Author Archives: Meghan Gallant

Meghan’s final synthesis

Precis of Flight Path

My flight path outlined the context within which I teach, then outlined how my teaching experience motivated me to join the MET program. I was optimistic and exciting to learn new things to aid in the development of a more useful IT course for my students, or, at least, learn skills that I could adapt to fit my specific context. I outlined my wish to collaborate, in part to improve my confidence. After evaluating myself against the ISTE (2008) standards and Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS framework, I identified my course as being weak in interactions and feedback. I thought that I could learn more about LMSs to encourage more teacher-student and student-student interaction in my courses. I was concerned about my HTML skills and the challenge of using social media. I acknowledged that my goals were few, but attributed this to my inexperience in the MET program as I did not have a foundation to draw upon.

My ETEC 565A Experience

My overall experience during this course was challenging but positive. As I mentioned in my flight path, I was appreciative of Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS framework and the ISTE (2008) standards as they provided a structure for me to follow and to evaluate myself against. As expected, I discovered shortfalls in my methods—specifically in feedback and interaction. However, I had some strengths, especially in ease-of-use, which I leveraged to help make improvements in my weaker areas.

While my flight path specifically mentioned collaboration as one of my goals. I initially believed that social media would be where this happened, and I reluctantly returned to Twitter. November (2012) outlined how the use of hashtags can bring people together, and, for awhile, I did this. However, I soon grew weary of it. The main issue is that even though I was privy to useful information I otherwise would not be exposed to, cultural consideration lacking in this form of collaboration. The hashtags I was following overwhelmingly came from international school teachers with a student population and educational culture quite different from my teaching context. Following hashtags strikes me as being learner-centred, but as Anderson (2008a) cautions, teachers must respect cultural attributes (p. 47). Therefore, Twitter ended up being frustrating for me.

My only authentic experience with collaboration in this course was the group assignment and the experience taught me that, for me, collaboration becomes more important when developing proposals. In particular, it was Jo’s cultural insight forced me to look beyond my opinion and focus on the implications of a proposal on the target population. However, it can be difficult to do this as an individual, so I believe that it is important to collaborate with various interested parties to develop a complete vision.

I now see that what I was looking for was not necessarily collaborative opportunities, but feedback. In my discussion of online assessment, I mentioned Gibbs and Simpson’s (2005) Condition 4–Sufficient feedback is provided, both often enough and in enough detail states, “feedback may need to be quite regular, on relatively small chunks of course content, to be useful” (p.17). At the time, I had this in mind for my students, but I discovered that the weekly discussion posts and comments were exactly this—regular feedback on small sections of course content. Each week I would read different perspectives, and receive feedback on my perspective and this is when my confidence began to grow. I no longer felt alone—I had a community.

When I was ready to delve into LMSs by creating an intro module in Moodle, I felt excited but was concerned about not being able to receive feedback from classmates or the students I had in mind when creating the module. So, I fell back to the SECTIONS framework (Bates, 2014) with a particular focus on ease of use. This was the first time I had actually put the framework into use on a personal project and I was pleased with the results.

I encountered a similar concern with the lack of user feedback when working on the content module. However, after a false-start where I tried to cater to all learning styles, I ultimately used my digital story as the basis of the module and drew inspiration from Ciampa (2013) and sought to encourage student curiosity while extending control over the learning to the students. Using the digital story as a base confirmed that, when using digital media as a resource, it should add something to the course and not be used with no purpose in mind, a point Bates (2014) makes in the teaching and media selection component of the SECTIONS framework. Finishing the content module was what I consider the end of my ETEC 565 experience.

Moving Forward

As my flight path explained, I am only at the beginning of my MET journey, so in terms of lifelong learning, my immediate goal is to continue with the program. However, my experience in ETEC 565 did help me determine which courses will probably be of particular interest to me, thus focusing my journey. When considering how I will continue to learn outside of the MET program, I would like to continue to attend relevant conferences in my area. Additionally, I am fortunate to be in the so-called tech capital of China and I have identified a maker space that I would like to work with in order to put my goals of changing my role from teacher to mentor , as outlined in The New Media Consortium (2014) while using curiosity and control (Ciampa, 2013) to better meet the needs of my students.

I find it difficult to determine what types of technology I may incorporate into my course and my school as access and reliability are significant concerns. I believe the ISTE (2008) standards will be a useful starting place to identify approaches to technology that we can adjust. Then, I would like to use Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS framework to evaluate possible technologies. I would prefer to complete these evaluations in a group of interested parties, much like we did in the group assignment.

References

Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F, Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. (Chapter 8). Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/9-5-5-social-media/

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005) Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/GIbbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-teachers

New Media Consortium. (2014). NMC Horizon Report 2014: K-12 Edition. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf

November, A. (2012). How Twitter can be used as a powerful educational tool. November Learning [Weblog]. Retrieved from http://novemberlearning.com/educational-resources-for-educators/teaching-and-learning-articles/how-twitter-can-be-used-as-a-powerful-educational-tool/

Hindsight is 20/20–the benefit of being behind the trends.

When I think of the future of education, I always think of a statement I hear at almost every professional development session: we are preparing students for jobs that do not exist yet. I’m sure many of you have heard the same thing. In my specific context teaching English language learners in China, an additional area of focus is introducing students to different approaches to education and learning.

My school isn’t at the cutting edge of technology, but I think that can be seen as a positive. We have the advantage of not getting caught up in trends, and the only direction go is up. I’m not going to pretend that we’ll “catch up”, so to say, but I do believe we can meet the needs of our students by taking the best past trends and incorporating it into our approach to education. We’re also lucky to be situated in the “silicon valley”of China, so there are countless opportunities to access cutting edge technology (once we’re ready!)

My vision to best prepare students for jobs that do not exist yet aligns with The New Media Consortium (2014) Horizon Report 2014 K-12 Edition solvable challenges to technology adoption: creating authentic learning opportunities (p.20). The best way, in my opinion, to foster independent, creative, critical thinking is present the learning as challenges for students to solve. Much of my current course consists of theory, short demonstrations, then hands-on practice using a single assignment for all students. This is problematic for two reasons: the assignments cannot possibly be an authentic learning opportunity for ALL students, and the software used could, quite possibly, not be used in the jobs of the future. So, I would like to see my school move toward authentic learning opportunities with open-ended requirements for what/how technology is used.

