these. The main idea was to draw attention to a principal feature of the framework that different technologies can be used in many different ways within the learning context. Importantly, the framework made provision for the capacity of the VLE for connectivity so bringing in a further social and collaborative dimension into learning. The framework, then, allows a given technology to be mapped anywhere within a social and paradigmatic space for learning according to how it is used; there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ place for any one technology. In other words it is the ‘technology-use’ rather than the technology itself that is mapped into the space delineated by the summary diagram. At a more theoretical level, identification of learning goals and assessment opportunities were also included in the sessions as were considerations of the role of the student, the teacher and the technology in relation to these.
Field trials Field trials prototyping resources and methods with the teachers and students were planned in conjunction with the workshops. It was anticipated that these would provide important feedback and allow for refinement of teaching strategies any materials produced. They would
93 also allow an opportunity for the student’s perspective to feature within the Project.
IV.5. Summary
Implementation of a successful training programme has to operate at a number of levels. Consideration has to be given to the capacity of an institution such as a school to take on board an innovation. The nature of the innovation itself has also to be carefully considered; in this case a needs analysis leading to the selection of an appropriate technology. Developing innovative practice has its costs in terms of a school’s resources, notably the availability of teachers and, in turn, the effect this may have on the continuity of maintaining high quality cover for students by experienced and established staff. Innovation invariably occurs in context of other initiatives, pressures or changes within an institution rather than in isolation. In view of this, points of entry and their timing have to be negotiated. Linked with this is the breadth of demands upon a school, many of which are not predictable and have to be accommodated on a day-to-day basis. As a result, some flexibility in scheduling of course provision may be necessary. Then there is the design of the training programme itself. At a fundamental level trainers are not simply passing on an established body of knowledge: trainers collaborate with teachers; there is a sense in which both are experts and both can be novices learning from each other by bringing together curriculum, teaching and technical experience. In this way the notion of training can be reframed as a jointly creative enterprise. Through creating something new there is an opportunity for all participants to gain a sense of ownership of what is produced within the course. Through this a sense of collective responsibility for the sessions can emerge. The benefits of in situ training have been put forward together with their implications for sustainability. The importance of the context where training takes place is expressed through a curriculum-led approach, but importantly, this is an approach where scope for curriculum transformation is recognised. It is also recognised
94 that meaningful involvement in human learning can defy a logic of learning as a simple accretion of factual detail such as that needed to operate a technological device. The alternative to this part-to-whole approach that then presents itself is the move from whole-to-part. The whole can be seen as a common and meaningful purpose sought within a community of practice. Finally, with regard to the pedagogical practice that inevitable accompanies the use of a new technology, it has been argued that there is a need for a summary theoretical framework on learning perspectives. Box 1 shows the outline of a course developed in relation to the above principles. The course was run with teachers in schools and the technology trialled with students and carefully monitored. The data from this are presented and discussed in Chapter 5.
Box 1
Suggested Teaching Programme Structure (UK Schools)
Day 1 Introduction to the Project; its background, aims and goals. A curriculum-led approach to the use of technology: in other words the aim is to use the technology to enhance and develop and existing curriculum or programme of study that the teachers are teaching. Discuss the implications of this in relation to them thinking about specific course topics that they might consider relating the use of the technology to. Learning models and the use of new technology: introduce diagram showing the framework drawing out both cognitive and social aspects of learning. Introduce ways of classifying technology-use in relation to educational paradigm and social/collaborative learning skills. Explain that the intention is to map the technologies that will be used into this two dimensional space in the framework diagram, aiming to exploit the dimensions as fully as possible.
95 Introduce examples of the technology and the main concepts underlying its use. This introduction will not address how to use the technology; precise operational and technical details will be introduced later on and within the course planning context. Teachers work as a group to identify through discussion possible curriculum areas and objectives or learning outcomes to which a selected technology could be applied. This is an idea-raising session: the technique is to note down as many ideas as possible without trying to filter them in terms of their appropriateness, practicality etc. The ideas are then reviewed in terms of the extent to which they are appropriate and realisable. Technology introduced in more detail: this may be by carrying out a simple activity, or by producing a basic example of a resource based on the teachers’ initial ideas, or by seeing the use of the technology with students modelled. More viable ideas are selected and considered regarding sequencing and timing in relation to a specific part of the curriculum to be taught. Learning outcomes considered in terms of their perceived importance (more trivial outcomes discounted) and the extent to which students’ progress in these outcomes is likely to be formally assessed. Plenary: teachers share key issues arising and link these to the theoretical and pedagogical issues introduced earlier in the day. Teachers identify any course documents or other materials that they will need in for further work with the new technology in the next session.
Day 2
The focus of the day’s sessions is on developing specific curriculum applications of the selected technology. It is workshop-based and teachers may need to bring the curriculum documents that they are required to address in their courses. The session begins with a discussion to clarify learning outcomes to be addressed and the resources to be prepared. The value in this discussion is in the sharing or ideas and approaches with a view to
96 teachers developing a broader awareness of the possibilities of a particular technology. Teachers devise and prepare resources, ways of working and teaching plans for use with their students. This will be done in small commoninterest subgroups. In line with the principle of the work with the technology being curriculum-led, this is likely to involve detailed reference to course documents and other materials that the teachers normally work with. The tutor plays a supporting role sharing information and technical knowledge. Teachers test the resources and methods of using them on each other or between subgroups and obtain feedback. Discuss ideas for further developing and refining the methods and resources and identify tasks to be carried out in relation to this in the next session. (Further examples of new technologies or software may need to be considered here.) General discussion and debriefing and sharing ideas on the teaching methods and roles of the technology, the teacher and the student within the context of the technology use. Teachers identify and note points regarding the use of the technology that they would wish to pass on to other teachers who had not used the technology before. Teachers work with the tutor to begin a document drawing together the above points.
Day 3
Discussion on the main planned learning outcomes and how they will be achieved using the technology. Consider how the learning outcomes map onto the two-dimensional space in the Framework diagram. Discussion on the opportunities and methods for assessment of the learning outcomes and continued work on devising and refining resources, ways of working and teaching plans. Teachers test the resources, including methods of assessment, on each other or and obtain feedback. Discuss ideas for further developing
97 and refining the methods, resources and means of assessment. Identify further tasks to be carried out in relation to the above issues in the next session. General discussion, debriefing and sharing ideas on the teaching methods and resources with a focus on the methods of assessment. In particular the extent to which the assessment methods address aspects such as depth of understanding, problem solving and creativity in addition to retention of knowledge and development of discrete skills will be considered in relation to what the teachers have specifically developed and in relation to the scope for further development or technology-related activities. Teachers identify and note further points regarding the use of the technology and assessment that they would wish to pass on to other teachers who had not used the technology before.
Day 4
Teachers begin with a brief recap on the main intended learning outcomes and methods of assessment and how they will be achieved using the technology. Discussion on the role of the student as a collaborator in learning, rather than acting just as an individual. The implications of the social dimension within learning will be discussed in relation to the framework for innovation and the learning culture or community that the teachers may wish to develop amongst their students. In relation to the idea of a learning culture, there will be a discussion on the extent to which the andragogic principles identified in relation to the framework are applicable to the students and the teaching and learning setting in view of the interaction modalities afforded by new technologies. In line with the framework for innovation, wider issues on assessment including peer involvement will be discussed and opportunities for using such methods identified.
98 Finalise the materials, resources and methods for initial trials with students. This will include planned assessments on how students can demonstrate their learning, the criteria for student assessment, and methods of record keeping. Discuss and introduce the data gathering methods to be used by teachers in the initial trial period. Teachers identify and note further points regarding the use of the technology that they would wish to pass on to other teachers who had not used the technology before.
(INITIAL TRIAL PERIOD – Teachers teach a segment of a course where the technology is used and gather data)
Day 5
Evaluation of the methods and materials introduced and trialled with students. This may take account of factors such as resource demands, ease of use of the technology and its reliability, planning time needed, the number of students that can be supported concurrently in any one teaching session, student accomplishment, student feedback, etc. Discuss, plan or carry out any further development of resources, ways of working and teaching plans for use with students in the light of the evaluation. (approx. 1 hour) Discuss, plan and refine the teaching method and ways of enabling effective roles of the teacher, the student and the technology within the context of the technology-use. (approx. 30 mins) Discuss, plan or refine the assessment process and the criteria for student assessment. (approx. 1 hour) Review the coverage of the curriculum area/s or the possible uses of a given technology across the curriculum. Identify further areas for development and prepare materials or methods that could be used in a further trial period.
99 In relation to the initial trial, teachers identify and note further points regarding the use of the technology that they would wish to pass on to other teachers who had not used the technology before. (FURTHER TRIAL PERIOD – Teachers either use materials or methods that have been further developed or refined, or, with additional segments of the course, trial instances where innovative technology or methods are used and gather data)
Day 6
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the refined or additional methods and materials. Complete a short questionnaire on the design and usability of the software. Final session to further develop resources, ways of working or teaching plans for use with students in the light of the evaluation. Similarly, refine the teaching methods and roles of the teacher and the student within the context of the technology-use, and the assessment process and the criteria for student assessment. Finalisation of teaching resources and methods, including the drafting of any explanatory material or user interfaces, so that these can be used by other teachers. In relation to the initial trial, teachers identify and note further points regarding the use of the technology that they would wish to pass on to other teachers who had not used the technology before. Teachers continue work with the tutor to finalise the document drawing together relevant points including those on assessment and social dimensions in learning. Discuss methods of teacher dissemination to other teaching colleagues and collate key points to be appended to the above document. Evaluate the T3 Teaching Programme. This is based on the goals and criteria detailed in the T4.1 Methodology document and will utilise the course evaluation questionnaire in T4.2.
100
References Becta (2010). Harnessing Technologies School Survey: 2010. Coventry, BECTA. Bobbitt, F. (1918). The Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Bobbitt, F. (1928). How to Make a Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Blenkin, G.M., Edwards, G and Kelly, A.V. (1992). Change and the Curriculum. London: Paul Chapman. Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain, New York, David McKay Co. Inc. Brooks, J.G. and Brooks, M.G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Burbank, M.D. and Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 499-514. Cornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context. Basingstoke: Falmer Press. Cuban, L. (2001) Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge MA; Harvard University Press. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for “neomillenial” learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In J. Oblinger and D. Oblinger (eds.) Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Publishers. DfES (2005). Harnessing Technology – Transforming Learning and Children’s Services, [online], Department for Education and Skills, www.dscf.gov.uk/publications/e-strategy. DfE (2010). The Importance of Teaching: Schools White Paper, [online], Department for Education, www.education.gov.uk/b0068570/theimportance-of-teaching/. Ertmer, P.A. and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher Technology Change: How Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs and Culture Intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol 32, No. 3, pp 255284 Fullan and Smith (1999) Technology and the Problem of Change. Available http://www.michael/fullan.ca/Articles_98-99/12_99.pdf
101 Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. 4th edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Grubb, W.N. (2008). Multiple resources, multiple outcomes: Testing the ‘improved’ school finance with NELS:88. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 104-44. Hammond, M. and Mumtaz, S, (2001) How trainee teachers of IT approach teaching their subject, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 16676. Jewitt, C., Hadjithoma-Garstka, C., Clark, W., Banaji, S. and Selwyn, N. (2010). School use of learning platforms and associated technologies. Coventry: Becta. Johannsen, D.H., Peck, K.L. and Wilson, B.G. (1999) Learning with Technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill Publishing. Kelly, A.V. (2009). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Kennedy K.J. (2005) Changing Schools for Changing Times: New Directions for the School Curriculum in Hong Kong. Sha Tin, N.T. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marsh, C.J. (2009). Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum. Abingdon: Routledge. Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C. and Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers and Education, 51, 1523-37. Neary, M. (2002) Curriculum Studies in Post-Compulsory and Adult Education. Cheltenham: Nelson-Thornes. Newmann, F., King, B. and Young, S.P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. Paper presented to Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 3rd April, New Orleans.
102 Ofsted (2009). Virtual Learning Environments: An Evaluation of their Development in a Sample of Educational Settings, [online], Ofsted, www.ofsted.gov.uk. Oswald, D.F.. (2003) A conversation with Michael Molenda. Educational Technology, 43, 2, 59-63. Pinar, W.F. (2004) What is Curriculum Theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schlager, M.S. and Fusco, J. (2004) Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? In S.A. Barab, R. Kling and J.H. Gray (eds.) Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seddon, T. (1983) The hidden curriculum: An overview. Curriculum Perspectives, 3(1), 1-6. Selwyn, N. (2008). Education 2.0? Designing the Web for Teaching and Learning, Teaching and Learning Research Program, London: Institute of Education, [online], www.tlrp.org.tel. Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann Educational Books. Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. UCISA (2008). 2008 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education in the UK, [online], Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association, www.ucisa.ac.uk/publications/tel_survey.aspx. UCISA, (2010). 2010 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education in the UK, [online], Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association, www.ucisa.ac.uk/groups/ssg/surveys.aspx. Wang, F. and Reeves, T.C. (2003). Why do teachers need to use technology in their classrools? Issues, problems and solutions. Computers in Schools 20, 4, 49-65. Webster-Wright, A. (2009) Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 2, 702-39.
103 Acknowledgements
My thanks go to the staff and students in the schools involved in the T3 Project in the UK, and to Zali Collymore-Hussein and Grahame Smart for their extensive and valuable contributions to this work.
104
105
PART THREE
EXAMPLES: THREE PILOT STUDIES IN GREAT BRITAIN, SPAIN AND ITALY
106
107
V
Trials with teachers in Great Britain Innovative practice and technology: training as creative synthesis John Jessel
V. 1 Introduction
This chapter continues the story begun in Chapter 4 wherein a rationale was provided for an outline course designed to encourage the take-up and development of innovative technology-use for learning in the context of the mainstream school classroom in the UK. We now move into the school settings and examine how some of the initial ideas and strategies
for
developing innovative uses
of advanced
digital
technologies worked out in practice. I report on how the perceptions those teachers had of the technology changed as they worked with it and some of the ways that the technology was trialled with students. I look at some of the ideas that emerged and consider the impact of the technology on the school curriculum and report some of the views of the students on their classroom experiences. For those who might find themselves in a situation where there is a wish to bring new technological developments (of any kind) into practice I also attempt to draw together some of the principles that appeared to be successful when developing new uses for a technology and outline some of the obstacles to innovation and how they might be navigated.
108 The focus, in particular, is on the uses of the technology in two different curriculum areas; English and mathematics. These curriculum areas have been chosen because they are not only seen to be of central importance, but also can make very different demands in terms of teaching and learning. Regarding the technology, a rationale leading to the selection of the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) as an example of an advanced and communicative technology was presented in Chapter 4. Apart from one school that used SIMS Learning Gateway, all of the schools used the Fronter VLE system that is widely available across London. Both systems offer the facilities expected of a VLE such as email, bulletin boards, forums, chat and newsgroups and also allowed course materials to be stored and presented. As already noted, although there are differences between each system, both VLEs will be treated generically since the current focus is on the pedagogical concepts underlying their use rather than a detailed account of how each system might be operated.
V. 2 Approaching schools
Participating schools were recruited in consultation with a City Learning Centre that was responsible for the development of e-learning in schools across a large area of south London. The schools also worked in an initial teacher training partnership with the university department coordinating the UK part of the Project. Altogether six secondary schools in or very close to London became involved. All of these schools had qualities typical of many mainstream inner-city schools, having between 600 and 900 students of 11 to 18 years of age with a very wide range of backgrounds and ability. All of the schools that participated exemplified the complexity of large institutions that have a variety of responsibilities that must be concurrently accommodated. From initial discussions with senior personnel as well as with teachers it was evident that all of the schools were subject to meeting targets in term of performance figures such as
109 those in terms of the percentage of pupils achieving A to C grades in public examinations such as the General Certificate if Education (GCSE) or ‘A’ Level. The trainers were fully qualified and very experienced teachers who had developed an interest and build up a body of experience and expertise in the use of the VLE and its associated technologies with their own teaching. They were also known to the schools where the training would be carried out. These qualities were perceived to be important, not only in lending credibility to the work of the T3 Project but also as a factor when approaching schools who might participate.
V. 2 a Points of entry for innovation
With regard to recruitment of participating schools and teachers, it was found that introducing innovation in the school setting is a potentially complex process; the schools had a variety of responsibilities and demands to be concurrently accommodated. Points of entry for innovative practice that were voiced by senior personnel and teachers ranged from those driven by national or local policy, introduction of new syllabuses, new examination requirements, requirements in terms of literacy or numeracy, by impending crises, pressing social or pastoral needs and changes of staff. In other words the programme of development did not occur in isolation and was timed and attuned in relation to other demands, circumstances or initiatives; it needed to be negotiated and flexible. Even with assured financial resources needed for cover, flexibility was still required in arranging sessions in view of unforeseen demands that were not unusual in the schools concerned.
V. 2 b Perceptions of the VLE and innovative practice
In all of the schools that participated the VLE was perceived as innovative, ubiquitous in application, yet largely unexplored. Curriculum
110 objectives were regarded paramount; any innovative methods were to sub-serve these, if not, then what is done would become an optional extra. Developments in the use of new technology, as with any other innovation, rather than in terms of their own merits, were seen initially in terms of their contribution to the curriculum to be offered and assessed.
