Jasmeet Virk's ETEC 533 journey

Introduction:

As an elementary school teacher I have always found myself at the tail end of applying educational technologies.  Whether it is an acquisition of a computer lab, Wi-Fi, or need of software, the elementary schools seem to be the last ones to get them.  Currently the emphasis has been to explore and use those affordances of technology which encourage collaboration and interactivity so as to encourage critical thinking skills and metacognition in a socially constructive environment (New London Group, 1996).  Many theoretical papers are being scribed and researches being conducted to show what such learning looks like and how technology and pedagogy need to coexist to provide an optimal learning environment. A closer examination of the literature shows that it is focused on the higher levels of education. Many of my colleagues have also not given it much thought, and with no guidance, I feel secluded again. However, I am very impressed by what the theory and research has to say about these current pedagogical trends and being extremely curious about its applicability in elementary education, I have set out on a quest of my own to figure out if the use of Web 2.0 tools can encourage collaborative learning in elementary education.

Background:

In the last few years I have been experimenting with the use of technology in my teaching. I find it to be a great multimodal tool and have tried to apply it in all phases of the learning process. In math students have been able to interact with virtual manipulative and practice math concepts by playing games on websites or simply doing drill and practice. You tube videos and web cameras have enabled them to see science as it really happens. Lately, I have also started to apply the current pedagogical trends of social constructivism in my classroom. In my exploration of learning theories I was very convinced by Vygotsky’s (1978) belief that students need to explore relevant content to create their own understanding in a socially interactive environment and that teachers need to facilitate such learning by providing the support through their Zone of Proximal Development. Now in math and science classes, my students work in groups and with partners to create knowledge and solve problems. Though such pedagogy also highly recommends the use of technology to allow students not only to interact with content, but also to interact with peers and teachers within a community of learners to create knowledge (Anderson, 2008),  I have until now mainly functioned in a traditional classroom and used technology only to examine content. Timidly, I have just started to experiment a little with a class blog and am unsure of its implications and my implementation, and am looking for some guidance.

In any profession, the best guides can be your colleagues in the same occupation. Therefore I had looked forward to the analysis of the video cases and talking to my colleagues for the field-based interview. It was exciting to find teachers who were using technology in elementary education and discovering it multimodal affordances. As my own interviewee said, “The nice thing about technology – not only does it engage multiple pathways to learning, it is scalable to level of learning.” However, it became apparent that technology is not deemed by some as an essential part of the learning process but rather often viewed as an extra aid whose presence is not omnipotent to the learning process. As one of the interviewee said, “Students can learn both with and without technology”.  There was consensus amongst many teachers that “technology brings limitless access to learning and observing science ” and that virtual manipulative can engage students”,  but many also did not see it as a tool that will help students develop the ability to think critically, problem solve, and work cooperatively alongside their peers. In fact it was feared that technology use “has caused student’s mathematic skills to not develop or atrophy.” The affordances of web 2.0 tools that encourage student interaction and collaboration barely showed up in these discussions and when they did, it was not considered valuable. My own interviewee stated that he did not think that there was any potential for web 2.0 tools in an elementary setup.  Some colleagues even asked for definitive research to prove that technology is effective.  It was hard to find a common ground between what the current literature was proclaiming and what my colleagues were telling me.

My Exploration:

It is hard for me to accept that such affordances of technology can only benefit older students.  I know there needs to be more face to face teaching with younger students (Bates and Poole, 2006) but that does not imply that collaboration and interactivity using web 2.0 tools does not benefit young learners at all. To confirm my conviction, I dug deep into the field to educational research within the annals of UBC library, EBSCO, CITEULIKE, and even Google to find some samples of Web 2.0 technology use with younger children.  Keywords like “blended learning” and “elementary education” proved futile.  Finally terms like “blog” and “online learning” with elementary education, helped me find some studies that could shed light on the viability of Web 2.0 tools in elementary education.

 [Pane, P. (2010). How does the use of blogs impact student motivation for literature discussions?]

In this action research from the Buffalo State University, it was found that student’s preferred the F2F discussions to blog use. Pane refers to those affordances of technology as the theoretical base for her study which encourage higher level thinking through discussion and collaboration and for that reason I had wanted to examine this study. The study was conducted in a grade four class in which the students were divided into three reading groups and each group was assigned a different book. The students had to read 10 pages every day, write a journal response, and then discuss it either in their group or on the blog. Initially the students had the choice between the tools and then for four weeks they had to choose one. Students had a pre-survey, interviews in the 5^th week, and a post-survey.

 

The results were based on the opinion of the students. Even though the students liked using the blog, the slowness of getting online and low keyboarding skills made the use of blog tedious. The students did not see their blog discussion as “talking “to their friends. I agree with the low keyboarding skills of students this age, but believe that a longer study might have made the students overcome this drawback. The students might have enjoyed it more if they did not have a related writing activity and the blog may have been considered a part of their writing assignment. This might have made them consider the blog activity as vital part of the learning process. I also believe that a summative test based on the books may have provided more insight about the overall effect of blog discussions on learning. 

[Hayes, A. (2004).  Internet in the elementary classroom: effects on vocabulary comprehension and motivation in the content areas]

This study which was conducted in a science classroom did not show encouraging results either. Even though this study focused only on content and student interaction on the Web, and not the student to student or student to teacher interaction, I was curious about how young learners handle any aspect of online learning and benefit from that. Hayes (2004) conducted an action research in her own class of eighteen grade 1 students. She compared their achievement with 56 other grade 1 students from the same school. Hayes used internet activities in her class in conjunction with the traditional teacher –led activities like use of textbooks, lecture, discussion, and worksheet to study vocabulary for the science unit on weather. The other classes just used the traditional methods. Predetermined, age appropriate web sites were used to answer questions about weather, write informational stories, and find new information to share with the class on an individual basis. The students were highly engaged and spent more time on the computers.

