Mobile Learning In The Classroom

ICTs play a vital role in the 21st Century classroom and amongst these, the use of and access to mobile learning technologies is important as it ‘offers new opportunities for learning that extend within and beyond the traditional teacher-led classroom’ (Nicolas Balacheff, 2009). I think this is the greatest benefit of mobile learning as these devices are able to relocate education out into the open world and in doing so can influence the way we converse and interact in our daily lives. These technologies often include the popular brand of Apple products such as iPhones, iPads and iPods which have become ‘an icon of popular culture’ because the many functions they are capable of has allowed ‘their coolness’ to be ‘socially acceptable amongst today’s youth’ (Dale, 2009). 

This is why I believe students will rapidly take to using these technologies in education, as they are engaging, interactive and something students will most likely be familiar with and can relate to. In my view this is because it involves the students’ own interests and enables them to take control of their learning which enhances their preferred learning styles in a less confronting way. This makes the overall experience enjoyable for both teacher and student. In this way it can lead to ‘motivation, development of self esteem, through a deeper learning experience and helps the student to be more responsive, independent and self controlled’ (Dale, 2009). Therefore mobile learning can be an individual and more ‘personalized learning’ (Mohamed, 2009) experience, which I think is needed in any interactive classroom. 

(Kirk, 2012) Accessed From: http://forumblog.org/2012/09/mobile-learning-the-future-of-education-and-youth-employment/ 

The article Technology-Enhanced Learning focuses to a great extent on the way that ‘conversation and context are essential constructs for understanding how mobile learning can be integrated with conventional education’ (Balacheff, 2009) and I share this belief as both aspects, in my opinion, work hand in hand and are what makes mobile learning so effective in the classroom. Mohamed believes ‘mobile technology allows anyone to access information and learning materials from anywhere and at anytime’ (Mohamed, 2009). I think this is useful in that it allows flexible learning in the way students and teachers can converse outside traditional school hours as well as outside the traditional classroom, which is where the element of context ties in. 

It seems Dale supports this idea in saying mobile technology ‘enables the separation of the tutor and student from the traditional place of learning’ (Dale, 2009). While I think this can be beneficial to both parties to a certain extent, I think it has potential to be damaging on their relationships. Even though conversation would still occur electronically if a teacher relies on tasks to be completed in a context outside of the classroom, conversation between teacher and student in real life may not occur as often as should. Therefore their bond will not be as strong, which in my opinion is one of the most important aspects of teaching. 

Although the iPad possesses some fantastic advantages in relation to teaching, I cannot completely agree that it is nearly as effective as other ICTs such as Interactive Whiteboards. The ‘focus on the mobility of learners and learning reveals assumptions and tensions in technology enhanced learning (TEL)’ (Balacheff, 2009). Mobile devices are fantastic in regards to their ‘mobility, weight, and size’, especially when considering younger students but I think this almost defeats the purpose as ‘it is harder for younger to operate’ (Howell, 2012). This is why I think a great strategy in overcoming this issue is that the implementation of mobile technology should start at a young age so they are more prepared for their use in the later years of their education. 

I agree that ‘attention is a key issue’ (Balacheff, 2009) because I think if each student is allocated a mobile learning device it may be easy to become distracted and is impossible for a teacher to see each member of the class’ device work at the same time. Furthermore I think their usefulness unfortunately relies too much on the constantly emerging apps being released and access to Internet. 

This is not to say that Mobile Learning shouldn’t be used in the classroom but provided it is used to certain guidelines. They must be used appropriately and encourage engagement, motivation and collaboration. Part of this I believe, is the idea that Dale presents in that mobile learning has ‘been viewed as a successful way of fostering creativity within education through group work’ (Dale, 2009). This can be represented in the sound file below where a class of 24 students each operate an iPad and work together to create a piece of music using a wide range of musical applications.

 

(Johnston, 2011) 

This is a fun way to implement music teaching, unison, interactivity and a common goal for a class. (Please be sure to listen to the end for student feedback). There are also wonderful games available for students on iPads. One I found to be quite engaging whilst still proving to develop a child’s learning is:
  
Online Game-Brain Training with Lumosity (Brain Training, 2013) 

This is because it can act as a reward when students finish work early. To conclude, Mobile learning is brilliant but it’s success is all in the way teachers use it. It obviously must be successful in learning as is evidenced by its continuation in being incorporated into learning. I think it gives the overall idea of these technologies a futuristic effect as they ‘create assets that can be reused and recombined in ways we can’t even predict right now’ (Alexander, 2007). 