V. 2 c Securing teacher time
Student achievement was seen to be dependent on continuity and stability regarding teachers. Also, as is typical in mainstream schooling in many urban areas, students coming from a range of backgrounds, including those from homes that are less supportive of educational needs, make a range of demands. Effective management of these demands from experienced teachers who know the students they are teaching is necessary in that student behaviour could become a major issue. In view of this it was not easy to release teachers for large blocks of time as teachers were reluctant to hand their classes over to others. Extended time for staff development therefore had to be negotiated. Typically this had to be timed at those points in the year such as towards the end of the summer term after the examination period when some groups of students in the later years had left, thereby partly freeing up the timetable. It was found that agreements in terms of staff availability were subject to change at short notice due to a range of unanticipated events. In relation to this, the offer of remuneration for staff cover from the Project appeared low among the priorities of importance. As teacher time out of the classroom is a scarce commodity, finding the equivalent of six days when several teachers can be available at the same time, even during a less busy period in the school year, was a challenge. In all of the schools flexibility was needed and the course had to be run very often in units of half a day and included some twilight sessions. Some sessions also had to be rearranged at short notice. In sum, whilst it was recognized that the benefits of achievement depend on the development of new teaching methods, curricula and
111 learning in relation to formal assessment as societal needs change, there was a dilemma that had to be negotiated in view of the perception that new methods incur costs in terms of time, stability, student achievement and exam results as well as any financial costs.
V. 2 d The participating teachers
Altogether twelve teachers from six schools took part with one having to withdraw because of an unanticipated restructuring of departmental staff and another due to illness. The teachers were from mathematics departments for three of the schools and from English departments for the remainder. All the teachers who participated were specialists in their own subject and were either in their early or mid career. Senior management staff from the participating schools were also interviewed. In addition to one of the trainers, the coordinator for the UK part of the Project was present for some of the sessions either to introduce the initial theoretical framework, or, to act in a data gathering capacity. Sessions were held on site with access to the relevant departmental facilities for each school and with the teachers working with a trainer from the Project. Similarly, trials with pupils were either on site or, in two instances at a local sports venue familiar to both the teachers and students.
V. 2 e A curriculum-led approach to technology-use
Linking the use of a new technology to an existing curriculum was seen as an important starting point for all of the teachers and broad areas of interest had been negotiated as part of process of recruiting participating schools. In particular, applications of VLE technologies in teaching mathematics and English were explored. The workshop sessions followed the pattern outlined in Chapter 4 with examples of uses of the
112 VLE technology shown in the first session. The initial challenge was for the teachers to identify a viable curriculum area and develop the use of the VLE in relation to it. This formed the principal agenda throughout the sessions. The proposed use of the VLE was also informed by the theoretical framework developed to include the social and cognitive aspects of learning that were outlined in Chapter 1. The dynamic between the trainers and the teachers that was central to the training course was reflected in a mutual recognition of expertise. The teachers were not only regarded as experts in the curriculum area to be taught but also in the teaching context and what could be expected from their students. Although the trainers had an expertise with the technology, their own experience as teachers allowed a meaningful working dialogue to be generated around the development of teaching strategies and materials for learning. The six day generic programme was found to provide a helpful guiding framework within which ideas could be developed and at the same time had sufficient flexibility to accommodate the needs arising from the nature of each curriculum topic and school context. The activities arising in some of the workshop sessions comprising the T3 course are now discussed in more detail.
V. 3 A radio news programme
Two schools were involved in developing the use of the VLE in the English curriculum relating to the Functional Skills Levels 1 and 2 for Writing, Speaking and Listening. The work was planned in relation to an existing scheme of work based upon a BBC School Report (BBC, 2011) initiative with Year 8 (12-13 year old) students. The aim of the School Report project is for students to develop the functional skills through learning to make a news broadcast for a real audience. However, instead, as is often done, of using television studio facilities that were external to the school such as a recording studio for producing the broadcast, and a designated School Report Day in
113 coordination with other schools as the means of dissemination, the School Report project was planned in relation to a radio news programme using, the school’s VLE, and other technology available inhouse. This included handheld EasySpeak recording microphones and the use of Audacity for sound editing. The radio programme would be made available as a podcast and the initial idea was for the VLE to play a key role in its dissemination. Additionally, as we shall see, the VLE was also to play other key learning roles that hitherto would not have been possible.
V. 3 a Early views of the VLE As with the majority of London schools, the VLE used was Fronter. In response to being asked about his initial understanding of Fronter one teacher replied ‘I think it is a virtual learning environment. It’s modelled like a virtual school where there are different rooms and corridors and pupils can go into rooms and teachers will be in certain rooms. Just like a classroom, there are resources in there.’ At this stage the perceived potential for learning was in line the more prevalent uses of VLEs mentioned earlier, for example: ‘I think Fronter is a really good place to store resources so any child who’s got access to a computer at home can carry on with their work.’ ‘Children are allowed to upload work that they’ve done so they can hand in work for the teacher to mark.’ ‘You can set work, upload resources and set tasks in Fronter.’ In other words, the main advantage of the VLE was that students could access those resources at home rather than waiting to be given to them by a teacher. These comments about the VLE were also echoed by teachers from other schools: ‘I think it’s a way of communicating with the students when they’re at home, and a way of letting the parents know what is going on in school as well, homework tasks.’ ‘It supports the child in terms of resources but in terms of actual learning I don’t think it does anything at all, I don’t know how to get it to be like interactive learning.’
114
V. 3 b Radio news To produce a radio news programme some, initial preparation would be needed in developing an understanding of the media the students were to use. Attention would have to be given to what constitutes a news story, how to go about finding a story and how stories could be put together to form a final sequence. It was decided to select and upload audio files and video files into the VLE to trigger discussion about what was effective and what were the features that made that type of broadcast different because it is for radio as opposed to one that might be for TV. The subject for the radio programme was to be the annual school sports day; an event held towards the end of the summer term at a local stadium. Using popular radio programmes such as Newsbeat as examples, the planning included how to introduce a sports programme, the kind of language that might be used, what kind of coverage would be recorded, who might be interviewed and how the students would use different handheld technologies. The students would then go out on sports day, some would carry out interviews and some would do pods or pieces to the microphone. These would then be edited in Audacity and uploaded to the London Grid for Learning (LgFL; a network specifically designed for use by schools across London) podcasting channel so that it could then be published and downloaded. With a view to its wider availability, some time was also given to checking that the podcast could then be downloaded onto a smartphone belonging to one of the teachers.
V. 3 c More detailed planning for classroom work Early on in the planning the discussion focused on ways that an editorial meeting could be set up in the classroom so that after the students had gathered some stories they could decide which were their best stories, which should go into the broadcast and which should not and what sequence they want to place them in. This might normally have been done as a live simulation of an editorial discussion. However, it was also thought that the VLE could be used and discussions could take place
115 through one of the chatrooms or discussion forums in Fronter. The idea was that a discussion forum could take place between students seated at their own computers within the same classroom. To allow this to happen a ‘no talking rule’ was planned, the students not being allowed to speak to each other directly but to communicate only through the discussion forum. Although this might have appeared strange, the idea was that it would be a completely different approach to discussion and collaboration. Students can chat online and they can immediately respond to different stimuluses and resources that they see through the VLE. As one teacher put it: ‘I was quite interested in getting the kids to evaluate the way that they have discussions and getting kids to think about how do they respond differently in a discussion when it’s an online forum to the way that they might discuss face to face. Do they use language in a different way and do they argue in different ways? Are they more receptive to people’s ideas? Does it give then more time to reflect on what they are going to say to each other?’
V. 3 d Setting up a forum One of the rooms to be created in Fronter was for a second part of the School Report scheme of work relating to ‘What is a news story?’ and ‘What makes a news story?’ Some time was spent selecting pictures, videos and sound clips to be used as stimuli so that the students could discuss which would be relevant to a target audience, which are not and why. From this the students could go on to have discussions about whether the topic would be worth making into a news story for teenagers. For example, there might be images or video clips embedded from YouTube, each contained within a discussion forum with a suggestion such as ‘Research, what is the news story relating to this clip?’ This was to encourage the students to research on the internet and discuss.
V. 3 e A theoretical framework for learning as participation The idea was that a suitably designed forum could provide the framework within which students could learn through collaboration. ‘One of the best things that Fronter can do is be a medium through which
116 you can actually share dialogue with each other and work together and they can collaborate, not so much in the sense that they can work from home but you can actually have online discussions and debates and they can upload their own resources and their own ideas and they can discuss them in groups and we can organize them and define the kind of groups and the kind of discussions that they have.’ Although the teachers would have a measure of control by defining the forums and the types of discussions that might be generated, and the topics that would be discussed, they were also keen to allow quite a lot of freedom. Students can generate whatever ideas they come up with rather than teachers directing the discussion. ‘So you can establish and set up a framework for the discussion but then you give them a bit of freedom as to what to discuss and the idea is that with that sense of freedom they might come up with more interesting ideas, or they might be prepared to take more risks, or they might feed off each other.’ It was thought that if students were given that freedom then they would get a greater sense of ownership and engagement. The kind of discussions and arguments that students might have with each other and the way that they learn from each other would not be mediated by what a teacher thinks is interesting or what a teacher thinks should be interesting, but mediated much more directly by the students themselves.
V. 3 f Authenticity for the students Many of the above qualities link to the model of learning as participation. Moreover, the notion of a community of practice introduced in Chapter 1 carried with it the notion of authenticity. This notion of authenticity through the use of the VLE was aptly recognized by one of the teachers: ‘Obviously the possibility is that kids can have discussions about their work beyond the classroom so the School Report project is the whole teamwork aspect where they work together as teams. So those teams could continue to work together and discuss beyond the lesson, you know, at home, and get a real sense of being involved with
117 the project, and they’re kind of like a community that’s working together towards a common goal.’
V. 3 g Later views of the VLE Towards the end of the course there was some discussion on how ideas on the key qualities of the VLE had changed: ‘What we’ve discovered with Fronter is that it’s capacity for cooperation and discussion online that makes it much more than a tool just for uploading resources.’ In addition, then, to the scope for participation in learning, it was also recognized that the VLE was instrumental in conveying a sense of real audience: ‘The other thing about the VLE and the publishing and sharing and the LGfL and the podcasting channels and the video channels is its very very instant and the kids can use the technology they’ve got themselves, they can use their phone or they can use their Playstation or whatever it is, so that there’s a direct instant audience. They can produce a piece of work, they can upload it onto the internet, it can be published and be shared and it can be downloaded by their phones to their family at home to anyone anywhere in the world.’ It was also realized that the VLE was not the only facility available when it came to disseminating work and using it alongside other communicative technologies was also necessary: ‘I also thought Fronter was going to be a place where kids can publish and share their work, but as we went on we discovered that wasn’t the best use of a virtual learning environment and you could discover some other areas where kids can publish and share their work using the LGfL website and the podcasting channel and their own video files. So we’ve actually been using lots of different software and lots of different websites for different purposes.’
V. 4 Using the VLE with mathematics teaching
What had been observed in the more detailed account of the School Report Project reported above was also reflected in work with the
118 VLE that was developed in other areas. Teachers from three of the schools working on the T3 Project were interested in developing the use of the VLE within the mathematics curriculum. Possible uses of the VLE for topics such as the calculation of percentages and adding fractions were explored. One approach that was modeled by the trainer as a means of introducing the technology at the beginning of the course was to embed animated sequences within the VLE that illustrated mathematical techniques that could be used by students when working on computers with access to the VLE in the classroom. For example, illustrations of the maths connected with working out interest rates and different methods of interest payment and a series of problem solving tasks were demonstrated with classes of students in the schools where the teachers worked. This idea was taken up and adapted by a teacher who recorded illustrations of two methods of working out percentages using BB FlashBack as a screen recorder. Similarly, a spreadsheet was constructed that presented a series of problems using the technique shown and subsequently embedded in the VLE. Macros were used within the spreadsheet so that immediate feedback on the students’ responses was also possible. Apart from ease of dissemination and submission of work, neither of these resources could be said to necessitate the use of a VLE. However, possibilities of enhancing students’ learning through collaboration were also discussed. The first stage of this was to use the VLE to present a voting system so that the students could indicate which of the methods they liked best. In the trials with students this was then followed with a request for them to give a reason for their choice. The students were also asked to show how confident they feel on what percentages are about, and to evaluating how they liked doing this kind of work. Getting students to write their own comments, however, is only one step in encouraging online collaboration and participation. As important as writing comments is reading them, and it was thought that in this context, strategies would be needed to get the students to look back at their own writing or that of their peers. In order to begin to encourage this within the confines of the lesson a further very basic request was made: ‘Carefully read all of the contributions on the
119 Forum that you wrote from the lesson. Please tell us whose post (by name) you thought was best and why.’
V. 4 a Value of immediate feedback to students to teachers When trialled, comments from the students related to the immediate feedback offered by the system: ‘You find out if you got it right or wrong straight away.’ ‘You can change it straight away.’ Comments also arose relating to students working on their own machines: ‘I did enjoy the lesson because we got to work independently and I did prefer laptops than books because we don’t need to write.’ Although the students were aware of the communicative potential of the VLE, there was also a sense of privacy: ‘Much quicker and easier to understand and don’t worry about getting it wrong because no one’s going to see it.’ Comments reflecting the communicative potential of the system included: ‘I preferred it because we could communicate more with out classmates’ and ‘I think jacks comment is best because he tells u dat 1 method was breaken down so he found it easier to understand’. The value of this kind of feedback to teachers was also picked up. As one maths teacher put it: ‘One of the things that’s developed this year for me is giving children time to reflect and feed back: “What did you learn?” “How did you learn it?” “How would you improve what you did?” “How could other people improve what they did?” Again, it’s making a bit more time for this top end type of learning, and it’s “Do they really understand it or can they just do the sum?” It’s something I always feel passionately about.’ She had planned and trialled the use of VLE for feedback with her students: ‘I think I’ve got a more concrete way now of actually getting the feedback from the children through using the feedback sheet and the hand-in folders. It’s just a different way for me for getting a real grasp of what they are able to do.’
120 V. 5 A poetry forum
In view of perceived benefits that may arise from the communicative potential of new technologies, another example of work developed within T3 is briefly outlined. The aim, as part of the English curriculum, was to discuss and annotate Wilfred Owen’s poem ‘Dulce et Decorum Est’.
This
illustrates
more
extended
peer-to-peer
reflection through the VLE that was evident from a session with six Year 10 students (14-15 years of age) using Elluminate Live! (now Blackboard Collaborate); a web conferencing tool which allowed a virtual space or ‘Liveroom’ to be created where the students and their teacher could meet. Although the conferencing tool was capable of operating in a range of modalities, the use on this occasion was confined to live chat section in the form of written text alongside a whiteboard facility where the poem was displayed and where the students could contribute through highlighting in different colours key phrases and words in the poem as part of the discussion. Although the peer-to-peer engagement formed a substantial part of the exchanges, the teacher acted as a ‘moderator’ gently steering the discussion while leaving open the opportunity for the students to contribute their own ideas within that frame. In the trial, the students understood how to use Liveroom very quickly and an extended discussion lasted for half an hour. As none of the students studied Latin they had to use Google to find out what the title might mean and from looking at the exchanges in the Liveroom forum (Box 1) it is evident that they were able to support each other in picking up the irony conveyed by the title of the poem and its sequel in the last line.
121 Box 1 Text from the chat section of LiveRoom used to discuss ‘Dulce et Decorum Est’ by Wilfred Owen. (Students’ names abbreviated as single letters)
Moderator:
Why do you think this poem was written?
Moderator:
Are there any words in the poem that give you a clue?
D:
I think ‘Gas! Gas! Quick boys’ kinda gives us a clus about this
poem. Moderator:
What clue does it give? – B? J? L? any idea?
Moderator:
I am going to highlight some key images to help you…
D:
also the poem mentions ‘clumsy helmets…
Moderator:
OK… so what do these phrases link to?
D:
well I thought they were references to the war, although the
date at the top disagrees… Moderator:
War is the right topic… which war?
E:
The Somme?
Moderator:
Which was a battle in the war…
D:
I just realised… maybe world war one?
Moderator:
Do you think D is right?
S:
First Matabele War
L:
that’s what I thought
E:
yesss
D:
whats the Matabele war…?
Moderator:
The poem is describing a gas attack in the trenches in France in the first world war.
E:
Is the title in French?
S:
There’s two, the first Matabele war (from 1893-1894) of the second Matabele War from 1896-97…
Moderator:
It’s Latin – who can google and find out what it means?
E:
yep this is defo the somme then
L:
is it Latin?
Moderator:
Well doneL!
D:
wait wait…google the poem title?
122 Moderator:
Can anyone find and highlight a simile that describes the gas
attack? S:
sweet and fitting it is
L:
helmets – an early name for gas masks
Moderator:
Use the pink to highlight the similes
S:
That’s what it says: “Sweet and fitting it is”??
Moderator:
Yes – look at the last line – that gives you the rest of the Latin
phrase B:
does it mean it ‘is sweet and right’?
