169001 - Literacy?!? Revolution in the classroom (Hobsonville)

Schools Ditch Pens & Paper

The debate at the end of the clip is very interesting in terms of literacy media and opinions...

Collaboration

Iinuma, M., Matsuhashi, T., Nakamura, T. & Chiyokura, H. (2014). Collaborative learning using integrated groupware: A case study in a higher education setting. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(4), 351-355. DOI: 10.7763/IJIET.2014.V4.42 

Collaboration is considered an essential ‘21^st Century’ learning skill amongst Critical thinking, Creativity and Information Literacy from a Japanese higher education perspective. As a means to promote class interaction and group work, the study supports an integrated Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) Groupware system in a higher education setting whereby enrolled students participate in a course. 

The authors detail collaboration as a construction of shared knowledge through activities with others, where the participants are committed to or engaged in shared goals and problem solving [7]. As such a constructivist learning theory which bases its philosophy on the idea that knowledge is constructed by the learner through activity [8]. According to this theory, collaboration fosters deep learning by exposing students to different perspectives and allowing opportunity for negotiation to occur [9], [10].

The purpose of this study is to conduct collaborative learning using Groupware for college students and to evaluate its usage. The method of implementation is on a purpose built platform to gauge individual profiling, classroom interaction and group activities. The content is scheduled over 9 sessions of 90 minutes in duration which includes 16 classes with approximately 30 students per class. The objectives stated are to enhance global awareness, learn the current social issues and to design solutions to problems identified utilising the collaborative process. Group evaluation standards include 6 group assignments and 3 individual assignments.

The group assignments covered group posters, power point slides and presentations with the resource distribution of one desk to four computers in a computer lab per class session. The Groupware application is Microsoft Sharepoint 2013 as it is supported by ‘cloud’ computing accompanied with a web-server platform for formal accessibility to 480 students. For example the ability of multiple users to simultaneously create and co-edit documents in the ‘cloud’ without the necessity to download documents to local computers was the point of group collaboration.  The student activities could then be evaluated with pre-designed worksheets which noted student interaction for creating files and editing duties.

For instance, the co-editing feature in Groupware enabled the instructor to request students co-write in one Excel file. The student responses were then shared to the class with a projector and the benefit to both students and the instructor was the simultaneous nature of the exchange and the ability of the instructor to promote a discussion forum. For example a result showed that students answered most positively to Q15 “I learned something new in class” with average score of 1.99. As such for Questions 1 to 19, showed that that overall, students answered positively to most questions. The resulting comments of Question 20 for students who responded was 10 students commented positively; nine students commented on experiencing technical difficulty with the Powerpoint group worksheet and their inability to co-edit the files and seven students experienced technical difficulty with the groupware login process.

In summary a proposed solution is ‘adequate scaffolding’ to enhance the collaborative process successfully and to produce high quality output through the guidance of instructors. An alternate solution to the technological problem of appropriate usage of the Groupware interface is to provide adequate guideline sets for students to use as they collaborate with instructor and peers during their assessment of each others’ output. For example a proposed use of highly designed groupware and a common college seminar could be transformed into a highly interactive and collaborative environment. It is recommended that further research is needed to implement effective scaffolding solution(s) both human and technological in nature, in appropriate contexts and as a provision to all students.

References

[7] Hamalainen, R. and Arvaja, M. (2009). Scripted Collaboration and Group-Based Variations in a Higher Education CSCL Context. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 1-16.

[8] Martens, R., Bastiaen, T. & Kirschner,  P. A. (2007). New Learning Design in Distance Education: The impact on student perception and motivation. Distance Education, 28(1), 81-93.

[9] Huang, J. J. S., Yang, S. J. H., Huang, Y.-M. & Hsiao, I. Y. T. (2010). Social learning networks: build mobile learning networks based on collaborative services. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 78-92.