References 

Alexander, S. (2007). Mobile Learning-Get An Education Via Your iPod Or Cell Phone . OC METRO , 78. 
Balacheff, S. L. (Ed.). (2009). Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products . New York: Springer. 233-249
Brain Training. (n.d.). Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from Lumosity: www.lumosity.com 
Dale, J. M. (2009). Podagogy: The iPod As A Learning Technology. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. 84-96 
Howell, J. (2012). Teaching With ICT: Digital Pedagogies For Collaboration And Creativity. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 98-101 
Johnston, N. (Composer). (2011). You Make Me So Electric. 
Kirk, C. (2012, September 13th). Mobile Learning; The Future Of Education And Youth Employment. Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from World Economic Forum: forumblog.org/2012/09/mobile-learning-the-future-of-education-and-youth-employment/ 
Mohamed, A. (Ed.). (2009). Mobile Learning: Transforming The Delivery Of Education And Training. Edmonton: AU Press, Athabasca University. 289 

Assessment Using ICT

The incorporation of technology in the assessment process continues to receive great praise from the worldwide education system. This is because, ‘One of the most effective ways to improve student learning is to use technology in both teaching and assessment’ (Kent, 2013). When we see the wide range of different types of technologies available to us today and the benefits to assessment they present, I cannot help agreeing with Kent on the matter. 

Kent’s article Technology For Assessment provides an insight into the technologies that are commonly used in today’s education and ways their utilisation assist learning and improve assessment strategies. I found that most of the modes of technology described proved to be very effective in assisting assessment. These examples mainly focused on technologies associated with Web 2.0, and included: Blogs, Wikis, Youtube, and Google Apps (Kent, 2013). I think these are great assessment tools when used correctly as they share common strengths such as communicating both ‘out of school as well as school hours’ (Taheran, 2010), sharing work, receiving feedback, editing, creating, encouraging collaboration and group work, and organising. Being a teacher with access to these features, you are able to see from the outside, and assess how much is being done and who is contributing. 

Of course they also each hold restrictions too causing me to disagree to a certain extent on how effective they are because of the unreliability of online sources and the accessibility of others, which can lead to security issues and false information being contributed. However I believe with these elements considered and the proper steps are taken to prevent them, the technologies’ strengths outweigh their weaknesses. 

 (TurningTechLA, 2012) 

What I did not find to be entirely appropriate were Kent’s’ representations on the modes of social media or Learner Response Systems (LRS). First with social media being Twitter and Facebook, Kent states that these ICTs help to connect with people where you can send, share and discuss practically anything with anyone (Kent, 2013). Whilst these benefits are great aspects in education, I still dislike the idea of adapting them into the assessment process. This is mainly because they were primarily designed for communication, as the social element of their names would suggest. 

I believe students of our ‘information age’ (Johannessen, 2013), will misuse these ICTs and become easily distracted from their assigned tasks, being more concerned with their social lives and individual images rather than focusing on their work. It is noted by Kent that they are also used extensively for marketing and business, which creates even more distractions through the constant advertising being displayed on these sites. In this way I think teachers will find it more difficult to use these to assess students as problems in remaining in contact with students while they may be caught up in other activities and prioritise their time ineffectively. This puts strain on both teacher and students as communication is lost. 

‘Incorporating Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in assessment that is aligned to teaching and learning has the potential to engage students in higher cognitive processes that lead to increased student achievement’ (Lincoln, 2009). Learner Response Systems are a technology I had particular concerns with. There are many reasons for this but largely due to the applicable responses being a one option answer. By using these ‘clickers’ (Kent, 2013) instead of writing down answers I think both teacher and student are at a disadvantage as students are often guessing answers and not learning in this way. If a student receives a correct answer to a question that was guessed, this is not teaching nor is it learning. Teachers are not marking a students’ work, a computer does it for them. 

This does two things: shows the students right and wrong answers which can help show where they are in the course but also creates a barrier in the student and teacher relationship. I think this because teachers need to see and understand a students’ written answers for themselves when assessing in order to understand a student’s individual strengths and weaknesses on a deeper emotional level. LRS would be helpful in subjects such as science and maths which often are associated with one answer questions as ‘significant gains limited to specific courses and question types’ (Ralph W. Preszler, 2007), but not with essays and creative writings you may find in English as there is no discussion as to why a child thinks their answer to be true and therefore an expression of their ideas and interpretations is absent. 

(ICT, 2009) 

I think they are helpful in the way they can be programed anonymously so students are more comfortable and feeling that it’s ‘ok to be wrong’ and also the ability to give immediate responses but they SHOULD NOT replace a teachers marking of assessment entirely. ‘Optimising opportunities for quality learning in the assessment process also requires attention to alignment with pedagogy and curriculum’ (Lincoln, 2009) and a useful way I’ve found for incorporating both assessment and physical marking through into the assessment process is the use of a rubric. In our ‘Assessment’ tutorial, I discovered there are many websites and software that allow teachers to create their own scaffolding of the way they wish to assess a particular task. 