J:
‘Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time’. I think the same as L, are they talking about the gas masks?
Moderator:
I think the helmets definitely represent the masks – well
deduced! D:
I highlighted a simile☺
E:
loool D
Moderator:
That’s D – well done. Can anyone else find another one in the
nd
2 stanza? L:
it is sweet and horrible to die for ones country
B:
according to one website, the last line reads ‘it issweet and right to fight for your country.’
B:
and die
D:
I think I highlighted the other simile… ;)
L:
I did too☺
Moderator:
What do you think about the last line – does the poem make death sound ‘sweet and honourable’?
S:
To die for one’s country. IS THE LAST LINE ☺
D:
I think it makes death at this time of war seem like the right ‘patriotic’ thing to do.
E:
yeaa. The poem portrays that despite the pain of death at war, it is a good & honourable thing to do
J:
The part ‘under a green see, I saw him drowning’, it said on google that the symptoms of gas was like drowning.
Moderator:
Owen makes the gas attck sound horrific – he describes the men drowning in the gas. Use the blue highlighter to highlight negative and violent images in the poem.
Moderator:
Do you all agree eith E’s point above? Anyone disagree?
123 L:
I do agree because of the translation although it does show a lot of the negative point which could be trying to sat that it’s not a good thing
Moderator:
Look at how many inames you’ve highlighted in blue – does that change your opinion of the poem’s tone and meaning?
D:
I think the poem does seem quite harsh and seious, as well as
quite violent B:
Definitely, looking over the poem in depth shows more of a
negative tone to the poem… E:
I think the writer was trying to create some contrast between the content of the poem & then the title & last line
S:
I think the poems showing that in war, dying shows you’ve fought for your country BUT war is a nasty, deadly place. The poem is very negative.
E:
context
Moderator:
He’s being ironic – do you know what that means?
S:
like sarcasm?
E:
yess but I don’t know how to describe it
Moderator:
It is like sarcasm, you are right, but it is more subtle, not as
rude.
Feedback from the students underlined the collaborative aspect in learning realized through the technology: ‘I found the liveroom chat very helpful because when all of us were talking about the poem, we were helping each other fill in the gaps on things we didn't know and it helps me understand the poem we’re focusing on more clearly. I think it could be useful mainly in lessons where the whole class can join in & just get to learn more.’ ‘The liveroom would also be good for students to help each other rather than constantly relying on a teacher.’ ‘I also liked the feature where you were able to chat to others as well as your teachers on live room, as i found that a good way of learning and having discussions, where we could all put our personal inputs in.’
124 Additionally, the students also voiced other uses of the VLE: ‘I think that using the liveroom was a good way of getting discussions across among the students. I also think it would be a useful way of getting students to communicate when at home for things like revision.’ ‘I thought using live room quite easy to use, and i do think it is quite a good idea as it's easily accessible and would be useful for revision as well as to catch up with English work.’
V. 6 Reflections on the course
From the above accounts and through many observations that were made during the sessions with the teachers, a pattern of training has emerged that has been in part contributed to by those in the role of the trainer as expert in a particular technology, and, in part contributed to by teachers as experts in their own field. Importantly, what has emerged from the training in terms of resources and teaching strategies, even though it might have been judged as innovative and beneficial, was not always predictable; both trainers as well as teachers learnt from the ideas that were generated. This has important implications; rather than training being regarded as a simple one-way transfer of knowledge and expertise, a more symmetrical process emerges where both trainer and trainee were pooling their expertise and training became a creative synthesis. Through this model of experts working together, an innovation is itself expressed in many unforeseen forms.
V. 6 a Whole to part The decision to take a curriculum area and possible learning outcomes as the starting point when getting to grips with a potentially complex technology was presented in Chapter 4 as one of defying the logic of beginning with smaller parts and from thence building a more complex holistic structure. The teachers, however, were not working in isolation; they were working with an accomplished trainer who was in a position to allow them to keep a balance with the broader curriculum and
125 pedagogical concerns alongside the operational detail of the technology. Through this form of ‘situated technical support’, rather than introducing a comprehensive coverage of technical detail, the technical concepts were picked up in context and learnt through application. This provided a framework from which other gaps could be filled. Some insight into the depth of technical knowledge gained can be judged from one of the teachers working on the School Report project introduced above:
‘I got really frustrated because I spent about 3 hours trying to create 3 containers in a Fronter room that looked the same size and each contained a YouTube clip. What I found myself doing was getting really would up because I could embed the YouTube clips, and that was fine and the kids would have been able to go on there and access it, but I was really bothered about what it looked like partly because each of the 3 containers wasn’t exactly the same size or exactly the same kind of background. Following a one-day training course I wouldn’t have been bothered at all about that. I think it’s because I knew that I was trying to create something that I wanted the kids to use therefore I wanted it to look good; as there was a real audience a real end product then I became quite bothered about these, to me, quite trivial details. But because it’s a real audience and I want this to last for years I started getting really obsessed with how you do that and so I started really exploring how Fronter could do that and started going into HTML code to look at how we could centre something within a text box. So I guess I learnt a lot more detail about how Fronter works and about the glitches with it that I would normally have even bothered with. I learnt a lot that session and now I can do it and I don’t think that would have happened if there hadn’t been that real context at the end of it.’
V. 6 b On site – authenticity in training and ownership Other insights into the effect of the course being held over a period of time on site and relating to a particular teaching context also arose from interviews with the teachers: ‘I’ve found it more interesting
126 doing it in school as opposed to a day away because I think that in school it just makes it more the scheme of work. You can see how it might pan out with your students; you are not just constrained to one day and that was it, but with this I can see angles like creating forums.’ ‘What I’ve found is that working very intensively just with [others in the Department] has allowed us really to get to grips very quickly with something that’s quite complicated in terms of using Fronter. We’ve had lots of technical issues with the thing working but we’ve actually been able to get to grips with it practically in a very hands-on way and start creating and building and designing resources and designing frameworks that the kids can collaborate with, and one of the best things about it is that we haven’t been on a training course where we have been learning to use a piece of software.’ In the same way that authenticity in learning within a community of practice was seen to be applicable earlier on regarding students, the same notion of authenticity was found to apply to the teachers: ‘I think you can only use a tool if you have a job to do with it. You can’t just learn to use the tool for its own sake. Because we’ve got a real job to do and we’re really trying to create this scheme of work that’s going to work, it does force you to concentrate and focus and really look at it and you have to learn very quickly about how to use Fronter.’ This can be linked to a principle of ownership: the need for teachers to take ownership and negotiate and augment aims to serve their interests was considered essential at many different levels: ‘rather like a lesson plan innovation is developed within an institution; [Innovation is] something you develop yourself and have control over rather than have it thrust upon you’.
V. 6 c A theoretical framework An element that was considered central to the development of the course, even though relatively little time was allotted to it, was the theoretical framework that attempted to give a coherent overview to the more theoretical perspectives relating to the social and cognitive aspects of learning. This was introduced early on in the course by way of
127 discussion of the diagram shown in Figure 1 in the first chapter of this book. Through this, attention was drawn to the largely cognitive modes of learning along a horizontal axis and the kinds of social engagement expressed in a vertical axis. It was found that the idea of mapping a lesson activity such as the use of a technology into a space was instantly assimilated and discussion typically related to each of the axes and also to the relationships between the social and cognitive dimensions evoked by the space delineated by the axes. Taking the horizontal axis first, we have the comments of an experienced maths teacher who relates it to the VLE technology: ‘I found the learning models very relevant; I was focused on Key Stage 3 students, middle ability kids who by the time they get into Year 8 often think that they can’t do maths and therefore they get stymied in terms of being creative and in terms of being able to solve problems, and I think what the new technology has allowed them to do is to tackle maths in a different way so they don’t feel like they have a page of sums to do. They feel like they have a problem to solve. It also allowed then to work in groups, the technology has removed that fear for getting things wrong, and then you sort of move down the learning paradigms to where they become more creative mathematicians.’ The same teacher also brought into the discussion the social aspects represented on the vertical axis of the model: ‘It has also allowed them to work in teams and working in groups because maths can be a subject that you just do yourself.’ Another point counterbalancing the exactness often associated with mathematics was also made in relation to the way the opportunity for discussion and feedback arose when the use of the VLE was modelled by the trainer: ‘…to say “How did you do that bit?” and to get involved in those discussions without being right or wrong which maths often can be…’ was regarded as important. The quality of social involvement represented by the vertical axis of the model was also commented upon from an English teacher’s point of view: ‘The model was very relevant and a bit of a revelation in that it allowed me to see the VLE technology in a different way. […] You start off looking at the VLE as a way of sharing resources with the kids but when we looked at those different learning models, like when the kids
128 work interactively or collaborate with each other and their movement away from more teacher-led to more communities of practice, then it transformed the way I thought about VLEs. Tools for collaboration, tools for dialogue, discussion and setting your own kind of agenda in terms of the projects the kids want to explore it became more relevant: kids set their own agenda more and broaden out their own learning communities beyond just the teacher and the classroom.’ As noted in Chapter 1, the idea of a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1998) brings with it an activity that is authentic, situated, and one where there is a common purpose. The kind of learning that arose through this was also illustrated through the work carried out in the School Report Project: ‘Normally what the kids produce is just for the teacher. The idea of having a real audience and a real product […] lent itself well to the VLE and to the learning model. But that’s the way the whole BBC journalism project works: it’s about real context and about real audiences and transforming the way kids learn because the audience is not just the teacher. In any schemes of work that I develop I’d like to give that quite an important role.’ Another connection with the authenticity and the impact of technology on the school environment was alluded to by the remark that ‘the model fits very closely to the real world of business or work or the creative industries.’ All of the teachers stated that discussion of the learning models was extremely helpful and introduced the idea of ‘learning as participation’ very effectively. ‘The framework was very relevant and opens up a variety of learning’ was representative of the general conclusions voiced. One teacher suggested that she would use the model for mapping a whole lesson. With regard to sustaining the work of the T3 Project, the model was also widely regarded by the teachers as something they would use with other teachers: ‘If I was to share this with other staff then I think I’d take the discussions about learning models as a starting point as it informs why we are using a VLE to do this.’ When probed during the evaluation to see if anything might be changed or added, suggestions were very few. One concerned how the teacher leads the classroom and builds relationships, has confidence or
129 takes risks. The idea of adding a third dimension was discussed but the issue was whether this was more heavily weighted towards the teacher rather than the learner. In sum, the theoretical framework on learning appeared to be comprehensive, widely applicable to the use of different technologies in learning and easily understood. Importantly, it was found to have a ‘discourse setting’ effect through opening up or activating some learning dimensions to be explored and provided a means by which they could be conceptualized and articulated. The model was also seen to promote an aspirational element in that all of the teachers strove in their planning to fill the social and cognitive space.
V. 6 d Sustaining technology use The impact of innovation can sometimes be short lived and could be as much to do with the nature of the innovation itself as the way it is introduced into a particular setting. As noted, the decision to focus on the use of the VLE was based on careful consideration of its availability and scope for applicability. From working with the schools the VLE appeared to be acceptable on both of these counts. With regard to availability and applicability it was remarked that ‘…in particular, the key thing for me is the connections that can be made using the current technologies that we have such as the use of smartphone technology.’ The wide availability of VLEs offering similar facilities across schools in London allowed interinstitutional comparisons. Because the trainers worked across schools that were known to each other there was interest in how these other institutions were approaching particular curriculum areas and solutions to common problems were shared. There were instances where a teacher from one school visited the school where the trainer taught to see particular methods in action. Although this could have been a recipe for uniformity, it was felt that one institution was never a blueprint of what happened in another and so this was regarded as a form of enrichment. The VLE was also seen as opening up a host of opportunities across schools. A deputy head from one of the schools was keen to ‘explore Liveroom activities across different schools and different countries; we
130 are a humanities school and have a link with China we would like to develop.’ More direct forms of sustaining use of the technology within the course took place through the teachers cascading what they had learnt to other teachers they work with: ‘I’ve learnt a new skill. I’ve really been able to develop that skill and I’ve cascaded that to other colleagues in other departments.’ Cascading was sometimes on a one-to-one basis and extended along the principles underlying the T3 course. Alternatively, sustaining use took place through subject department or school staff meetings. This was inevitably raised awareness, but took place in a context where the staff concerned were available and could be consulted at different times. In some cases, such as with the School Report radio programme the results were tangible in that they were shown both teachers and students in a whole-school assembly. At senior management level one deputy head teacher who had been involved with the T3 Project saw the next step in terms of sustaining the initiative to ‘…embed in all subjects and schemes of work; more planned and part of every day work.’ Another deputy head drew attention to the importance of the school improvement plan ‘…because I think in most schools now with all the costing and funding the way it is unless it is part of the school improvement plan it will not happen.’ Within this, there would be scope for developing innovative use of a technology outside the subject arena: ‘…the other thing we are trying to do is Period 6 Tutor Time; we try to make it very structured. Again, it’s trying to take those ideas and trying to work a structure from a school’s point of view. I think that’s the only way it’s going to become part of practice.’ The importance of involving a person who has enough influence across a school was also underlined, especially to avoid the risk of a project becoming an isolated piece of work. The idea of going after people who are in senior positions not only within a school but also working with the local authority was another factor mentioned. However, it was also emphasized that, as well as getting them together in one room, it was also about ‘…having enough time to go and work with those
131 schools individually because people want to feel like the work that they’re doing in their school is important as well.’ The tensions between so called ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ influences in terms of organisational hierarchy are, of course, well rehearsed (e.g., Fullan, 2001) and a role for teacher-level influence is also widely acknowledged. The issue regarding points of entry for innovation raised at the beginning of this chapter re-emerged during discussions with the deputy heads: ‘The other thing that I have tried to do this year is to wrap this project around a number of other things that we’re doing in this school; around literacy and extended writing, and to look at the London Region Innovations Grant because there are pockets of money out there to develop what we’re trying to do.’ ‘The way English and maths is being taught is now changing considerably, especially maths, more about skills; I see that opportunity. Also, the way English is now being assessed no coursework now; I see that as an opportunity.’
V. 7 Summary and conclusion
In drawing the work with teachers in the UK schools together two main threads are detectable. The first concerns the method of introduction and take-up of innovative practice linked to a technology. The second arises from what was learned about the use of the technology, in this case the VLE, itself.
V. 7 aIntroduction and take-up of innovative practice linked to technology Although the there are many new technologies that may have the potential to enhance learning, effective uptake may not occur automatically. At one level this may be to do with the choice of the technology. Schools, like many other institutions, work on limited budgets and the returns of any investment in a technology will be reflected in terms of its adaptability – particularly across the school
132 curriculum which is characterized by its breadth. The reliability and availability of the technology to those using it are, inevitably, other considerations. It was noted that innovation within the school setting is something that does not occur in isolation and has to be considered along with other initiatives, changes and demands occurring within that context. In view of this points of entry for innovation have to be carefully judged and timed. Innovation also has its costs, these are not only reflected in staff time and any other resources but also in terms of the risk to student progress, particularly if skilled and experienced teachers have to be withdrawn from the classroom for significant periods of time for any training or professional development. In view of this teacher availability has to be carefully negotiated; often simple financial remuneration not being the solution. More fundamentally, perhaps, is that the use of a new technology not only requires familiarity with the mechanics of its operation but also makes innovative demands on pedagogy and practice – both by learners as well as teachers. Time is needed to identify and adapt suitable resources, to structure content and develop new ways of working. Much of the work associated with development may appear ‘invisible’ in that it is done in advance of the use of the technology. Schools are charged with making a curriculum available to their students and success is judged by student accomplishment in relation to this. Although the nature of a curriculum may be changed as a result of innovation, for those at the forefront of change the starting point will be linked to an existing curriculum. In addition, rather than knowledge about the technology being an end in itself, any development rests on more meaningful technology-use that is curriculum-led. In relation to this, the training approach adopted within the workshops used curriculum learning outcomes as a starting point from which operational detail of the technology followed: a whole to part approach where the trainer played an important role providing situated technical support so that a balance between pedagogical and technical issues could be kept. Other qualities of the training were reflected in its being on site and authentic. It was
133 also found that through this a sense of ownership and commitment was engendered. It has also been argued that learning is in many ways multifaceted and a variety of social and cognitive factors may come into play in its accomplishment. In view of this a theoretical framework was presented and found to have a discourse-setting effect. Finally, with regard to the workshop sessions it was recognized that innovation can take many forms. These may be largely context-dependent and unpredictable to the trainer as well as the trainee. In this sense rather than being conceived as the transfer of pre-existing knowledge from trainer to trainee, a view was put forward of training as a creative synthesis arising from an interaction of different bodies of expertise. The continued life of any innovation remains a further issue and factors linked to sustainability included those relating to the development of effective practice by teachers acting in harmony with broader issues of school management.