Observation and interviews showed that students really enjoyed the unit. At the end of the unit when all first grade students took the same chapter test, the class showed lower mastery level compared to the other classes. Hayes concluded that Internet may have a negative impact on student achievement with younger students as more time was wasted in setting up technology and trouble shooting, and away from the content. I believe that often teacher inexperience can lead to ineffective use of technology. Also factors like teacher’s individual style and student’s familiarity with teacher style in the traditional setup may interfere with their online learning. Another issue that stood out for me from this study was that conventional paper and pen testing do not measure other skills like fact checking and critical thinking that developed during the learning process. Evidently assessment models need to evolve with changing teaching and learning models. I believe that the results of this study imply that technology use in itself is ineffective. It needs proper pedagogical scaffolding to be impactful.                     

[Yee (2010). Web-based Tools for Science Teaching in Lower Primary School. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.]

This recent exploratory study about using Moodle to teach science in a primary classroom shows that collaboration and interactivity are very effective tools in elementary learning. While the study is not conducted in a North American setup, I examined this study as it was testing the use of a Learning Management Systems like Moodle which provide for all affordance of the Web 2.0 tools in a safe and organized environment. Grade 3 students of mixed ability were provided with the opportunity to discuss and to work cooperatively through an LMS for their science unit.  The students used the forum on Moodle to discuss science concepts about plants and animals. They also worked on Tagul, a word cloud software with hyperlinks to Google, to contribute to class knowledge about plants and animals. The pupils worked on both activities into groups of 5. Even though they used the forum to have asynchronous discussions to answer simple questions, there was evidence of knowledge being built as students learned from each other. The word cloud activity encouraged them to find new information to post and expand their learning. The qualitative and quantitative data, both showed improvement in student learning. 

The researchers were able to establish many crucial assumptions from this study. They state that for younger children the LMS needs to be used at school as students are not very independent. This is in accordance with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal development which focuses on the need to adult guidance for students. The successful findings of this study confirm for me that interactivity and collaboration provided by the web 2.0 tools can be effective in educating young learner. The one essential issue the study does not discuss is the level of teacher involvement and support provided, which would have been more insightful. 

[Li, Qing. (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational Research. Vol. 52, No. 4]

This very thought-provoking study from the University of Calgary showcased how use of internet tools and face to face collaboration among younger children increased their understanding of the subject matter in question and enhanced their general problem-solving abilities through the process.  Li studied 21 elementary students (19 boys and two girls) between the ages of seven and eleven, during a summer camp where they were involved in the “learning –by-game-building” approach. The students created educational games to teach other students, and during their learning process their emotional and learning experiences were measured qualitatively and quantitatively. Students discussed and collaborated traditionally as they explored the online applications to help them create games.

The researchers found that as students worked together they expanded their knowledge regarding the science and math involved. They showed great problem solving skills as they worked through the software and created their final product. While the study did not extensively use the collaborative online tools for discussion, their blended use of technology and face to face collaboration clearly showed how their appropriate use is conducive to higher level thinking. Since it was a voluntary summer camp and not conducted in a structured educational setup, it might be hard to apply the positive results to the general elementary student population. However, it still highlights the extensive pedagogical benefits of blended learning systems in science education for elementary students.

Conclusion:

While it was hard to find studies solely on the topic of Web 2.0 tools and its implementation in elementary education, all studies have been able to shed some light on my query about benefits of collaborative learning using technology.  The studies do not provide a precise answer but raise some significant concerns about the applicability of web tools in elementary education.  Web 2.0 tools need to be intricately woven with pedagogy, like any other technology, for them to be effective. Research and my own experience has shown how effective collaborative learning has been in understanding science phenomenon and applying math concepts to real life situations even in a traditional classroom. In such a successful pedagogical setup when technology is introduced, it should be done in a way so as to enhance the effect of what is already being achieved. This refers to keeping in mind many issues like student’s cognitive and social abilities, teacher ability and planning, the content under consideration, and the affordances of the technology being used. From my investigations I can pragmatically conclude that Web 2.0 technologies can be effective in the elementary education if used appropriately. 

References:

 

Anderson, T. (2008).Towards a Theory of Online Learning.  In: T. Anderson & F. Elloumi

             (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University.

 

Bates A. W. & Poole, G. (2003).A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In A.W.

              Bates & G. Poole, Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education (pp. 75-

             108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 4.

 

Hayes, A. (2004).  Internet in the elementary classroom: effects on vocabulary comprehension

            and motivation in the content areas. Retrieved January 14, 2012 from  

            http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/vol3no1/pdf/ahayes-article.pdf

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.        Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Pane, P. (2010). How does the use of blogs impact student motivation for literature discussions?

Retrieved January 16, 2012 http://www.buffalostate.edu/elementaryeducation/documents/ActionResearch_2010Pane.pdf

S. L. Wong et al. (Eds.) (2010). Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers

in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Retrieved January 22, 2012 from http://www.apsce.net/ICCE2010/papers/c6/short%20paper/C6SP23.pdf

 

Li, Qing . (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational

 Research. Vol. 52, No. 4, December 2010, 427–443

 

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.

            Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.