The New Media Consortium (2014) Horizon Report 2014 K-12 Edition also mentions shifting teachers’ roles to becoming mentors to students who are taking charge of their own learning (p.6). This was not a surprise to me, and I’m starting to see evidence of this even in my school which has had a typically traditional approach to education. This really is the key to my vision–as teachers, we need to step back and let the students take control.

I have been thinking about how to shift the focus to authentic learning experiences with teachers as mentors and how to help this change happen in my school. My idea is to start by shifting the focus of my IT class. I am still considering all of the details, but I would like to propose that, rather than being a stand-alone class, IT be integrated into our English and Social Studies classes. I chose these specific subjects as they are classes taught using Canadian curriculum. I see my role becoming more of a tech integration specialist. By combining the curriculums, there would be more opportunity to create authentic learning experiences. I would like to use the periods usually dedicated to IT class as a time when students could use technology while they work on projects (independently and in teams) that solve authentic problems they identify in their English and Social Studies courses. My role would shift from being a lecturer/demonstrator to mentor and coach. The benefit for the students is twofold: they can develop creative and critical thinking skills, which will, no doubt, be indispensable skills in their future careers, and it introduces them to an alternate approach to learning.

Of course, the big question is, how will I get the resources to facilitate this vision, but I think I have a solution. The maker movement is gaining traction and there are several maker spaces in Shenzhen where students can go to research and develop projects to solve various problems while using the maker space’s resources for a reasonable fee. Therefore, my school’s lack of technology may become a non-issue. Instead of spending money to purchase a lot of equipment, software, and other resources, it may make more financial sense to make use of pre-existing maker spaces–the fees paid would likely be less than purchasing a wide variety of technology and resources. We also would not be responsible for constant updates–thus softening the ill-effects of following trends

The challenges I anticipate facing upfront are largely administrative resistance. A colleague suggested that, before approaching the school administration, I try to anticipate the five issues they would have with my proposal if I presented it today, then come prepared with solutions. I think this is a good way to approach proposing a change in our approach to teaching. Another obstacle is how my colleagues will react to the change if the proposal is accepted. I find that most teachers are intimidated by technology and are reluctant to use it in their classrooms. Therefore, it may be difficult to effect large-scale change without smaller changes to test the waters and build teacher confidence. So, I’ve thought about trying to encourage a culture of sharing at my school by offering lunchtime talks/demonstrations of technology teachers could try out in their classes.

I’m optimistic and motivated, but also scared. I feel like I’m on my own on my mission to see my vision fulfilled. This brings me back to a goal from my flight path: to collaborate more. I think this will be essential as I move forward because collaboration will allow me to continue learning. It will also mean that I’m not travelling this path alone–support and guidance will be essential in evaluating how to move forward

New Media Consortium. (2014). NMC Horizon Report 2014: K-12 Edition. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf

Developing a content module around my digital story.

My content module formed around my digital story. I did not decide on which module I would focus on for the content module until I was preparing to create my digital story. For the digital story, I immediately knew I wanted to talk about brainstorming and outlining because it had personal significance. With that decision made, I decided to develop the content for the second week of my course: brainstorming and topic selection.

For my digital story, I chose to use VideoScribe. I feel this was the right tool because, as a teacher, the ease of use appealed to me—it was accessible in China and developing a digital story using VideoScribe did not cost me a significant amount of time (until it came to uploading). Pedagogically, the main reason I thought VideoScribe would work best to tell my story because it allowed me to incorporate both visual and audio. With my students in mind, I was reminded of Bates’ (2014) point about modality: “[p]eople learn better from graphics and narration than from animation and on-screen text.” Additionally, providing images along with narration would give important contextual clues to those students who may not understand every word. Being able to record the narration myself was helpful in two ways: first, I could control the pacing, and seconding, as per Bates’ (2014) suggestion for voice, “[p]eople learn better when the narration in multimedia lessons is spoken in a friendly human voice rather than a machine voice.” Therefore, I believe VideoScribe was appropriate for my particular context.

While I am pleased with how the digital story was created, I now feel slightly skeptical about how effective it will prove to be within the confines of a course, but I also see how it could be useful. My main concern, as the digital story shares my personal experience with the topic, is that it may colour the students’ perspectives, potentially preventing them from thinking critically about the topic. To mitigate this in my content module, I did add an optional discussion topic where students could discuss their opinion. The best case scenario of using my digital story is that it does provide my “personal spin”, a strength of audio media outlined in Bates’ (2014) chapter on pedagogy. I also believe the digital story could strengthen the sense of community in the course as the students would see me in a different light—not just a giver of information, but someone who has been affected by the content. As my digital story does not specifically outline how I brainstormed, it may serve as a tool to promote curiosity on the topic. Ciampa (2013) classifies curiosity as a type of intrinsic motivation and, as my digital story is an audio-visual piece, it would stimulate both sensory and cognitive curiosity (p.84). With this in mind, I purposefully placed my digital story before the students were asked to independently explore different methods of brainstorming by viewing two infographics. I did this with the intent that, if the students were curious about brainstorming, they would be more likely to complete the task.

Thinking of my content module as a whole, three main themes dominated my choices: student motivation, using a learner-centred approach, and ensuring the content was appropriate for the target audience. My initial focus was to design a module that students would be motivated to complete. Ciampa (2013) outlines in his discussion of control as intrinsic motivation, that, when students are given control over their learning, they become more motivated (p.84). As my students are accustomed to a “stand and deliver” approach to teaching, I wanted to put the students in control of their learning. To do this, I leaned toward a learner-centred approach. As Anderson (2008a), summarizing Brandford and colleagues, notes, a learned-centred approach “includes awareness of the unique cognitive structures and understandings that learners bring to the learning context. Thus, a teacher makes efforts to gain an understanding of students’ prerequisite knowledge, including any misconceptions that the learner starts within their construction of new knowledge” (p.47). However, with no face-to-face interaction, I knew I would be lacking in this knowledge. Therefore, I had to make many assumptions on how best to fill in the gaps while delivering a lesson the students would be able to follow without face-to-face interaction with the teacher.