V. 7 b Learning and the VLE As a technology that was explored, the VLE was regarded as innovative, particularly in terms of its potential for connectivity. It was also seen as available and potentially adaptable in its use across the school curriculum. Initial views of the VLE were based upon its ability to store a range of learning resources that can be accessed remotely. Through working on the course the communicative potential of the VLE for learning was explored. Although communication between individuals at a distance is seen as an obvious direction for development of the use of the VLE, it was also realized that its use in communication between students in the same classroom could be exploited in terms of its learning value. Immediate feedback available through the VLE through embedded applications, or through blogs or forums was regarded as useful to both students and teachers. The use of communication facilities such as live chat and forums can lead to learning through peer-to-peer participation and collaboration. However, it was also found that the teacher plays an important role in learning through by acting as a moderator and providing a framework within which participation and collaboration can
134 occur but also within which there is room for freedom of student expression.
V. 7 d An enhanced or transformed curriculum? Earlier in this chapter the idea of the development of the use of the VLE being curriculum-led was proposed as a pragmatic starting point. In this way the same learning accomplishments could take place but might be more efficiently and reliably achieved and the learning could be seen as technology enhanced. Alternatively, through the use of the VLE, scope was seen for new accomplishments resulting from shifts in the way learning is approached and encouragement to move beyond existing practices: a technology transformed curriculum. The use of the VLE was seen to have implications both for the role of the teacher and the learner. The project work highlighted the fact that the teacher was not solely instrumental in passing on an established body of knowledge. Teachers acted as facilitators bringing together their experience as scholars in a joint learning enterprise with their students. Although an existing curriculum will inevitably be a starting point for the development of the use of the VLE in learning there is scope for realization of paradigmatic shifts in the way learning is approached. Insofar that a curriculum can be viewed not only in terms of learning outcomes but also in terms of their means of accomplishment and provision within a wider learning context, there are implications regarding the impact of VLE technologies.
With regard to the two main threads identified above, then, it is hoped that the work reported in this chapter has illustrated how a method of introduction and take-up of innovative practice that recognizes training as a creative synthesis between participants with different bodies of expertise may lead to technology not only being used to enhance existing curriculum objectives, but also to technology being used to transform an existing curriculum and introduce new challenges.
135
References BBC (2011). BBC News School Report. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/school_report Date of access: 5:6:11. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements My thanks go to the staff and students in the schools involved in the T3 Project in the UK, and to Zali Collymore-Hussein and Grahame Smart for their extensive and valuable contributions to this work.
136
137
VI
A training course in new learning technology for university teachers Juana Bretón-López, Soledad Quero, Cristina Botella, Rocío Herrero, Luis Farfallini and Rosa Baños
VI.1. Introduction
Education is a right for everyone. No one doubts that education can open doors to many opportunities that would have never been possible if we would not have received it. Unfortunately, there are problems facing Spanish education system. These can have negative effects on the quality of the education students are receiving. As educators our commitment is to try to improve our work solving these problems as much as we can and to provide our students with the best possible education. We can find, at the initial levels of state schooling, complaints such us: too many students in the classroom, not enough resources or text books, and, students unable to sit quietly or focus on the teacher. This happens too in private schools but students are less affected (Boyer, & Hamil, 2008).These are all very complex problems, and a possible factor that could explain this is the massive demand, the resources available to address it and a matter of budget allocation for learning activities. At a higher level, university education, these problems are sometimes repeated, albeit on a smaller scale. Usually, in this context
138 student motivation becomes a more evident problem. Motivation is necessary to succeed in learning, especially when learners are working at a distance (Keller, & Suzuki, 2004). What does this exactly mean? Motivation is a very developed and studied concept within Psychology, but it is also a very complex one to define. There are many theories and labels that serve as subtitles to the definition of motivation, but summing up we could define it as the forces that account for the arousal, selection, direction, and continuation of behaviour (Fernández-Abascal, Martín Díaz & Domínguez Sánchez, 2001). Current theories distinguish two main types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is internal. It occurs when people do something out of pleasure, importance, or desire. Extrinsic motivation occurs when external factors compel the person to do something. Motivation is a central concept if we think about how to promote behaviour in a person, and a possible key to improve academic performance in university students (Porter, Bigley & Steers, 2003). Increasing student motivation is one of the most important tasks a teacher has to face. In the case of university education, one of the sources of motivation comes from the very student’s choice. When talking of intrinsic motivation, most students “wish” to know and acquire knowledge, skills and certain competences that they will need to apply later on. But often this intrinsic motivation is not enough to continue with a task and some “external factors”, or extrinsic ones, promoted by the teacher are needed. One way this can be done is by improving university professors’ teaching methods, including tools that allow them to be more efficient and, at the same time students learn more. When using strategies and tools that promote learning and ease the acquisition of certain skills and knowledge, it can be very useful to introduce information and communication technologies (ICTs) within teaching methods. This is especially relevant to the university population considering the fact that they are people who have lived a good part of their lives with them, or in some cases can even be regarded as digital natives (Prensky, 2009). In addition, ICTs provide certain advantages: they make available to students a wide range of information; facilitate the
139 updating of information and content, and student autonomy; ICTs can also facilitate group and collaborative training (Cabero Almenara, 2006). To carry out this implementation, we first need to know in detail the opinions of teachers, regardless the subject they teach, about the usefulness of certain technological tools for their teaching (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989; Toral, Barrero& Martínez-Torres, 2007). In the following pages we will describe in detail our experience with a training course in new learning technology for university teachers.
VI.2. Our perspective on teaching
Many studies have shown that the more student-student and student-teacher interaction that occurs, better results in learning are achieved (Lytras, & Ordóñez de Pablos 2007, 2009; Phielix, Prins & Kirschner, 2010; Zhao, & Ordóñez de Pablos, 2010a, 2010b). To improve and enlarge integration between students and teachers, it is important to use new and intuitive mechanisms that also allow improvement in learning. At the Universitat Jaume I (UJI) we focused our participation in the T3 Project on the validation of some new ITCs developed for the eLearning context (Bretón-López, Botella, Vizcaíno, Quero, Baños& Molés, 2010; Bretón-López, et al., 2011). New ICTs can be very helpful and their use in different fields has been developed in the last decade. This is shown in the fact that, in recent years, a huge range of methodologies, tools and resources have been generated for the use of technology in learning and teaching as part of the process of any discipline. Despite an increase in the use of technology in learning and teaching, in practice, in terms of quality, its use is quite limited. The majority of what is currently known as e-learning (learning through new technologies) is still based on the use of videos, through web pages or through a virtual classroom in order to facilitate access to the materials and contact with students. In this sense, ICTs may help boost the acquisition of determined skills, making learning more interactive, flexible and appealing plus letting the user spend their time well.
140 In this chapter we present the results of the start of a six-day workshop (trial) where university teachers of different disciplines were trained in three useful systems for university teaching (Bretón-López, Quero, Botella, Baños, Farfallini, & Herrero, 2011). The technologies are e-Adventure, Palma and Eutopia. We collected relevant data with the aim of improving university teaching being the first purpose of the project. From this, the aim was to develop a new programme that would improve the process of teaching and, therefore, the acquisition of knowledge in different areas and, more specifically in our case, in the university context. A second important purpose was to find out how satisfied teachers were with the technologies used, incorporating the previous data of interest. The following trial description is an operational example about how videogames and 3D environments can be used as a tool in education or an e-Learning context.
VI.3. Our own experience
Our team, LabPsiTec, is a research team specialised in psychology and ICTs. This particular interest and our years of experience with university teaching led us to participate in the T3 Project. We contacted the Teacher Training Center of the Universitat Jaume I of Castellón, which showed its interest in the objectives of T3 Project and invited us to introduce it in the teachers´ training plan. An analysis about the adequacy of the methodology to teach the technology to university teachers was carried out. It was concluded that the implementation of a workshop would be suitable in order to teach the chosen systems, their main functions and the specific use for the university teaching. With support of the University, a workshop titled "The Use of New Technologies of Information and Communication for Improving Teaching" was organised. The aim of the workshop was to show a series of tools designed to highlight the possibilities offered by new technologies as powerful tools to enhance learning in the university
141 context. The technologies used in the workshop were selected according to the principles described earlier in this chapter. The classification of the e-Learning technologies took into account two variables: the type of the technology (based on instructions, or a more constructivist one and the type of teaching (experimenting, experiencing soft skills or exploring). According to this classification and taking into account the university context, in relation to the relevance to a global intake of students, especially since Bologna began,
we considered that
experiencing “soft skills” and exploring would be relevant topics as the aim of the workshop. Besides, we thought that a constructive approach would be best for teaching the content. As we mentioned before, three technologies were selected as the most adequate to achieve our goals: eAdventure, Eutopia, and Palma. A brief description of these systems is now provided.
VI.3.a. e-ADVENTURE
The e-Adventure platform is the result of a research project aimed to facilitate the integration of educational games and game-like simulations in educational processes. It was produced by the e-learning research group at Universidad Complutense de Madrid (e-UCM) for the development of classic adventure computer games with educational purposes. The platform includes both the game and the editor. The main advantage of the editor platform is that instructors can be directly involved in the production of the games (Torrente, Moreno-Ger, Fernández-Manjón, & del Blanco, 2009). The game editor allows having different scenes to be connected to others. Also it is possible to include objects, characters and dialogues (Martínez-Ortiz, Moreno-Ger, Sierra& Fernández-Manjón, 2006). E-Adventure provides specific features for education such as the possibility to define different assessment rules that are triggered when a set of conditions in the games are satisfied. When the game is completed an assessment report is generated with all this information. The instructors can access the results via the web, and the information can be
142 displayed to the students as feedback. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of the e-Adventure editor. For more details about the tool you can visit http://eadventure.e-ucm.es/
Figure 1. e-Adventure editor
VI.3.b. EUTOPIA
Eutopia is a platform designed to support distance learning. It is a useful when creating and organising Educational Multiplayer On-Line Role Playing Games (EMORPG). This approach allows a small group of people to give a theatrical performance for educational or psychological purposes. Each user controls an avatar and interacts with other avatars in a 3D virtual scenario. The trainers have different functions: they can define and assign roles, goals, characters and personalities of the individual avatars that will be represented by online players. Once the game is in progress, the trainer can observe what is going on, get involved at any moment, send messages to players, or activate special events or happenings. When the game session is over, the trainer can lead
143 a
debriefing
session
through
group
discussion,
analyzing
the
communication and behavior strategies adopted by the players. In an educational context Eutopia allows real-time interaction between students. It also allows the teacher to see the students’ interactions, give feedback and interact with one or all of them. Figure 2 shows a screenshot of the Eutopia editor. For more details about the tool you can visit http://www.nac.unina.it/eutopia/download.htm
Figure 2 – Eutopia Editor
VI.3.c. PALMA
PalMa is a serious game conceived as a software tool with a specific learning outcome. PalMa can be used when developing high level managerial skills such as: leadership, negotiation, effective communication, speech and persuasiveness, co-worker management, customer management, personal incisiveness and commercial skills. The reference unit of PalMa is a scenario; a situation within which the player is asked to achieve a predefined goal (see Figure 3). The player acts
144 through an avatar. The interlocutor of the player is a ‘bot’, a software agent conceived to interact with the avatar answering in a certain way. In each situation, a target to accomplish will be established: to persuade someone to perform a task, to solve a conflict, to act as intermediary between people, to encourage a co-worker, etc. At the end of the played scenario, PalMa will give detailed feedback on the player’s performance. The interaction and feedback is predefined by trainers according to their objectives. Within education, PalMa allows teachers to design exercises with different levels of difficulty in order to train and test their students on previously selected specific skills. Figure 3 shows a screenshot of PalMa. For
more
details
about
the
tool
you
http://www.entropykn.net/edugames/Pagine/Palma.htm
Figure 3 – Palma scene
can
visit
145 VI.4. The trainees and recruitment process
In the process of selecting the technology to be used in the workshop, we started to contact the participants who would take part. Information about the workshop was e-mailed to teachers who participated in the training courses for university teachers organised by UJI. The teachers interested in the workshop requested admission to the course. Initially, 22 people were registered for the seminar. Two participants failed to start the course because of scheduling difficulties, and four of them did not meet the minimum required attendance in order to be considered in the final sample. Finally, the group was composed of 16 participants: 10 women and 6 men. The participants had a range of academic backgrounds: five were psychologists, six were engineers, two were chemists, one was a translator, one was specialised in information science and Publicity and, finally, one had a computing degree. This was an important point because our proposal was to include these new technologies as an experience of e-learning without taking into account the background of the teachers and the subjects they teach. All participants were teachers at UJI, but with different types of contracts: six were predoctoral fellows, four were assistant professors, three associate professors, two were contracted research staff and one was a member of the research teaching personnel. In this way members of the group, who had been teaching between one and eight years, offered a varied profile in terms of their teaching areas and experience with technology.
VI.5. The workshop
When the technologies were selected and the participants recruited, the workshop started. It was organised into six sessions, each one lasting for around six hours and it was applied with the purpose of teaching the selected technologies to university teachers participating in the Spanish trials. The seminar was taught by two teachers and researchers of our
146 team, specialised in the field. Both were psychology graduates, with a master degree, and PhD students in their teaching phase. Both were trained in the specific contents of the workshop and had more than three years’ experience in the use of new technologies in psychology. The main objectives of the first session were to give a general presentation about the T3 Project and find out the different interests of the participants in relation to the application of new technologies in their own teaching practice, their knowledge about the topic, and their general experience with the new technologies. Moreover, a pre-evaluation protocol was applied; specifically a “Technology Profile” questionnaire. The aim of this first questionnaire was to find out which out of 23 technologies had been used by the trainees in their teaching contexts. The participants’ answers could range from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). In addition, the questionnaire included items on socio-demographic data and academic background. After that, a presentation of all the tools was made. The main objectives for the second, third and fourth sessions were to show each tool in detail with a particular exercise to be completed. A more precise description of these sessions is now described:
For the second session, a theoretical introduction about “soft skills” was given at first in order to contextualise the use of the different tools that the participants would see throughout the workshop. After that, PalMa tools were explained and their possibilities and limitations outlined. Once participants knew the programme a practical session was set up which consisted of designing of a small example showing how it would be used. Each participant applied what they learned to a schema of a hypothetical application in their own subject. After that, the participants’ experience during the practical session was discussed and conclusions were drawn regarding future uses of the programme with students.
During the third session, an explanation about the Eutopia editor was given with attention to its characteristics and its similarities and
147 differences with PalMa. This was followed by a practical session that focused on the use of Eutopia. Participants were put into different groups and, using an existing example, interacted with Eutopia. After the practical finished, the experience of taking part in the exercise and possible applications of Eutopia were debated.
In the fourth session, we followed the same structure. First, we gave a theoretical explanation of e-Adventure tools. Once the participants knew the programme a practical session was carried out using the tool. During the practical session, each participant had to follow a guideline to construct a game using e-Adventure. After the practical had been completed, a debate about the experience and possible applications of the programme took place.
The fifth and sixth sessions were entirely practical. The main purpose of these sessions was to give participants opportunities to design real scenarios for their own teaching. With that objective in mind the teachers first shared their different ideas and then they selected the right tools to make these possible. After each participant decided what they wanted to do, they then started to build their own scenario. At the end of this sixth session each participant shared their own project and received feedback from their partners. Then we applied the post-evaluation protocol and obtained the participants’ opinions of the workshop.
At the end of the workshop two questionnaires were applied: the “Tool evaluation questionnaire” which aimed to evaluate each technology used in the workshop in terms of its design and usability through 13 items; and the “Workshop Evaluation Questionnaire” which aimed to find out participants’ opinions on how helpful the course was in understanding new learning concepts, how innovative and useful the technologies are and the future application of the tools. The main results obtained from the measures included in the workshop are presented in the next sections.
148
VI.5.a. Technological profile of the teachers
First, regarding the technology profile, Figure 4 summarises the information about the main technological tools used by teachers who participated in the trials. As shown in Figure 4, the most frequently used technologies on teaching practice were the associated with generic software tools with an average of 4.88 on the 1 to 5 scale. These tools are PowerPoint, graphics, audio and video editing, data handling, word processing and publishing. In second place came the use of conventional desktop or laptop computers, with an average of 4.75; then all types of communication tools, like Skype, e-mail and chat averaged 4.69; finally, the frequency of use of Internet, as a data and information resource came to an average of 4.5. It is important to mention that the classrooms of University Jaume I are mainly equipped with these technologies and, in addition, these technologies are an important resource in teaching across the subjects. It is also essential to mention that UJI is a very technological institution; so, independently of each particular profile, all teachers have access to other different teaching technological tools.
Figure 4 - Technological tools used by teachers
149
In Figure 4 we also observed other technologies falling within the middle range of frequencies of use on teaching practice (tools with a mean ranging between 2 and 4), with virtual environments, or virtual learning environments (VLEs), being the most used in this category (average = 3.13) followed by Web 2.0 technology (wikis, social networking software etc.) tools for collaborative learning (average = 3.06). Finally, the tools with lowest frequency of use in teaching (with a score ranging from 1 to 2) were hand-held technologies with an average of 1.44 and, lastly, the use of robots or other computer-controlled devices with average of 1.38. The complexity of the use of these technologies, their specific use, plus the cost of these kinds of devices could be influencing these results.
VI.5.b. Technologies and course valoration by the teachers
Results obtained in the post-evaluation protocol are presented in two parts: First, a general evaluation of each technology as tools for the teachers’ educational setting and second, the participants´ opinion about the course of training in these technologies. With regard to opinions about the tools, the participants considered the three tools as good tools to implement in their educational setting. As shown in Figure 5, e-Adventure seems to be the most adequate tool according participants opinion with an average of 4.05, the second tool is Eutopia with an average of 3.66 and finally PalMa with and average of 3.33.
