References

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher’s knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

NSW Department of Education (2003). Quality Teaching in NSW public schools: A classroom practice guide. (3^rd ed.) Sydney: Professional Learning and Leadership Development Directorate.

Prensky, M. (2001). The games generations: How learners have changed. In Digital Game-Based Learning. (pp. 1-26). McGraw Hill.

Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conferences of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), Perth, Australia.

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

Thomas, J. W., (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.autodesk.com/foundation

The Social Impact of Technology

Discussion of the social impact of technology on teachers and students.

The social impact of the technology used in our activities on students is hoped to be improved group work, and Internet search skills. Both of these skills are required for effective technological social interaction. The group work required for the jigsaw activities are hoped to improve students’ abilities to work with each other.

The social impact of the technology used in our activities on teachers is hoped to be able to keep the fear or mistrust about Web 2.0 tools, interactive whiteboards, and Smart Technology out of the classroom.

Multiliteracies & TPCK

Discussion of the relevance of Multiliteracies and how it supports your Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

Multiliteracies are about finding meaning from the different text types or ‘media’ that surround us. It requires teachers to present information in a variety of ways, such as audio, gestural, spatial as well as written and linguistic modes. The New London Group has defined it as a way to “ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community and economic life.” (New London Group, 1996).

This reading helped me to understand the importance of ICT as a literacy, and to that end, we spent a lot of time trying out different designs for our activities. The spatial and gestural modes are included in our activities for the teacher to incorporate when the activities are teacher-centered. However, “Merely knowing how to use technology is not the same as knowing how to teach with it” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)requires a teacher being able to combine a selection of appropriate tools, strategies and activities to teach the content of the lesson. In a history classroom, this was a new area to be explored, especially outside the traditional web quests.

Groupwork & Conceptual/Technical Learning Insights

Discussion of the conceptual and technical learning insights through the experience in a group work environment.

I learnt that PBL is a highly engaging method of instruction. I really enjoyed working in a group, on an authentic project that I could see myself using in my work. By controlling so much of our project, our group tailored it to be useful to us in the future, and it allowed for more collaboration than I would have expected. The logistics involved in using the software were more difficult to navigate. When we could not find a way to create an activity within Smart Notebook, we had to change the activity, and we felt that the Intellectual Quality was compromised to an extent. When creating the video, when something did not work, we searched for video tutorials online to help us with iMovie.

A Key Learning Moment

Description of a key learning moment during your artefacts production as it informs teaching and learning.

A key learning moment in the construction of these activities was reconciling the available software and technology to the expectations of the task. My experiences in a classroom, using Web 2.0 tools, student laptops and interactive whiteboards showed me that they were wonderful tools, if everything was working correctly, with proper maintenance, and the time to set it up. Using the Smart Notebook Technology was a great experience, but many ideas had by the group were hindered by the capabilities of the software. The graphics and images were more suited to a primary school audience, as were the activity building exercises. The interactivity seemed to be limited to a teacher-centered experience, and this shaped how we created our activities. In a classroom, I would prepare for this by varying the time spent on any one interactive activity.

Deep Knowledge & Engagement Justification of Resource

Justification of the intellectual reigour and engagement behind the design of the resource.

Student will engage in these tasks through the opportunity to take ownership of their work through their negotiation of independent work. As ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001) students will engage with these activities because of their interactivity, rather than passively reading. Research on PBL shows that students engage due to the self-directed nature of the tasks, which is a large part of our activities. To create an ‘authentic’ activity, Reeves, Herrington and Oliver (2002) have noted that using resources such as Web 2.0, student laptops and interactive whiteboards help engage students.

These activities provide students with opportunities to extend themselves through the sharing of information in a jigsaw activity, and also in the web quest and site study, which allows for further inquiry. The majority of the activities are modestly challenging, as the interactive activities focus on lower-order thinking. It is appropriate to set the bar somewhere around the middle of Bloom’s taxonomy: at the analysis stage, as the scope of the activities were hindered by the software’s limitations.