In making these assumptions, I initially fell into a trap Bates (2014) cautions against catering to learning styles and completely ignored Anderson’s (2008a) declaration that “a learner-centred context is not one in which the whims and peculiarities of each individual learner are slavishly catered to (p. 47). I wondered how I could meet the learning needs of every student and attempted to cover each style. I was soon overwhelmed, so I decided I would provide a range of media—including videos, infographics, text, tables, and flowcharts, but not put too much emphasis hitting every learning style. Using a wide range of media does have drawbacks. For instance, Bates (2014) acknowledges the importance of being aware of student preferences, but he also asserts that, if adding stimulating features, their educational value should be worth the strain on bandwidth. In choosing to create videos, for example, I thought the strain on bandwidth would be worthwhile. In Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model under teaching and media selection, he considers segmenting, multimedia, and voice as having particular strengths. For my students, using short videos would help divide the content into digestible chunks, would add variety, and would serve as a way for students to connect with their instructor. While Bates (2014) does indicate that there is no discernible benefit to adding the speaker’s image to an audio presentation, I thought it would be important for the students to put a face to the voice as a way to build community, so I did use my webcam to record a mini-lecture. There is also a significant text component to my lesson, which I am not thrilled about. However, I was hesitant to create too many videos as the students become grow weary of them. Also, videos of a teacher talking are dangerously close to the “stand and deliver” model I was trying to avoid.

If I were to summarize my experience developing my content module I would say it was like being lost in the dark. I had no student feedback to draw from, so I had to blindly add and arrange components in a way that I thought would work. I feel cautiously optimistic that I made sound decisions, but I won’t know for sure until I receive feedback. Then, the revision process can begin.

References

Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from: http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. (Chapters 7 & 8). Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Ciamp, K. (2013) Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=AUTE4Yy9lKM

Small, deliberate steps.

I briefly discussed when I first became concerned about my digital footprint in my last post. However, I didn’t really take charge of it until I taught digital citizenship (using Creative Commons resources) to my very first class five years ago. To demonstrate a digital footprint, I Googled myself in front of the class (not before doing it in the privacy of my office first.) I didn’t imagine anything would turn up–I had changed all of my social media accounts to private during university and I didn’t post much online. However, when we got to page three of the Google image search, there was my picture! We clicked on the link and found it was from my hometown newspaper–but it was a personal photo that my mother had taken of me when I carried the Olympic flame. It had been posted on Facebook at one point, but I had since untagged it. I was quite upset, but I used it as a learning moment for my class. We talked about how we could go about having it taken down and, as a class, we decided I should email the editor directly and ask for it to be removed immediately. As soon as class ended I rushed to my office and typed an email requesting that the photo be removed from the website immediately. Two weeks later–no response. So I emailed again, this time asking how they had gotten a personal picture of mine in the first place. Again, no response. About a month later, the photo was removed, but I never received a response. My best guess as to how they managed to get the photo is that they found it before I untagged it and changed my privacy settings. Additionally, if it had been shared, or my mom’s privacy settings weren’t as high, it would have been easy for it to have been found by anyone. This is what is so unsettling about digital footprints–you really don’t have much control at all.

This lack of control is why teaching digital citizenship is so important. My students snap pictures, make videos, and post an immense amount of content online with barely a second thought. They aren’t thinking about the future yet, so it’s my job to educate them on how to make responsible choices, how to be safe, and how to behave online. I say my job because I am their IT teacher, but any subject teacher could and should teach digital citizenship. We can’t and shouldn’t police their every move, but we can help them be aware of the consequences, both positive and negative, of posting online. It’s not only students who need to be careful. From administrators checking out potential candidates (like Kate mentioned in her post), to colleagues Googling each other, online postings are not considered off limits. However, I wonder if there is a line between “invasion of privacy” and “you posted publicly on the Internet so it’s fair game”?

Intellectual property in China–what a huge topic to delve into. I know there must be some sort of copyright law, but, if there is, it doesn’t seem to be followed and my school does not seem to have a Fair Dealings policy. Plagarism is common at our school and the students generally don’t see a problem with it. The students don’t seem to have a sense of intellectual property–even when it’s their own intellectual property. I often catch students copying a classmate’s work and when I return the work to the classmate, they often reply that they were just sharing.  I also see a difference in how the Canadian teaching department and the Chinese teaching department handle plagarism and intellectual property. The Canadian teachers tend to come down hard and deem it unacceptable when students copy or fail to acknowledge sources. The Chinese department acknowledges it is wrong, but tend to be more forgiving. However, as I am not a member of the Chinese department, I’m not sure what they teach or suggest to their students. It’s possible that there is some instruction happening–I’m just not aware of it.

I can comment on a shortfall in how the Canadian teaching department approaches teaching students about intellecual property. As I mentioned above, the Canadian teaching department comes down hard on plagarism. However, students only learn the MLA citation guidelines in grade 12 during the research essay unit, so I think we’re being a little unfair. To help ease the tension, I’m introducing acknowledging image sources in my presentations unit this year. I put it off for a long time because I thought it would be too difficult to communicate to my classes. However, while I know this task is going to be difficult because it’s something new and challenging for the students, (although, thanks to Parm’s post I have some new resources to use) I know it’s important to do, even though it’s difficult. I know that the acknowledgements won’t be perfect, but if I can get the students in the habit of looking for the original source and documenting it, it could get them thinking about it in their other courses. It’s a small step, but it’s small and deliberate step in the right direction.

On a professional level, I am deeply concerned about my own intellectual property and how it’s being used. As my family of schools expands, I am repeatedly asked to share resources I have created with the IT teachers at the other schools. I do not like sharing resources I have created because I doubt that I’m acknowledged as the original creator and I can’t control how the resources are shared after they leave my hands. Additionally, I spend a lot of time revising the resources I have created, and I worry that the other IT teachers may not be revising what they have received from me to reflect changes in classroom demographics, technology, or even simple thngs like references to popular culture. So, if I am, by chance, acknowledged as the source, I may be acknowledged as a source of outdated material. However, I always share it when asked because I feel guilty if I do not. Does anyone else have these feelings?

Using social media as learners.