150
Figure 5 – Tool Evaluation.
Finally, results regarding opinions about the workshop are presented in Figure 6. Participants indicated that it was helpful to understand new concepts of learning supported by new technologies (‘Understand’ mean: 3.81). They also indicated the technologies they used were innovative (‘Innovative’ mean: 4), and useful (‘Useful’ mean: 3.72). With regard to the possibility of implementing these technologies in the future, the teachers stated that they will keep using them and will encourage others to use them as a learning method (‘Future Application’ mean: 3.54). The consideration by the teachers about using these technologies in the future is very important in giving continuity to the use of the learned tools and to apply this to the secondary beneficiaries of the workshop: university students.
151
Figure 6 – Workshop Evaluation.
VI.6. Conclusion and discussion
Using technology as an educational tool can result in greater student motivation as well as renewing or updating methods and teaching techniques (Martínez-Torres, Toral, Barrero, Gallardo, Oliva& Torres, 2008). On this basis, innovative technologies allow new ways of providing education and, especially, learning through activities, serious games and educational tools. This can be very attractive to university students. The objective of the workshop was to show a series of tools designed to highlight the possibilities that ICTs can offer as powerful tools for learning within a university environment. Overall, this means developing more accessible teaching methodologies, and also bringing the university closer to the European Higher Education System. Participants in the workshop evaluated the technologies used as appropriate and easy to use. All the systems had a score above 50 per cent of the scale. However, one application stood out above the others two: e-Adventure. This is probably due to the fact that this tool is more versatile and easier to adapt to a specific context of teaching across the
152 different of areas of knowledge (psychology, engineering, chemistry, computing, etc.). During the implementation of this project it was necessary to train the teachers in detail about the selected technologies. A significant feature in the methodology used is the important amount of time we allowed the teachers to incorporate the knowledge involved in every system. We put special emphasis on the theory relating to each tool, on developing practical examples of the systems, and on let teachers become involved in a personal project with the focus technology. The final purpose was to facilitate a clearer understanding of the systems. In this way the teachers could gain adequate knowledge of the technologies in order to incorporate these when teaching their students. Concerning the workshop, the teachers’ assessment and opinion were found to be favorable both for the pedagogy and the teaching methodology used, which facilitated the understanding of the various tools shown as well as the innovative nature of the contents of the seminar. Moreover, in the evaluation, the teachers also highlighted the vast possibilities of use the tools in the future, highlighting their usefulness in teaching. In addition, the data obtained in the trial are of interest because we asked the teachers directly about their satisfaction with the tools and, specifically, about their teaching. Without doubt, ICTs have important potential in university education. However, there are still unsolved problems. Different professors and different students have different opinions regarding the use of ICTs as useful tools to improve teaching. We have seen here that some ICT tools were very popular (such as PowerPoint) among the teaching staff, whereas others were much less used. We have also seen that, although all the tools that were used at the workshop were positively assessed by the participants, the most versatile tool was most widely accepted. Finally, we have also found it was necessary to dedicate time and effort for the participants’ training. It is thus possible to extract some important conclusions that may help to promote the use of ICTs in teaching. On the one hand, it seems to be necessary, firstly, for those tools to be easier to use. Making people succeed and use them will make
153 them more involved in using other possible tools in the future. Secondly, it also appears that designing ICT for broad spectrum of learning, with versatility, is important. Finally, it is necessary to design entertaining ways that may be incorporated to make the application introduce and explain itself. No doubt, we will manage to do this in the near future. We have already takenthe first step, and in general we can conclude that we have found a great acceptance among the teachers of the technologies presented. This suggests that the next step would be to implement these tools in the university teaching context with students as the final users. A new reality at the present time is that teachers, students and ICTs coexist together. In consequence an important purpose is to integrate them in teaching. However, a first phase should be to let teachers start using them, identify the existing difficulties and develop solving strategies. The main objective of the workshop described in this chapter is to bring near the teachers to the existing ICTs for their teaching. A benefit of primary importance will be to increase intrinsic motivation, very relevant in teaching tasks. A second and very relevant benefit will be to further the accomplishments of graduate students and bring with this more satisfied teachers.
154
References
Bretón-López, J., Quero, S., Botella, C., Baños, R. M., Vizcaíno, Y., Farfallini, L., & Herrero, R. (2011).T3 European Project:Advanced New Technology to Improve the Learning Process.Cybertherapy. Canadá, 19 de Junio. Bretón-López, J., Quero, S., Botella, C., Baños, R. M., Farfallini, L., & Herrero, R. (2011).El Proyecto Europeo T3:Resultados preliminares del uso de nuevas tecnologías para la docencia universitaria.SPDECE-2011. Almagro, Ciudad Real, 15 de Junio. Bretón-López, J., Botella, C., Vizcaíno, Y., Quero, S., Baños, R., & Molés, M. (2010).El proyecto europeo T3 (enseñando a enseñar con nuevas tecnologías).VII Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Española de Psicología Clínica y Psicopatología, Benicàssim, 21-23 de Octubre.ISBN: 978-84-8021-788-0. Boyer, A., & Hamil, B. (2008).Problems facing american education. Focus on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 2, 1-9. Cabero Almenara, J. (2006).Bases pedagógicas del e-learning. Revista De Universidad y Sociedad Del Conocimiento, RUSC, 3(1). Davis, F. D. (1989).Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.MIS Quarterly 13, 319–339. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989).User acceptance of computer technology:a comparison of two theoretical models.Management Science, 35, 982–1002. Fernández-Abascal, E. G., Martín Díaz, M. D., & Domínguez Sánchez, F. J. (2001). Procesos Psicológicos. Madrid:Pirámide. Keller, J.M., & Suzuki, K. (2004).Learner motivation and E-learning design:a multinationally validated process.Journal of Educational Media, 29, 229239. Lytras, M. D., & Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2007).Red gate corner:A web 2.0 prototype for knowledge and learning concerning china business and culture. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3(4), 542548. Lytras, M. D., & Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2009). Social web evolution:Integrating semantic applications and web 2.0 technologies Information Science Reference-Imprint of:IGI Publishing.
155 Martínez-Ortiz, I., Moreno-Ger, P., Sierra, J. L., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2006). Production and Maintenance of Content-Intensive Videogames:A Document-Oriented Approach.In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Technology:New Generations (ITNG 2006), pages 118-123, Las Vegas, USA, (IEEE Society Press). Martínez-Torres, M. R., Toral, S. L., Barrero, F., Gallardo, S., Oliva, M., & Torres, T., (2008).A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory teaching, according to the European higher education area’’.Behavior and Information Technology 27 (6), 495–505. Prensky, M. (2009).H. sapiens digital:From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Journal of Online Education, 5(3). Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010).Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment:Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 151-161. Porter, L. W., Bigley, G. A., & Steers, R. M. (2003). Motivation and work behavior McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Toral, S. L., Barrero, F., & Martínez-Torres, M. R. (2007).Analysis of utility and use of a web based tool for digital signal processing teaching by means of a technological acceptance model.Computers & Education 49 (4), 957–975. Torrente, J., Moreno-Ger, P., Fernández-Manjón, B., & del Blanco, A (2009) Game-like Simulations for Online Adaptive Learning:A Case Study.In proceedings of the The 4th International Conference on ELearning and Games (Edutainment 2009), August 9-11 2009, Banff, Canada.LNCS 5670, pp. 162-173. Zhao, J., & Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2010a).Analysis of cooperative mechanism of industry–academy R&D alliance lab and case study. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 20(2), 123-134. Zhao, J., & Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2010b).Chinese firms' outward direct investment:Technological innovation mechanisms, organizational modes, and improving strategies. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 20(2), 149-160.
156
157
VII
A training course in new learning technologies for Corporate Trainers
Roberto Vardisio, Michela Fiorese
VII. 1 Introduction
According to the Global Information Technology Report 20102011, recently released by the World Economic Forum (WEF), Italy ranks 51st in the ranking on the ability to exploit new technologies as a vehicle for economic and social development. Preceded by countries such as Tunisia (35th) and Estonia (26th), Italy suffers a marked retreat from, for example, the 2006 standings in which Italy was positioned 38th. Going into the detail behind the reasons leading to this kind of WEF ranking against our country, we discover some interesting implications. It is not the spread of mobile phones and the Internet per se that affect the Italian position (indeed, Italy is one of the countries with a large diffusion of these), but, rather, it is the quality of education and national policies that promote innovation and development. The difficulty of our country to understand and exploit the potential of new technologies as tools for development takes on different forms depending on the areas they affect. For those who work daily within Italian companies, a case of particular interest is the use of these
158 technologies with respect to training programs and organisational learning. Althoug he-learning has found some success in the recent past, particularly within large organisations; it is also true that it is notable to definitively overcome the “threshold of credibility” that has now been finally passed in other countries (e.g., Germany and Great Britain). An awareness of the educational potential of so-called ‘Technology Enhanced Learning’ (using serious games, augmented reality, robotics education, etc.), already well employed in North European countries, is currently not even at an embryonic stage. The difficulty of introducing such tools and their potential into the educational practices of companies appears to derive in part from structural factors (lack of technological infrastructures, difficulties in making investments, problems of dialogue between the research world and the world of work, etc.) but is also due to a lack of update for those who work in corporate learning that sometimes turns into distrust, or even into cultural resistance. Therefore, the WEF's analysis clearly demonstrates a critical element that those who work daily in the service of Italian companies live by their own efforts when utilising new technologies. Apart from the economic context, with the phantom of a general recession at this corner of world economy, there is an urgency in terms of what modern corporate training is asked to do to be competitive and in turn make companies competitive. The corporate T3 programme seeks precisely to make a contribution in this direction: the goal is to convince corporate trainers of the validity and the possibilities inherent in technology for learning, elaborating meta-models for their use and providing tools for the acquisition of new mental frames. Broad reasons why companies and trainers might embrace TEL initiatives are: 1.
Expanding access: TEL can assist in meeting the
demand for training from
general businesses, especially
because it offers the possibility of a flexibility to
159 accommodate the many time and space constraints imposed by personal responsibilities and commitments; 2.
Alleviating capacity constraints: being mostly or
entirely conducted off-site, TEL systems reduce the demand on institutional infrastructure such as buildings; 3.
Making money from emerging markets: TEL
fosters an increasing acceptance from the population of the value of lifelong learning, even in the corporate training sector, and companies can benefit financially by reducing training costs. Additionally, the corporate sector for business executives and HR managers is more lucrative than traditional markets; 4.
Acting
as
a
catalyst
for
institutional
transformation: the competitive modern marketplace demands rapid change and innovation, for which TEL programs can play a part; 5.
Acting as a catalyst for a methodological shift: due
to the complexity of modern training issues, the TEL approach allows one to face and learn how to manage a wide variety of situations, providing paths especially designed and tailored. Thus, TEL initiatives can not only represent a valuable answer to the economic crisis which poses new demands, but also to the need of a paradigm shift and a “language” change inspired by new technologies and driven by a new generation’s training needs. Following this direction, the technologies and examples provided during the training path aimed to cover the widest potential of employment in corporate settings, according to different training aims.
160 Technologies Serious games
Augmented Reality Multiplayer Virtual Worlds
Web 2.0
Multiplayer Role Games
Examples provided PalMa Inside disaster Game4manager IBM City One Get Marketing Underground Mining
Inglobe technologies tools Sinapsi Second Life Digital spaces Active Worlds Blue Mars Project Wonderland Cobalt
Online content editors Feed + aggregators Mush ups Social bookmarking Crowd sourcing E-portfolios and PLEs Web Operating Systems Dread-Ed
Training aims Soft managerial skills Problem solving Managerial skills (corporate business) Managerial skills (complex systems) Managerial skills (corporate business) Safety and prevention issues Procedural knowledge Soft skills (training and assessment) Soft skills (training, assessment) Procedural knowledge Soft skills (training) Soft skills (training) Soft skills (training) Soft skills (training) Knowledge and content building Knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing Reference sharing and networking Professional networking Knowledge and content building Productivity enhancement Problem solving
Table 1. Technologies and examples provided
A TEL programme must obviously be sustainable even in the short period in terms of costs, general efficiency and effectiveness. Indeed, the return of investment (ROI) and a positive downfall on human resource
161 (HR) performances are perceived as pressing indicators of the success of a TEL training program. As a consequence, the choice of the best technology to fit training aims is a fundamental step.
VII.2. Didactical-training goals and choice of tools within TEL corporate programs When coping with training issues in the corporate field, the employment of such new technologies and new media highlights the need of a double focus for trainers and for HR managers: from one side, a deep awareness of potentialities and possible ways of use of each of these technologies and, from the other side, the ability to keep centered on the human resources’ needs, thus on specific training goals. The T3 corporate programme highlighted in a very clear manner the strength of influence of each technological tool on the nature of the training course itself. This opens for trainers some fundamental questions about the aims of the programme. Besides, in this more complex situation there arises a need of an original framework to fully understand points of strength and weakness, along with opportunities and threats (in few words, a SWOT analysis) of each tool and, as a consequence, the need to detect which is the direct link between specific technological tools and didactical/training objectives. When moving to the general planning of TEL corporate programs, the starting point should be the definition of training goals. With traditional face to face programs, there is a further question: which are the technological tools that best fit those goals? What today’s training experts are asked to consider is a rethinking of the whole training process, implementing it with a new tools-goals approach. Thus, they are called to go further with a radical paradigm shift, moving from traditional programs towards a more comprehensive approach, with results widened and deepened by an effective integration of new technology tools along with more involving ways of achieving old and new training objectives.
162 Initially, a useful thing to do is focus on the particular kind of knowledge the trainer wants to develop through the TEL program. In more detail, the trainer must question if aim of the programme is to develop declarative or propositional knowledge (i.e., knowledge that is by its nature expressed in declarative sentences or indicative propositions), or procedural knowledge (i.e. knowledge of how, and especially how best, to perform some task). A linked question that a corporate trainer must address is represented by the nature of the fruition of the program itself. In particular, what best fits learning aims? Is it a self-learning and individual mode or a program focused on the social dimension of learning? Obviously, as mentioned above, the choice of a particular instrument (or combination of instruments) is influenced by the nature itself of the technological tools as well as by the underlying learning paradigm they promote. The following scheme (Figure 1) is presented as a practical guide to corporate trainers to help them detect the “family” of tools they should use for specific learning aims and specific training modes.
Figure 1 – Learning aims and training instruments
163 With declarative knowledge aims and individual content training activities (Quadrant 1) the tools that best fit the purpose are lessons (multimedia or simply text-based ones) as well as web browsing through hypertexts. These tools are defined as CBT (computer based training) or WBT (web based training), depending on whether an internet connection is used to deliver learning contents. In the case of training projects that aim to develop declarative knowledge adding a social dimension of learning (i.e., the chance to contribute in building and sharing knowledge, communication and eventually collaboration among trainees, Quadrant 2), some tools seem to fit better than others namely: mind mapping software and blogs. The first are tools to present a graphical display of concepts and relations among concepts, which can be modified and enriched collaboratively. The second are personal digital publishing tools on the web and represent a valuable way to update and share information with a wider audience. Considering the need to train on procedural knowledge (know-how) through new technology mediated interactions and a social or collaborative learning mode (Quadrant 3), the suggested tools are moblogs (mobile blogs), MOOs (Multi-user Object Oriented domain, (i.e., a particular kind of multi-player role simulation), collaborative simulation games and collaborative virtual environments. All the above mentioned tools share a common focus on active interactions among participants and are found [c.f.r. Innovative Approaches for Learning and Knowledge Sharing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006, Volume 4227/2006, 331-346 “Two Technology-Enhanced Courses Aimed at Developing Interpersonal Attitudes and Soft Skills in Project Management”]to be very effective in training so called soft-skills (communicational, team-work and managerial skills). If our aim is to train on procedural knowledge (know-how) but without the need to go through mediated interactions, then a self-learning mode seems to fit all our training purposes (Quadrant 4) and we should employ one of the following tools (or a combination of them):individual simulation games, augmented reality or robotics. Individual simulation games allow participants to experiment with some likely reproduced
164 situations and are particularly suitable for training problem solving skills. Augmented reality tools allow users to display additional information on real environment video flows and they are thus suited to training, for instance, safety and prevention behaviors in given work environments. Robotics allows real-world applications of mathematics and science concepts through the use of engineering design, thus it is most suited for science learning at different levels. The application of robotics could hopefully arise in a corporate context, especially in training a workforce for industrial process management. Another useful framework for trainers interested in planning TEL programmes is represented by the following scheme (Figure 2), which
social individual
Learning though social interaction
solo pairs group community world-wide
can be linked to the same tools-goals approach mentioned above.
wikis educational games MLEs
drill & practice
commercial video games browsing
memorising
understanding
simulations modelling
problem solving
creating
Learning paradigm
Figure 2 – T3 Framework: mapping technology-use into a learning space
In this case, the major focus is on learning paradigms and aims, gathered into four main categories: memorising and understanding (declarative knowledge), problem solving and creating (procedural knowledge). Moreover, focusing as well on specific learning aims, the trainer is called to question about what best fits the employment of new technologies: an online program, a face to face programme or a blended
165 (mixed) one? Also, a trainer involved in planning a TEL programme must be aware of the distinction between synchronous and asynchronous tools. Synchronous tools allow the delivery of contents where all participants are "present" at the same time. It resembles traditional indoor training methods even though the participants are located remotely. It requires a timetable to be well organised. Conversely, in the asynchronous training mode, participants can access course materials or tools according to their own schedule and so is more flexible. Trainees are not required to be together at the same time. These two methods can, of course, be combined in the delivery of a single training program, depending of our specific aims. Along with the choice of the best technology (or combination of technologies) and the best mode of delivery, to achieve the effectiveness of a TEL program a great role is played by planning and organisation. As for traditional training courses, the planning phase must focus primarily on a needs analysis and a background study of constraints. For instance, what tools can we effectively employ in the program and, importantly, what is the level of technological proficiency displayed by our target, thus depending on time and costs of previous training on technological skills. The following checklist summarises some key points for trainers involved in planning TEL courses:
1 Needsanalysis of the target group 2 Identification of major and secondary training objectives (declarative or procedural knowledge) 3 Background study of possible bonds and constraints (available tools, technological proficiency, etc.) 4 SWOT analysis and choice of tools, according to specific training goals 5 Delivery mode: a. self-learning or social learning mode (or a combination of them)
166 b. online programme or face to face programme (or mixed) c. employment of synchronous or asynchronous tools(or a combination of them)
Once the training objectives are clear, along with the selection of tools and the best delivery mode, the trainer is asked to focus on planning and organisational issues which also play a key role for the whole effectiveness of a TEL program.