Rubrics are divided into categories to make the assessment process easier to place a students’ knowledge at a certain level. A teacher must physically use the rubric as it highlights areas a child is excelling in and those concepts they may be struggling with. A teacher may also write notes on a rubric and touch on what was well done and what could be improved which gives the students a more constructive form of feedback rather than the teacher receiving a range of feedback from single optioned answers. In this way a teacher demonstrates traditional marking but also through the use of technology to create the rubric and most importantly in my opinion, break that potential barrier between the teacher and student bond that LSRs present. 

(Teach-nology, 2008) 

In conclusion, all of these technologies are great in assessment when they are used correctly with all their limitations considered and not being overused. ‘To be successful in improving learning for all students, assessment must be closely aligned to instruction’ (Lincoln, 2009) and I believe this to be true as they should not replace teachers and disrupt their directions in learning, but rather teachers should use them to assist their assessment process in a positive and responsible manner. 

References 

ICT, K. (2009). Using ICT To Enhance Teaching And Learning At Key Stage 4. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from Geographical Association: www.geography.org.uk/projects/ks4ict 
Johannessen, C. R. (2013). Changing Assessment-Towards A New Assessment Paradigm Using ICT. European Journal Of Education , 79-96. 
Kent, C. C. (2013). Assessment For Teaching Today: A Guide To Assessment Strategies And Activities. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. 34-43 
Lincoln, M. (2009). Aligning ICT In Assessment With Teaching And Learning: Enhancing Student Achievment In The Middle Years. Proceeding Of The 2009 Australian Curriculum Studies Association Biennial Conference-Curriculum: A National Conversation , 1-18. 
Ralph W. Preszler, A. D. (2007). Assessment Of The Effects Of Student Response Systems On Student Learning And Attitudes Over A Broad Range Of Biology Courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education , 29-41. Taheran, O. A. (2010). Assessment 100% Supported By ICT: Possibilities Offered And Risks. International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Learning (iJET) , 34-36. 
Teach-nology. (2008). Appendix 3: Sample Rubrics For Assessment. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from Convention On Biological Diversity: www.cdb.int/2008/resources/teachers/appendix.shtml TurningTechLA. (2012, August 2nd). Student Response Systems. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUly1TzHSNQ

Social Constructivism

Social constructivism is the theory in which students use social interactions and experiences to shape their knowledge, interpretations, development and understanding of certain concepts. For this reason, I believe social constructivism is highly important and integral to the learning process and education. Therefore it is of no surprise to me that the theory ‘has been a popularly adapted approach to learning by teachers’ (Howell, 2012). 

In my opinion, the reason social constructivism has proved to be so effective in the classroom is because it seems to be an easier and more interactive approach due to the fact that it appeals to a students’ interests. This provides them with encouragement and motivation to complete tasks. Therefore a subjective viewpoint is demonstrated as students can expand their existing knowledge and relate to content on an interactive level. Vygotsky proposes ‘the idea that children learn best the concepts that are in their zone of proximal development’ (Yilmaz, 2008). This ultimately results in further knowledge without the having to face the potentially overwhelming feeling of learning something completely new. I think students respond well to this because if they are able to take control of their own learning, in doing so, it may assist them in having a full understanding of the presented content. 

                                                                  (Changelearning, 2008) 

Whilst working in groups within the physical classroom with interactions between student and teacher, social constructivism can be further enhanced through the use of technology and be extended to reach the wider community it presents. With the introduction of Web 2.0, students can develop and use their social skills to connect with others and ultimately own their previous knowledge. ‘Technology can also address the social dimension of learning by supporting not merely cooperation but also collaboration’ (Bose, 2010). Social interaction is produced as students can now create, modify, read, and access resources and information through the use of blogs, emails, wikis, social media sites, and many others. 

‘Social constructivism extends constructivism by incorporating the role of other actors and culture in development’ (Howell, 2012). I agree as these web tools provide students with aspects such as an audience, discussions, feedback, and debates, because they can then improve other learning areas such as developed social, literacy and technology skills without students being aware of this. However I do not agree that social constructivism should be overused as these so called ‘skills’ may disrupt the development of their physical skills like writing with pens, not keyboards and using aural social skills in speaking, not messaging. 