[10] Vygotsky, L. S. (1974). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Adoption or perhaps Integration

Lubega, J. T., Annet, M. K. & Muyinda, P. B. (2014). Adoption of the SAMAR Model to Assess ICT Pedagogical Adoption: A Case of Makerere University. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 4(2), 106-115. 

Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) as a tool to enhance pedagogical processes has been slow to consider by a low number of staff for teaching and learning purposes. There have been multiple studies on how e-learning has been implemented at the university but no empirical evidence exists to explain the lack of integrated ICT adoption within the university. That lack has influenced the nonexistence of intervention methods to enhance teaching and learning in general. As such a new research approach is implemented to discover actual causes of slow pedagogical integration and suggested interventions with the use of ICT via the SAMR model. The results provide potential methods for institutes to adopt should they be in the same situation.

The methodology consists of four main activities: dialogue with stakeholders on ICT in education; situation analysis of pedagogical ICT use and identifying interventions and drawing strategies for their implementation. The quantitative and qualitative approaches were employed across four colleges of Makerere University. Data collection was achieved with the use of a questionnaire, interviews, focus groups, observations, project blog and documentary analysis via the SAMR model. Data analysis was achieved using the SPSS to obtain statistical data. The sample size of 600 was defined across the four colleges where each provided 150 academic staff and 100 students.

Results

A.      Response Rate: It should be noted that not all participants responded. The implication is that the colleges that were accustomed to using ICTs in teaching and learning participated  more because they understood more of what was being asked from them. 

B.       General Characteristics of Respondents were noted for their responses across the four colleges where college 1 was Education…, college 2 was Computing…, college 3 was Business… and college 4 was Humanities… which implied that one specific area of a college responded alone. For example college 2 obviously exhibited the highest frequency of response compared to the other colleges because of their specific relationship to ICT via Computing. Add Note 1 for potential project proposal viable college 2.

C.       The significance of Gender responses with 32.7% female and 63.7% were males where they were more involved with ICT than their counterparts. Interestingly, females were quantified as techno-phobic especially those from non-ICT colleges. For example colleges 3 and 4 exhibited the lowest responses in relation to ICT. What is implied is the distribution of more women in the colleges. Add Note 2 for potential project proposal viable mentoring staff depends on qualification and/or personal interest.

D.      In the case of Age results presented the age range of 26 to 30 featured as having the most affinity for ICT adoption than age ranges greater than 31. The information is seen as a viable strategic position for consideration in policy planning. A surprising factor was the age range greater than 41 who as professors held ICT skills obtained through prior experience.  For example by the fact of professorship obtained training abroad or in research activities. Add Note 3 for potential project proposal viable management structure of potential staff.

E.       From an educational perspective the majority of respondents were PhD holders, 19.2% were masters’ holders and 20.2% were degree holders. A meaning of the information is confirmation of the age group greater than 41 as being PhD. For example as PhD holders they used ICTs in their teaching and learning. As confirmation of the perspective they are deemed a source of ICT knowledge. Add Note 4 for potential project proposal viable PhD holders confirmed for strategic and operational staff.

F.        ICT Literacy: The majority of respondents were ICT literate at 92.2%, for basic ICT literacy at 6.7% and 1.0% as being completely ICT illiterate. Given the results a general assumption could be that outwardly there would not be an issue converting the converted to mentor those that required knowledge. For example staff development across the colleges as an initial project with long term goals. Add Note 5 for potential project proposal a viable mentorship programme.

G.      ICT Use in Pedagogical Processes as a means to gain staff responses in appropriate areas. This means an appropriate range of educational process that could potentially utilise an ICT tool. For example a disturbing visual factor of the rated responses for ‘Never, Sometimes and Always’ across ICT usage for Pedagogical gain is the high percentage of staff that ‘Never’ used an ICT initiative 9 out of 13 times. Obviously an area to address in project planning. Add Note 6 for potential project proposal a viable audience for the mentorship programme.