Planning and organisational issues of corporate TEL programs The selection of tools and of a delivery mode is a fundamental aspect of TEL initiatives, but this starting focus on technologies should not detract from the major focus of a corporate training programme which, even if technology mediated, must accord with trainees’ needs. So, another question that a trainer has to address concerns how to plan and organise to best fit these needs. To simplify, planning and organisational issues mostly come down to time and space constraints. This last point is particularly relevant if we decide to plan a face to face or a blended training program. Time and space constraints are mostly linked to opportunities and threats highlighted during the background study of our TEL proposal, and must be carefully taken into account. For instance, if our aim is to train on specific behavioral or communicational skills (above all, teamworking issues) and we decide that the technology to fit these training goals is a serious game but we don’t have enough time to build our own one, then we should consider an outsourcing option, i.e. moving to locate and use a tool that has already been developed for the same training goals instead of developing a new one. Space constraints play a key role as well in the planning and organisational phase of a TEL initiative, deeply influencing the selection of tools we are going to employ during the programme.
167 If our aim is to reach a wide target group, with people spread beyond delimited geographical boundaries, and we need also to reduce the overall costs of the training program, then the employment of online (synchronous or asynchronous) technologies will be likely to fit the purpose better than face to face initiatives with the same goals. An intermediate solution could also be found in the planning of a blended program, i.e., the employment of online tools along with face to face meetings. Conversely, if our target group is relatively small and geographically delimited, the trainer will choose traditional face to face sessions in which the programme is enhanced by the use of other technological tools (for instance individual or collaborative serious games, depending of training objectives). Another organisational issue is the number of people attending a TEL course, which obviously will influence the choice of the best delivery mode, as well as the particular kind of activities the participants are expected to carry out, individual or collaborative. For a large number of people attending a TEL program, a collaborative sub-group activity is suggested to maximise effectiveness in knowledge retention, as well as to train and experiment on specific soft-skills. For a smaller target population and for declarative knowledge aims, individual learning modes fit the purpose well. Besides that, and compared to traditional training programs, plans to monitor, track and control some TEL activities will require a firm “training agreement” between trainers and trainees.
This agreement
acquires even more significance if the learning path is mostly on-line. Indeed, full control on trainee’s activities, especially in presence of massive “technology mediated” attended projects, is hard to achieve. Trainers and instructional designers are thus asked to provide particular attention, also in the planning phase, to motivational aspects. For instance, the inclusion of a competitive element within sub-group activities (e.g., competition between different teams) should result in fostering the in-group dimension, thus augmenting participants’ personal involvement.
168 The following checklistsummarises some points for attention during the planning and organisational phase: 1 . Time and space constraints 2 . Outsourcing options 3 . Number of people attending the course 4 . Planning of activities: individual or collaborative 5 . Planning of activities: motivational aspects
This next checklist is presented as a guideline for use during the planning and organisational phase to achieve a general coherence between training aims and technological tools within the corporate training path: 1 Training aims -
Hard skills
-
Soft skills
-
Declarative knowledge
-
Values
-
Problem solving
-
Context information
2 Type of technology selected -
Life- and reality-like
-
Metaphoric
-
Observation
-
Experimentation
-
Problem solving (analysis and decision)
3 Scenario -
Individual fruition
-
Group or social activities
4 Logic of functioning and use
5 Insertion within the training path
169 VII.3. Delivery and management of corporate TEL initiatives
Generally speaking, as usually happens with traditional training programs, a TEL initiative should combine and mix together some introductory theoretical aspects with some practical ones along with further analysis and debriefing of the activities. This last point comes down to the concept of feedback, which becomes more and more a key factor considering that not all the tools we choose will have built-in feedback options, thus forcing us to find other equally effective ways to carry on this fundamental training phase. Regular feedbacks in TEL projects help to promote and animate participation within the program, involving the participants in individual or collaborative activities or inviting them to rethink and retain particular aspects of the course. Some corrective feedbacks may be needed while introducing and carrying on a brand new corporate TEL initiative. For instance, in cases where participants are “tempted” to employ older instruments or methods they are more used to, that are not mediated by technologies, to carry on or coordinate their work with others (above all, in face-to-face meetings instead of using communicational tools). Usually, individuals or groups preferring older ways to cope with TEL activities exhibit the worst overall performance during training. Thus trainers are called to prevent or correct such temptations. Once again, regarding the effectiveness of a TEL initiative, the paradigm shift towards new ways of training opened by the new technologies has to be embraced not only by trainers planning and organising the course, but also by the trainees that are at the very central point of each training approach, innovative or traditional. Without this, the technologies will be perceived more like obstacles than opportunities. To prevent that, TEL activities and contents must be organised in a coherent manner, using the same new “language”, allowing the whole training system to be perceived as functional.
170 The trainer must also be aware of some constraints that may depend of the particular technology employed, for instance a downfall of motivation using only online tools without some collaborative and teamwork instruments, or without a warming e-tutoring support. The increase or decrease of the level of self-motivation when attending TEL programs is directly connected to the level of self governing and self development awareness displayed by participants. In this case, the particular tool or combination of tools employed in the programme defines a particular training style, which can be directive, as well as supporting. Highly skilled and motivated trainees will not need a directive style of training, but instead some kind of delegation and autonomy. Conversely, low skilled and under-motivated trainees must be monitored and regularly involved in the training activities, with corrective feedback if needed.
Figure 3 – Training styles and levels of proficiency in the use of new technologies
A coaching or more directive style get results in the delivery of tightly scheduled activities (general work packages, with well defined sub tasks and duties). Probably this depends on a defensive attitude
171 towards innovation and change or a low level of proficiency showed by participants in the use of some technological tools which might bring, in some cases, to a bad self organization or an ineffective collaborative work. To prevent that, peer to peer feedback should be delivered regularly during the training path, at intermediate check points and used by the groups to debrief on work contents, as well as on decisional and communicational aspects. From this point of view, delegating and supportive styles provide participants with more open feedback strategies which can be solicited in case of need, or simply delegated to the inner organisation of activities by individuals and groups. The following checklist summarises some points for attention during the delivery phase:
1 Feedback (involving, motivating, or corrective) 2 Tools and training styles (directive, supporting, or delegating)
Depending on the tools employed during the programme, further aspects may need particular attention, especially for those technologies used at a distance in an individual self-learning mode without any form of e-tutoring support. The following list summarises some useful tips to promote the effective use of some distinctive technologies during the delivery phase.
VII.3.a. Serious games (PalMa – Managerial Gym)
This software application was developed using the same technology as in the design of video games but with a primary purpose other than entertaining. This aim coincides with specific learning objectives. The main unit of the game consists of a scenario, a situation in which the player is required to achieve a certain goal. The player acts
172 through an avatar while the only tool available to the player is represented by dialogue choices.
How can It be used? PalMa can be employed in organisational and corporate contexts according to:
1. Management
and
vocational
training:
strategy,
marketing, soft skills 2. Assessment and evaluation 3. Coaching and development
Main goals The insertion of PalMa within a corporate training path allows trainers and HR specialists to:
1. Have an objective measure of the effectiveness of certain skills 2. “Train” strategic management skills 3. Work on specific development needs 4. Monitor progress over time with respect to the development of specific skills 5. Contribute indirectly to the spread of internal culture and values 6. Spread best practices through the formalisation of models of efficiency recognised by the company 7. Build highly refined and calibrated tools with respect to the referring corporate culture
Added value: The main advantage of serious games, in particular, PalMa – Managerial Gym, is the employment of simulation to understand, through an experiential way, the inner functioning of a complex phenomenon or problem.
Besides that, an added value to corporate
173 training is the chance to reflect on and build models of effectiveness which force participants to focus on the work process and coping strategies they are usually involved in so that new values can spread and streng then, along with new personal attitudes and behaviors. Besides that, the tool allows a high level of customisation in terms of scenarios, dialogues and layouts. Thanks to the “game approach” and the consequent emotive involvement, participation is facilitated. Tips for use: If used for training or development purposes, feedback at the end of game sessions must be clearly designed to give indications about the level of understanding related to the phenomenon and about the effectiveness of the strategy adopted to face opportunities and threats of the situation. Otherwise, for assessment purposes, no feedback should be given to participants as data coming from the game sessions will be used by trainers for the evaluation.
VII.3.b. Multiplayer Role Games (MRGs, e.g., Dread-Ed)
Like serious games, these software applications are developed using the technology and the design of video games but they are mostly delivered online, in a synchronous mode, with simultaneous participation of multiple users.
How can they be used? The best way to insert MRGs, in particular Dread-Ed, into TEL projects is a blended training programme with the aim of improving the ability to make effective decisions and work in groups within simulated emergency situations.
Main goals Dread-Ed allows trainers and HR specialists to train, assess or develop soft skills along with problem solving abilities. More particularly, trainees will experiment through the tool, effective
174 communication
skills,
information
sharing
strategies,
resource
management, management of emotions and stress and decision making. When involved in a collaborative strategy, to succeed in the game, participants are forced to put to the test their own communicational and social skills.
Added value: The game allows participants to simulate real dynamics in the safety of a simulated reality, while the debriefing session led by the tutor allows participants to reflect on choices made by the group. Tips of use: The tutor has the chance to choose the “script”, record the sessions and edit them with comments in order to provide feedbacks. A group debriefing with the tutor before the game session is highly recommended. Importantly, the tutor must check that participants are all online and ready to start, assigning to each of them a particular role within the simulation.
VII.4. Evaluation of a corporate TEL project The main temptation in evaluating new TEL corporate initiatives is employing some of the older instruments or categories from a traditional method, which do not fit so well with the new training language. Besides that, it is very difficult and generally not productive to compare evaluation issues of TEL projects with traditional ones. For this reason it becomes very important to take into account that a general coherence between the training path and the evaluation protocol must be pursued. Elements to be evaluated during TEL initiatives depend primarily on which kind of technology (or combination of technologies) is used and its role within the training path according to the general and specific aims of the project. To elaborate, the evaluation protocol of a corporate TEL project should take into account three main aspects (see Chapter 8 for a more detailed review):
175
-
Previous knowledge and practice of new technologies (background study)
-
-
Use of the technology within the training path: -
usability
-
absorption
-
acceptation
Training goals and provided path
The aim of a background study introducing the use of a new technology for corporate training should be primarily to find out what technologies the target group have used in the work environment (e.g. simulations, serious games, online communicational and team-work tools, etc.), thus detecting how familiar are participants with this kind of technology. Data coming from this study should result in the choice of the tools and of activities to best fit training aims (for more details, see planning and organisational issues of corporate TEL programmes), along with the best feedback strategy (see in this case delivery and management of corporate TEL initiatives). Another key aspect of the evaluation of TEL programs is found in the effectiveness of use of each technology within the training path along the following dimensions: usability, absorption and acceptance. In more detail, the usability dimension refers to the ease of use and to the level of accessibility of the tools when needed. The evaluation of this dimension should focus primarily on detecting if things needed by participants were clearly visible and easy to find, and if operating instructions were visible and easily accessible. To continue, the absorption dimension takes into account the level of involvement during the use of the technology and, conversely, the difficulty in being hooked using it for training aims. Furthermore, linked to both previous dimensions is the perception of usefulness of the tools employed within the training path, in other words, the acceptance of the instruments as a training tool. The instruments must be accepted by the
176 target group, i.e., people would recommend to others or would enrol in future courses that use similar methodologies and technologies. Overall, the above dimensions play a key role in the evaluation of each new tool inserted in the programme, compared with traditional ones. For instance, if the employment of a technology promises some kind of improvement, but at the end its results are not fully usable or there is a generally low level of involvement by participants then training aims are achieved with more difficulty compared to traditional methods. Another aspect to take into account is that, once the delivery phase has started, those involved in the initiative usually deepen their ability to use the different tools and may suggest some improvements to the system according to their own needs. For this reason, mid-point evaluation and feedback are suggested, even during the development of a TEL programme (for further details, see the following corporate case history, Par. 5).Apart from that, a feedback evaluation strategy should always keep a regular communicational channel open to participants’ ideas for improvement and suggestions. A common mistake is in this sense is to relegate the evaluation phase to the very end of the training project, thus not allowing trainers and HR specialists to take needed corrective actions in time. The lack of regular or intermediate feedback is likely to result, in some cases, in the unsuccessful development of TEL training possibilities, or even in the failure of the initiative. Last but not least, the evaluation of training aims and of the provided pathshould be planned according to both the general and specific goals of the Project, with particular attention to the role played by the tools employed during the programme and to the training activities carried out to achieve each particular goal.
VII.4.b. A corporate case history: Auriga All Stars project - Rai Way The chance to test some of the new technologies presented during the T3 trial, both to direct and indirect beneficiaries, came from an HR
177 development activity planned by Rai Way, the major Italian public company in the telecommunications sector. This activity involved around 100 participants across the national territory over a period of 3 months, starting in April and ending in mid June. All the participants attended previous projects (with traditional and experiential training methodologies) from 2005 up to 2010, so that the “all stars” project can be considered as a follow-up moment to the whole Auriga training path. The need for a new opportunity to meet and refresh skills carried out along previous editions had been addressed several times by participants in the project, along with the need to create a moment of global sharing between groups of different years. Starting from these requirements, the proposal finally set 4 main objectives:
1 Offer a moment for development of personal skills that invokes the main content covered during the previous edition of the project; 2 Spread and streng then values, personal ties, and the positive climate generated by the project through an activity that involves participants of different editions; 3 Use a challenging and innovative methodology meeting the technological challenges that Rai Way is actually facing; 4 Deliver an advanced training path whose results will be made available across the enterprise as a learning tool on managerial skills.
The general aim of the activity was to develop managerial skills and support and enhance collaborative teamwork. The technology selected to fit this purpose was a web 2.0 portal (Moodle 2) in which trainees used a variety of communication tools (instant messaging, chat, news forums and project forums) along with collaborative tools for online content editing (wikis). This collaborative content editing activity was finalised through storyboarding the dialogues to be implemented in a
178 serious game (PalMa – Managerial Gym), which they also tested at the very beginning of the training program.
Technologies Serious games (PalMa) Web 2.0 portal (Moodle 2) Web 2.0 tools (online content
Aims Development of soft
Delivery mode In presence
managerial skills support/enhance
Online
collaborative teamwork Knowledge and
Online
content building
editors)
Table 2 – Auriga “all stars”: technologies, aims and delivery modes
Participants (divided into 10 groups) were asked to design the content (dialogues) of a customised educational videogame to be used by themselves and their colleagues to train their own managerial skills. The main unit of the game consists of a scenario, a situation in which the player is required to achieve a specific goal. The player acts through an avatar, a virtual body of which he/she decides the behavior.
The player's interlocutor consists of a BOT, i.e. a software agent programmed to answer in a certain way depending by the choices of the player. In each situation a goal is explained, such as convincing someone to do a task, solving a conflict, mediating between two parties, motivating an employee, so that the player will influence the evolution of the virtual conversation through his or her dialogue choices. At the end of the game session, PalMa provides detailed feedback on the performance of the users allowing an assessment which is also in terms of personal development of ideas. The training path was thought as a challenge both from the creative point of view and from that of group work (supported by the project site, to allow remote working, and by regular asynchronous e-tutoring
179 activity). However the design of the gyms represented not just an opportunity for discussion and collaborative problem-solving, but also proved to contain an important element of personal development. Having to design a dialogue based on a specific managerial competence, the participants were forced to rethinkin an analytical way about the kind of competence. This is perhaps one of the major advantages of the so called simulation method: to simulate and reproduce the behavior of a certain phenomenon it should be fully 'understood' in advance. The project identified four key moments (Start-up, Check, Switchoff and Showcase) which, except for the switch-off phase, should be attended face-to-face by all participants. As a consequence, the formula chosen was a blended training methodology. The first face-to-face meeting introduced the project, providing also main goals and an overview of the TEL instruments. The second one aimed to check the middle work done by participants and define the guiding lines for the completion of the gyms. The switch-off of the project was aimed to “fine tune” the artifacts to be finally presented during the showcase event at the very end of the training path.