Vygotsky states that ‘On cooperative projects children are exposed to their peers’ thinking processes; this method not only makes the learning outcome available to all students, but also makes other students’ thinking processes available to all’ (Yilmaz, 2008). This is true as I think the Internet is an excellent way of bringing people together so they may learn together. However I argue that there are great limits and restrictions to certain aspects the Web poses. For example, reliability of resources, plagiarism, and although access to information may be beneficial in regards to building on others’ work and knowledge, this means there is an increased potential invasion of privacy ‘available to all’ (Yilmaz, 2008) these students.

(Doolittle, 2001)

One disadvantage of social constructivism that Rowe argues is that ‘constructivist approaches to teaching are neither initially nor subsequently in the best interests of those experiencing learning difficulties’ (Rowe, 2006). I have found this to be true as the theory may prove to be ineffective for students who struggle to grasp specific concepts and will require guidance and extra assistance and who lack the ability to socialize to a certain degree. These students cannot be left behind, so as a way to counteract this I suggest more extensive training of teachers should be incorporated into the educational system. As Rowe agrees, ‘teachers are the most valuable resource available to schools’ and it is vital that they are ‘equipped with skills that are effective in meeting the developmental and learning needs of ALL students’ (Rowe, 2006). Each student is individual, unique, with their own strengths and knowledge to offer. Students MUST be treated equally. 

The role a teacher plays in incorporating social constructivism into the environment is very important as it will influence the way interaction and the process is performed, ‘With assistance, every child can do more than he can by himself--though only within the limits set by his development’ (Hirtle, 1996). It’s my view that it is essential for a teacher to carry out the theory correctly. In my eyes they can do this by creating a balance between both objective and constructive views whilst still incorporating both traditional and modern practices. These I believe must work together in order for students to not lose focus on their work, remain engaged and for them to receive the absolute most out of a lesson through social experiences. 

Accessed from: http://blues.edublogs.org/files/2009/03/social-constructivism.gif (Machaalani, 2013) 

References 

Bose, S. (2010). Learning Collaboratively With Web 2.0 Technologies: Putting Into Action Social Constructivism. New Delhi: N/A. 1-15 

Changelearning. (2008, January 31st). Building Knowledge: Constructivism In Learning. Retrieved May 25th, 2013, from YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=F00R3pOXzuk 

Doolittle, P. E. (2001). The Need To Leverage Theory In The Development Of Guidlines For Using Technology In Social Studies Teacher Preparation: A Reply To Crocco And Mason et al. . CITE Journal Article , 1-4. 
Hirtle, J. S. (1996). Social Constructivism. English Journal, High School Edition , 1-2. Howell, J. (2012). Teaching With ICT: Digital Pedagogies For Collaboration And Creativity. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 23-25 
Machaalani, J. (2013, April 4th). Social-Constructivism. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from ICT For Teaching And Learning: jessicamachaalani.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/social-constructivism/ 
Rowe, K. (2006). Effective Teaching Practices For Students With And Without Learning Difficulties: Constructivism As A Legitimate Theory Of Learning AND Of Teaching? . 
Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its Theorectical Underpinnings, Variations, and Implications for Classroom Instruction. Educational Horizons , 161-172.

Digital Storytelling

As its name suggests, Digital Storytelling is quite simply a story being told through digital technologies by combining a variety of multimedia elements such as a recorded voice, moving and stilled visual images, as well as music and sounds in order to create a unique narrative piece. 

‘Digital Storytelling ties together all the concepts of the uses of technology in emerging literacy and numeracy and combines those understandings with certain technology examples’ (Howell, 2012). I support this view and believe the reason the growing popularity of Digital Storytelling in education is due to the fact that both students and teachers benefit greatly from its uses. 

However, Robin does not share the same belief, as she says ‘tools needed for digital storytelling have become increasingly more affordable and accessible’ (Robin, 2008). Logically this makes more sense but I firmly disagree that their affordability over effectiveness is the cause for such difference over the ‘the last few years’. Firstly, Digital Stories enable the development of creativity. As Robin says, ‘it is not just information-gathering, but information-creating as well’ (Robin, 2008). In this way digital storytelling enables users to take on the role as creative storytellers. They do this through what the Centre for Digital Storytelling (CDS) calls ‘The Seven Elements of Digital Storytelling’. Each Digital Story must hold these aspects and are summarised in the video below: 

                                                             (kvnblndng, 2009) 

Once these points are weaved together, a digital story is made. Caralee Adams’ article works in conjunction with Robins’ and both agree that digital stories are most commonly used for the purpose of personal narratives, stories that inform or instruct and stories that examine historical events. 