H.      Instigation of an Educational Technology Policy that has been implemented for the pedagogical processes is very critical and needs to be done. It should be mandatory as a practice and failure to integrate should initiate staff development and rewards for those that do integrate ICT in pedagogy as leaders in ways to improve on teaching and learning. For example Non-monetary incentives, e.g. attending conferences, ICT devices, certificates of recognition, employee of year awards should be put in place to recognize staff that are innovatively using educational technologies. Add Note 7 for potential project proposal staff incentive and a recognition process to enhance performance.

 

In conclusion revealing results of non-use of multiple ICTs in pedagogical processes in institutions is caused mainly by: 1) lack of leadership by units that may instigate implementation of educational technologies; 2) lack of knowledge and training as per ICT use; 3) lack of relevant ICT infrastructure, and 4) the lack of leadership in implementation of educational technology policies. The relevance of the results implies that if any institution of teaching and learning intends to excel in pedagogical integration then the four main issues must be considered. In essence, a top-down management strategic position to implementation at an institute’s operational level that fosters student successful outcomes at its core. Therefore the first stage of managed change is a triggered policy update on the freedom to use or not to use educational technologies within institutions.  As a result of institutional change to enforce developed policies, positive change shall be registered in ICT pedagogical integration and therefore  ICT shall be a key focus in lecture room(s) and foster authentic learning and hence bridge the gap between the digital native and migrants.

Net Generation

Oblinger, D. G. & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding The Net Generation. In D. G. Oblinger  & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.). Educating the Net Generation (pp. 2.1-2.20). An EDUCAUSE e-Book.

The authors introduce an understanding of what they deem the ‘Net’ generation to be defined as in relation to pre-generation descriptions of Matures, Baby Boomers and Generation X. The ‘Net’ generation is described as “Millennials” born between the date range of 1982 to 1991 who are attributed as “hopeful and determined”, like “Public activism and have access to the “Latest technology” (p. 2.9).

In terms of ‘Asking the Right Questions’ the authors promote mindfulness in assuming complete understanding of our students when considering the different perspectives between the Net Generation and faculty/administrators.So in essence, who are our learners? As an explanation of the ‘Net’ generation they introduce ‘Eric’ who is a junior at university (p. 2.1). For example, upon waking Eric looks at his PC to check his instant messages (IMs) that have arrived while he slept. A familiar view or perhaps consider a teenager who upon waking reaches for a mobile phone to see who has sent a text throughout the night or early morning? Institutions may have demographic information (date of birth, home town, gender, ethnicity, and so on) but that is not to say they understand how students view the world, what is important to them, or even how they learn best. Therefore, the importance of an ‘engaging’ dialogue to better understand students’ perspective is of primary importance. 

They also consider investment deals of Institutions as extensive (IT infrastructure, classrooms, and student support facilities) and how best to support student enrolments and facilitate student success. Management decisions based on assumptions is risky so how are today’s learners different from (or the same as) faculty/ administrators? The comparison is with the Net Generation versus Baby Boomers, the recognition of distinct differences and yet some things stay the same. For example students still come together with like-minded goals of achievement in preferred courses and to learn with peers and staff. Therefore, the influence of student engagement consistently details the importance of ‘relationship’ with faculty and other students, as well as existence in supportive campus environments. 

An additional student preference considers how they receive information as each are unique but the authors imply that they (students) favour more graphics, a rapid pace, and immediate responses. For example students in a youth guarantee class on-site exhibit bored behaviour in the form of ‘lying across desks’ which is hinders student success at a foundation level. Therefore persistence of such behaviour will not enable faculty and administrators to more effectively develop programs and target investments.

In terms of understanding the Net Gen the authors ask ‘what learning activities are most engaging for learners? A primary suggestion is the learning activity and not technology that promotes engagement for the Net Gen. For example learners where traditional lectures are the norm may not find the instructional delivery style of help to achieving assessment standards. In essence, one size does not fit all as an effective approach to teaching.