I have a love/hate relationship with social media. I consume a lot of information gleaned from social media, but I don’t create very much social media content…anymore. My relationship with socia media began in grade 9. I was moving from a feeder school to a large middle school and was nervous. My family had just purchased our first computer and we even had dial-up Internet, so I decided I would search my middle school’s name and see what I could find. I managed to stumble on a LiveJournal maintained by a former student and I was hooked! So, I started my LiveJournal and blogged about everything: from my mundane life to my “philosophical” musings on life as a teenager, and so did most of my friend circle. I did this almost every day from grade 9 until my first year of university. By then, Facebook was just coming out, so I joined Facebook and left LiveJournal behind. A year later, I decided to delete my LiveJournal and purge my account, but I wanted one last look–and what I read was horrifying–I was just another whiney teenager complaining about everything! I couldn’t delete my LiveJournal fast enough–what if someone outside my circle of friends found it? I’m sharing this story with all of you because this is when I started being concerned about my digital footprint (although I didn’t have terminology for it at the time). Now I hardly ever post on social media (when I do I think first, then post) and my privacy restrictions are set to the max because I don’t want to have something I post come back to haunt me. However, I now realize that, although my teenage angst-filled blog posts were cringeworthy, using LiveJournal was what pushed me to learn html. LiveJournal helped my friends and I develop a strong connection because it was a platform for us to work out feelings, tough situations without the awkwardness of face-to-face interactions when emotions ran high. I also learned some difficult and some wonderful lessons about Internet communities and Internet safety. For example, my LiveJournal was once hacked because of my own stupidity. So, I’m going to keep this in mind when I respond to Bates’ (2014) questions regarding using social media in one of my courses, because my immediate reaction to this topic was, initially, a firm NO! to social media in the classroom.

What new learning outcomes could the use of social media help develop?

We all know my struggles with Internet and censorship in China, and social media is no exception–it’s monitored and there are always reports of social media users being detained for various reasons. But, for the purpose of this response, I’m going to assume that my students use of social media would be responsible and administrative detention would not follow. 🙂

The area where I see social media assisting with learning outcomes is collaboration. The November (2012) reading gave many examples of how Twitter and the use of hashtags can bring like-minded people together–whether that be for a protest, or to collaborate on a classroom project. While we can not use Twitter at my school, we could use things like Weibo (micro-blogging platform) or WeChat (an extremely popular chat app).  I do feel that my students are quite isolated at my school–they rarely have the opportunity to interact with other schools (and we have an international school sharing our campus–try to figure that out). If we used social media to forge learning connections,  the students would gain more than collaborative opportunities; the connections afforded by social media would also increase students’ exposure to digital citizenship, reading, writing, multi-media creation–the list is endless. So, how Bates (2014) indicates a range of benefits from social media use, and just like how LiveJournal exposed me to skills and opportunities outside of posting blog entries, social media could definitely do the same for my students–if managed well.

Would it be better just to add social media to the course or to re-design it around social media?

In my opinion, I think the best approach is to re-design a course around social media rather than just add social media. When I think of adding social media to courses at my school, my immediate concerns are: consent, acceptable use policies, and control of information. In order to use social media, first and foremost we require consent. I believe most social media accounts can be created without parental consent by the age of 13. However, I think we need to educate students about consent and understanding what they are agreeing to when they click “I Agree” at the end of terms of use agreements they (we all?) rarely read to the end. This is part and parcel of acceptable use, but when used in a school there is the addition of acceptable use under the school’s guidelines and policies. If we don’t consider these responsibilities before adding social media to a course, we run the risk of getting dinged when something goes wrong.

Additionally, control of information is a huge concern and not just because of censorship concerns. Bates’ (2014) briefly touches on the issue of quality information, and I know it’s naive to think students don’t access questionable content on their own, but they will be exposed to a lot of content, social media users, and ideas that, within the confines of a traditional classroom, they would not normally be exposed to. It is our responsibility to prepare them for that. For instance, I recently engaged in a terse debate via Twitter about the merits/uselessness of code.org block coding activities. I made my point and tried to be respectful and professional, but at the end of the interaction I felt about 2 inches tall. I worried that maybe I was wrong and that I had made a terrible decision that would hurt my students, but in a few days, the feeling passed as I remembered that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I also acknowledged that this type of debate can help you see a different point of view that your normally wouldn’t consider. Now, if this had happened to a student using social media in my class and I hadn’t prepared them with strategies for responding to and coping with this type of situation (which seems inevitable on the Internet) how would that have affected their confidence?

It’s undeniable that students are using social media outside of school. Yes, they probably use social media more often, and with more skill than I do. However, social media in an educational context is a lot different than purely social contexts. So, let’s redesign our courses to prepare students to use social media as LEARNERS and not just users.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. (Chapter 7). Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/9-5-5-social-media/

November, A. (2012). How Twitter can be used as a powerful educational tool. November Learning [Weblog]. Retrieved from http://novemberlearning.com/educational-resources-for-educators/teaching-and-learning-articles/how-twitter-can-be-used-as-a-powerful-educational-tool/

The maze of Moodle module development.

Introduction

The process of creating the introduction module for my Moodle course is best described as a maze. When I began developing the introduction module the path seemed straightforward. Then, I faced a series of turns and I found myself lost and confused, but eventually I found my way, only to get lost and confused again. Finally, through a lot trial and error, I found the exit and finished the introduction module. I know that the maze analogy is cliche, but it is the only way to describe how I navigated this challenge. It turns out that my reflection is like a maze too, because the rationale behind the decisions I made about my Moodle course inform one another—they are connected and confusing to keep straight.

To begin, here is the context I used when making decisions for the Moodle course.:

 Student Profile

  • Grade 10 students at a Sunday-Friday boarding school attending classes for approximately 12 hours a day.
  • All EAL (English as an additional language) learners with varying levels of proficiency.
  • Students have completed 1 term an IT course taught face-to-face

Moodle Course Context

  • A mandatory course.
  • Online delivery*.

*Except for the actual delivery of the summative assessment presentation. At this time, I haven’t discovered an effective way to accomplish this via Moodle when taking my students’ current situation (boarding school, limited time, etc) into consideration.

The Approach

My approach to developing this course followed Nel, Dreyer and Carstens’ (2010) five stages in the instructional design process: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (p. 240). However, I only made it through analysis, design, development, and a tiny fraction of implementation because real students have not enrolled or completed my Moodle course.