Figure 4 – Auriga “all stars”: key moments of the blended strategy
To facilitate remote collaborative work, the project planned a series of milestones, specific goals and middle outputs. Indeed, this provided general work packages, with sub-tasks to be completed and output deliverables tightly scheduled. This organization was consistent with the
180 mid-low level of proficiency in the use of new technologies (and in particular TEL ones). Indeed an higher grade of autonomy in the completion of work packages should have caused a leakage in their effective completion (cfr. training styles and proficiency of use mentioned
in
delivery
and
management
of
corporate
TEL
initiatives).Upon completing the collaborative work, the system also allowed the contributions of each participant to be tracked so that “imbalances” amongst those involved in sub-group activity could be prevented orrectified. Internal feedback was scheduled at the end of WP1 and WP2, to meet the needs of peer to peer evaluation of the collaborative work. During the development of the programme, feedback was given regularly on the participants’ work through project forums on the Moodle platform. Some proposals to improve the tools provided came soon after completion of the first internal peer to peer feedback; one particular suggestion being to insert open ended questions to give more customised feedback to colleagues. With respect to training styles and proficiency of use, the fact that only a small percentage of participants finally used these questions once they were improved may be taken as an indicator of a low group maturity. Besides that, an e-tutoring activity covered the whole training program, providing guidelines both on process and content issues, and a support on technical instances. The following scheme summarises the detailed activities carried by participants and trainers during the project.
181 Work Packages WP 1: Start up
WP 2: Check
WP 3: switch off
WP 4: Showcase
Participant’s tasks
E-tutoring
1.1 Detect a skill to train 1.2 Decline the idea 1.3 Define the goal of the gym 1.4 Storyboard (macro) 2.1 Storyboard (micro) 2.2 Define the equation of efficiency
- Process - Content - Technical support
Feedback campaigns Sub-groups work activity internal feedback
Sub-groups work activity internal feedback
3.1 Fine tuning of the customised gyms (dialogues of the Serious Game)
- Process - Content - Technical support - Process - Content - Technical Support
None
None
Evaluation of the path external feedback from a jury of training manager experts
None
Table 3 – Auriga “all stars”: work packages, tasks, e-tutoring and feedback campaigns
Overall, the training path was found to bring different advantages:
- was highly innovative in content and methodology - thanks to the customisation options of the instrument PalMa, the output was fully pertinent with respect to the internal corporate language and culture of Rai Way - was able to generate learning at both individual and group level, both in theoretical and experiential-practical terms - allowed to continue and deepen the previous Auriga training paths, recreating the positive climate of the initiative - provided tangible feedback about the quality of work and therefore about the whole effectiveness of groups - providing to those who have never participated in Auriga a concrete example of the themes that are covered
182 - conveyed the values of the project, related to personal and organisational development, even outside the company
Data coming from the feedback and from the evaluation protocol at the end of the project fully supported the above advantages. Moreover, the technologies adopted allowed experimentation with new problem solving strategies. The team work was effectively supported and the feedback opportunities were useful in supporting the professional growth of participants. The development of a serious game was perceived as useful in thinking about group dynamics so that compared overall to previously attended training paths (with a traditional methodology), the technologies employed in Auriga “all stars” could be seen to add value to the corporate training.
5; 9%
1; 5%
2; 20%
1 2 3
4; 34%
4 5 3; 32%
Figure 5. The technologies adopted allowed experimentation with new problem solving strategies
183
5; 11%
1; 15%
1 4; 24%
2
2; 16%
3 4 5
3; 34%
Figure 6. The technologies employed to collaborate within the group effectively supported the team work
5; 8%
1; 15%
1
4; 21%
2 2; 22%
3 4 5
3; 34%
Figure 7. Feedback received during the project was useful to my professional growth
184
1; 1% 2; 11% 5; 24% 3; 15%
1 2 3 4 5
4; 49%
Figure 8. The development of a serious game was useful when thinking about group dynamics
A few areas of improvement also emerged from the feedback and can be summarised as follows:
-
need of more face-to-face meetings
-
workload and calendar
The total number of face-to-face meetings as well the schedule of activities
carried
out,
although
dictated
by
cost/effectiveness
considerations during the planning phase along with some organisational constraints, seemed to fit the purposes of the project. Regarding the first point, the finding that trainees’ need more face-to-face meetings can be considered a direct consequence of the defensive attitude towards innovation and change, as already evidenced by the background study. Besides that, the generally low level of proficiency showed by participants in the use of some technological tools, in particular communication/teamwork tools, underlines a starting difficulty in coping with this kind of new training methodology. In addition to the above considerations, rather than being a delivery or organisational issue, the proposal of less tightly scheduled activities and a more even workload distribution throughout the duration of the
185 project would seem to highlight the participants’ difficulty in achieving certain levels of performance and coordination through the use of TEL tools. VII.5. Conclusions TEL initiatives in corporate settings have the potential to foster change both at individual and organisational levels, but to be fully effective some key aspects have to be taken into account by trainers and HR specialists. This chapter has tried to highlight the main possibilities arising from the employment of TEL, with a particular reference to the different phases and activities that HR experts are asked to plan and manage. Possible bonds and constraints of a TEL initiative were also highlighted, giving the reader some useful tips to direct choice towards the best tools according to specific training needs. Once the lack of up to date knowledge and skills generally displayed by corporate workers, along with a certain cultural resistance to new training methods, is finally overcome, then TEL projects could represent a vehicle for true economic and social development. This corporate training paradigm shift and “language” change will become more and more evident, the more new technology-driven projects are developed and carried out. The experience in the field suggests that innovation in content and methodology of training is not only possible, but also urgent and necessary. As a matter of fact, new corporate training initiatives should take into account that so called “digital natives” are more used to technologies than previous generations, so that the employment of new TEL methodologies is not an option but, rather, a need. Furthermore, the poor ranking of our country on the ability to exploit new technologies as a lever of innovation in the economic and social field has to be recovered; otherwise there is a risk of abandoning the prospective of future growth to the certainty of a general recession.
186 Technologies can be a lever, but they have to be operated, thus giving a new centrality to HR managers and trainers who now have the chance to lead corporate training to the next new level.
187
References
AA.VV. (2002), E-learning, il Sole 24 Ore, Milano. Alberici, A. (2002), Imparare sempre nella società della conoscenza, Mondadori, Milano. Al-Sayed, R., Ahmad, K. (2003). Shared languages and shared knowledge, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Mangement, in Internet, URL: http://www.ejkm.com Argyris, C., Schön, D. A. (1995). Organizational Learning: Theory, Method and Practice, Addison-Wesley, Palo Alto, CA; trad. it. Apprendimento organizzativo. Teoria, metodo e pratiche, Guerini e Associati, Milano, 1998. Attewell, J., Savill-Smith, C. (eds.) (2004). Learning with mobile device: research and development. Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) Paper, in Internet, URL: http://www.mobilearn.org Bonani, G.P. (2003), Formazione digitale, Franco Angeli, Milano. Brown, J. S., Duguid, P. (1991), Organizational learning and communities of practice: towards a unified view of working, learning and innovating, Organization Science, vol. 2, nº 1. Davenport, T. H., Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge. How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA; trad. it. Il sapere al lavoro. Come le aziende possono generare, codificare e trasferire conoscenza, Etas, Milano, 2000. Dede, C. (2011). Immersive Interfaces for Engagement and Learning, Science, Vol. 323 no. 5910, 2011 Dutta, S., Mia, I. (eds) (2011), The Global Information Technology Report 2010-2011 Transformations 2.0, in Internet, URL: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GITR_Report_2011.pdf Entropy Knowledge Network (2011) , T3 - Italian trial report, in Internet, URL: http://www.t3.unina.it/index.php Kuttan, A., Peters, L. (2003). From Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity, Scarecrow Press, Oxford, UK. La Noce, F. (2002). E-learning: la nuova frontiera della formazione, Franco Angeli, Milano. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Micelli, S. (2000). Imprese, reti e comunità virtuali, Etas, Milano. Orlikowski, W., Gash, G. (1994), Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 12, nº 2. Pedler, M. Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T. (1991). The Learning Company, McGrawHill, London, UK.
188 Senge M. P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Sitography Serious games PalMa – Managerial Gym: http://www.entropykn.net/palma/ Inside disaster: http://insidedisaster.com/haiti/ Game4manager: http://www.insidedisaster.com/experience/Main.html IBM City One: http://www01.ibm.com/software/solutions/soa/innov8/cityone/index.jsp Multiplayer Virtual Worlds Sinapsi: http://www.nac.unina.it/sinapsi/ Second Life: http://www.secondlife.com Active Worlds: http://www.activeworlds.com Cobalt: http://www.opencobalt.org/ Project Wonderland: https://lg3d-wonderland.dev.java.net Digital Spaces: http://www.digitalspaces.net Blue Mars: http://www.bluemars.com Augmented Reality Inglobe technology tools: http://www.inglobetechnologies.com/it/ Web 2.0 Online content editors: http://ckeditor.com/demo Social bookmarking: http://www.netvibes.com/it http://digg.com/ http://www.pageflakes.com/ http://www.wikio.it/ E-portfolios and PLEs: http://mahara.org/ http://elgg.org/index.php http://moodle.org/ Web Operating Systems: http://www.eyeos.org/ http://www.jolicloud.com/ https://www.oodesk.com/desktop/desktop.php Multiplayer Role Games Dread-Ed: http://www.dread-ed.eu/
189
VIII
A methodological framework to evaluate training courses in new learning technology for teachers, educators and trainers. Soledad Quero, Juana Bretón-López, Rosa Baños, Yolanda Vizcaíno and Cristina Botella
VIII.1. Introduction
E-learning is emerging as a very relevant concept in the field of education (Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, & Yeh, 2008). The technologies of information and communication (ICTs) offer very useful tools for teaching and learning processes. Indeed, some important skills, knowledge and contents can be taught and improved via technologies. ICTs include a variety of applications such as the internet, virtual environments and serious games. In addition, these new tools can be used in different educational contexts despite the background or the specific issues to be taught and learned. The strategic purpose of the T3 project is to develop and validate an innovative teaching programme to promote the use of advanced elearning in different contexts. T3 comprised three trials in different countries (United Kingdom, UK; Spain, SP; and Italy, IT) using a variety of technologies (web-based, internet-based training and virtual learning environments) in diverse educational contexts (secondary schools, universities and commercial companies). In consequence, the targeted
190 trainees for these trials were also different, corresponding to secondary school teachers, university teachers and company staff. Overall, these trials consisted of a training period with theoretical and practical classes. Before and after completing the trials, participants were asked to complete an assessment protocol in order to get relevant data for the purpose of the project; that is, to give their views on the utility of some technologies for teaching and e-learning. In previous chapters of this book, the main results obtained in these experiences have been presented. Although the training methodology and procedure has been adapted to the characteristics and capabilities of the specific sample from each country, it was constructed around a common methodological framework to apply and to evaluate training courses in new learning ICTs. In general, the T3 objectives have been successfully achieved. Teachers in high school and university contexts and people who work in companies (primary beneficiaries) have been directly involved in the learning of new technologies to use in the future to teach others (secondary beneficiaries). In this chapter we will firstly analyse the common methodology that has been followed through the three trials. The main final purpose is to offer a guide to be used when generating an e-learning experience with different users (in educational and company contexts). In addition, we will examine the similarities and differences of the results obtained in the three contexts focusing, first, on the samples’ characteristics and, second, on the opinion and satisfaction with the selected technologies and the training course. This analysis will give direction to readers about the specific features influencing the results of an e-learning process. Finally, some reflections are added according to the obtained data and their implications.
VIII.2. A common methodology for e-learning training
As mentioned, the T3 trials were aimed to validate the use of technology for e-learning amongst teaching professionals. The major differences among the trials were the specific technologies selected to be included in the training and the specific target populations. Nevertheless,
191 the methodology followed a common rationale and structure. Overall, two key elements were evaluated in all trials: first, the previous characteristics of the users who were to teach by e-learning and second, their final opinion about the technologies and training courses. Both types of variables (users’ characteristics and users’ opinions) can have an important relation with the final satisfaction of the users and the probability they will use this technology in their educational activities in the future. A review of the literature was carried out in order to identify the main variables linked to the users and to the technologies that could affect satisfaction with ICTs. The final purpose was to know deeply what variables are influencing acceptance and final usage of technologies, specifically, those designed for e-learning. Regarding user characteristics, some studies emphasise that previous experience with computers and new technologies (experienced versus inexperienced users of technological systems) is a key factor influencing the decision whether or not to use these kinds of systems (Mahmood, Burn, Gemoets& Jacquez, 2000; Taylor &Todd, 1995a, b; Thompson, Higgins& Howell, 1994). According to these studies, this characteristic is an important indicator of an individual predisposition to utilise a technological tool and it can explain a high percentage of variance in user satisfaction with these systems (Mahmood et al., 2000). Other studies have suggested that past experience is related to engaging in the behaviour of using technology (Ramayah, Ignatius & Aafaqi, 2004). A generated affinity or beliefs towards the technology could influence the decision whether to use a new technological system (Thompson, Higgins& Howell, 1994). Because user experience with ICTs was found to be a key factor and is related to user satisfaction (Guimaraes et al., 1992), it was included in the assessment protocol in all trials. Regarding user opinion about technologies, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is one of the most influential information systems theories. TAM was developed by Fred Davis and Richard Bagozzi (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992; Davis, 1989) as an extension of Ajzen and Fishbeins´s Theory of Reasoned Action, TRA (Ajzen &
192 Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein, & Ajzen, 1975).This model suggests that when people use a new technology, the two most important determinants of their satisfaction and utilisation are perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (see Figure 1). Davis (1989) has defined “perceived usefulness” as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance". Furthermore, perceived usefulness is directly influenced by perceived ease of use. According to Davis (1989) “perceived ease of use” is "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort" (Davis, 1989, p. 320).
Figure 1- Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Source: Davis et al. (1989), Venkatesh et al. (2003).
User experience and the other variables identified in the TAM model have been interrelated in some studies. For example, Taylor and Todd (1995a, 1995b) found the TAM model to predict intention and behaviour for both experienced and inexperienced users. However, in the case of the experienced users, the relationship between intention and usage was stronger than for those inexperienced. In a similar way, Thompson et al. (1994) found that the variable ‘prior experience with technology’ had a direct effect on beliefs, attitude and intention. Also, these authors point out that the person's level of experience with a
193 particular technology moderated the strength of the relationships between beliefs, attitude and intention (Thompson et al., 1994). In sum, satisfaction with the technology is connected to the experience of the users and to the characteristics of the technologies, as perceived ease of use or perceived usefulness are. In addition, these variables facilitate the acceptance and usage of ICTs, as has been established in the literature (Goya, Purohit & Bhaga, 2011; Hayden et al., 2005; Norzaidi et al., 2008a, 2008b; Wixom & Todd, 2005). In order to analyse the role of user experience, perceived usefulness and ease of use, we developed three questionnaires to asses these variables. To develop these questionnaires, we reviewed relevant literature on the topic and conducted a number of expert meetings on new technologies and training. The three resulting questionnaires are as follows: - Questionnaire 1: Frequency of Use with New Technologies Questionnaire. This was designed to assess the previous experience of the users with ICTs in their workplace. This questionnaire is composed by 23 items with a scale of response ranging from 1 "never" to 5 "very often”. The items corresponded to different technologies that the trainees could have used in their educational contexts. In further analysis of the data, the 23 items were classified into four categories: common tools (1), advanced tools (2), internet and communication tools (3) and finally educational tools (3). This questionnaire is an easy tool to use when assessing the frequency of use of new technologies befores tarting an elearning process (users typically taking around 5 minutes to complete it). The inclusion of this kind of questionnaire helps bring the trainer closer to the technological profile of trainees who will learn e-learning systems to teach others. -
Questionnaires
2
and
3:
Technologies
Satisfaction
Questionnaire and Training Course Evaluation Questionnaire. They were designed to assess user satisfaction with the ICTs and with the training course that they received. These questionnaires are composed of 8 items with a response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). With both questionnaires readers may find instruments
194 that give them feedback about, firstly, satisfaction with the trained technologies and, secondly, evaluation of training course after the training process finishes. With these tools it is possible to evaluate the adequacy of the technologies in which to be trained and the main characteristics of the course used for training. The questionnaires can be applied for multiple or varied types of technologies considered. The administration of the two questionnaires takes around 3 to 4 minutes. These questionnaires were common to the three trials and applied with the three different samples. In Appendix 1 the reader can find the complete evaluation protocol used with our e-learning training which may be used as a possible guide for other similar training courses. The common procedure for the three trials is shown in Figure 2. A pre- and post-course evaluation was carried out in order to assess the main variables for the purpose of the project. During the 6 training sessions a cooperative strategy between trainers and trainees was used in order to facilitate the theoretical and practical knowledge of the technologies that were included in the trials. The major purpose of the sessions in this kind of training process was to guarantee an adequate knowledge of the ICTs by the trainees in order to use the technologies in their educative contexts. Theoretical information about the technological devices, and practical exercise linked to the curriculum of the user are important features to be considered when developing e-learning training. Other important points to be included in e-learning training are noted inthe table in Appendix 2.