Personal stories enable the development of creativity among students as they are using a technology most would feel comfortable around so they may present information in a way that is familiar and which means something to them. ‘Students show positive aptitude towards technology’ (Howell, 2012) and I think this is because they grow up surrounded by different forms of technology, and so are comfortable being drawn into using it. As Adams says, ‘Storytelling is a natural fit for kids immersed in movies, television, and video games’ (Adams, 2009). I think the more personal a teacher allows the task in creating a story to be, the more engagement of students will be achieved. I think this is because personal stories and historical events of a student work hand in hand and provide students with a voice, especially those who are shy in class. 

‘Digital storytelling helps transform the attitude of teachers toward technology and of students toward themselves’ (Adams, 2009). In creating stories, teacher and student are working on a more personal level and teachers will gain a more detailed insight into a students’ strengths, individuality and uniqueness by understanding their personal backgrounds and quality of mind. ‘They can be emotionally charged and personally meaningful to both the author and viewer’ (Robin, 2008). Historical event stories on individuals from the past can assist in allowing students to understand different concepts and contents as well as when students use their own historical events to tell a story. This allows teachers to understand the student more personally, or even other students if they were working in groups, building on or creating a stronger teacher and student or student to student bond. ‘The concept of collaboration and student teamwork is evident in student productions’ (Joseph, 2006). 

(Tolosano, 2008) Accessed From: http://langwitches.org/blog/2008/07/10/digital-storytelling-what-comes-to-mind/ 

This view ties in to a story being able to assist students who may be struggling with concepts or language. The same way a shy student’s own story provides a deeper understanding of the way they think and communicate, so too does the way students convey their knowledge on academic concepts they may not understand to a full extent. Writing and the way students present information can be a major issue in English and the way students present information. Digital Storytelling presents certain skills that promote ‘student organization, communication, and learning’ (Joseph, 2006) and assists this in that students do not necessarily need to physically write to convey their views as their work can be researched (information literacy) and more importantly published online (global and digital literacy) in a technological environment (technology literacy) (Robin, 2008). 

With this in mind I think Digital Storytelling could be said to be alternative to the traditionally written worksheets in class and assignments in both (English literacy and visual literacy) (Robin, 2008). From that point one would hope that the resulting satisfaction and the final product these students produce will increase their confidence in putting pen to paper and improve their quality of work in other learning areas where these skills from ‘inventive thinking to digital-age literacy’ (Adams, 2009) are needed. 

My Thoughts 

Among all of the ICTs we have covered so far in this course, Digital Storytelling was the one that really appealed to me personally. As I intend to one day be a teacher, specialising in the areas of English and Ancient History, I found that Digital Storytelling proved to be very helpful, especially when the implementation of this technology into lessons on these topics is considered. In our tutorial for that week we had a closer look at a program called PhotoStory, 'where photography meets multimedia storytelling' (Erp, 2011). I was able to experiment and play around using different types of multimedia to form a final work that would assist in my teachings. For example for my History class I could combine a personal narrative and historical event so students can study a historic identity or for English I could create an instructional story to break down steps on how to write an essay. 

Whether it is helping students develop their literacy and creative skills through writing using technology, using stories of historical events to better the student’s knowledge on past individuals or events or personal narratives to improve relationships within the class, Digital Storytelling truly would be an asset to my classroom, benefiting my teaching in many ways. I think it is all in the way that it is used; ‘They can be wonderful learning tools if used well, or they can be boring experiences if overused or used badly’ (Howell, 2012). I would gladly use it but ONLY in the correct manner. 

References 

Adams, C. (2009). Digital STORYTELLING. Instructor , 35-37. 
Erp, H. v. (2011). Multimedia Photostories. The British Journal of Photography , 84-85. 
Howell, J. (2012). Teaching With ICT: Digital Pedagogies For Collaboration And Creativity. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 154-156 
Joseph, L. C. (2006). Digital Storytelling. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools , 13-16. 
kvnblndng. (2009, October 24th). The Seven Elements of Digital Storytelling. Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1f-_FXgJZM 
Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital Storytelling: A Powerful Technology Tool For The 21st Century Classroom. Theory Into Practice , 220-228. 
Tolisano, S. R. (2008, July 10th). Digital StoryTelling-What Comes To Mind? Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from Langwitches Blog: langwitches.org/blog/2008/07/10/digital-storytelling-what-comes-to-mind/

Wikis And Collaborative Learning

A Wiki is web based ‘educational tool to support pupils’ learning and collaboration’ (Yun-Ke Chang, 2011). The element that makes Wikis so useful in education is that it allows collaboration to ‘become so easy’ (Edward F. Gehringer). This is because Wikis are in the form of a web site that ‘teachers and students create together by reading and revising each other’s ideas and comments’ (Maloy, 2010). Wikis can be in the form of blogs, social media, podcasts, DiscoveryMissions, WebQuests and many more. Wikis are ‘good quality if they are interactive as they let people form discussions’ (Howell, 2012). Because the majority of Wiki users are working in student groups or as a teacher and student team, this causes the learning that occurs through Wikis to be collaborative. 