In the analysis stage, I began by thinking about the offline version of the unit I used as the foundation for my Moodle course. I thought about its strengths and weaknesses and came to the conclusion that I wanted to make the Moodle course more learner-centred and shift the assessment focus from summative to formative. I used this my guide when making course design decisions.

Anderson (2008a) states that a learner-centred approach involves the teacher making “efforts to gain an understanding of students’ prerequisite knowledge, including any misconceptions that the learner starts with in their construction of new knowledge” (p. 47). With this in mind, I decided that,  in the introduction module, I needed to determine what the students already knew and what preconceptions they were bringing with them to the course. I developed two activities for the introduction module to discover more about what my students: the introduction post on the discussion forum and the word cloud activity. However, Anderson (2008a)  goes on to say that, in a learner-centred approach “learner-centred activities make extensive use of diagnostic tools and activities to make visible these pre-existing knowledge structures to both the teacher and the students themselves” (p. 47). So, in order to make the pre-existing knowledge structures visible, I decided to rely on an assessment (the discussion forum post). Why? Because the students would have to submit work, then I could evaluate what their pre-existing knowledge. Did I design a truly learner-centred introduction module? No. I don’t think it’s learner-centred in a traditional sense, but what I learn from the student responses in the introduction module will inform my decisions regarding the rest of the course.

If you check the course schedule, you will see a lot of assessment—10 discussion posts, 7 assignments, a midterm quiz and a summative assessment—thus the course as is rather assessment-focused. While most of the assessment does not occur in the introduction module, I do want to briefly comment on this as I did choose to include information about the assessments in the introduction module. The course is, admittedly, assessment heavy, but I tried to use a lot of formative assessment in the form of coursework. I made this decision because Gibbs and Simpson (2005) make several points in favour of coursework vs examinations, including “coursework marks are a better of long term learning of course content than are exams” (p.7) and “the quality of learning has been shown to be higher in assignment-based courses” (p.7). With this in mind, I made the decision to add a lot of formative assessment coursework assignments in the hopes that my students would learn more effectively and to satisfy my desire to move away from summative assessment as the main focus.

When it came time to design the layout of the course, I relied heavily on the ease of use section from Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model. When I was making the visual and navigational layout decisions I took Bates’ (2014) suggestion that “a useful standard or criterion for the selection of course media or software is that ‘novice students’ […] should be studying within 20 minutes of logging on”. While I was not choosing the software, I was choosing how it would be set up, so I made the course page as uncluttered as possible with clear labels for each item appearing on the page. That way, students could quickly navigate the page. These decisions were deliberate and inspired by Bates’ (2014) interface design suggestion of “an educational program, or indeed any web site should be well structured, intuitive for the user to use, and easy to navigate”. In case the site was not as intuitive as I imagined, I also created three screencast videos—navigating Moodle, posting to the discussion forum, and participating in a poll. I made these so students could quickly learn how to complete all of the tasks that were required in the introduction module. The videos serve a second purpose–visuals are great for EAL learners who may have difficulty with written instructions.

My decision to create a course introduction book was partly common sense—students need to know what to expect, and partly inspired by Anderson’s (2008a) discussion of student-content interactions; I saw the course introduction book as a way to “provide an online help facility, or an intelligent help, if the user is modeled and their path is traced through the information space” (Anderson, 2008a, p.58). I did choose to provide translations of some of the course introduction pages. The reason is best explained by Bates (2014) when he says, “it is important to be clear about the needs of the target group”. For the students to be able to use the course introduction as an online help facility, the information needed to be easily accessible, and to me, that meant using their first language as a bridge.

As you can see, the process of developing the introduction module for my Moodle unit was, indeed, best described as a maze. There was no linear progression in the development of my introduction module because each part informed another part. Each time I thought of an idea or approach for, let’s say assessment, I would have to make a small change somewhere else–for example, the course introduction booklet. I imagine the content module development task will unfold in a similar way.

Looking Ahead

When I thought about how the offline version of this course was traditionally assessed, I knew that I wanted to shift the focus to more formative assessment rather than the typical summative assessment strategies I had typically used. This decision has a huge impact on how I would communicate and, of course, how I would assess the students.

The communication and assessment strategies I plan to use with my students further in the course centre around formative assessment and feedback. For instance, I have included discussion forum posts as required assessments. I chose this as an assessment because I wanted the students to respond to a prompt that would require them to apply what they learned in an authentic context. The discussion forum serves as a place for students to think about and communicate what they have learned, demonstrate how they would apply it, then allow for students to give feedback to each other via comments. As the instructor, reviewing the discussion posts will allow me to identify misconceptions or weaknesses in application and address it with the student before it is too late. I drew on several of Gibbs and Simpson’s (2005) conditions from their influences of assessment on the volume, focus and quality of studying section when developing my assessment strategy. Specifically, I drew on condition 3 “tackling the assessed task engages students in productive learning activity of an appropriate kind” (Gibbs and Simpon, 2005, p. 14), condition 5 “the feedback focuses on students’ performance, on their learning and on actions under the students’ control, rather than on the students themselves and on their characteristics” (Gibbs and Simpon, 2005, p. 18) and condition 6, “the feedback is timely in that it is received by students while it still matters to them and in time for them to pay attention to further learning or receive further assistance” (Gibbs and Simpon, 2005, p.18)

The midterm quiz is also a formative assessment and it provides timely feedback via the automated feedback provided to each student upon completion of the quiz, as per Gibbs and Simpson’s (2005)  condition 6 “the feedback is timely in that it is received by students while it still matters to them and in time for them to pay attention to further learning or receive further assistance (p.18) and it requires the students to act upon the feedback by means of a required discussion post. The decision to have a required discussion post based on the automated feedback from the quiz was inspired by Gibbs and Simpon’s (2005) condition 10, “feedback is acted upon by the student” (p. 24).

Communication further in this course will be challenging. I indicated in the course outline that students can email me directly and participate in optional live chats via WeChat, in addition to posting in the Questions? Comments? forum. I am concerned that, in addition to all of the feedback I will be providing because I chose to use a significant amount of formative assessment, there is a huge risk that I would become overwhelmed if this course went live. However, I can’t be sure until it is implemented.