PRE-EVALUATION
WORKSHOP TRAINNING 6 SESSION – 8 HOURS EACH SESSION
POST EVALUATION -Technologies Satisfaction
- Frequency of use with
Questionnaire
New Technologies
-Training Course Evaluation
Questionnaire
Questionnaire
Figure 2- A common procedure for the three trials.
195
Following these, the reader can review the main results found with an e-learning experience using the defined structure about the application and evaluation of the training.
VIII.3. Main results of the trials in the three contexts
In order to analyse the participants’ previous experience with technologies in their job the Frequency of use with New Technologies Questionnaire was applied. Specifically, we were interested in knowing if participants were experienced users (with frequent use of the technologies) and if there were differences among the three different samples (secondary teachers, university teachers and company staff). As can be seen in Figure 3, the three samples show a similar frequency of use. The UK (secondary high school teachers) was the country with the highest average use of technologies (mean of 2.77, SD=0.96), followed by Spain (mean of 2.75, SD=1.05) and finally Italy (mean of 2.40, SD=1.09). The three countries were at a mid point on the use of technology for their job context. Furthermore, the most used technologies were common tools (conventional desktop, generic software, etc.), internet and communication tools (Skype, e-mail, chat, etc.). The choice of these tools could be motivated by their easy availability and management. In addition, these technologies have a low above-line cost and are widespread in the general population. The less used technologies were advanced tools (immersive technology, managed learning environments, etc.) and educational tools (e-portfolios, eassessment, etc.). The reasons for this could have been higher economic costs and more specific training needed to use some of them. The resources and the technologies have been adapted by each professional to the needs and abilities of their students or trainees.
196
Figure 3- Frequency of use of new technologies in the three countries.
Figure
4
shows
results
from
the
Technology
Opinion
Questionnaire. Again, similar findings across the three countries were obtained, with a mean of 3.8 mean (SD= 0.42) for UK, IT with a mean of 3.84 (SD= 0.13) and finally SP, with a mean general satisfaction with the technologies of 3.76 (SD= 0.14). The data show that the trainees had a medium-high level of satisfaction with the technologies. It is important to emphasise that the samples have been trained in different kind of technologies aimed at e-learning. Specifically, the technologies were assessed as easy to use and useful, with a clear and organised design and with an understandable vocabulary.
197
5
Satisfaction
4
3
2
1 Easy to use
1
Easy to find
2
Clear design
3
Clear instructions
4
Useful feedback
5
Understandable language
6
Recommendable to colleagues
Useful technology
7
8
UK
IT
SP
Figure 4- Level of user satisfaction with the technologies.
Finally, Figure 5 shows data from Training Course Evaluation Questionnaire. A medium-high level of satisfaction was found. The UK sample obtained a mean of 4.31 (SD= 0.22), followed by IT with a mean of 4.12 (SD= 0.27) and finally SP with a 3.81 mean (SD= 0.24). Specifically, the participants emphasised that the course had been important in improving the acquisition of new concepts of e-learning, in helping find ways to adapt the technology to the learning context and to understand the use of technology for supporting their curriculum (in educational or enterprise areas). In addition, participants also expressed their satisfaction with the course as representing an innovative field and a resource to identify and understand the benefits of technology in education. Finally, most participants expressed an intention to continue using the learned technologies in their areas of teaching.
198
5
Opinion
4
3
2
1
Understandable Use technologies Understand how Technologies used 1 2 context 3 4 technologies in different as innovative concepts support curriculum
Course as 5 innovative
Continue to use Explain the 6 of the new technologies 7 advantage technologies
UK
Technologies as relevant8to own teaching
IT
SP
Figure 5- Participants’ opinion of the course.
VIII.4. Final Reflections
At the present time, we have different technological devices that enable and enhance communication and knowledge transfer. Their potential and utility in the field of education is notable. Therefore, it is very important to incorporate these new technological tools in the best way possible to promote new methods of learning, or, e-learning. Elearning offers new environments where people have the opportunity of learn in an interactive, efficient, easy and accessible way. Within the academic context, students today are surrounded by new technologies and the majority are “digital natives” (Hansen, 2003; Prensky, 2001). These characteristics together with the rapid development of technology over the last years have created a suitable context to facilitate an important spread of this kind of learning worldwide. Work is necessary in order to incorporate these tools as visible elements in different learning contexts, together with an adequate assessment of the usability of the technologies. The results obtained during our experience are a contribution to this topic. Firstly, the data support the use of a methodology that can be used in training courses with similar characteristics. Secondly, our data summarise the experience of trainees with these innovative technologies, concluding with a
199 satisfactory opinion about the tools and the course. In general, these results represent an initial step in spreading knowledge of multiple innovative tools among people who teach others. An important second step will be to implement these technologies with secondary beneficiaries, such as students from university or high school contexts and those who work in companies, and to analyse satisfaction with these systems. An important factor in the design of the T3 project was the inclusion of three different countries with different education policies, different technologies for e-learning, and three different teaching contexts to be analysed. In this heterogeneous sample the evaluation protocol and course schedule were tested, providing a body of interesting data relating to the proposal for the project. The data show that previous user experience and level of satisfaction with technologies and with the training course were very similar among the three countries. Differences in need could have been expected in these different contexts but similar results were found regarding the use of the technologies and the satisfaction with them. Therefore, these results suggest that it is viable to include different kinds of technologies in different contexts with the teaching and learning processes involved. We would like to emphasise the importance of the methodology used in T3 project. It was focused on the use of a training programme on a variety of technologies. Some authors have noted the importance of the training received by users (Mahmood et al., 2000). So, through the workshop, in the theoretical classes, the features and benefits of new technologies and a new way of teaching using them (e-learning) were discussed. In the practical classes, trainees simulated the learning sessions and became familiar with the ICT technologies and varied environments. During this process they had the support of the trainers involved. By design, the trainees were close to the emerging new technologies and could provide the necessary help and feedback to implement those for a particular educational purpose. Support, help and feedback have to be essential ingredients when training in these areas.
200 E-learning has created new ways of interaction in the educational system. Future research should continue studying how ICTs can enhance the teaching and learning process. The final goal is to offer the best educational environments to the people centrally involved in these important
processes,
that
is,
teachers
and
students.
The
world's technological capacity will contribute to this goal in a strong and definitive way. Furthermore, the increasing development of ICTs in the world will offer other different and interesting ways of interaction for learning in educational contexts in the future.
201
References
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Guimaraes, T., Igbaria, M. & Lu, M. (1992). The determinants of DSS success: an integrated model. Decision Sciences, 23, 409-429. Goyal, E., Purohit, S. & Bhaga, M. (2011). Study of satisfaction and usability of the Internet on student´s performance. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 7, 110-119. Hansen, D. J. (2003). Book review: E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age (Author: M. Rosenberg). Educational Technology & Society, 6, 80-81. Hayden, H., O´Brien, T., & Rathaille, M. O. (2005). User survey at Waterford Institute of Technology Libraries: How a traditional approach to surveys can inform library service delivery. New Library World, 106, 43-57. Mahmood, M. A., Burn, J. M., Gemoets, L. A. & Jacquez, C. (2000). Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 751-771. Norzaidi, M. D.,& Intan Salwani, M. (2008a). Information Technology Management (IT). Models: An Introduction, University Publication Centre, Shah Alam, Selangor. Norzaidi, M. D. & Intan Salwani, M. (2008b). Internet and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Usage in Malaysia Port Industry, University Publication Centre, Shah Alam, Selangor. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1-6.
202 Ramayah, T., Ignatius, J. & Aafaqi, B. (2004). PC Usage among Students: The Case of a Private Institution of Higher Learning, The Proceedings of the International Conference on Management Education Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Sun, P., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50, 1183-1202. Taylor, S.,& Todd, P. (1995a). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19, 561–570. Taylor, S. & Todd, P. A. (1995b). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144-176. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., and Howell, J. M. (1994). Influence of experience on personal computer utilization: Testing a conceptual model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 167–187. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.Wixom. B. H. & Todd, P. A. (2005). A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16, 85-102.
203
Appendix A
Questionnaire 1 Frequency of Use of New Technologies
The aim of this questionnaire is to find out what technologies you have used with students in the classroom/ in company where you work. Please complete all the questions. You do not need to spend much time on any one question. This questionnaire should only take a few minutes to complete. All of your responses will be treated confidentially.
Please indicate the appropriate number to indicate how often you use the following: Never 1
Rarely 2
Sometimes 3
Often 4
Very often 5
1.
Conventional desktop or laptop computers
2.
Generic software tools (e.g., PowerPoint, graphics, audio and
video editing, data handling, wordprocessing and publishing) 3.
The internet (Web 1) as a data and information resource
4.
Simulations (e.g., biological/physical, inter-social processes)
5.
Games for educational purposes
6.
Commercial video games
7.
Serious games
8.
Computer modelling
9.
Web 2.0 technology (wikis, social networking software etc.) for
collaborative learning 10.
Hand-held technologies
11.
Virtual environments / Virtual learning environments (VLEs)
12.
Managed learning environments (MLEs, e.g., Fronter)
13.
E-portfolios
204 14.
E-assessment
15.
Digital cameras, audio recorders and video cameras
16.
Digital audio / video editing / production
17.
Immersive technology
18.
The use of robots or other computer-controlled devices
19.
Individual authoring tools (e.g., personal blog, portfolio)
20.
Sharing information tools (e.g., glossary, repository, social tagging)
21.
Comunication tools (e.g., Skype, e-mail, chat)
22.
Teamwork tools (e.g., Shared calendar, Mental maps)
23.
Construction of knowledge tools (e.g., Wiki, Social Networking, Blog)
205 Questionnaire 2
Technologies Satisfaction Questionnaire
The aim of this questionnaire is to find out if you think the technologies you have used are well designed and easy to use. Please complete all the questions. You do not need to spend much time on any one question. This questionnaire should only take a few minutes to complete. All of your responses will be treated confidentially.
Your name/code: Name of the technology used: Please circle the appropriate number for each statement below: Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
1. I found the technology easy to use 2. Things I needed were visible or easy to find 3. The design was clear and uncluttered 4. Operating instructions were clearly visible and easily accessible 5. The system provided useful feedback when I needed it 6. Vocabulary and a mode of language were understandable 7. I would recommend the technology that I used to other colleagues 8. I found the technology useful
206
207
Appendix B Questionnaire 3 Course Evaluation Questionnaire
Name:
The aim of this questionnaire is to find out how helpful the different parts of the course have been for you. Please complete all the questions. You do not need to spend much time on any one question. This questionnaire should only take a few minutes to complete. All of your responses will be treated confidentially. Please circle to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
1
2
3
4
Strongly Agree 5
1. Course helped me understand concepts such as Technology Enhanced Learning 2. Course helped me find ways of using new technology in different learning contexts 3. Course helped me understand how use of new technologies can support curriculum 4. I regard the way the technology is used on the course as innovative 5. I regard technology itself used on the course as innovative 6. Course has helped me explain the advantages of the technologies 7. I will continue to use and experiment with new technologies 8. Course has helped me identify and understand technologies that are relevant to my teaching/training
208
Table – Training Schedule
-
Introduction.
-
Overview
of
the
technology:
history,
past/present
applications, perspectives. -
Introduction of concepts and common vocabulary in elearning.
-
Special guests/experts presenting best practices in the field.
-
Participants experimenting the technology in subgroups with practical exercise.
-
Participants involved in the design of specific exercise related to their curriculum (teaching/training).
-
Analysis and debriefing of activities.
-
Round table discussion to share key issues arising about the experience.
-
Summing up and conclusions.
209
Editors
Orazio Miglino
Full Professor of General Psychology at University of Naples “Federico II”; President of Graduate School in Clinical Psychology at University of Naples “Federico II”;Associate Researcher at Insitute of Cognitive and Technologies Sciences, National Research Council, Rome. His research activity is mainly concentrated with Cognitive Science and Artificial Life. In particular, his interest is oriented towards the construction of formal models based on Neural Networks, and mobile robots that simulate cognitive, adaptive and learning processes of natural beings. Moreover, his research group tries to extend artificial systems built up in basic research into the edutainment context (science centres, e-learning environments, therapeutic tools).
Maria Luisa Nigrelli
Works in ISTC CNR, managing European funded projects and taking care of technical transfer from the research context to the business environment. Her background is in foreing languages and educational psychology; she took her master degree at University of Pavia in new technologies for teaching and knowledge management strategy. She was visiting scholar at Indiana University Bloomington, in Education Psychology Department. Previuosly she worked in KPMG and in Telecom Italia, with a special focus on international business development, EU funded programs.
210 Luigia Simona Sica
Psychologist, is post-doctoral researcher at the University of Turin. She received her Ph.D. in Psychological Sciences from the University of Naples “Federico II”. Her
main
research
areas
are
related
to
developmental psychology and narrative approach. More specifically: identity development, creativity, impact of new technologies on the definition of identity, normative and non normative biographical transitions during adolescence and emerging adulthood.
211 Chapter Authors
John Jessel. Head of the Mphil/PhD Programme in the Department of Educational Studies at Goldsmiths, University of London. His research interests focus on the social, cultural and cognitive processes that underly learning and development, both inside and outside of institutional settings, and in relation to the use of digital technologies. He had directed a series of funded projects examining the influence of new technologies in the language, literacy and thinking that arise through collaborative activities among learners.
Rosa M. Baños is Full Professor in Psychopathology at the University of Valencia, Spain. Her research interests include psychopathology, the treatment of psychological disorders, and the application of Information and Communication Technologies to Psychology. Dr. Baños is the director of the master “Interventions for Eating Disorders and Personality disorders” at University of Valencia.
Cristina Botella is Full Professor of Clinical Psychology at Jaume I University (UJI) since 1992. Her main line of research is the design and testing of clinical applications based on ICTs for the treatment of emotional disorders. She has been principal investigator in more than 30 research projects, published over 100 papers in national and international journals, as well as 20 books and over 30 book chapters.
Juana María Bretón-López got her Degree in Psychology at Granada University (Spain) in 2001, and got her PhD in clinical psychology at the same university. In 2006 she leaves Granada to join the research group Labpsitec, run by Professor Cristina Botella. She is currently a PostDoctoral Lecturer of Clinical Psychology at Jaume I University (Spain).
212 Rocio Herrero Camarano got her Degree in Psychology at the University of Buenos Aires (Argentina) and her Master Degree in Psychopathology, Health and Neuropsychology at the Jaume I University (Spain). She is currently member of LabPsiTec team, a research group run by Professor Cristina Botella. She has a pre-doctoral grant since 2009. She is currently studying her Doctorate.
Soledad Quero is a Lecturer at Universitat Jaume I of Castellón (UJI) since 2004. Her main research is the adaptation and validation of BCT programs for different emotional disorders and the application of Communication an Information Technologies to improve psychological treatment. She has a PhD in Clinical Psychology from Universitat Jaume I of Castellón.
Luis Farfallini got his Degree in Psychology at the University of Buenos Aires (Argentina), and finished his Master Degree in Psychopathology, Health and Neuropsychology at Jaume I University (Spain). He is currently member of the research group Labpsitec, run by Professor Cristina Botella, as Transfer Technician. He has taken part in the usability evaluation and currently is studying his
Yolanda Vizcaíno Dragón got his Degree in Psychology and her Master Degree in Psychopathology, Health and Neuropsychology at the Jaume I University (UJI) in Castellón (Spain). She is currently member of a research group run by Professor Cristina Botella, Labpsitec. Her research interest is focused on the psychopathology and treatment of chronic pain.
Michela Fiorese is a labor psychologist with 9 years of experience in human resource management in major national and international organizations, including the Italian Posts and Daimler Chrysler. The main focus of her work has been on the design and management of training for management and sales staff, staff assessment and organizational research. Since 2008 is involved as project manager in different innovative learning project.
213
Angelo Rega has a degree in Clinical Psychology and has a Ph.D in Health Psychology focused on design and study of some experimental prototypes in responsive and adaptive environments as cognitive prostheses. His research activity is concentrated on Advanced Learning Technologies and Artificial Intelligence, and their applications in several domains, as e-Learning, Videogames, Educational Robotics and Educational Software. Other research activities are assistive interactive technology for cognitive rehabilitation and ambient intelligence in Health Care.
Roberto Vardisio is a labor psychologist who has worked for the last 12 years in management training, personnel assessment and selection and organizational research. Vardisio has been a senior consultant for Ernest & Young, the international consultancy company, and has collaborations with several important Italian universities including Università la Sapienza di Roma and Università Federico II di Napoli.
214
215
Acknowledgements
Thanks to John Jessel for the careful revision of the English version of this book.
216