Wikis enable students to create learning objects for the reuse and benefit of students in different classes and/or locations. In this way, the learning is an ongoing process, allowing students to continue to build on each others ideas and knowledge in order to reach the object of their collaboration: the common goal. The most well known Wiki in the world is Wikipedia. The Make Way for Wikis article by Eric Oatman is extremely helpful in providing an overall view on the way Wikis function and usefulness in the education systems in the present day (Oatman, 2005).

To illustrate the ways electronic communications should be used by teachers in their teaching, Maloy demonstrates five key points (mind map was created by myself to summarise (Maloy,2010)’s categories in a clear, visual manner):

The majority of these implements have proved to be very beneficial to education methods but there are some educators in the world who feel number 2: “Sharing information”, presents problems. Usually the learning environment is one where students and teachers work and interact together in a physical classroom. One of the common objections voiced by individuals is that the production of websites and wikis is that it can put a harsh demand on teachers to dedicate a lot of their time to being available out of the classroom in order to collaborate with their students and give them ongoing feedback on their work (Maloy, 2010). Katherine Deibel argues that ‘Wikis can be a powerful tool for supporting ongoing student discussions even in the face of challenges due to time and physicality’ (Edward F. Gehringer, 2008) 

Maloy’s article goes on to say that ‘Collaborative learning happens when students work together on different parts of a problem and discover key concepts and information for themselves’ (Maloy, 2010) and because Wikis can be accessed and altered by anyone in another context, potentially contributing information that may be inaccurate. 

                                                            (Corwinpress, 2009) 

However, Maloy suggests a strategy to overcome this potential issue by ‘holding online office hours’ (Maloy, 2010) where the teacher and students allocate a certain time that they can communicate and form discussions and answer questions the other may have, all via use of the internet. In this way they can connect anytime and anywhere. I believe in order for a teacher to do this, they must maintain strong teaching ideals and a dedication so as not to let the class down. Likewise if the students are aware that their teacher is making this effort to collaborate, they will remain engaged and will be less likely to lose focus on the subject. 

I see Wikis as a two-sided characteristic; they cannot all be the work of one individual. Knowing that there is another person on the other side of your work allows the Wiki to continually be built upon in a collaborative sense. I think once teachers open their minds to the possibilities that electronic communications open up they will see aspects of leaning that they are able to extend far beyond their own traditional classroom.

My Thoughts 

Although Wikis have been the object of some criticisms, I believe it is important to note that they were designed especially for the purpose of an online tool, allowing individuals from around the world to access its information at any time depending on their situation. I feel the main disadvantage associated with Wikis is that anyone can submit his or her thoughts and research which may have potential to not be necessarily accurate. 

‘The criticism is not the Wikis themselves but the individuals who use them’ (Howell, 2012). The Web also offers ‘virtually unlimited sources of poorly presented or even wrong information. While students are learning to search for supplementary material, it is important for them to develop the habit of evaluating what they find’ (Edward F. Gehringer, 2008). I agree that being able to determine fact from incorrect content is an essential skill that everyone should possess. It’s difficult to learn but certainly not impossible.

To ensure the content remains correct, constant and collaborative, adjusting the privacy of your Wiki may make the difference. Both sides MUST ‘consider what is posted publically’ (Howell, 2012) and be aware of how much personal information is accessible and displayed on their Wikis. A way to counteract this is to again, review privacy settings. In my opinion I think Wikis are very useful for homework, assignment and ongoing discussion purposes outside the classroom. 

However they are not something I would too often use in my own day-to-day classroom. Perhaps every now and then to see how students are finding the work but certainly not as the main focus in lessons, where no other content is covered. One way I would love to use Wikis in the future would be to create one where only teachers have access. Here one could receive tips, ideas, and inspiration from others and incorporate those into their teachings, helping other teachers with their own contributions in the process. I think teachers should be cautious not to fall into the trap of overusing Wikis and be aware of possible problems if their lessons are structured completely around them so they can incorporate the main focus of the lesson into the class.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/19/wiki_web_C.jpg (New Ways Of Thinking For New Ways Of Learning, 2013) 

Further Reading-Tutorial using DiscoveryMissions Reflection 

An excellent example of a Wiki is DiscoveryMissions, ‘A user-generated educational resource and facilitate a student-centered learning experience’ (Kidd, 2013). I found the tutorial on DiscoveryMissions proved to be very engaging. We were divided into groups and presented with a specific question and common mission goal. This triggered a discussion on the topic where each member could contribute and compare ideas. This was a great way for me to communicate with certain classmates, an opportunity I hadn’t really experienced until that point. By building on each others’ suggestions and personal experiences, not only was this a way to collaborate and in doing so meet new people but also feeling like I had a role to play and my own importance within the group. I felt that it empowered me. 