Conclusion

Without getting to the implementation and evaluation stages of the instructional design process outlined by Nel, Dreyer, and Carsterns (2010), it is difficult to ascertain if I made decisions that will work for my students and the course. I think that, even if the current version of the course went well, future success really depends on the students in the course. I believe that, in every iteration, I would have to make some changes—whether it is changes to the layout, content, or assessments.

References

Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Bates, T. (2014) Teaching in a digital age. (Chapter 8) Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage

Gibbs, G., Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

Nel, C., Dreyer, C., Carstens, W.A.M. (2010). Educational technologies: A classification and evaluation. Tydskrif vir letterkund, 35(4), 238-258. Retrieved from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/tvl/article/download/53794/42346

Flipping our approach?

I am acutely aware that the overall approach to assessment at my school is not ideal–for students or teachers. While we also have significant barriers in using technology, I think online assessment can help shift our approach to assessment in a direction that is more useful for students and teachers.

It was Bates’ (2014) list of assessment purposes that really got me thinking about assessment at my school. Bates put his list in order from most important to creating an effective learning environment to least important. It was no surprise to me that our overall approach was the reverse. As much as it pains me to admit, as a private school that caters to a very specific demographic, I would say that the number one priority of assessment at my school  is “for institutional accountability and/or financial purpose” (Bates, 2014). As this makes Bates’ list, it does have a purpose in creating an effective learning environment, largely ensuring there IS a learning environment to begin with. Surprisingly, I don’t feel pessimistic about this. The results students get on assessments like TOEFL, IELTS, and the SAT help attract more students. More students mean more teachers, which means there is opportunity for change–because there is bound to be a teacher brave enough to switch the focus, if not for the whole school, at least with their classes–and perhaps that will include online assessments.

The benefits of online assessment for my school are two-fold–it would potentially maximize time spent by teachers giving feedback and it would help us reverse our current approach to assessment by focusing on the first two items on Bates’ list: “to improve and extend student learning” and “to assess student knowledge and competence in terms of desired learning goals or outcomes” (Bates 2014). I see online assessment as a means to focus more on formative assessment with feedback. As Gibbs and Simpson’s Condition 4–Sufficient feedback is provided, both often enough and in enough detail states, “feedback may need to be quite regular, on relatively small chunks of course content, to be useful” (p.17). The main obstacle to giving frequent feedback at my school is large class sizes and a heavy teaching load. Using an online assessment with automated feedback would ensure that every student is getting some feedback. Using Socrative, for example, would allow my students to complete quick assessments, perhaps even daily assessments, using their cell phones. I know that precise written feedback is ideal, but even just showing correct answers is feedback that students weren’t getting before–at least not immediately. Gibbs and Simpson’s Condition 6–The feedback is timely in that is received by students while it still matters to them and in time for them to pay attention to further learning or receive further assistance (p.18) supports my assumption, although their example referred to “imperfect feedback from a fellow student” (p.19) rather than learning the correct answers as I suggested. Timely feedback also helps the teacher. For example, if the teacher is also getting feedback from online assessments by way of reports they can quickly identify trouble areas for the whole class, or individual students and address it in the next class, rather than finding out after a summative assessment that no one understood a particular topic. So, even a simple Socrative quiz could make a huge change at our school–as long as the feedback is useful.

There is a flip side to online assessment, and perhaps it’s a comment that doesn’t need to be made because, let’s be honest–many teachers are guilty of making an assessment because they need to assess students and they know it. I think it’s easy to abuse online assessments because, from my experience, they’re easy to use if you’re not using them well (does that make sense?)  So, if the online assessment (or any assessment!) doesn’t “[engage] students in [a] productive learning activity of an appropriate kind” (Gibbs and Simpson 2005 p.14) it is a waste of everyone’s time. You would think that’s common sense, but I see it happen everyday. I’m guilty of it myself. But, a good teacher keeps learning and trying new things, so I’m going to make a conscious effort to not assess unless it is worthwhile to both my students and to me as their teacher.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/5-8-assessment-of-learning/

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005) Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/GIbbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

Interactivity and Cultural Considerations

This is my first experience with an online course so I do not have anything to compare it to, and, as we are in the middle of this course, I can not fully reflect on my experience yet. My lack of experience with online courses really makes this discussion post difficult for me, so I’m going to focus on how I would approach creating meaningful interactions.

When I finished the Anderson (2008) reading, my first thought was, “How can I add interactivity while honouring the culture of my students?” Anderson does state that “[a] learner-centred context is not one in which the whims and peculiarities of each individual learner are slavishly catered to” (p.47) and I completely agree. If that were the case, everyone in the world would need to be a course designer in order to make a course that’s perfect for every student. However, interactivity is a contentious topic at my school. While my school is moving toward 21st-century learning and teaching, overwhelmingly we’re still focused on student-content interaction. Teachers and students have been reprimanded for classrooms being disorderly or too loud. I’ll admit, the traditional Chinese teaching style is traditionally student-content interaction–students read, students listen to a lecture, students complete homework, students get feedback, repeat. Relying on this type of interaction alone is the complete opposite of what Anderson suggests, so, of course, my knee-jerk reaction is to start adding other types of interaction immediately. But I am cautious and unsure of how to proceed because it’s important to understand that this is the culture of learning my students are accustomed to. While I wouldn’t go as far as to say they prefer it, it is habit and habits are hard to break.

This brings me back to Anderson’s (2008) comment that, for learner-centred approaches, teachers must respect cultural attributes (p.47). Student-content interaction (as I described it earlier) is a cultural attribute of learning in Chinese schools. I recognize that, as students of a Chinese-Canadian school, students are required to face both Chinese and Canadian cultural attributes, in fact, that is a part of our mission statement. The question is, how best to implement additional types of interaction for our incoming grade 10 students who may know nothing but student-content interaction?

I think the answer is implement slowly with a lot of scaffolding. Anderson (2008) mentions scaffolding in his discussion of knowledge-centred approaches to learning so students can grow their own knowledge (p.49). My previous experience in introducing various types of interactivity (not technology based–I’m talking group work, and peer review activities) is that the students don’t know how to handle new experiences unless they are prepared. I haven’t been using learning technology for interactions beyond student-content yet, so the rest of this post is hypothetical–it is how I propose I will prepare for and use learning technology to help create meaningful interactions.Choose wisely.