The authors also ask, are there ways to use IT to make learning more successful? Yes, as long as the learner is first and IT is a tool to facilitate a learning journey. They state that with appropriate IT use learning can be more active, social and learner-centred. In summary educating students is the primary goal of colleges and universities. However, reaching that goal depends on understanding those learners. Only by understanding the Net Generation can colleges and universities create learning environments that optimize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. Technology has changed the Net Generation, just as it is now changing higher education.

Figure 1: Todays Generation (p. 2.9)

Philosophy

The journey to recognise a personal philosophy about learning and teaching with technology has been challenging in terms of past experience in classrooms, current standards and a technological future. 

In the past, conditioning methods administered by traditional teachers had long term negative influence not recognised at the time. However, the influence of that timeframe has promoted a distinct appreciation of the constructivist approach.  Schunk (2012) details “constructivism” (p. 491) in instructional delivery which will be addressed in a later submission.

For example, current standards of faculty employment, programme requirements and associated lesson plans provide the opportunity for resource selection per session. Therefore, it is an educator’s choice whether to use online technology as an educational aid once availability of appropriate technology has been addressed.

What this highlights is student outcomes, the absolute responsibility placed on educational practitioners of our day, their ability to teach and/or facilitate a student’s academic journey and with the aid of online technology (computers) institutionally. 

From an institutional perspective, what is primarily experienced as a current standard is the political and economic influence of Government funding in the tertiary sector. For instance, TEC (2010) set its priorities for funding as one, increasing enrolments for Youth (defined as under 25), Māori, and Pasifika students and two as performance enhancement in adult literacy, language and numeracy skills, for students in study.

The influence in our institution had been optional access, at that stage, to the National Assessment Tool (Tool) for levels one to three students. The Tool had been in its infancy and staff were given the option to participate with their students. At that time, the Tool was seen as an additional burden to an already heavy curriculum. Yet despite the lack of staff motivation, faculties were encouraged to register appropriate staff for staff development training.

For example, staff training was provided for Internet access to the Tool. Areas covered were online management and operation from assessment criteria, to student participation and the report facility for both staff and students.

What this highlights institutionally is compliance based on funding because as we know from experience, what is deemed optional one year will eventually be mandatory for an institute in the long term. 

Fast forward to this month, institutionally, the Tool is mandatory for all students from levels one to three in their study nationally. In turn, tertiary institutes’ in-house faculties have produced a compliment of appropriate staff familiar with the Tool’s operation. The most surprising finding is the release of the latest tertiary education strategy by the Government.

TEC (2014) set its priorities on delivery of skills for industry (p. 9), getting at-risk (unqualified and lack of work experience) young people into a career (p. 11), boosting achievement standards for Māori and Pasifika students (p. 12), improving adult literacy and numeracy skills (p. 15), strengthening research-based institutions (p. 16) and grow international linkages (p. 18).

For example, the Ministry of Education (Ministry) in the tertiary sector has continued with its original strategy in 2010. In addition, there is an enhancement to economic performance through a more qualified labour force across Industries; addressing at-risk youth which could be attributed to its findings within the Tool database and finally, promotion of international participation. 

It is the latter point of international participation which is interesting in terms of online technology considerations. A top-down Government strategy to ‘get with it’ then two institutes funding related decision to comply has produced a current and significant condition. As of last week, a combined independent (computing) ICT entity between two institutions has been created. The implications are unknown but it does question access to future online technology and the existing capabilities of current technology between institutions to name but a few thoughts. 

In summary there is a compulsion towards a constructivist approach to learning and teaching with or without online technology. The exception criteria of ‘with or without’ is based on institutional standards of practice and what online technology is permitted under the branding. Faculty consideration, programme requirements and employment contracts determines an educator’s access to current technology and its potential for growth to support student outcomes. That is the point, will successful student outcomes be served with or without the use of online technology.

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: an educational perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc publishing as Allyn & Bacon..

Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). (2010). Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). (2014). Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-2019. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/~/media/MinEdu/Files/EducationSectors/TertiaryEducation/TertiaryEducationStrategy2014/MOE_TES2014_V9.pdf