To assist in answering the question, we each compared what sorts of technologies our high schools were fortunate enough to utilise. For example, I live in a small town in New South Wales and despite being so isolated our local primary school of 50 children, was extremely technologically advanced, (having a laptop for each student, IWBs in each of the 5/6 classrooms, and a radio station). In comparison, some of my group members whose educations were completed at much larger schools may not have enjoyed such a saturation of technology. 

Overall it was a rewarding tutorial as my group members were equally as surprised as I was at their larger schools taking advantage of technology to a lesser extent than mine. Furthermore, we were able to continue working as a group and constructing more ideas throughout the week even though we were all contributing at different times in complete different places. What I didn’t agree with in DiscoveryMissions is how the teacher acts only as guidance. It’s good that they’re there to assist the students ‘put in charge of’ (Kidd, 2013) the mission if needed but they mustn’t completely be a ‘guide on the side’ (Kidd, 2013) and not help at all or absent from it. My view is that, providing teachers are constantly monitoring their students’ work, then the aim and purpose of the DiscoveryMission will be maintained.

References 

Corwinpress. (2009, June 12th). Using Wikis In The Classroom. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pR5yogCmkA 
Edward F. Gehringer, L. C. (2008). Wikis-Collaborative Learning For CS Education. New York: ACM Magazines . 379-380
Howell, J. (2012). Teaching With ICT: Digital Pedagogies For Collaboration And Creativity. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 156-158
Kidd, P. O. (2013). DiscoveryMissions: An Educational Tool For Web 2.0. Chesapeake: Proceedings of Society For Information Technology And Teacher Education International Conference. 4008-4012 New Ways Of Thinking For New Ways Of Learning. (2013). WIKIS. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from Wikispaces: https://newwaysteaching.wikispaces.com/WIKIS
Oatman, E. (2005). Make Way For Wikis. New York: Media Source. 52-54
Robert W. Maloy, R.-E. V.-O. (2010). Transforming Learning With New Technologies. Pearson Higher ed USA. 206-239
Yun-Ke Chang, M. A.-A. (2011). Collaborative Learning In Wikis. Education For Information , 291-303.

ICT Current Trends (ie. IWBs)

In the last decade or so the world of technology has seen an incredible rate of development. It has stretched around the globe and advances each day with new breakthroughs to give us information, knowledge, entertainment and the ability to communicate. These Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have now amazingly incorporated themselves in schools and your everyday classroom. Because these technologies are constantly developing into more useful forms of themselves, so too are the cultural fashions they produce. The increasing numbers of schools incorporating laptops and iPads is clear evidence that teachers are taking these learning tools for the 21st Century and using them to their full teaching potential. 

Perhaps one of the most effective ICTs in education at the moment is the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB). I believe this is true mainly because ‘it can be used for all levels of education’ (Howell, 2012) as each student is an individual and therefore will relate and respond differently to different teaching styles. J. Gage supports this view in saying ‘An IWB helps teachers to use a wide variety of different teaching styles, benefiting all types of learners’ (Gage, 2006). There is a great debate on IWBs’ appropriateness in the classroom and this post will reflect how I agree with both sides of the argument. 

                                                          (OUPELTGlobal, 2010) 

Peter Kent’s extensive work on the subject of IWBs in education, provides an overall vision and assistance in incorporating them into the teaching environment. Kent states; ‘It is easier to promote higher levels of intellectual quality if you are using an interactive whiteboard’ (Kent, 2010). To support this view, Kent proposes that the use of ambiguity and randomness in an IWB lesson allows the topic to capture students’ attention and engagement with the access to information that an ordinary whiteboard simply couldn’t achieve. Without intellectual quality in the classroom, students have no choice but to ‘memorise the content so it can be recalled exactly the way it was read or heard” (Kent, 2010), which for some students, proves not to be effective. 

This could be overwhelming as “A tool that works for one teacher may not work for another" (Anonymous, 2011). It is my view that an IWB can be shaped and suited to any lesson regardless of the teacher’s knowledge and confidence with technology. Of course teachers are required to, when necessary, overcome the pedagogical issues ICTs possess; if they have the persistence and patience which in my opinion every good teacher should, then the learning should flow without too much trouble. If a teacher is new to creating flip charts, there are some excellent online games in similar form as that of an IWB, like the one below. 