Step 1: Choose wisely.

Anderson (2008) says that a challenge of Assessment-Centred approaches is “understanding what is most useful — rather than most easily – assessed is challenging” (p49).  While this refers to choosing assessment tools, it applies to using learning technology to create interaction as well. I need to balance what will work for me, what will work for the students, and what will work within the constraints of our tech systems (ultimately, I imagine that I will rely on Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model). Navigating the needs and constraints will be challenging, but not impossible.

Step 2: Start slow.

When I’ve chosen an appropriate avenue for interaction, I will start slowly. While immersing students in an interactive environment could shock them into adapting, I don’t think that’s the best course of action. I think the best option, in the beginning, is to continue with student-content interaction, adding the features Anderson (2008) mentions that the Web affords (virtual labs, online computer-assisted learning tutorials, etc) (p.58). Then, introduce student-student interactivity; I would love to begin with peer review and online group work.

Step 3: Challenge students at a steady pace.

As the students become more accustomed to interactivity beyond student-content, I propose to continue adding opportunities for interactivity in a manner that challenges the students, while maintaining a steady pace. Anderson (2008) suggests that we need theory to take advantage of the NET and to avoid obsolete contexts (p.46). That being said, if I do not continue to introduce different opportunities for interaction at a steady pace, there is a risk of being left behind as affordances of the NET advance beyond the abilities and comfort levels of my students. The area that my students need to be exposed to the most is engaging with content without a teacher dictating what they need to find. I think my students would benefit from working together in groups–it’s essential for their post-secondary experiences and it’s something they don’t get to practice enough. However, student-student interaction is difficult in grade 10 because the culture here is pro “helping” (cheating, copying) and it takes time to move past “helping” to mutually beneficial interactions. But, we do make a dent in it–it’s just that it takes time and reinforcement.

I know that my approach is dangerous in that I seem to be catering to my students needs, thus creating a situation where I could quickly experience burnout. It’s not a perfect approach, but I think it’s a start for balancing the current teaching/learning environment and the demand for added interaction.

It’s a shame that, at this moment, this is only a hypothetical situation for me–the climate and timing are not right for a making drastic changes to the program. However, my situation does reinforce Anderson’s (2008) argument for the use of a theoretical framework when approaching online learning and it has definitely helped me in my considerations for my Moodle course and it is something I will refer to when I am ready to make a move and start making changes to my course.

References

Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F, Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Bates, T. (2014) Teaching in a digital age. (Chapter 8). Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

 

 

 

Don’t Smile, Trinh.

My main suggestion for Trinh is to develop a routine and strictly follow it. My first year of teaching saw me teaching 300 students and it’s an understatement to say I was panicking about how to handle that many students and their many, many needs. However, a veteran teacher gave me the best piece of career advice that I have ever received—don’t smile for the first month. My colleague didn’t mean it literally, rather, the statement really means to get into a routine and follow it strictly for a month. My colleague explained that, if you can follow something for a month, it will become routine for the teacher and for the students.  So, don’t smile, Trinh.

 

It’s hard to tell someone else what to do, but if I were Trinh, this is my suggestion:

Cut down and set boundaries.

Trinh’s students have multiple ways to contact her, and while that seems to make her accessible, I think it’s achieving the opposite. With so many ways for students to contact her, there is no way Trinh can keep up with the volume of incoming messages and something is sure to slip through the cracks. So, the first step is to choose only two avenues for contact: one for urgent matters and the second for less-urgent matters. I think Trinh should provide a single email address to students for urgent matters and a social media outlet, Twitter, for example, for less-urgent matters. By cutting down on ways for students to contact her, the barrage of messages should subside.

Which email should Trinh use? That’s up to her, but it should be one that she checks regularly and it should preferably be an email designated for work only. If Trinh uses Twitter, she should implement a hashtag so she can easily view all relevant tweets easily. I imagine Twitter would be used much like we’re using it in this class—students sharing interesting things and engaging in casual social interactions. The Twitter feed could also allow students to help each other—if someone posts a question or solution while using the hashtag, other students will benefit from the shared information. The Twitter feed will also help the students in different locales a way to create a sense of community, which is extremely important.

Now that Trinh has streamlined the communication methods, she needs to set boundaries for responding to messages. What I personally do is I tell students that they can email me anytime, but that I will only respond to emails between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm (my working hours). This is the same suggestion Jo made. Only responding during work hours probably won’t work for Trinh because of the various time zones she has to accommodate, so the best bet may be to have a 12 hour window (8:00am-8:00 pm)—this hits working hours in most time zones. Building on Jo’s suggestions, I would add that Trinh should set a maximum response wait time (12 hours, for example) and communicate this to her students. Setting a maximum wait time will cut down on students constantly messaging because they’re not sure if Trinh has received the message. If a student doesn’t receive a response within 12 hours (while also keeping the acceptable hours of response in mind), then they are free to email again. The time frame will also keep students accountable—they’ll learn not to leave things to the last minute if they expect a timely response.

Once these boundaries are explicitly stated, Trinh needs to follow them strictly. I don’t teach at the university level, but I think students are fundamentally the same—they like routine. A routine is comfortable and students want to feel comfortable, so they’ll follow the routine.

Anticipate and Prepare

Another suggestion for Trinh is to set up an FAQ page on Blackboard Learn. If it’s not the first time the course has been offered, Trinh can probably anticipate potential questions or problems. Addressing these directly on Blackboard Learn provides the students with a resource to consult before they resort to contacting Trinh directly. I’m not very familiar with how Blackboard Learn works, but I assume there is a way to “pin” the FAQ post so it is always visible?

