1000 Words ASS TASK 1

Hello Fellow Bloggers,
Reflective Synopsis

The roles of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in school classrooms are becoming increasingly prominent, because of the need for children to develop skills that will empower them in modern society and because of the potential value of such technologies as tools for learning. One of the challenges facing educators is how to ensure that graduate teachers have the necessary combination of skills and pedagogical knowledge that will enable them to both effectively use today’s technologies in the classroom as well as continue to develop and adapt to new technologies that emerge in the
future (Gill & Dalgarno, 2008.)

ICTs are evolving technologies that are rapidly changing and finding their way into our classrooms. When ICTs are used interactively by students within the classroom this promotes lifelong learning surrounded by the environment of a society in the 21st century. The potential for enhancement of the “quality of the learning experience” and the transformation of pedagogy are other factors driving ICT integration in classrooms (McNair & Galanouli, 2002, p. 182.) In addition to this, the next generation of students are often referred to as the ‘Net Generation’, and are expecting the integration of Web 2.0 technologies into their learning and teaching programs (Thompson, 2007).

As a Pre-Service Teacher I have realised that I am conscious of my incompetence when it comes to computers and the resources that can be used within a classroom. Undertaking this course has enabled me to experience a vast range of tools and resources that can be used to actively engage students in meaningful learning experiences. Please refer to the individual blogs for explicit detail on each learning tool and the potential of classroom applications.

Keirsley & Schneirdeman’s engagement theory has emerged from experiencing teaching in electronic and distance education environments (see Shneiderman, 1994, 1998; & Kearsley, 1997). This fundamental idea of underlying engagement theory is that students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks. While in principle, such engagement could occur without the use of technology. Keirsley & Schneirdeman, (1997) believe that technology can facilitate engagement in ways which are difficult to achieve otherwise. Therefore the engagement theory is intended to be a conceptual framework for technology-based learning and teaching (Kearsley,1997.)

This engagement theory is consistent with constructivist approaches as it emphasises collaboration amongst peers and other learners. Engaging in learning means that all student activities involve active cognitive processes such as creating, problem-solving, reasoning, decision-making, and evaluation. In addition, students are intrinsically motivated to learn due to the meaningful nature of the learning environment and activities (Brady, 2006.)

The ICT tools that are listed under the heading of ‘Engagement Theory’ are appropriate to be used in the classroom by teachers and students to promote collaborative learning that are project based with an authentic focus. These tools encourage students to be in control of their learning whilst using complex thinking processes (Keirsley & Schneiderman, 1998.)

Tools such as Weebly, WebQuests, Ed.Heads, Voki, PowerPoint, Slideshare and Mahara can be used to create meaningful collaborative learning experiences that are student centred with minimum teacher input.Learning designs refer to a range of ways of creating student learning experiences, (a sequence of types of activities and interactions.) A learning design can be considered the framework that supports student learning experiences. (Oliver, 1999.)

Learning designs are currently implemented with the use of Information and Communication Technologies. Oliver (1999) argues that a learning design comprises the following key elements:
• Tasks that learners are required to do.
• Resources that support learners to conduct the task.
• Support mechanisms that exist from a teacher implementing it.

Hence the term ‘learning design’ is used to describe the various frameworks that can be used to guide the design and choice of these three elements in the development of learning experiences for students, predominantly ICT-mediated learning experiences (Oliver, 1999.)

As a Pre- service teacher this Learning Design Framework is relevant to all planning of all learning experiences, units of work, assessment pieces and rich tasks. When planning meaningful learning experiences it will be imperative to select appropriate ICT tools for ‘Tasks, Resources and Support Mechanisms’ that will be relevant and beneficial to the students (Oliver, 1999.)

For example when planning an integrated unit on WATER, tools such as; WebQuests, Vokis, Weebly, Bubbl.us, Slideshare, PowerPoint, Pod casts, Videos, Wikipedia, Ning, Ed.Heads and Mahara can be well utilised for the ‘Tasks, Resources and Support” .

The Active Learning Framework relates to Edgar Dale’s cone of Experience (Dale, 1969) conveys similar ideas on learning in a graphic form. Dale proposed that learning is inspired progressively from concrete to abstract and believed that the foundation for instruction depended upon direct sensory experiences combined with purposeful interaction with stimuli sources (Martin, Arendale and Blanc, 1997.)

When incorporating ICTs within a classroom on a frequent basis this assists students in constructing meaning so they can learn at a deeper level. Active learning must be imbedded into every learning experience. Students retain more information by deeper the learning and reading, listening to a lecture, viewing a chart or graph, observing a demonstration, participating in a discussion, presenting a simulation, or engaging in an activity. The idea is that the more involved a student is in the process the better the recall of the new knowledge learnt (Martin, Arendale and Blanc, 1997.)

References

Brady, L. (2006) Collaborative learning in action. Frenchs Forest, State of New South Wales,
Australia: Pearson Education.
Dale, E. (1969). Audiovisual Methods in Teaching. Holt, Rinehart and Winston:
Austin, TX.
Gill, L. & Dalgarno, B. (2008). Influences on pre-service teachers’ preparedness to use
ICTs in the classroom. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational
technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved 16 August, 2009. from:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/gill.pdf
Kearsley, G. (1997). The Virtual Professor: A Personal Case Study. Retrieved 16 August, 2009.
from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/virtual.htm
McNair, V. & Galanouli, D. (2002). Information and communications technology in teacher
education: can a reflective portfolio enhance reflective practice? Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 11(2), 181-196
Martin, D.C., Arendale, D. and Blanc, R.A. (1997). Mainstreaming of Developmental
Education: Supplemental Instruction and Video-based Supplemental
.Instruction. In H. Levin (Ed.), Alternatives to Developmental Education. San
Fransisco: Jossey Bass.
Oliver, R. (1999). Exploring strategies for on-line teaching and learning. Distance Education,
20(2), 240-254.
Shneiderman, B. (1994) Education by Engagement and Construction: Can Distance Education
be Better than Face-to-Face? Retrieved 16 August, 2009. from:
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/scivw/EVE/distance.html
Shneiderman, B. (1988), Relate-Create-Donate: An educational philosophy for the cyber-
generation. Computers & Education, in press.
Thompson, J. (2007). Is education 1.0 ready for web 2.0 students? Innovate: Journal of Online
Education. Fischler School of Education and Human Services at Nova Southeastern
University. 3(4), Retrieved August 15, 2009, from:
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=393