Online Game- Music: Composers Quiz (Jones, 2013) 

These games may assist in giving teachers ideas and inspiration in making their own. Online games also suit most types of learning as they can be found in many forms and by being visually appealing so everyone can see and contribute to discussions. They encourage students to develop creativity, drawing on their own knowledge in order to achieve the goal of the activity through working in groups or individually and most importantly interacting and engaging with people and content, improving their critical thinking in the process. Because students grow up surrounded by games and puzzles, they will respond well when using them in the classroom. 

The beauty of an IWB is the fact that their benefits are much greater than the traditional whiteboard. For example, a traditional whiteboard is ‘not vey interactive’ (Kent, 2010) and once something is written and erased, there is no way of coming back to it without having to rewrite the information again. In this way it is not possible to save your work and so continuing on from a lesson in the past is very difficult and often not revisited later. Being able to save your lessons, and even take the next step in ‘repurposing’ (Kent, 2010) IWBs not only means that there is less strain on the teacher but it is less time consuming. 

Teachers can now look over their lesson plans and flipcharts and alter their content to suit a higher level of knowledge, accommodate a class’ specific needs or even assist in teaching a completely different teaching area-for example a history lesson can be converted into an English one with only a few clicks and a quick change of information. As said by Alan November “I have experienced the joys of using interactive whiteboards and clickers to create a highly successful constructivist learning environment while promoting increased social interaction. Imagination is the key to the creative use of almost any tool" (Anonymous, 2011) 

(SMART Technologies, 2013) Accessed From: http://www.oecd.org/education/country-studies/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/interactivewhiteboardforprimaryclassrooms.htm

Kent gives a general overview of the possibilities of IWBs by breaking their uses down into four main groups: Labelling, Sorting, Ordering or Sequencing, and Puzzle or Game Simulation. Each kind of activity is unique and has its own strengths. They all encourage participation, cooperation and involvement of students as they approach the board and ‘using a pen, finger, stylus or other device’ (Howell, 2012) to solve, complete and ultimately interact with what’s shown on the IWB. 

My Thoughts

I believe IWBs are wonderful devices for teaching, however only when used correctly by sparking discussions, further thinking and allowing more communication between both students and teacher in order to promote creativity and ‘intellectual quality’ through ‘multiple interpretations’ (Kent, 2010) and multiple users-Not having a set limit to answers or only one correct way to perform something. Also IWBs should be used to support the lesson and MUST NOT teach it. When I look back on my high school years, what stands out most in my learning was not the technology we used but the dedication of my teachers that made my learning experience so memorable. As Jim Klein says ‘You don't walk into their classrooms and say "Wow, that's a really amazing whiteboard." You say "Wow, that's a really amazing teacher"’ (Anonymous, 2011). 

I worry that teachers may get too carried away in the whole ‘technology revolution’ and only focus on the fun of the lesson, not the importance of information. 'Students still need their work to be monitored and structured, and there still needs to be a clear focus on the subject content' (Gage, 2006). 

Teachers, in my opinion, should not be intimidated and scared to use IWBs. From working on the assignment we completed earlier this semester, I learnt it’s really not as difficult as one would first think to produce a tool for teaching that not only benefits students’ learning but the teacher too. No matter what teaching areas are needed to cover, there’s something for everyone. ‘It’s potential is only limited by your confidence’ (Howell, 2012). I agree. So go out, experiment and have fun! 

References 

Anonymous. (2011). IWBs: THE GREAT DEBATE. San Bruno: New Bay Media LLC. 1-14 
Gage, J. (2006). How To Use An Interactive Whiteboard Really Effectively In Your Secondary Classroom. London: David Fulton. 17-30 
Howell, J. (2012). Teaching With ICT: Digital Pedagogies For Collaboration And Creativity . South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 96-98 
Inc, S. T. (n.d.). Centre For Effective Learning Environments (CELE): Interactive Whiteboard For Primary Classrooms. Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from OECD: www.oecd.org/education/country-studies/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/interactivewhiteboardforprimaryclassroom 
Jones, D. L. (n.d.). Music: Composers Quiz. Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from eChalk: Teaching Resources For Interactive Whiteboards And Data Projectors: www.echalk.co.uk/music/composers/quiz1/composersQuiz.html 
Kent, P. (2010). Secondary Teaching WIth Interactive Whiteboards. South Yarra: Macmillan Education Australia. 13-40 
OUPELTGlobal. (2010, July 15th). An Introduction To Interactive Whiteboards. Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlHg3F3C56l