This is an aside in response to Jo’s question about why the guest lectures must be viewed as a live stream. I realize this is just a case study for discussion, but as a student on the other side of the world from British Columbia, I find this requirement quite unreasonable and baffling considering Blackboard Learn has the Collaborate feature (although maybe this isn’t a feature included in all licenses?) Expecting students to make themselves available for live streams, even when it’s stated as a requirement of enrollment, is a significant demand with significant consequences. Having the Collaborate sessions recorded for this course was a godsend for me as there was no way I could attend the two scheduled sessions—one was at 3:00 am my time, and the other was during Lunar New Year where it would have been completely inappropriate for me to excuse myself from my partner’s family’s celebration. (I realize that I am responsible for setting priorities, but this was a special case—it was my first time visiting my partner’s hometown and the first time meeting his extended family.) The recorded sessions allowed me to feel included instead of feeling disadvantaged because the scheduling didn’t work out for me this time. I’ll be honest, if recordings weren’t available I would be feeling very resentful right now–either for having to wake up at 3:00am or for missing out. I think, with so many options for recording and sharing lectures available, that it’s an outdated notion for students to be required to view a live stream. What happens if technology fails? Do the students in locations outside the host university miss out? Additionally, requiring students to view live streams does help foster a welcoming community for learner, rather, it sets the students in other time zones up as outsiders.

Mobile Technology Limbo

Mobile technology at my school is neither banned, nor allowed, rather, it’s in a constant state of flux. Somedays we seem to make huge leaps in the use of mobile technology, while other days we seem to be more like Luddites. Here is a brief overview of the situation at my school and my analysis of the situation.

I won’t delve into censorship or political concerns as I briefly touched on these in a previous discussion post. It is not an exaggeration to say that rules are created, discarded, enforced and ignored at my school in a constant and dizzying cycle. A common phrase used to describe this cycle is: “This is China”, but I don’t think it can be explained by three empty words. The administrative structure, or chain of command, at my school is complicated and there are many cultural considerations at play that are not appropriate for me to speculate on because it’s not my culture. However, I can say that the structure allows many people to create rules and leaves others to enforce them. Communication is not always clear, so no one seems to know who created the rules or who is responsible for enforcing them. With that little bit of context, let me present you with some examples of mobile technology related “rules” from the past few years:

  1. Cell phone signal blockers installed in the student dormitories, blocking all cell phone signals (not just 3G/4G–EVERYTHING!)
    1. Removed after parents complained its adverse affect on student health.
  2. Certain classes given 1:1 laptops and wifi. Other classes not provided with laptops, no wifi access, and BYOD wa (and still is) forbidden.
  3. Parents’ committee suggested that students could bring cellphones to school, but they would be confiscated by their homeroom teachers during teaching hours (7:20am-10:00pm, Monday-Friday). The school accepted this suggestion and enacted it last year.

Are these rules strictly enforced? The short answer is no. This is a good thing, because it means there is room for negotation and change. Allow me to attempt to analyze the situation.

Our school is not short on mobile technology. We have a bank of 40 laptops that can be checked out for any teacher to use in class. Most students have a smartphone; a recent survey of grade 10 students revealed that only 11 students out of 379 do not have a smartphone. 3G and 4G access in Shenzhen is affordable (I pay 5 CAD a month for 300mb) and almost all students have access via their phones. Six classes have 1:1 laptops and wifi access. Sounds incredible, right? Wrong. We’re in mobile technology limbo. The following situation is typical of how the integration of technology is approached.

Our bank of laptops arrived a few months after two (Canadian) teachers attended a 21st Century Learning conference. The teachers came back full of ideas, armed with printouts of resources and countless links to educational websites which were informative and useful (that’s how we got started with Edmodo, which I loved.) The school, encouraged by the teachers’ enthusiasm, bought in to their suggestion to purchase a class set of laptops and they arrived in the blink of an eye. However, at the Canadian staff meeting where this idea was introduced, I, along with the other IT teacher, had advised against moving forward so quickly. Our issue was that there was no implementation plan. No one had considered what software would or should be purchased, how the laptops would be monitored (our IT labs have monitoring software), if the school’s network could support the increased bandwidth demand, or, even the most basic consideration—how would the laptops be used? Our concerns were pushed aside, deemed pessimistic and anti-technology. At the time, I was frustrated by being labeled anti-technology, but now I find it funny, considering our questions are some of the considerations found in Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model.

After reading Ciampa’s (2013) study results, I believe the teachers who made the suggestion to purchase laptops were motivated by some of the same discoveries outlined in Ciampa’s study: they saw the laptops as an avenue to motivate students to challenge themselves, pursue their curiosity, and take control of their learning. However, without a plan in place for the implementation, the students never had the chance to get to this point. The laptops sit mostly unused in a locked cabinet. When they are checked out, they are used solely for word processing. Why? The only software on the laptops are the preloaded offerings, there is no monitoring software, the school’s network couldn’t support the addition of wifi access for each classroom, and no one seemed to know what they wanted to do with the laptops. I could gloat about being right, but I feel awful that the school’s investment is lying dormant. It’s sobering to know the school has the resources to get almost anything we ask for, yet we do not use our resources to their full potential. That’s part of the reason I am in the MET programme—so that the next time we discuss purchasing technology for the school I am in a position to give a recommendation that is buoyed by a degree and a belief that I have the expert knowledge to give the recommendation.

Does our school have the potential to use mobile technology to motivate student learning in some of the ways revealed by Ciampa’s (2013) study? I think so. However, I think the first step is for each teacher to look at their courses and decide how and when they could use technology. Second, we must develop an acceptable use policy for cell phones so that all invested parties (parents, administration, teachers, and students) are on the same page; then, and only then will the arbitrary rules and the arbitrary enforcement of said rules end. Finally, we must develop an implementation plan for our bank of laptops–it’s better late than never, right?

Disclaimer

I always feel hesitant when contributing discussion posts because my situation is difficult to compare to Canadian contexts. The culture here is so different (and that’s not good or bad, it’s just a statement), that I feel like many instinctively feel that my situation is strange, or incorrect, or just plain wild. While my situation can be challenging, it’s not insurmountable and there are so many positives to working at a school like mine; it just so happens that our experience with mobile technologies hasn’t been overwhelmingly positive. What this post doesn’t outline is how supportive the administration is of my pursuing my masters in this programme, or how they send me to conferences and professional development events frequently (two this year!) As a school, we’re continuously learning how to work together and respect both Canadian and Chinese culture, teaching methodologies, and communication styles. I want to be clear that I’m not bashing my school, the culture, or my situation, rather, I’m trying to give an accurate indication of my personal experience.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. (Chapter 8). Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf