Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and Challenges

Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and Challenges

Leo Tan Wee Hin National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Singapore R. Subramaniam National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Singapore

Volume I

InformatIon scIence reference Hershey • New York

Director of Editorial Content: Senior Managing Editor: Managing Editor: Assistant Managing Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design: Printed at:

Kristin Klinger Jamie Snavely Jeff Ash Carole Coulson Chris Hrobak Lisa Tosheff Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference and in the United Kingdom by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel: 44 20 7240 0856 Fax: 44 20 7379 0609 Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com Copyright © 2009 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level : issues and challenges / Leo Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam, editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: "This book provides coverage of significant issues and theories currently combining the studies of technology and literacy"-Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60566-120-9 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-121-6 (ebook) 1. Mass media in education--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Media literacy--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Educational technology--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Tan, Leo Wee Hin, 1944- II. Subramaniam, R. (Ramanathan), 1952LB1043.H329 2009 302.23071--dc22 2009003229 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Editorial Advisory Board

Ronen Mir, SciTech Hands On Museum, USA & Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, USA Dianna Newman, University of Albany/SUNY, USA Anil Aggarwal, University of Baltimore, USA Debby Mir, Northeastern Illinois University, USA

List of Contributors

Ayres, Kevin M. / The University of Georgia, USA ............................................................................ 14 Baird, Derek E. / Yahoo!, Inc., USA .................................................................................................... 48 Bangert, Art W. / Montana State University, USA ............................................................................ 684 Bowyer, Samantha / Coventry University, UK .................................................................................. 492 Brawner, Catherine E. / Research Triangle Educational Consultants, USA.................................... 551 Brent, Rebecca / Education Designs, Inc., USA ................................................................................ 551 Cheah, Horn-Mun / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ............................................... 119 Chera, Pav / Sutherland Institute, UK ............................................................................................... 340 Ching, Yu-Hui / The Pennsylvania State University, USA ............................................................... 353 Coenders, Arno / Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands .......................................................................... 389 Conole, Gráinne / The Open University, UK..................................................................................... 669 Davis, Quintin Q. / Christa McAuliffe Middle School, USA ............................................................ 620 Delfino, Manuela / Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy.................................................................................................................................. 839 Dimitracopoulou, Angélique / University of the Aegean, Greece .................................................... 755 Douglas, Karen / The University of Georgia, USA.............................................................................. 14 Evans, Michael A. / Virginia Tech, USA ............................................................................................ 128 Finger, Glenn / Griffith University, Australia .................................................................................... 326 Fisher, Mercedes / Milwaukee Applied Technical College, USA......................................................... 48 Fitzgerald, Gail / University of Missouri, USA ................................................................................. 529 Fund, Zvia / Bar-Ilan University, Israel ............................................................................................ 216 Garland, Virginia E. / The University of New Hampshire, USA....................................................... 471 Gibson, Susan / University of Alberta, Canada................................................................................. 403 Grabowski, Barbara / The Pennsylvania State University, USA ...................................................... 353 Grafton, Lee / Palm Spring Unified School District, USA ................................................................ 607 Graham, Charles R. / Brigham Young University, USA ................................................................... 823 Gulbahar, Yasemin / Baskent University, Turkey .............................................................................. 702 Hadley, Nancy J. / Angelo State University, USA.............................................................................. 189 Harmer, Andrea J. / Kutztown University and Lehigh University, USA ........................................... 300 Hemphill, Leaunda S. / Western Illinois University, USA ................................................................ 808 Hernández, Fernando / University of Barcelona, Spain .................................................................... 72 Herrington, Jan / Murdoch University, Australia ............................................................................. 203 Hewett, Stephenie / The Citadel, USA............................................................................................... 286

Hlapanis, Giorgos / University of the Aegean, Greece...................................................................... 755 Howell, Lyn C. / Milligan College, USA ........................................................................................... 575 Hsu, Yu-Chang / The Pennsylvania State University, USA ............................................................... 353 Hung, David / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ......................................................... 119 Hutchison, Dougal / National Foundation for Educational Research, UK ...................................... 777 Ilomäkim, Liisa / University of Helsinki, Finland............................................................................. 101 Jamieson-Proctor, Romina / University of Southern Queensland, Australia ................................... 326 Jetton, Tamara L. / Central Michigan University, USA.................................................................... 633 Kankaanranta, Marja / University of Jyväskyla, Finland ............................................................... 101 Kay, Robin / University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada ........................................ 419, 720 Kervin, Lisa / University of Wollongong, Australia .......................................................................... 203 Kiili, Carita / University of Jyväskylä, Finland ................................................................................. 654 Kirtley, Rebecca F. / JC Sawyer Elementary School, USA ............................................................... 620 Koh, Thiam Seng / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore .................................................. 310 Koury, Kevin / California University of Pennsylvania, USA ............................................................ 529 Kramarski, Bracha / Bar-Ilan University, Israel.............................................................................. 794 Langone, John / The University of Georgia, USA ............................................................................... 14 Laurinen, Leena / University of Jyväskylä, Finland ......................................................................... 654 Lazarinis, Fotis / University of Teesside, UK .................................................................................... 457 Leh, Amy S. C. / California State University, San Bernardino, USA ................................................ 607 Levin, Tamar / Tel Aviv University, Israel ......................................................................................... 144 Lim, Wei-Ying / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore....................................................... 119 Lisowski, Joseph A. / Elizabeth City State University, USA ............................................................. 620 Lisowski, Linda R. / Elizabeth City State University, USA............................................................... 620 Littleton, Karen / University of Jyväskylä, Finland .......................................................................... 340 Luik, Piret / University of Tartu, Estonia ......................................................................................... 167 MacKinnon, Gregory / Acadia University, Canada ......................................................................... 505 Mantei, Jessica / University of Wollongong, Australia...................................................................... 203 Marttunen, Miika / University of Jyväskylä, Finland....................................................................... 654 Masters, Jennifer / La Trobe University, Australia ........................................................................... 243 McCaw, Donna S. / Western Illinois University, USA ....................................................................... 808 Merchant, Guy / Sheffield Hallam University, UK................................................................................ 1 Mills, Steven C. / The University Center of Southern Oklahoma, USA............................................. 372 Mitchem, Katherine / California University of Pennsylvania, USA................................................. 529 Monroe, Eula Ewing / Brigham Young University, USA .................................................................. 823 Müller, Jörg / Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain ...................................................................... 72 Pedaste, Margus / University of Tartu, Estonia ................................................................................ 270 Persico, Donatella / Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council,Italy................................................................................................................................... 839 Plester, Beverly / Coventry University, UK ....................................................................................... 492 Qian, Yufeng / St. Thomas University, USA....................................................................................... 257 Rice, Kerry L. / Boise State University, USA .................................................................................... 684 Ryan, Thomas G. / Nipissing University, Canada .............................................................................. 89 Samsonov, Pavel / University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA .......................................................... 480

Sancho, Juana M. / University of Barcelona, Spain ........................................................................... 72 Sarapuu, Tago / University of Tartu, Estonia .................................................................................... 270 Tan, Kim Chwee Daniel / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ...................................... 310 ten Brummelhuis, Alfons / Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands .......................................................... 389 Tondeur, Jo / Ghent University, Belgium ........................................................................................... 389 Tsai, Chin-Chung / National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan ...................... 743 Twiford, Claudia C. / Elizabeth City State University, USA ............................................................. 620 van Braak, Johan / Ghent University, Belgium ................................................................................ 389 van‘t Hooft, Mark / Kent State University, USA ............................................................................... 436 Vanderlinde, Ruben / Ghent University, Belgium ............................................................................ 389 Walsh, Maureen / ACU National, Australia........................................................................................ 32 Way, Jennifer / University of Sydney, Australia ................................................................................ 588 Wentworth, Nancy / Brigham Young University, USA...................................................................... 823 Wood, Clare / Coventry University, UK .................................................................................... 340, 492 Yelland, Nicola / The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong .............................................. 243

Table of Contents

Volume I Preface .............................................................................................................................................. xxix

Section I Issues in New Media Literacy Chapter I Learning for the Future: Emerging Technologies and Social Participation ............................................ 1 Guy Merchant, Sheffield Hallam University, UK Chapter II Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays ................................ 14 Kevin M. Ayres, The University of Georgia, USA John Langone, The University of Georgia, USA Karen Douglas, The University of Georgia, USA Chapter III Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy....................................................................................... 32 Maureen Walsh, ACU National, Australia Chapter IV Pedagogical Mashup: Gen Y, Social Media, and Learning in the Digital Age ..................................... 48 Derek E. Baird, Yahoo!, Inc., USA Mercedes Fisher, Milwaukee Applied Technical College, USA Chapter V New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide ......................................................................................... 72 Jörg Müller, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Juana M. Sancho, University of Barcelona, Spain Fernando Hernández, University of Barcelona, Spain

Chapter VI Teaching and Technology: Issues, Caution and Concerns .................................................................... 89 Thomas G. Ryan, Nipissing University, Canada Chapter VII The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young ........................ 101 Liisa Ilomäki, University of Helsinki, Finland Marja Kankaanranta, University of Jyväskyla, Finland Chapter VIII An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century..................................... 119 Wei-Ying Lim, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore David Hung, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Horn-Mun Cheah, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Chapter IX Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings: Sociotechnical Prescriptions for and Challenges to Curricular Reform ............................................. 128 Michael A. Evans, Virginia Tech, USA Chapter X Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology: Enriched Classrooms ............................................................... 144 Tamar Levin, Tel Aviv University, Israel Chapter XI Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia .............................................................................. 167 Piret Luik, University of Tartu, Estonia Chapter XII Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy ............................................................................. 189 Nancy J. Hadley, Angelo State University, USA Chapter XIII Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners ....................... 203 Lisa Kervin, University of Wollongong, Australia Jessica Mantei, University of Wollongong, Australia Jan Herrington, Murdoch University, Australia Chapter XIV Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry: From Instructional Design to a “Bridge Model” ............ 216 Zvia Fund, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Chapter XV Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts ................................................................... 243 Nicola Yelland, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Jennifer Masters, La Trobe University, Australia Chapter XVI New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments ............................................................. 257 Yufeng Qian, St. Thomas University, USA Chapter XVII The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry .............................................................................. 270 Margus Pedaste, University of Tartu, Estonia Tago Sarapuu, University of Tartu, Estonia

Section II ICT Tools Chapter XVIII Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males................................................................. 286 Stephenie Hewett, The Citadel, USA Chapter XIX Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy .............................................................................. 300 Andrea J. Harmer, Kutztown University and Lehigh University, USA Chapter XX Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education .................................................................................... 310 Thiam Seng Koh, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Kim Chwee Daniel Tan, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Chapter XXI Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use: Developing an Instrument for Measuring Student ICT Use .......................................................................................................... 326 Romina Jamieson-Proctor, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Glenn Finger, Griffith University, Australia Chapter XXII Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development .......................................................... 340 Clare Wood, Coventry University, UK Karen Littleton, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Pav Chera, Sutherland Institute, UK

Chapter XXIII Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age ..................................................... 353 Yu-Chang Hsu, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Yu-Hui Ching, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Barbara Grabowski, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Chapter XXIV Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning with Web 2.0 ................................................ 372 Steven C. Mills, The University Center of Southern Oklahoma, USA Chapter XXV Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education ................................................ 389 Jo Tondeur, Ghent University, Belgium Arno Coenders, Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Johan van Braak, Ghent University, Belgium Alfons ten Brummelhuis, Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Ruben Vanderlinde, Ghent University, Belgium Chapter XXVI Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects................................. 403 Susan Gibson, University of Alberta, Canada Chapter XXVII Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects in Secondary School Classrooms .............................................................................................................................. 419 Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Chapter XXVIII Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices ........................................................................... 436 Mark van‘t Hooft, Kent State University, USA Chapter XXIX Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool ............................ 457 Fotis Lazarinis, University of Teesside, UK Chapter XXX Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies ............................................................................. 471 Virginia E. Garland, The University of New Hampshire, USA

Volume II Chapter XXXI Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential ........................................................................... 480 Pavel Samsonov, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA Chapter XXXII Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy .......................................................................... 492 Beverly Plester, Coventry University, UK Clare Wood, Coventry University, UK Samantha Bowyer, Coventry University, UK Chapter XXXIII Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning .............................................................. 505 Gregory MacKinnon, Acadia University, Canada Chapter XXXIV Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School for Secondary Students with Special Needs ........................................................................... 529 Katherine Mitchem, California University of Pennsylvania, USA Gail Fitzgerald, University of Missouri, USA Kevin Koury, California University of Pennsylvania, USA

Section III Case Studies Chapter XXXV A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom .......... 551 Rebecca Brent, Education Designs, Inc., USA Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants, USA Chapter XXXVI Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes ............................................................................. 575 Lyn C. Howell, Milligan College, USA Chapter XXXVII Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools ....................................................................... 588 Jennifer Way, University of Sydney, Australia

Chapter XXXVIII Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District.......................................................................... 607 Amy S. C. Leh, California State University, San Bernardino, USA Lee Grafton, Palm Spring Unified School District, USA

Chapter XXXIX K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community........................................................................ 620 Linda R. Lisowski, Elizabeth City State University, USA Claudia C. Twiford, Elizabeth City State University, USA Joseph A. Lisowski, Elizabeth City State University, USA Quintin Q. Davis, Christa McAuliffe Middle School, USA Rebecca F. Kirtley, JC Sawyer Elementary School, USA Chapter XL Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students....................................................................................................................... 633 Tamara L. Jetton, Central Michigan University, USA

Chapter XLI Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent...................................................................... 654 Carita Kiili, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Leena Laurinen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Miika Marttunen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Chapter XLII Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice................................................ 669 Gráinne Conole, The Open University, UK

Section IV Assessment Chapter XLIII What We Know About Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools......................................... 684 Art W. Bangert, Montana State University, USA Kerry L. Rice, Boise State University, USA Chapter XLIV Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment.................................................................................... 702 Yasemin Gulbahar, Baskent University, Turkey Chapter XLV A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classrooms............................................................................................................. 720 Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada Chapter XLVI Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings................................................................... 743 Chin-Chung Tsai, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Chapter XLVII Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community ................................................................... 755 Giorgos Hlapanis, University of the Aegean, Greece Angélique Dimitracopoulou, University of the Aegean, Greece Chapter XLVIII Automated Essay Scoring Systems..................................................................................................... 777 Dougal Hutchison, National Foundation for Educational Research, UK Chapter XLIX Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion............................................................ 794 Bracha Kramarski, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Section V Professional Development Chapter L Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked .............................................................. 808 Leaunda S. Hemphill, Western Illinois University, USA Donna S. McCaw, Western Illinois University, USA Chapter LI TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program ..................................................................... 823 Nancy Wentworth, Brigham Young University, USA Charles R. Graham, Brigham Young University, USA Eula Ewing Monroe, Brigham Young University, USA Chapter LII Self-Regulated Learning: Issues and Challenges for Initial Teacher Training ................................... 839 Manuela Delfino, Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy Donatella Persico, Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy

Detailed Table of Contents

Volume I Preface .............................................................................................................................................. xxix

Section I Issues in New Media Literacy The new media represents an assortment of ICT tools that span a wide spectrum of uses. Each of these technologies comes with its own unique characteristics to support learning in specific contexts. This section address issues and concerns that surround the use of new media in educational settings and notes how the definition of new media literacy has not been static but has been evolving with the myriad of applications that have come on board with the fructification of research in educational settings. More importantly, the social dimension that it engenders has implications for tapping the preferred learning styles of the digital natives. Chapter I Learning for the Future: Emerging Technologies and Social Participation ............................................ 1 Guy Merchant, Sheffield Hallam University, UK The author discusses how digital literacies that are germane to evolving forms of social practice in today’s society can be incorporated into classroom practice. With the affordability of digital connections, the Web 2.0 environment presents a platform to jump-start social participation and knowledge creation by students. The challenge is to see how communicative and collaborative frameworks can be juxtaposed with new insights into learning so that the potential of these new technologies can be capitalized effectively to promote learning. Chapter II Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays ................................ 14 Kevin M. Ayres, The University of Georgia, USA John Langone, The University of Georgia, USA Karen Douglas, The University of Georgia, USA Digital literacy skills have been framed by keeping in mind the needs of normal students. With technology being an enabling tool, students with developmental disabilities can now interact with electronic

text to make greater meaning of the world around them. In this context, the authors argue for the need for the definition of digital literacy skills to evolve so that the special needs of such students can also be taken care of. Chapter III Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy....................................................................................... 32 Maureen Walsh, ACU National, Australia The transformation of the literacy landscape from one based on traditional text to one based on a range of ICT literacies is heralding a paradigm shift in the way students learn. Reconfiguring pedagogy to meet multimodal literacy needs affords opportunities for producing students who are well equipped to thrive in the new educational milieu. The author explores this standpoint further and also reports on a study in which the pedagogy of literacy in e-learning and multimodal classroom environments was redesigned for classroom practice. Chapter IV Pedagogical Mashup: Gen Y, Social Media, and Learning in the Digital Age ..................................... 48 Derek E. Baird, Yahoo!, Inc., USA Mercedes Fisher, Milwaukee Applied Technical College, USA The digital culture in which students in today’s society are immersed provides immense scope for leveraging on a medley of tools to enhance their learning experiences in the classroom. These new media afford a platform for the students to explore learning based on interactions with others and developing ideas by active engagement, both of which capitalize on their innate need to be part of a community. The authors emphasize the need for instructors to be cognizant of social trends promoted by the new media and reiterate that these need to be integrated into the curriculum so as to tap on the preferred learning styles of the digital natives. Chapter V New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide ......................................................................................... 72 Jörg Müller, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Juana M. Sancho, University of Barcelona, Spain Fernando Hernández, University of Barcelona, Spain This various forms of new media that have come upstream in society have exacerbated the divisions between those who are ICT-literate and those who are disenfranchised from reaping their full benefits. These equity issues raise several concerns which the authors explore from various perspectives. They advance suggestions for bridging this binary divide and emphasize on the importance of school initiatives and other intervention strategies for implementing educational projects that are not only sustainable but are also inclusive so that no student is left behind. Chapter VI Teaching and Technology: Issues, Caution and Concerns .................................................................... 89 Thomas G. Ryan, Nipissing University, Canada

The all-encompassing nature of technology in today’s society means that it is a change agent, an educational tool and an empowering medium. In this chapter, the author flags off some concerns for consideration when technology is used in teaching. He reiterates the message that teaching is very much an individual odyssey and that there is a need for teachers to be mindful of their role through introspection, values clarification and action research so that technology is subservient to the thrust of the educational mission. Chapter VII The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young ........................ 101 Liisa Ilomäki, University of Helsinki, Finland Marja Kankaanranta, University of Jyväskyla, Finland The extent to which strategic initiatives and implementation efforts in Finland have contributed to the ICT competencies of the younger generation is explored in this chapter. It is shown that ICT competencies and attitudes are honed mainly by home resources and leisure time pursuits. Gender differences among the young as well as skills differences between the youngsters and adults in relation to ICT usage are also considered. Chapter VIII An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century..................................... 119 Wei-Ying Lim, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore David Hung, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Horn-Mun Cheah, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Interactive and digital media (IDM) literacy encompasses four aspects: media literacy, technological literacy, social and civic responsibility, and imagination and creativity. The authors advance the need for these competencies to be grounded in school practice so that students are well prepared to face the challenges of the new economy. Recommendations are given for policy makers and stake holders to promote a culture that is supportive of IDM as well as catalyzes the growth of an industry around it. Chapter IX Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings: Sociotechnical Prescriptions for and Challenges to Curricular Reform ............................................. 128 Michael A. Evans, Virginia Tech, USA The author emphasizes that science-based collaborative inquiry mediated within a community of practice needs to be an important goal for the 21st century classroom. Leveraging on the ubiquity of communication channels promoted by wireless and mobile devices and supported by social software, he draws on the results of two studies done in geographically dispersed settings to show that effective learning is possible in a real world context. The challenge is to see how traditional modes of pedagogy can be tweaked to support such learning. Chapter X Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology: Enriched Classrooms ............................................................... 144 Tamar Levin, Tel Aviv University, Israel

The author draws on the results of two longitudinal studies to study the links between teachers’ educational beliefs and their use of ICT in pedagogy. It is shown that extensive use of ICT over the years has, in fact, coloured teachers’ beliefs so much so that they now tend to look at issues from multiple perspectives. The study also shows that the mindset change of teachers is dictated by a number of factors – the kind of ICT tools available in the classroom, the experiential nature of the learning environment, and exposure to new ideas. Chapter XI Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia .............................................................................. 167 Piret Luik, University of Tartu, Estonia The diversity of educational software that are commercially available for bringing multimedia to the educational setting poses issues with respect to selectivity and utility for target audiences. Drawing on the experiences from two experiments involving multimedia textbooks and multimedia drills, the author stresses on the need for a robust design framework for multimedia that takes into consideration the differential learning needs of both genders. He offers recommendations and guidelines for developers of multimedia software to bring effective learning to students. Chapter XII Empowerment Rationale for New Media Literacy ............................................................................. 189 Nancy J. Hadley, Angelo State University, USA The emergence of new genres of ICT literacy and their nexus with education has necessitated the need for curriculum design to be redefined so as to promote desired outcomes in the learning process in the digital age. In this chapter, it has been suggested that curricula which promote empowerment can help to develop students who are confident in their ability to come up with solutions to problems. With the proliferation of user content in sites such as YouTube and MySpace and these spawning a unique culture, a case has been put forward on the need for a high level of digital literacy skills among citizens. Chapter XIII Using Technology in Pedagogically Responsive Ways to Support Literacy Learners ....................... 203 Lisa Kervin, University of Wollongong, Australia Jessica Mantei, University of Wollongong, Australia Jan Herrington, Murdoch University, Australia The chapter makes a strong case for technology to be embedded in practice rather than be treated as an adornment if its potential in the classroom is to be realized more effectively. This can be accomplished when teachers develop educational experiences that leverage on authentic learning contexts within the framework of the curricula. Learning tasks that buttress the connections between technology use, literacy and learning are also shown to be effective in this regard. Chapter XIV Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry: From Instructional Design to a “Bridge Model” ............ 216 Zvia Fund, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

In this chapter, a problem-solving and inquiry-based approach was used to investigate science learning among junior high school students. Support models for instruction were based on four components – structural, reflective, subject content and enrichment. The results were used to formulate a theoretical framework called the bridge model, which was able to explain the operation and role of the respective components. Chapter XV Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts ................................................................... 243 Nicola Yelland, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Jennifer Masters, La Trobe University, Australia The diffusion of information and communication technologies in the educational space has provided not only opportunities for teachers to harness these for teaching but also presents challenges for their effective use. In this chapter, an argument is advanced that effective scaffolding techniques are imperative if student learning outcomes are to be enhanced in a topic. The need for teachers to be conversant with various scaffolding pedagogies in teaching practice is underscored by way of two examples. Chapter XVI New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments ............................................................. 257 Yufeng Qian, St. Thomas University, USA 3-D environments are media-rich and technologically intensive platforms for teaching and learning. A number of model 3-D virtual learning programs which promote experiential learning are examined in this chapter. The author makes a strong case for new media literacy frameworks to be reconceptualized so as to take on board the unique needs of such environments. Chapter XVII The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry .............................................................................. 270 Margus Pedaste, University of Tartu, Estonia Tago Sarapuu, University of Tartu, Estonia Inquiry environments based on multimedia are a strong contender to traditional formats when it comes to scaffolding learning among students. For such environments to maximize their efficacy, it is imperative that design considerations be given adequate attention when configuring their delivery format. In particular, the authors stress on the importance of three factors – cognitive load of the problems, sequencing of the problems and profiles of the end users.

Section II ICT Tools The assortment of ICT tools available for use in teaching and learning is formidable! Some of these include video games, wikis, blogs, talking books, WebQuests, mobile devices, PowerPoint – the list goes on! Each of these tools has evolved into specific genres in the taxonomy of e-learning. The chapters in this section explore the utility of these and other tools to promote literacy.

Chapter XVIII Using Video Games to Improve Literacy Levels of Males................................................................. 286 Stephenie Hewett, The Citadel, USA Whilst traditional literacy skills among males have declined globally, their penchant for video games has allowed them to move up the ladder in digital literacy skills. The interactivity that such games foster provides the necessary support for males to learn effectively in game-based learning environments. The chapter makes a case for teachers to embed video games in context in the school curriculum. Chapter XIX Engagement in Science and New Media Literacy .............................................................................. 300 Andrea J. Harmer, Kutztown University and Lehigh University, USA An activity on environmental pollution in which inquiry elements are embedded contextually and which capitalizes on the tools of new media is described in this chapter. This activity, done in a real world setting and which also entailed collaborative video conferencing with experts, promoted positive learning experiences among students. A case is made by the author that such activities promote effective learner engagement while imbuing them with literacies in new media in authentic contexts. Chapter XX Web 2.0 Technologies and Science Education .................................................................................... 310 Thiam Seng Koh, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Kim Chwee Daniel Tan, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore The potential of Web 2.0 technologies to impact on science education and thus enhance science literacy is tremendous. In this chapter, the authors discuss applications of such technologies for classroom practice in science. They advance the point of view that a framework based on social constructivism mapped on Web 2.0 technology environments could promote a rethink on pedagogy and assessment in relation to teaching and learning of science. Chapter XXI Measuring and Evaluating ICT Use: Developing an Instrument for Measuring Student ICT Use .......................................................................................................... 326 Romina Jamieson-Proctor, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Glenn Finger, Griffith University, Australia Whilst the diffusion of ICT in the classroom to support teaching and learning has seen great strides in recent years, there is the question of whether the financial outlays and policy measures that support such initiatives have promoted the desired outcomes in the learning process. In this context, the design and development of an instrument to measure the effectiveness of student use of ICT, as judged from the lens of teachers’ views, is explored. The results from the administering of this instrument on two schools in Queensland reiterate the point that stakeholders need to know regularly whether investments in ICT use for teaching and learning are translating into effective learning gains for students.

Chapter XXII Using Talking Books to Support Early Reading Development .......................................................... 340 Clare Wood, Coventry University, UK Karen Littleton, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Pav Chera, Sutherland Institute, UK Promoting literacy among beginning readers through the use of ‘books which talk’ is the subject of this chapter. The interactive format and multimedia feature of talking books are factors which appeal to early readers. In particular, the effectiveness of a specific talking book in fostering reading-related skills and abilities is evaluated and, based on this, guidelines are offered for software developers to bear in mind when working at the child-computer interface. Chapter XXIII Web 2.0 Technologies as Cognitive Tools of the New Media Age ..................................................... 353 Yu-Chang Hsu, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Yu-Hui Ching, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Barbara Grabowski, The Pennsylvania State University, USA This chapter focuses on the use of Web 2.0 technologies such as folksonomy, wikis and weblogging to support pedagogical practice. It is shown that the introduction of these diverse tools into teaching and learning can support metacognitve activity and self regulation among learners. Some recommendations on the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies with respect to instructional possibilities are given. Chapter XXIV Implementing Collaborative Problem-Based Learning with Web 2.0 ................................................ 372 Steven C. Mills, The University Center of Southern Oklahoma, USA The emergence of Web 2.0 technologies presents a plethora of opportunities for teachers to engage students in meaningful learning contexts. In this chapter, the author describes how tool kits and information resources for communication based on such technologies can be overlaid on instructional methodologies in the K-12 setting to promote effective learning. In particular, when these are used in collaborative and problem-solving modes, there is tremendous scope for providing rich learning experiences for students. Chapter XXV Using Online Tools to Support Technology Integration in Education ................................................ 389 Jo Tondeur, Ghent University, Belgium Arno Coenders, Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Johan van Braak, Ghent University, Belgium Alfons ten Brummelhuis, Stichting Kennisnet, Netherlands Ruben Vanderlinde, Ghent University, Belgium Integrating ICT into educational settings is more than just supplying computers and linking these to the Internet. The effectiveness of such integration can be better assessed by the availability of suitable

metrics. In this chapter, the authors address the use of online tools that can gauge performance across three fronts: current use of ICT in school, teachers’ knowledge and skill levels with respect to the school vision, and ICT planning. Chapter XXVI Developing Digital Literacy Skills with WebQuests and Web Inquiry Projects................................. 403 Susan Gibson, University of Alberta, Canada ICT skills necessary for the 21st century can be promoted more effectively amongst students if the pedagogical delivery framework can be tweaked to facilitate their acquisition. In this regard, the author espouses the instructional significance of WebQuests and web-based inquiry projects. Examples are provided of these and it is shown that the sourcing of information on the web for open-ended tasks can promote decision-making and problem-solving skills in students. Chapter XXVII Understanding Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Learning Objects in Secondary School Classrooms .............................................................................................................................. 419 Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada The use of learning objects as a curricular resource in secondary schools has not been explored in sufficient depth in the K-12 setting – hence the purpose of this chapter. It looks at both students’ and teachers’ views of learning objects in a variety of subject domains. The results show that for learning objects to be able to engage students and teachers, they have to be well designed, user-friendly and interactive. Chapter XXVIII Tapping into Digital Literacy with Mobile Devices ........................................................................... 436 Mark van‘t Hooft, Kent State University, USA The prevalence of wireless mobile devices offers yet another avenue to foster digital literacy skills among the younger generation, especially since they are rather savvy with such gadgets. For these to impact on teaching and learning, the right context has to be weaved into the pedagogical framework. A few examples are given of the kind of educational activities that are suitable for use with these devices. Chapter XXIX Towards Safer Internet for Students with the Aid of a Hypermedia Filtering Tool ............................ 457 Fotis Lazarinis, University of Teesside, UK With web-based learning becoming an important aspect of the education of students, the need to ensure that this impressionable group is not subjected to improper and wrong ideas in their surfing sojourns becomes important. In this chapter, the effectiveness of a filtering tool, developed using Java, is explored using the preferred websites of high school students in Greece. The results show that despite the security features of the computer laboratories, objectionable content that were still able to bypass them were blocked significantly by the filtering tool.

Chapter XXX Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies ............................................................................. 471 Virginia E. Garland, The University of New Hampshire, USA A survey of recent developments in wireless technologies and their role in shifting instructional practice from traditional literacies to multimedia literacies is explored in this chapter. With mobile devices such as smart phones and (ultralight) wireless notebooks offering easy connectivity to the Internet and access to interactive software, the scope for engaging learners with multimedia is greatly enhanced. It is shown that ample opportunities are available to foster inquiry, collaboration and project work among students when multimedia is used.

Volume II Chapter XXXI Good Old PowerPoint and its Unrevealed Potential ........................................................................... 480 Pavel Samsonov, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA The use of PowerPoint as an interactive tool for teaching is explored in this chapter, in contradistinction with its traditional role as a presentation tool. It seems that the full potential of PowerPoint is rarely or only minimally exploited in traditional teaching. The chapter provides practical tips on how simple computer skills can be used to create interactive and fun projects using PowerPoint, and argues for a case for its more effective use in classrooms. Chapter XXXII Children’s Text Messaging and Traditional Literacy .......................................................................... 492 Beverly Plester, Coventry University, UK Clare Wood, Coventry University, UK Samantha Bowyer, Coventry University, UK The ubiquity of the mobile phone and the facility that it provides for texting presents opportunities to promote literacy among children. In this chapter, results of three investigations involving primary students’ text messaging in English as well as indicators of their conventional literacy abilities are presented. It has been suggested that texting affords an avenue for children to articulate their thoughts in writing without the necessity to be bound by the rules of grammar and that the versions of words used in such communication suggest an ability to use sounds and words in a playful manner, the basic principles of which still hold in standard English. Chapter XXXIII Concept Mapping as a Mediator of Constructivist Learning .............................................................. 505 Gregory MacKinnon, Acadia University, Canada This chapter focuses on the use of electronic concept mapping to organize ideas in a hierarchical manner. The software offer tremendous potentialities for creative configuring of concept maps and allows for their use in settings which promote collaboration, creativity and innovation among students. It has

been suggested that the range of applications for the use of electronic concept mapping in the K-12 classroom presents opportunities for the development of personal and social growth literacies when students negotiate meaning from ideas. Chapter XXXIV Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) Tools to Enhance Success in School for Secondary Students with Special Needs ........................................................................... 529 Katherine Mitchem, California University of Pennsylvania, USA Gail Fitzgerald, University of Missouri, USA Kevin Koury, California University of Pennsylvania, USA There has been very little attempt in the literature to cater to the ICT needs of students with special needs. In this context, this chapter focuses on the use of electronic performance support systems to augment learning among secondary school students with mild disabilities. Several recommendations based on the findings of two funded projects are provided for effective implementation of such systems in the school setting.

Section III Case Studies Case studies are an important aspect of educational research. They are used especially in situations where it is necessary to obtain greater insights and perspectives from a particular research initiative or when it is necessary to focus on small samples as the target for the study. The chapters in this section explore issues such as technology grants to jump start literacy programs, transformations occurring in the ICT practices of model schools, university-high school collaborations involving students, metacognitve strategies of a group of students when they use the Internet to source for material for essay writing, and so on. Chapter XXXV A Case Study of Contrasting Approaches to Integrating Technology into the K-5 Classroom .......... 551 Rebecca Brent, Education Designs, Inc., USA Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants, USA This chapter reports on a study of how two schools which received grants to support technology integration into their curricula fared. Both followed the same integration model but adopted different implementation pathways. The different outcomes achieved in each school offer useful lessons – more importantly, there needs to be buying-in of the idea from teachers as well as the provision of ample support to infuse technology into the full range of their teaching subjects. Chapter XXXVI Using a Technology Grant to Make Real Changes ............................................................................. 575 Lyn C. Howell, Milligan College, USA

In this chapter, the progress of a school which was a recipient of a technology grant to support ICT integration was traced over a few years. The results show that while the presence of a coach, training programs and incentives to use ICT tools in lessons helped teachers to warm towards these initiatives initially, there was significant waning of enthusiasm after the financing ended. Based on this experience, the author offers useful lessons for other schools and the pitfalls to avoid. Chapter XXXVII Emerging E-Pedagogy in Australian Primary Schools ....................................................................... 588 Jennifer Way, University of Sydney, Australia The chapter provides glimpses of the technology transformations in pedagogy that are occurring in some primary schools in Australia. A number of teachers in these schools have taken the lead in setting up learning environments that tap on the inclination of the younger generation to experiment with an array of digital technologies outside their school. This redefining of learning has positive implications in the way in which educational outcomes are assessed. Chapter XXXVIII Promoting New Media Literacy in a School District.......................................................................... 607 Amy S. C. Leh, California State University, San Bernardino, USA Lee Grafton, Palm Spring Unified School District, USA How a technology grant afforded the implementation of initiatives that supported student learning in mathematics and faculty professional development via new media literacy skills is the subject of this chapter. The technologies used were effectively integrated into the instructional process, and this promoted enhanced learning outcomes among students. With respect to the continuing education of faculty, the key determinant of success is the evolution of a community of practice. Chapter XXXIX K-20 Technology Partnerships in a Rural Community ....................................................................... 620 Linda R. Lisowski, Elizabeth City State University, USA Claudia C. Twiford, Elizabeth City State University, USA Joseph A. Lisowski, Elizabeth City State University, USA Quintin Q. Davis, Christa McAuliffe Middle School, USA Rebecca F. Kirtley, JC Sawyer Elementary School, USA A collaborative effort between a university and a rural public school, which resulted in a grant to support instructional access to technology, is the focus of this chapter. The partnership exemplifies the kind of change that can be introduced in schools when university researchers take the lead in addressing equity issues in technology in the education setting through support from foundations. Several lessons based on the experience of embedding technology resources in the school are shared by the authors. Chapter XL Computer-Mediated Discussions within a Virtual Learning Community of High School and University Students ...................................................................................................................... 633 Tamara L. Jetton, Central Michigan University, USA

The chapter discusses on a collaboration between university and high school students that entailed the formation of a virtual community. Leveraging on computer-mediated discussions on the subject of literature, the project focused on developing skill sets in technology among students while augmenting their conventional literacies in reading and writing. The collaboration, communication and learning tasks promoted in this manner provided a platform for learning to be taken beyond the confines of traditional physical infrastructure and reiterate the utility of computer mediated discussion as a viable tool to enhance educational experiences. Chapter XLI Skillful Internet Reader is Metacognitively Competent ..................................................................... 654 Carita Kiili, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Leena Laurinen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Miika Marttunen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland The chapter reports on a study where a group of upper secondary students were tasked to write a composition on a topic using materials sourced from the web. To gain insights into how the students approached their task, considerable emphasis was placed on not only how they searched, processed and evaluated the information but also on how their metacognitive strategies were interlaced within these processes. The results show that a student has to be metacognively competent in order to engage in constructively responsive reading. Chapter XLII Research Methodological Issues with Researching the Learner Voice............................................... 669 Gráinne Conole, The Open University, UK This chapter emphasizes the importance of focusing on the student voice with appropriate methodologies in an attempt to better understand how they appropriate ICT tools in their learning. Drawing on a case study which explored students’ use of technologies in four disciplines, the author suggests that students are now well entrenched in these learning environments and are able to use digital tools extensively to support their learning experience. These have implications on how courses are tailored and delivered to meet their learning needs.

Section IV Assessment With the proliferation of ICT practices in the educational space and their increasing integration into the curriculum, traditional rubrics of assessment are facing challenges to include online measures to some extent. In this section, issues related to assessment of new media literacy are explored by authors from the lens of their experience - for example, e-portfolios, interactive classroom communication systems, peer assessment using the Internet, automated essay scoring system, assessing course effectiveness in a learning community, and so on.

Chapter XLIII What We Know About Assessing Online Learning in Secondary Schools......................................... 684 Art W. Bangert, Montana State University, USA Kerry L. Rice, Boise State University, USA The authors review the practice literature of assessing online courses in the high school setting. One of the drawbacks of such assessment protocols is that they are rather broad-based and not fine-tuned for application in specific delivery contexts, thus making it difficult to evaluate the courses despite the existence of general standards but bereft of rigorous rubrics for evaluation. To address this, the authors propose an evaluation framework that focuses on the theoretical underpinnings of three areas: instructional practices that are student-centered, learning communities that promote inquiry, and empirical results emanating from research on online courses. Chapter XLIV Usage of Electronic Portfolios for Assessment.................................................................................... 702 Yasemin Gulbahar, Baskent University, Turkey Assessing learning is often a complex task - more so in today’s classroom where a diversity of delivery platforms, including ICT tools, pervade. The use of web-based electronic portfolios to assess students’ learning in a holistic way is proposed in this chapter. Issues such as alignment with curriculum framework, assessment in relation to a set of rubrics and challenges in its implementation are discussed. Chapter XLV A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classrooms............................................................................................................. 720 Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada The use of an interactive classroom communication system that allows students to respond to multiple choice questions during a lecture is explored in this chapter. Results show that it can be a useful tool for formative assessment and that the use of this tool promotes increased learner engagement, motivation and participation. On the flip side, some students reported heightened stress levels and uncertainty of answers when the system is used in the formal test mode. Chapter XLVI Internet-Based Peer Assessment in High School Settings................................................................... 743 Chin-Chung Tsai, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan The Internet provides a valuable platform to promote peer assessment – with no face-to-face interaction and the cloak of anonymity, the scope for provisioning frank feedback and promoting interaction among students is enhanced. Using a high school setting, the chapter presents results to show that effective online peer assessment is contingent significantly on the students’ metacognitive skills being brought to bear on the task in hand. Some practical tips for conducting online peer assessment are provided in light of these experiences.

Chapter XLVII Course Assessment in a Teacher’s Learning Community ................................................................... 755 Giorgos Hlapanis, University of the Aegean, Greece Angélique Dimitracopoulou, University of the Aegean, Greece This chapter describes an in-service course on the use of ICT in teaching, conducted via distance learning and implemented in the context of a learning community. Answers to questions such as what constitutes an effective course and what spawns the formation of a learning community are explored in order to derive measures of assessment. A key finding from this study is that the evolution of a learning community which is built on collegiality, commitment and trust is indispensable for the success of a course Chapter XLVIII Automated Essay Scoring Systems..................................................................................................... 777 Dougal Hutchison, National Foundation for Educational Research, UK This chapter explores the computer marking of essays, a task which teachers generally find rather laborintensive! A review of the literature in this area is provided, and this serves as a background to assess how effective the various commercial programs are in marking essays. Whether the automated essay scoring systems can be the final adjudicator of assigning grades for an essay is also considered. Chapter XLIX Metacognitive Feedback in Online Mathematical Discussion............................................................ 794 Bracha Kramarski, Bar-Ilan University, Israel The effectiveness of metacognitive support in an online inquiry discussion in mathematics is investigated in this chapter. It is shown that students who have been exposed to the 7-phase teaching steps corresponding to the IMPROVE strategy, which has metacognitive questioning as a key attribute, performed significantly better than those who have not been exposed to this strategy. The results of the study point to the utility of metacognitive feedback as a scaffolding tool to support inquiry learning in mathematics.

Section V Professional Development For ICT practices to be well linked with school practice, the continuing education of teachers is a must. It is only when they ‘buy in’ that the motivation to engage students with new media is given a fillip. In this context, the chapters in this section focus on the professional development of teachers with respect to new media literacy. Chapter L Moodling Professional Development Training that Worked .............................................................. 808 Leaunda S. Hemphill, Western Illinois University, USA Donna S. McCaw, Western Illinois University, USA

The authors report on a teacher professional development program which involved the use of online teaching strategies and tools. Using an open-source course management system, the participants created their basic course shell and worked around this to develop courses to address the varied learning needs of their pupils. Improved learning gains were seen in the achievement tests of students in the different subjects. Chapter LI TPACK Development in a Teacher Education Program ..................................................................... 823 Nancy Wentworth, Brigham Young University, USA Charles R. Graham, Brigham Young University, USA Eula Ewing Monroe, Brigham Young University, USA For technology to be well integrated into the school curriculum, it is very important that the pre-service training of teachers prepares them adequately for this challenge. In this chapter, the authors describe the three levels of development in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for the teacher education program at Brigham Young University. They advance the point of view that for a better connect between technology and instruction in schools, it is imperative that teacher educators also share in this vision at the pre-service stage. Chapter LII Self-Regulated Learning: Issues and Challenges for Initial Teacher Training ................................... 839 Manuela Delfino, Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy Donatella Persico, Institute for Educational Technology - Italian National Research Council, Italy With the pervasiveness of technology in the classroom and the need for students to take ownership of their own learning as well as be versed in collaborative skills, the inculcation of self regulated learning competencies among them becomes crucially imperative. The authors suggest that such competencies need to be developed among pre-service teachers so that they are well equipped to meet the learning needs of their charges when they are posted to schools. They draw on the experiences from a course in educational technology to further develop this thesis.

xxix

Preface

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are pervading society to an extent which many would not have even dreamt about as recently as a decade back. Practically, no aspect of societal endeavor has been left untouched by the relentless march of ICT. The ossified enclaves of many aspects of society have been rendered permeable by the osmotic gradients engendered by the forces of ICT! One area that ICT is continuing to impact vigorously is education. The paradigms of traditional pedagogy are being reframed to the extent that purists set in the classical mould would not even have believed. These developments pose challenges for teachers and students. Policy makers and administrators will also have to increasingly grapple with the ICT dimensions of initiatives in the educational space. The K-12 school setting has seen the influx of a diversity of ICT tools which aim to augment teaching and learning by capitalizing on the potentialities of ICT. For example, e-learning, multimedia, Web quests, electronic portfolios, automated scoring systems, video games, mobile devices, learning objects, 3-D virtual environments and Web 2.0 technologies are some of the ICT tools that have pervaded the educational scene. The K-12 setting has also been a laboratory for the trialing of new technologies for teaching and learning by educational researchers, and this has generated a wealth of findings. The Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and Challenges aims to explore the multi-faceted dimensions related to the use of ICT in teaching and learning in schools. By bringing together a wealth of educational studies on various aspects of ICT, we aim to address the need for practitioners to have a one-stop reference book for ideas on the latest thinking in the field. A novel feature of the Handbook is that all contributions were commissioned from recently published, journal authors working in the field of ICT. This ensures the contemporary nature of the ideas explored in the chapters as well as helps to ensure a desired level of scholarship in the chapters. It was made clear to all contributors that their submissions must also pass the additional test of peer scrutiny. A Call for Chapters was thus not posted in the web, as is normally done for a project of this undertaking. Almost all chapters benefitted from the reviews by other contributors. A few chapters required a second round of revisions. Despite the 2-tier mechanism (commissioning contributions from published authors and peer review) to ensure a high quality of submissions, a handful of chapters had to be rejected – either because the referees’ comments were not favorable or because the authors decided not to revise their chapters on the basis of the major revisions recommended by the referees. In all, there are 52 chapters contributed by 91 authors from 51 institutions in 15 countries for this Handbook – a truly multinational effort! An international collaboration is indispensable when undertaking an ambitious project of this nature as well as for the strategic positioning of the Handbook as a definitive source of reference in the field of new media literacy. For convenience, the 52 chapters have been broadly placed in one of five sections – Issues in new media literacy, ICT tools, Case studies, Assessment, and Professional development. This classification

xxx

allows interested readers to access materials in an area of interest. The classification is guided by our own reading of the chapters and it is possible that a chapter would also be suitable for placement in another section. There may be some duplication of content as judged from the titles of a few chapters – our stand is that different authors approach similar topics from the lens of their own experience and it is necessary to capture diverse perspectives as this can help to consolidate thinking in particular directions. The target audiences for the Handbook include school teachers, educational administrators, policy makers, educational researchers, ICT specialists, and university academics – copies in public and university libraries would help to enhance the outreach effectiveness of the ideas in the Handbook. Rarely has an opportunity been provided to bring together a wealth of ideas in new media literacy from an array of experts under one platform. A book of this magnitude will not have been possible without the support of many people. Our foremost gratitude goes to Dr Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, President of IGI Global, for his invitation for us to edit this Handbook. The staff at IGI Global have been a delight to work with. We appreciate the high level of professionalism and support displayed by their staff – grateful thanks to Kristin Roth, Rebecca Beistline, Julia Mosemann and Christine Bufton! We thank all authors for their chapters. A special ‘thank you’ also to most authors for acting as referees for the submissions of fellow authors! We thank the management of the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University for their support and encouragement in the course of working on this project in the midst of our academic commitments.

Leo Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore

Section I

Issues in New Media Literacy

1

Chapter I

Learning for the Future:

Emerging Technologies and Social Participation Guy Merchant Sheffield Hallam University, UK

AbstrAct Over the last five years there has been a large scale shift in popular engagement with new media. Virtual worlds and massive multiplayer online games attract increasing numbers, whilst social networking sites have become commonplace. The changing nature of online engagement privileges interaction over information. Web 2.0 applications promote new kinds of interactivity, giving prominence and prestige to new literacies (Lankshear and Knobel, 2006). To date, discussion of the opportunities, and indeed the risks presented by Web 2.0 has been largely confined to social and recreational worlds. The purpose of this chapter is to open up discussion about the relevance of Web 2.0 to educational practice. A central concern in what follows will be to show how the new ways of communicating and collaborating that constitute digital literacy might combine with new insights into learning in ways that transform how we conceive of education (Gee, 2004).

IntroductIon The term Web 2.0 was originally coined by O’Reilly (2005) as a way of referring to a significant shift in the ways in which software applications were developing and the ways in which users were adopting and adapting these applications. New applications were tending to

become easier for the non-expert to use and more interactive, thus widening the scope for participation in online communities - it was becoming possible for those with relatively unsophisticated technical skills to create and share content over the internet. The popularity of blogs as a medium for individuals and groups to publish and discuss their concerns, news, and interests (whether frivo-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Learning for the Future

lous or serious) is testimony to the popularity and everyday currency of the Web 2.0 phenomenon (Davies and Merchant, 2007; Carrington, 2008). And so, the increased availability of broadband, together with the development of more responsive and user-friendly software has led to a greater recognition of the internet as a place for social interaction, a place for collaboration, and a place for strengthening and building social networks. Web 2.0 commentators have drawn our attention to the ‘social’ and ‘participatory’ nature of contemporary life online (Lessig, 2004) whereas innovators and early-adopters are just beginning to glimpse the educational possibilities of these new development. Not only do educators need to understand and capitalize on these new ways of being and interacting, they also need to investigate the educational potential of social networking. In order to do this, there is a pressing need to conceptualize the difference between casual and frivolous online interaction and those kinds of communication that have the characteristics of ‘learning conversations’. Whilst there has been considerable development in our knowledge about the characteristics of learning conversations in face-to-face interaction in classrooms (Mercer, 2005; Alexander, 2007) there is little equivalent work in the field of online social networking. Can these new spaces for shared communication provide an arena for the more systematic and structured interactions that are associated with formal education? This chapter addresses this question by both drawing both on the literature and my own research and writing, highlighting how new kinds of software not only involve new literacies but also changing roles for teachers and learners. Most of the material is drawn from classroom studies with children in the 7-11 age range and includes email partnerships, literacy work in virtual worlds, educational blogging and wiki building.

2

technology And lIterAcy Children and young people are growing up in a rapidly changing social world - a social world that is marked by the spread of new digital technologies. The impact of these technologies on the toy and game industry, on mass entertainment and communication, and on the ways in which many of us live and work has been little short of transformative. In schools, despite a substantial investment in computer hardware and software, there is still unevenness of provision and access, and considerable professional uncertainty about how to integrate new technologies into the curriculum and how to develop appropriate pedagogies. Nowhere is this uncertainty more keenly felt than in the area of literacy. Literacy educators, it has been suggested, need to assess the significance of new communication technologies and the ways of producing, distributing and responding to messages that typify them (Lankshear and Knobel, 2003). This involves looking at new genres, emerging conventions of communication and the changes in language associated with them. In doing this, literacy educators will inevitably have to negotiate the tension between notions of correctness and the realities of linguistic change, as well as a whole host of other issues that emerge with the growth of peer-to-peer communication and digitally-mediated social networks. It is against a backdrop of rapid social change and professional uncertainty that the work on digital literacy and new communications technology described in this chapter is placed. The work focuses primarily on digital writing, but partly because of the multimodal nature of this communication, there is an inevitable overlap with the wider area of new media studies. New trends in digital culture, collectively referred to as Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005), have begun to emerge over the last few years. These have ushered in new kinds of social participation through user-generated content, exchange and playful interaction. Of particular note here

Learning for the Future

are individual and group blogs; sites which are designed for collaborative authorship (such as wikis); sites for generating and exchanging media such as music, still and moving image; and 3D virtual worlds. These networking sites provide a context for affinity, and facilitate the development of ad hoc purpose- or interest-driven groups in which self-directed, informal learning can take place. They not only offer us alternative models for envisioning learning communities but also the opportunity, where appropriate, to modify existing practices to fulfill more explicitly educational goals. Popular networking sites allow geographically dispersed groups and individuals to communicate, exchange information and develop ideas. They also serve to thicken existing social ties by opening new channels of communication for those who are already known to each other, such as family and friends. Furthermore they are places for rehearsing ideas, making new connections, and new meanings. As such, the practices of tagging and the creation of folksonomies are a powerful iteration of the new literacy practices involved (Marlow et al, 2006). For an increasing number of young people, social networking provides ways of communicating with friends and ways of making new friends. This sort of interaction lies at the very heart of online social-networking. As we know, computer systems can store and retrieve huge amounts of data in different media. Harnessing this capacity to enhance communication and collaboration is the life-blood of online social networking. At the same time it is important to recognize that social networking is almost exclusively mediated through written communication and as such constitutes a prime site for future research into digital literacy. Similar observations could be made about the communicative spaces provided by virtual world technology. 3-D virtual worlds can provide life-like settings for multiple users to interact in real-time. Users are embodied as human (or nonhuman) avatars in order to explore a virtual envi-

ronment and interact with each other. Again interaction and collaboration are normally achieved through digital writing – and this often resembles the synchronous conversations of chatrooms (Merchant, 2001) and instant messaging. The most popular of these virtual worlds, Second Life, is already being used for educational purposes, but more established providers, such as Active Worlds have designed purpose-built educational worlds (see: http//:www.virtuallylearning.co.uk) as we see later. Web 2.0 developments raise new questions about digital literacy. For instance: what should we teach children about kinds of online communication that are helpful to relationships and helpful to learning; how can teachers support and encourage peer-to-peer interaction without stifling it, and above all how can we help pupils to become critical readers and writers in online environments? My own research (Merchant, 2001; 2003; 2008) has begun to explore the characteristics of digital literacy and has helped in making sense of new forms of synchronous and asynchronous communication, the changing nature of literacy, and the skills, understandings and attitudes that we will need to encourage in our schools. I suggest that a clearer sense of what is involved in digital literacy will result in teachers and pupils being better prepared for digital futures (Merchant, 2007). Gaps between real-world uses of technology and new technology in the classroom continue to be a cause for concern. At the centre of this concern is the sense that a whole range of cultural resources fail to be translated into cultural capital by the school system. What is needed now is innovative work in digital literacy and particularly in educational settings to investigate the implications of new forms of social networking, knowledge sharing and knowledge building. And finally, because of the pervasive nature of digital technology, the commercial interest that is invested in it and the largely unregulated content of internet-based sources we also need to begin to sketch out what

3

Learning for the Future

a critical digital literacy might look like. There is, in short, plenty to be done if we are to prepare children and young people to play an active and critical part in the digital future.

gettIng stArted: dIgItAl lIterAcy As connected leArnIng Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) provide new opportunities for children and young people in educational environments, and learners can now be connected with the world outside the classroom in interesting and productive ways. Even everyday applications such as email can be used to enhance learning and interaction, providing a significantly different kind of experience to traditional literacies. Listserv applications, which automatically update multiple email addresses, have proved to be a very successful tool for mobilizing individuals around a shared interest and in developing a sense of community. Although widely used in academic and professional circles and to a lesser extent with college students, they have made little impact on the education of younger learners. My own fieldwork in UK classrooms suggests that introducing even the simplest of email practices into the curriculum raises practical and structural challenges that are not always easy to resolve. There is a growing body of work in the field of young children’s uses of email communication in classroom contexts and this has raised a number of important issues. For example in a recent study, Harris and Kington (2004) report on a project which put ten year-olds in email contact with employees at a mobile phone factory some 30 miles away from the school. Those employees (or ‘Epals’) learnt about children’s interests and in turn offered insights into the world of work. Teachers involved in the project commented on how they found out more about their pupils’ lives and interests when reading the messages they

4

exchanged. A more formal evaluation showed gains in pupil motivation and social skills. McKeon’s (1999) study of 23 children’s email interactions with pre-service teachers looked at the balance between purely social exchanges and topic-focused exchanges (in this case book-talk). Roughly half of the exchanges of these nine and ten year olds fell into each category, leading McKeon to conclude that: classroom e-mail partnerships may provide students with a new way to learn about themselves as they select information that defines who they are and send it via e-mail to another. (Mckeon, 1999) From this it seems that digital literacy can provide useful opportunities for exploring identity and relationships whilst also providing a discursive form which depends on purposeful communication with audiences beyond the confines of the classroom. However, other commentators have expressed concerns about the use of e-communication in educational settings, suggesting that a medium that clearly works well for informal social interaction may not necessarily be an effective tool for learning. For example, (Leu,1996) suggests that digital literacy needs to do more than appeal to youngsters just because it is ‘cool’. In a close analysis of the frequency and content of email exchanges between 301 eleven year olds, van der Meij and Boersma (2002) draw attention to the inherently social nature of this communication. However, their work appears to be predicated on professional concerns that frivolous social interaction could undermine learning exchanges rather than blend with them. Nevertheless, this work emphasizes the importance of using email as a communicative tool rather than as an explicit focus in its own right (as is sometimes the case in skills-based ICT instruction). The researchers draw attention to the need for more work in this area, observing in passing that ‘email is not yet the integrated communication tool that it is in

Learning for the Future

business settings’ (van der Meij and Boersma, 2002). In short, the ubiquity of interactive written discourse in work and leisure – and even in some educational settings - finds few parallels in most primary classrooms. There is less work on the processes of digital writing. Matthewman and Trigg’s (2003) report on children’s use of visual features in onscreen writing. Their study suggests that visual elements (such as font size and colour, layout and use of image) may be significant at all stages of composition. Similar findings are reported by Merchant (2004) whose analysis of children’s onscreen work focuses on the production of multimodal texts. This on-going attention to the visual appearance of text at all stages in its production contrasts with traditional models of writing which associate presentational features with the production of a final draft. These studies show some of the characteristics of children’s digital writing and their use of e-communication and suggest some important lines of enquiry. A transformative approach would need to be both sensitive to these, as well as the literacy capital of the pupils themselves (Bearne, 2003). Importantly, previous analyses of children’s onscreen writing have provided evidence of children’s expertise, willingness to learn from each other and to solve problems through creative and playful interaction (Merchant, 2003; Burnett et al, 2004). My own study of how teachers of 8-10 year olds set out to provide opportunities for pupils to explore digital literacy in ways which were meaningful to them involved setting up email links between children in geographically dispersed schools (Burnett et al, 2006). The project involved pupils from two very different primary schools emailing each other as a preparation for producing a joint PowerPoint presentation on children’s views and interests to a group of trainee teachers. Although the focus was on pupils’ use of digital literacy, there was a strong feeling from the class teachers involved that the social benefits - in terms of breaking down stereotypes and widen-

ing horizons - were positive by-products of the project. In order to facilitate an initial exploration of views and interests, pupils in both classes were provided with a shoebox to collect artifacts that were of significance to them (an idea first developed by Johnson, 2003). These children then used email to get to know their partners, attaching digital photographs of items from their shoebox as a starting point for their interaction. This use of image acted as a prompt for the receiver who responded by asking questions to find out more about the items and their significance. This project illustrates one way of embedding the use of new communication in the primary classroom. It also suggested that email partnerships can be worthwhile and provide experience of an important medium of asynchronous communication. Furthermore, such partnerships can help to ‘dissolve the walls of the classroom’, and provide new purposes and audiences for children’s writing. School and student partnerships provide opportunities for early exploration of two key characteristic of new media – interactivity, multimodality. But beyond this, the sort of work described here underlines the need to re-interpret the writing process in relation to the production of digital texts – and even more importantly, it suggests ways in which teachers may need to design and choreograph learning experiences that encourage meaningful and educational interaction between peers in different locations.

MovIng on: Web 2.0, pArtIcIpAtIon And leArnIng As the earlier discussion of email and listserv applications suggested, the use of ICTs to promote learning through participation pre-dates Web 2.0. In fact, a number of commentators have observed that the term Web 2.0 is best seen as a way of describing a gradual change or evolution in online communication (for example: Elgan, 2006) Although not normally described as Web

5

Learning for the Future

2.0, listservs and discussion forums do display the characteristic of added value through participation - as user-generated content aggregates information and develops ideas. The development of learning platforms (Virtual Learning Environments and Course Management Systems) shows how emerging technologies have been assimilated into online and blended learning. So, for example, many learning platforms now allow administrators to embed discussion boards, to create student blogs and wikis and to enable RSS feeds. Web 2.0 applications allow users to create and share multimedia content over the internet with a relatively light demand on their technical knowledge. From the point of view of the end-user a commonly used phrase ‘the read-write web’ is useful in capturing the shift that O’Reilly (2005) describes as Web 2.0. The phrase suggests a change of emphasis - one in which web-based activity is no longer simply about storing and accessing information but more about interaction, providing a place in which individuals ‘converse’, react to each others’ ideas and information, and thereby add to the stock of knowledge. User-generated content can vary enormously in topic and can exploit the affordances of different media from written text, to still image, moving image, and sound - and any combination of these. At the same time, user-interaction can be encouraged through applications that allow for such things as profile pages, messaging facilities, group formation, and category tagging. More sophisticated sites also allow you to see which of your friends are online, provide information on the latest changes to your favourite sites (through RSS feeds) and give users the choice of modifying or personalising their home pages, changing their look and the features included. From this brief overview it should be clear that Web 2.0 pre-supposes a more active user – one who is encouraged to design an online presence (an identity, or a set of identities) and to participate, to a greater or lesser extent, in a community of like-minded users. Whether or not the social

6

networks produced can be described as ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger,1999) and how we can best describe the informal learning that takes place in Web 2.0 environments is the subject of much current research activity. The blog format offers a range of interactive and collaborative possibilities for individuals and teams. Some of these possibilities derive from features that are part of the architecture of blogs. During the last five years, a period in which the blogosphere has undergone a rapid expansion, diversification and innovation have been of central importance. So, for example, Lankshear and Knobel (2006) offer a provisional taxonomy of blogs identifying 15 different kinds of blogs, at the same time as recognising that blogs are an unstable form, as they continue to mutate and hybridise. There is clearly no standard way to blog. Arguably, the single defining feature of a blog is that of date-ordering (Walker, 2003). Although periodic updating is also a feature, some established bloggers post daily whilst others are less frequent. The sequential, chronological characteristics of the blog format suggest how it can be useful in capturing such things as the development of a narrative, the design and implementation of a project, the progress of research, emerging processes, the aggregation of links or references, and observations or reflections which develop over time (Davies and Merchant, forthcoming). Blogs, as multimodal texts, also allow us to represent these activities in written, still and moving image or audio format – and of course some of the most interesting blogs are a judicious combination of these modes. Educational blogging can capture learning as it unfolds over time and this has obvious benefits for both learners and teachers. In this most basic sense a blog can provide an analytical record of learning, or an online learning journal (Boud, 2001). Writing in 2003, Efimova and Fielder noted that alongside the ‘diary-like format’ blogs kept for family and friends there was a:

Learning for the Future

…growing cluster of weblogs used by professionals as personal knowledge repositories, learning journals or neworking instruments. (Efimova and Fielder, 2004:1) They go on to suggest that these newer blogs not only serve the needs and interests of those writing them but also display emerging ideas in a public space. This suggests the development of more open learning journals which can be interlinked and commented upon within an emerging community of learners. As Richardson (2006) points out, blogging can also involve users in an important and distinctive kind of learning; one that he characterises as: read- write- think -and -link. Richardson suggests that a blogger develops a kind of practice that he describes as ‘connective writing’ in which active reading, and involvement through comments and hyperlinks work alongside regular posting in the co-construction of meaning through social participation. This view accentuates the significance of a community of bloggers, either in the form of a cluster of related blogs or a team blog. From this point of view we can see blogging as a way of supporting a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) or an affinity space (Gee, 2004a). The growing number of educational blogs provide a variety of examples of how the perceived affordances of blogging can be used to support learning. For example, in my own work I describe how a teacher of 10 year olds used team blogs in the context of work on pollution in the environment (Davies and Merchant, forthcoming). The teams’ initial posts were used to document their existing opinions on the topic. As the project developed, search results and hyperlinks provided a record of their learning and evaluation of web-based sources. Later, on a field visit, the students took digital photographs of environmental hazards such as fly-tipping, invasive non-native flora, and industrial effluent, and uploaded them to their blogs. Towards the end of the unit of work, students used their blogs to reflect on what they had learnt and share it with

the wider school community. Where this project was based on the work of students in one particular school setting, providing a record of their learning over time, other projects have harnessed the potential of Web 2.0 to work collaboratively across settings. Using wiki software, which allows multiple users to co-create interlinked pages, students in geographically dispersed locations can learn about each other and collaborate on shared interests. An example of such work is the partnership between the Helen Parkhurst School in Almere, in the Netherlands and the Gostivar Secondary School, in Macedonia (the MacNed Project). This project is developing intercultural understanding through the use of ICT as students share and analyse their own production and consumption of media. The MacNed Project illustrates how the new ways of communicating and collaborating that characterize Web 2.0 can be used to develop learning. Whilst it could be argued that the same kinds of understanding could be developed through more traditional approaches, the possibility of co-constructing text in different geographical locations, exchanging and commenting on work in different media creates a heightened sense of interactivity and a more overtly participatory space for learners. The work also begins to point to a changing role for educators who, in this case, needed to co-ordinate the work and provide the context for interaction – in short, to design a new kind of learning experience and to encourage participation and peer-to-peer dialogue.

FroM reAl clAssrooMs to vIrtuAl Worlds Similar issues of learning design are beginning to emerge from educational work that is based in virtual worlds, and in this section I explore and illustrate some of these issues. Schroeder (2002) describes a 3D virtual world as:

7

Learning for the Future

..a computer-generated display that allows or compels the user (or users) to have the feeling of being present in an environment other than one they are actually in… (Schroeder, 2002) 3D virtual worlds could well enhance or transform learning, but although recreational virtual world play continues to attract public attention, empirical research that investigates their learning potential in classrooms is still in its infancy. Although there are a number of claims about the high levels of learner engagement in gameplay (Squire, 2002) and the construction of ‘powerful learning environments’ in virtual worlds (Dede, Clarke, Ketelhut, Nelson and Bowman, 2006) there is clearly scope for more empirical evidence to back these claims. Despite the fact that some researchers have claimed that immersive environments may lead to a loss of focus and distraction (Lim, Nonis and Hedberg, 2006), there is, as yet, insufficient evidence to reach firm conclusions. Early studies such as those of Ingram, Hathorn and Evans (2000) focused on the complexity of virtual world chat. Fors and Jakobsson (2002) investigated the distinction between ‘being’ in a virtual world as opposed to ‘using’ a virtual world, but little rigorous attention has been given to their learning potential. The work of the Vertex Project (Bailey and Moar, 2001), which involved primary school children in the UK, makes some interesting observations on avatar gameplay, but placed its emphasis on the ICT learning involved in building 3D worlds rather than the learning and interaction which might take place within them. An educational virtual world project, initiated by a UK local authority in Barnsley, aims to raise boys’ attainment in literacy by an adventurous and innovative use of new technology that foregrounds digital literacy (Merchant, 2008). In partnership with the company Virtually Learning (http:// www.virtuallylearning.com.uk), the project team – a group of education consultants and teachers - designed a literacy-rich 3D virtual world which children explore in avatar-based gameplay

8

(Dovey and Kennedy, 2006). The children, in the 9-11 age range, work collaboratively to construct their own narratives around multiple, ambiguous clues located in the world and, as a result, engage in both on- and off-line literacy activities. The virtual world, called Barnsborough, is a three dimensional server-based environment which is explored from multiple but unique perspectives through local Active Worlds browsers. Navigational and communicational tools are built into the Active Worlds browser, enabling avatars controlled by the pupils to move around in virtual spaces such as streets, buildings and parks, to engage in synchronous written conversations, and in this particular example, to discover clues in order to build their own narratives. Pupils in 10 different project schools have been using this 3D virtual world, interacting with each other using the Active Worlds’ real time chat facility. The world itself consists of a number of interconnected zones which are lifelike and familiar - in fact they are often modelled on real world objects. The zones include a town, complete with streets, alleyways, cafes, shops and administrative buildings some of which can be entered. There is also a park with a play area, bandstand, boating lake, mansion, woodland and hidden caves; a residential area with Victorian and contemporary housing, a petrol station and various local amenities and an industrial zone with old factories, canals and so on. In some of the connecting zones pupils may encounter other sites such as a large cemetery, a medieval castle and a stone circle. Rich media, tool-tip clues, hyperlinked and downloadable texts provide clues about the previous inhabitants of Barnsborough, suggesting a number of reasons why they have rather hurriedly abandoned the area. Some possible story lines include a major bio-hazard, alien abduction, a political or big business disaster or suggest something more mysterious. The planning team has seeded these clues throughout the Barnsborough environment, drawing on popular narratives such as Dr Who, Lost, Quatermass, the Third Man and Big Brother.

Learning for the Future

In this example, a 3D virtual world provides a stimulating environment for online exploration and interaction. Barnsborough is designed as a literacy-rich environment. To enter Barnsborough is to become immersed in a textual universe and to participate in what Steinkuehler (2007) has described as a ‘constellation of literacy practices’. The following is a list of the main kinds of digital literacy encountered in the virtual world. These are not directly used for literacy instruction, with the exception of the hyperlinked texts, which are quite deliberately tied to national literacy objectives.

environmental signs and notices This material forms part of the texture of the 3D virtual world and is designed to create a realworld feel to the visual environment and also to provide children with clues. Examples of this include graffiti, logos, signs and notices, posters, and advertisements.

tool tips These give additional explanations or commentaries on in-world artefacts and are revealed when ‘moused over’ with the cursor. Tool tip messages that draw attention to environmental features (‘looks like someone’s been here’); hold navigational information (‘you’ll need a code to get in’); or provide detail (‘cake from Trinity’s’) are shown in text-boxes.

hyperlinked texts Mouse-clicking on active links reveals a more extended text. Examples include an oil-drilling proposal (a Word document); a child’s diary (a Flash document); and a web-page on aliens. Some of these links are multimedia (such as phone messages and music clips) whereas others provide examples of different text types, such as text messages and online chats.

Interactive chat This is the principle means of avatar interaction and involves synchronous chat between visitors to the world. Comments are displayed in speech bubbles above the avatars heads as well as in scrolling playscript format in the chat window beneath the 3D display. The Barnsborough virtual world experience foregrounds some important dilemmas relating to engagement with digital literacy in the classroom. The most significant of these dilemmas stem from the fact that it introduces pupils and teachers to new ways of interacting with one another. So, for instance, in-world pupil-pupil interaction is not only conducted in the emerging informal genre of interactive written discourse (chat), but it also disrupts ideas of conventional spelling, turn-taking and on-task collaboration. New relationships between teachers, pupils from different schools and other adults have been significant in this work. Issues about authority and what kinds of behaviour are appropriate in a virtual environment were quick to surface, and this in turn has raised new issues for teachers who are understandably concerned about the safety of their pupils as well as how they might monitor children’s online experiences and interactions. Onscreen digital practices can therefore give rise to uncertainty, particularly where these practices do not easily fit into established classroom routines. Squire, in an article on the educational value of video-gaming, suggests that: …the educational value of the game-playing comes not from the game itself, but from the creative coupling of educational media with effective pedagogy to engage students in meaningful practices. (Squire, 2002) This observation could apply equally to 3D virtual worlds as well as the other communicative spaces described in this chapter. In and of themselves, these technologies cannot create new

9

Learning for the Future

forms of learning, but as educators become more familiar with their affordances, and the ways in which they are being used in recreational and work contexts, they can begin to experiment with educational uses, to design specific environments, and to envision new pedagogies.

•

conclusIon

•

In this chapter I have explored the ways in which the digital literacies that are central to new kinds of social practice can be incorporated into classroom settings. I have also shown how literacy continues to play a central role in social participation and knowledge-building – particularly in Web 2.0 environments - and how digital connection allows this to happen in ever more fluid and distributed ways. The question of whether the new communicative spaces described can provide an arena for the more systematic and structured interactions that are associated with formal education is not an easy one to answer. After all, classrooms are quite distinctive social contexts in which patterns of interaction and the availability of communicative tools are often restricted or carefully controlled (Kerawalla and Crook, 2002), and so, adopting and adapting digital literacies easily disrupts traditional classroom practices in ways that are unsettling to teachers. Indeed, as Carrington (2008) suggests alternative learning designs and pedagogies are required, and these may only be achieved through more far-reaching school reform. There are also some important concerns about pupil safety that need to be addressed. Protecting school students from bullying, verbal abuse and inappropriate online behaviour cannot be passed over lightly. The tensions between adult supervision and surveillance, and trust and pupil autonomy become crucially important. Teachers and researchers involved in such work must ask themselves some key questions:

10

•

•

•

How easy is it to leave the comfort zone of conventional, classroom-based pupil-teacher relationships and experiment with new and fluid online interactions? Teachers will have to take risks in using this sort of technology and both teachers and researchers need to document the new ways of working that emerge. What are the implications of working in an environment in which some pupils are more experienced or confident than the teacher? As in many other applications of new technology, children tend to be more experienced and more adaptable than their teachers. Although this is not always the case, teachers do need to be prepared to learn from pupils and to value their experimentation. How can this sort of work be justified and defended in an educational environment which regularly lurches back to a pre-occupation with ‘the basics’ and traditional print literacy skills? New and important digital literacies can be introduced through Web 2.0 work. Experience of these is likely to have a positive impact on learning in general, and on literacy in whatever form. Again more evidence is needed to support this case. How can the level of immersion and flexible online access required by such work be operationalised within the constraints of current resource and timetable structures? As others have observed (eg Holloway and Valentine, 2002) schools need to re-think the location, access and use of computer hardware. In common with other digital literacy practices, Web 2.0 work invites a more flexible approach to curriculum organisation and online access. What additional planning and co-ordination work is necessary to make the most of online work, to facilitate exchange between year groups and interactions between schools? One of the most important features of digital literacy is its potential to connect learners

Learning for the Future

•

with others outside the immediate school environment. This will involve careful coordination and planning between teachers in different locations. What real or perceived risks may be faced by engaging in Web 2.0 practices (eg: child protection; parental censure etc)? New projects need to pay careful attention to issues of online safety. Parents need to be kept informed, and teachers need a carefully rehearsed educational rationale for the work they undertake.

New literacy practices in the classroom contrast starkly with the educational routines of book-based literacy, as well as with the dominant ICT pedagogies. The former privilege print-based routines which, whilst still significant, are insufficient preparation for an increasingly digital future, whereas the latter reify centralised control through teacher-led use of whiteboards, instructional software, and highly structured learning platforms (VLEs and CMSs). Collaborative, peerto-peer interactions, including communication with those not physically present in the classroom, suggest a very different set of resources and educational concerns. In short, everyday uses of new technology, and particularly recent Web 2.0 developments, raise new questions about digital literacy and its role in education. Teachers concerns are for a safe and orderly space where controls, both subtle and gross are evoked to maintain a harmonious learning environment. Moreover, the classroom world is a world in which these relationships have traditionally been mediated by a set of schooled print literacy practices and instructional routines, powerfully structured by curriculum discourse. Disturbing this fragile ecology is a risky business – but experience shows that the use of emerging technologies can often destabilize. Consequently, strong support and sensitive professional development are required if we are to move beyond some of the curriculum constructs and pedagogical

conventions that narrow our vision of learning through digital literacy. Teachers need not be the docile operatives of an outdated, centralised curriculum – as some of the work described in this chapter suggests - they can also be innovative in responding to the potential of powerful new technologies.

reFerences Alexander, R.J. (2006) Towards Dialogic Thinking: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). York, UK: Dialogos. Bailey, F. & Moar, M. (2001) The Vertex Project: children creating and populating 3D virtual worlds. Jade 20(1). NSEAD. Bearne, E. (2003) Rethinking Literacy: communication, representation and text. Reading Literacy and Language, 37(3) 98-103. Burnett, C., Dickinson, P., Merchant, G. & Myers, J. (2004) Digikids. The Primary English Magazine, 9(4), 16-20. Burnett, C., Dickinson, P., Merchant, G., & Myers, J. (2006) Digital connections: transforming literacy in the primary school. Cambridge Journal in Education, 36(1), 11-29. Carrington, V. (2008) I’m Dylan and I’m not going to say my last name: some thoughts on childhood, text and new technologies. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 1-16. Davies, J. & Merchant, G. (in press) Web 2.0 for Schools: social participation and learning. New York: Peter Lang. Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2007) Looking from the inside out – academic blogging as new literacy. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), The New Literacies Sampler (pp. 38 -46). New York: Peter Lang.

11

Learning for the Future

Dede, C., Clarke, J., Ketelhut, D., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2006) Fostering Motivation, Learning and Transfer in Multi-User Virtual Environments. Paper given at the 2006 AERA conference, San Franscisco, CA. Dickey, M.D. (2005) Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439-451. Dovey, J. & Kennedy, H. W. (2006) Game Cultures: Computer Games as New Media. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Elgan, M. (2006, September 14). Here’s the skinny on Web 2.0. Information Week.Accessed 10th August, 2008 from: http://www.informationweek. com/news/software/open_source/showArticle. jhtml?articleID=193000630 Fors, A. C., & Jakobson, M. (2002) Beyond use and design: the dialectics of being in a virtual world. Digital Creativity, 13(1), 39-52. Gee, J. P. (2004) What Videogames Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Harris, S. & Kington, S. (2002) Innovative Classroom Practices Using ICT in England. National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough, UK. Accessed 27th February, 2005 at: http://nfer. ac.uk/research/down_pub.asp Ingram, A. L., Hathorn, L. G., & Evans, A. (2000) ‘Beyond chat on the internet.’ Computers and Education, 35, 21-35. Kerewalla, L. & Crook, C. (2002) ‘Children’s Computer Use at Home and at School: context and continuity.’ British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 751-771. Lankshear,C. & Knobel,M. (2003) New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

12

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007) New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Lessig, L. (2004) Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin. Leu, D. J., Jr (1996) ‘Sarah’s secret: Social aspects of literacy and learning in a digital information age.’ The Reading Teacher, 50, 162-165. Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006) Gaming in a 3D multiuser environment: engaging students in Science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211-231. Marlow, C., Naarman, M., boyd, d., & Davis, M. (2006) HT06, Tagging Paper, Taxonomy, Flickr, Academic Article, ToRead. Accessed 11th August, 2008 at: www.danah.org/papers/ Hypertext2006.pdf McKeon, C.A. (1999). The nature of children’s e-mail in one classroom. The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 698-706. Matthewman, S., & Triggs, (2004). Obsessive compulsory font disorder: the challenge of supporting writing with computers. Computers and Education, 43(1-2) 125-135. Meij, H. van der, & Boersma, K. (2002). E-mail use in elementary school: an analysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 189-200. Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge. Merchant, G. (2001) Teenagers in cyberspace: language use and language change in internet chatrooms. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(3), 293- 306. Merchant, G. (2003) E-mail me your Thoughts: digital communication and narrative writing.

Learning for the Future

Reading, Literacy and Language, 37(3) 104110. Merchant, G. (2007) Writing the future. Literacy, 41(3) 1-19. Merchant, G. (2008) Virtual Worlds in Real Life Classrooms. In V. Carrington & M. Robinson (Eds), Contentious Literacies: Digital Literacies, Social Learning and Classroom Practices (pp. 93-108). London: Sage. O’Reilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Accessed 10 April, 2007 at: http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/03/ what-is-web-2.0.html Schroeder, R. (2002) Social Interaction in Virtual Environments: Key Issues, Common Themes, and a Framework for Research. In R. Schroeder (Ed.) The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments, (pp.1-19). London: Springer. Steinkuehler, C. (2007) ‘Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming as a Constellation of Literacy Practices.’ E-learning, 4(3), 297-318). Squire, K. (2002) Cultural Framing of Computer/ Video Games. Game Studies. Accessed 12th May, 2007 at http://gamestudies.org/0102/squire/ Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Key terMs And deFInItIons

symbolic representation that is mediated by new technology (Merchant, 2007). Whilst recognizing that many online texts are multimodal, digital literacy places the focus on the semiotic of written communication. Folksonomy: Related to the term ‘taxonomy’, this describes the way in which participants in a Web 2.0 space have assigned tags or labels to content. These tags identify the prevalent themes, topics or areas of interest for individuals in that particular environment. Aggregating these tags creates a folksonomy. Visitors to the site can then search ‘by tag’ and see all the objects labelled by that specific tag. Interactive written discourse: This is a term used to describe computer-mediated communication (CMC) that is based on two or more people ‘taking turns’. These conversational exchanges range from email replies, to forum exchanges and synchronous chat. Learning platform: A catch-all term for online learning environments designed for the education market. These are usually closed or controlled intranet systems. Alternative designations are Learning Management Systems or Virtual Learning Environments. Some Learning Platforms also include student-tracking and assessment data – sometimes these integrated systems are called Managed Learning Environments. Multimodality: This term is used to describe the different modes of human communication (visual, verbal, gestural etc). In many web-based texts, meaning is communicated through a subtle interplay between different expressive modes.

Digital Literacy: This term has been defined in different ways. I use it to describe written or

13

14

Chapter II

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays Kevin M. Ayres The University of Georgia, USA John Langone The University of Georgia, USA Karen H. Douglas The University of Georgia, USA

AbstrAct As with technology, literacy is evolving. No longer is word decoding a sufficient skill for independently navigating a text rich environment. For individuals with severe developmental delays accessing literacy has always been a distant, seemingly unachievable goal. As technology has transformed what it means to be literate, it also has transformed how individuals can interact with text. Through technologymediated interactions with electronic text, individuals with developmental disabilities are beginning to have greater access to the world around them. While technology is no panacea for the learning difficulties these individuals exhibit, it potentially can alter how these individuals gain meaning from text. The purpose of this chapter is to explore this evolving definition of literacy in terms of technology, paired with universal design, which might allow teachers to provide students with severe developmental delays greater access and interaction with text.

IntroductIon Traditional concepts of text-based literacy are narrow, exclusive, and dated (Katims, 2000). The

idea that for a person to be “literate,” translates into gaining meaning by decoding text and mastering advanced language skills, quite possibly marginalizes a population of individuals whom

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

have very little likelihood of mastering these skills (i.e., phonemic awareness, working memory, long term memory). Arguably up to a few years ago, the only way for individuals with significant developmental disabilities to interact with text was to have someone read to them. Similarly, because of their significant learning differences, these individuals would not be able to interact with text in a functional way (Katims, 1996; Fish, Rabidoux, Ober, & Graff, 2006; Copeland & Keefe, 2007). For example, an individual with a severe cognitive deficit or developmental disability (DD) could not reasonably be expected to read and follow a recipe to make a meal. It would also be unreasonable to expect them to independently decode the words, interpret the language concepts, and comprehend to any great extent a news story in the daily paper. As we merge text with technology, new frontiers are opening to students who have severe DD that may allow them to extract greater understanding from an environment saturated with text. Electronic text, in the form of web pages, textbooks, and leisure reading material, offer a malleable medium that can tap into other information sources and provide literacy supports for non-readers (Brochner, Outhred, & Pieterse, 2001; Koppenhaver, Coleman, Kalman, & Yoder, 1991). Generally, to educators and the lay public the ability to read translates into a description of the mechanics of phonetic analysis and comprehension (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001; Ehri, Nunes, Willow, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001). Certainly, much of the emphasis of education law in the United States involves analyzing and comparing standardized test scores using measurements of reading ability (Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005). Others can argue whether or not this approach or narrow description of reading success is warranted for the general education population. However, it should be evident that for individuals with moderate to severe DD, standardized measures of reading will not provide us with an accurate picture of literacy gains or use. Our

contention in the sections that follow will be to view literacy in terms of the end result such as understanding concepts or information presented through electronic text (e-text), how individuals interact with text (e.g., manipulation and use of technology that presents e-text and supports), as well as if and how they use the information gained from this interaction (e.g., following an e-text recipe). Specifically, we intend to link literacy with the researched based practices for curriculum development and implementation that have been the foundation for high quality programs for these individuals since the 1970’s. We will also advocate for defining literacy based on the inclusive environments where many parents and professionals attempt to structure environments that allow individuals with moderate to severe disabilities to meaningfully interact with peers from the general population. For example, an adult with DD interacting with electronic text delivered on a mobile internet device at a Laundromat (as opposed to reading a magazine) is as natural a definition of literacy as is a friend without disabilities reading a leisure book while waiting for her/his laundry. In this scenario, the fact that both individuals are engaging in similar pursuits sets the stage for communication about what they each are reading. The interventions presented in this chapter that we, as well as others, are testing are designed to determine what electronic supports will best help students gain information and enjoyment from their interaction with literacy related materials presented by technology-based delivery systems. In addition, we will discuss how these interventions can impact the current view of literacy as a concept. Finally, we will discuss how we might enhance literacy beyond the interaction of electronic text and provide individuals with information in other media formats. Before discussing the expanding definition and conceptualization of literacy, it is important to consider the learners on whom this chapter is centered.

15

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

learner characteristics In order to understand how persons with moderate to severe disabilities can interact and engage in literacy based activities and benefit from increased access to literacy related materials, it may be helpful to know more about the learning and behavioral characteristics of these individuals. The following discussion is particularly important in light of our contention that the three principles of universal design for learning (UDL) discussed later in this chapter are the foundation for how we can best provide meaningful literacy based activities for all individuals regardless of the challenges they face. Persons with moderate to severe DD actually constitute a heterogeneous group of individuals (Beirne-Smith, Ittenbach, & Kim, 2006). Some of these individuals might have severe intellectual disabilities, whereas others might have cognitive differences in combination with physical challenges. Some individuals who have cognitive differences might be ambulatory and have full use of the limbs, whereas others might have little motor control requiring wheel chairs for enhancing mobility. Any grouping of these individuals is artificial and done for the purposes of discussion related to technological devices that can improve the quality of their lives. The term moderate to severe DD generally has been defined in a number of ways (Luckasson, Coulter, Polloway, Reiss, Schalock, Snell, Spitalnik, & Stark, 1992; Grossman, 1983; Gardner, 2000). This term (i.e., developmental disabilities) suggests that individuals with severe disabilities have more debilitating problems than those with mild disabilities. Generally, persons with moderate to severe disabilities have multiple problems that could be manifested in a decreased ability to learn, deficits in social skills, sensory deficits, and possibly physical disabilities (Beirne-Smith et al., 2006). Persons with moderate to severe DD may exhibit excessive behavior such as self-stimulation

16

or tantrums (Dever & Knapczyk, 1997). Such behaviors can also affect their attention span, thus interfering with their learning and their ability to comprehend even the simplest concepts. They may also be deficient in areas such as self-help and often have significant deficits in language and functional communication. Individuals with severe disabilities do not effectively model the behavior of others and have difficulty processing information presented to them by parents and teachers. They also have difficulty with memory, attention, and perception. When individuals analyze and use information they have perceived, they have processed that information. For persons with severe DD, their difficulties in attention and perception exacerbate their problems processing information. Overcoming attention and perception problems while providing learners with new information are major goals for professionals. Technology solutions can enhance their efforts by providing learners with a variety of educational software and assistive hardware devices that allow learners access to the software (Silver-Pacuilla & Fleischman, 2006). Integrated or multimedia applications hold the greatest promise for helping learners assimilate and accommodate new information, thus potentially improving their ability to access literacy based activities. For example, electronic text paired with many appropriate visual images has photos, videos, and graphics to reinforce important concepts presented in the story. In terms of cognitive processes, memory is complex in its relation to attention, perception, and information processing. Memory is the process whereby individuals store information they gather in their central nervous system and retrieve it for later use (Baddeley, 1986; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993). A key component to the process of memory involves peoples’ ability to rehearse the material they perceive. When people efficiently rehearse (i.e., repeat or practice) information in their short-term memory, they can improve long-term memory (Belmont & Butterfield, 1971; Brown,

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Campione, & Murphy, 1974). Similarly, when people analyze information in a more detailed way or pair the information with other knowledge, the better the chances for retention. Most people with severe DD are not efficient in rehearsing information and need a considerable amount of repetition in order for them to store information for later retrieval (Brooks & McCauley, 1984). As typical individuals grow, they begin to develop rehearsal strategies that serve them in improving their memories. Learners with DD have considerable problems learning to use rehearsal strategies compared with their typical peers and have greater problems developing independent rehearsal strategies (Borkowski, Peck, & Damberg, 1983; Ellis, 1963). A number of technology solutions can assist individuals with severe DD to compensate for their memory differences. For example, a number of handheld computer applications assist these individuals in maintaining a schedule, following a complex series of directions, and locating places in the community (Davies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2002a, 2002b; Riffel, Wehmeyer, Turnbull, Lattimore, Davies, Stock, & Fisher, 2005). When the information presented by the handheld device is paired with associated photos and videos, over time and through repeated trials the users might have a better chance of storing the information in their own memories for later use. Difficulties in maintaining attention to relevant details of a task and problems discriminating between important stimuli are commonly faced by learners who have DD (Westling & Fox, 2000). For those persons who have cognitive differences and have motor problems, less than optimum interaction with their environment can essentially exacerbate similar problems in attention and discrimination skills. Technology solutions potentially can help all individuals with disabilities improve their attention to relevant stimuli (Langone, Shade, Clees, & Day, 1999). Electronic text presented by computers can, for example, help students focus their attention on

important sounds, words, or phrases. When the software also includes visual or graphic cues, the students stand a better chance comprehending the material they interact with during literacy activities (Detheridge, 1996). When stimuli are presented to the brain by an individual’s senses, the ability to interpret information is called perception (Polloway & Patton, 1997). Research suggests that infants can perceive visual and auditory stimuli and their perceptions provide a foundation for later learning (Cook, Tessier, & Klein, 2007). As colors, sounds, and smells become meaningful for learners, they can use the information they obtain to help them continue learning. People with severe DD are limited in their ability to perceive events around them (Olson & Platt, 2007). Similar to the aforementioned examples, technology can provide both visual images and sounds that may help individuals with severe DD to pay closer attention to salient features of story lines and thus improve their perception to events important to understand the material being presented. Technology solutions can provide a large variety of stimuli to accompany important skills targeted for acquisition by the learner. Multimedia or integrated media instruction can help learners with disabilities experience events that may have previously been out of their reach (e.g., a visit to an art gallery in another country-a form of new literacy).

linking to literacy The field on Special Education is at a crossroads in relation to defining literacy for individuals with moderate to severe developmental disabilities. The definition of literacy for these learners has and in many cases still is defined narrowly to include sight word instruction, specifically in relation to functional skills. Currently, there have been calls from a group of parents, policy makers, and researchers to redefine one component of literacy as allowing these students access to

17

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

the general education curriculum. The reality of this situation that is affecting students with more severe developmental disabilities in every state is that the definition relating to literacy resulting in programs that expose them to general education content at every age level. It is not unusual to enter classrooms that house only learners with more significant disabilities, who are being read to by electronic means, content in history literature, science, etc. Certainly, teachers are being encouraged by state education agencies to modify the concepts on a cognitive level for these students which they then place into electronic text with other supports, however, these same agencies do not appear to be considering relevance of the content being presented to the student based on their immediate and future needs. One could argue that the technology now allows for such activities to occur that on the surface look impressive, but that still do not take into account student needs. Our contention throughout the rest of this chapter is that the content being targeted for instruction is not necessarily the most important consideration for students with more significant developmental disabilities, but rather the context under which the content is presented. For example, a student with disabilities who is participating with general education peers developing a PowerPoint presentation about a subject in science benefits from the interaction with peers in terms of social skills and functional communication. The peers benefit from the interaction in terms of learning about human differences and similarities among other things. At least for the student with disabilities, learning about the science concepts if in fact they are capable in doing so, becomes secondary in nature. The next section will provide a general outline and a contemporary rationale for reexamining literacy for individuals with moderate to severe DD. We will present a short overview of the current state of research on reading and literacy by relating this to the typical deficits that act as barriers to traditional reading for individuals with DD.

18

Importance of literacy Literacy has been defined in many ways, but at its essence it appears to clearly focus on ones’ ability to derive meaning from printed text. Everyone reading this chapter most likely will use their literacy skills to extract meaning from the text in relation to their careers. Everyday we use our literacy skills among other things to read directions, use shopping lists, and order food from menus. We also use our literacy skills for recreation and leisure such as reading books and magazines, the news on Internet sites, as well as email messages from friends. All of us are part of a literate community because we have the ability to derive meaning from printed words. Most students with DD are not a part of this community. Technological tools are now available that can assist these individuals in becoming more active in similar literacy-based activities. Before we can appreciate the definition of literacy as it applies to individuals with moderate to severe DD, we should examine some criteria related to literacy from the community described earlier. On the surface excluding individuals with severe DD from literate community might seem to be simply due to the fact that they have significant and multiple learning challenges. Their inability to gain meaning from print because of multiple disabilities hinder them from fluently decoding words. Typical emerging readers who cannot decode words can still enjoy reading because they have mastered the early language skills that allow them to comprehend what is being read to them using developmentally appropriate materials. Individuals with significant developmental disabilities generally have not yet gained those same language skills, so their ability to comprehend what is being read to them is hampered. However, their difficulty in mastering the language skills that are needed for them to comprehend what has been decoded by others or by technology, should not justify their exclusion from taking part in activities that have practical,

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

and recreational value (Beck, 2002). For example, we would not argue that one could not enjoy playing golf because they cannot hit a ball as far as professional golfer. Most of us can participate in many activities to some extent without mastering all aspects of the tasks. Participating at various levels allow us to gain some enjoyment, some value, or some professional advantage based on our level of participation and capabilities. Likewise with literacy, we potentially can all gain meaning from printed text with the addition of technological supports that are available. There has been considerable attention focusing on issues related to literacy and to functional literacy in both the professional and popular media for a long period of time. The ability to obtain levels of literacy, particularly functional literacy, continues to be a concern among the general population. In March 2007, The Washington Post reported that 36% of the residents in the District of Columbia were functionally illiterate (versus 21% across the United States). This means that they cannot read well enough to do simple tasks like fill out job applications much less read for pleasure (Alexander, 2007). In our research into the subject we have discovered a model for defining literacy based on its applications to a person’s life and this model seems to be a good fit as the foundation for our discussion here on literacy for individuals with more significant disabilities (Browder, Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Karvonen, Spooner, & Algozzine, 2004).

components of literacy: Implications for persons with severe developmental disabilities Wells (1990) defined a literate individual as one who can “engage appropriately with texts of different types in order to empower actions, feelings, and thinking in the context of purposeful social activity” (p. 14). This definition is similar to others that can be found in large numbers throughout the professional and popular literature. For example,

John Hertrich in the HMI Secondary Literacy Survey believed that “Literacy can be defined on a number of levels. It is obviously concerned with the ability to read and write but a fuller definition might be the capacity to recognize, reproduce and manipulate the conventions of text shared by a given community.” (National Literacy Trust, 2008) The components of “purposeful social activity” as defined by Wells and “shared by a given community” as identified by Hertrich are critical to the current discussion in that literacy should not be viewed in isolation, but in the context of how literate individuals can use the skills for many purposes across all aspects of their lives. In addition, views on literacy have been further expanded to include much more than printed text as is emphasized in school. Hertich in his report also stated, “There are new forms of literacy (on-screen literacy and moving image media) to consider alongside the more traditional print literacy. Literacy is important because it enables pupils to gain access to the subjects studied in school, to read for information and pleasure, and to communicate effectively.” School-based literacy can at times be significantly different from literacy individuals need in other aspects of their lives. This aspect or component of literacy involves a students’ ability to interact with text as it applies to or presents information related to the general education curriculum. In the past, professionals who worked with students who had moderate to severe DD did not readily address this component of literacy. Currently, access to the general education curriculum and participation in statewide assessment programs for these learners, has been a priority among state departments of education. In many respects advances in technology have made this movement possible since students, who because of significant cognitive differences may not effectively interact with traditional print based materials, may now appear to interact with electronic text and other multimedia supports.

19

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Unfortunately, across the nation we are witnessing questionable models of this approach to using technology for enhancing school-based literacy. As we mentioned earlier, many activities related to accessing the general education curriculum and alternative assessment strategies are conducted in self-contained classrooms (away from the general education). In addition, assessment activities using technology (e.g., PowerPoint presentations) designed to demonstrate mastery of skills (e.g., learning about the planets of the solar system) are either completed with heavy input by the adults in the classroom or are presented in a fashion that does not take into account the learning characteristics (e.g., memory and language differences) of these students. First and foremost, efforts to improve skills related to increasing access to literacy rich materials for students who have significant cognitive differences should be based on the premise of increasing contact with typical learners. Historically, increased interaction with typical peers has always been the most important reason for increasing access to the general education curriculum (Frywell & Kennedy, 1995; Hunt, Alwell, Farron-Davis, & Goetz, 1996; Kennedy, Cushing, & Itkonen, 1997). High quality activities that center around the use of electronic text with multimedia supports have great potential for encouraging this interaction across peer groups and thus, allow for teachers to also address issues related to social communication and social skills in addition to instructing content based skills (Beck, 2002). Functional literacy as a concept seems to be the component of a global definition of literacy that has been largely ignored by education systems in the United States. This definition is another component of a global definition that been loosely defined over the years depending on the professional focus of those attempting to define it. In terms of a generic definition, functional literacy has been defined as the basic reading one needs to survive in society to a preparation

20

for the roles one needs to enter the workforce. In Special Education, functional literacy seems to have been condensed down to one type of activity, teaching sight words found in the community (e.g., emergency words such as danger, signs on rest room doors) (Conners, 1992). Unfortunately, this narrow translation of functional literacy by special educators has had the effect of eliminating a variety of important skill sets for students with significant DD (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006). Functional literacy as a concept or component of a global definition of literacy should include the ability of individuals to interact with electronic text and multimedia supports to gain knowledge and skills across a wide variety of skill sets that provide for a more independent way of life. Being able to set your DVD player by using text-based directions, reading recipes, locating items in a grocery store by reading aisle caps, are all examples of functional literacy. The use of electronic text with multimedia supports for helping individuals with more significant disabilities interact with and participate in many activities associated with daily living events is an area we are currently researching. As mentioned, our emphasis is to find the right mixture of supports that enhance understanding while interacting with such materials (e.g., use of video and photographs to support text). Personal literacy is a component of a global definition of literacy that we have long ignored as educators. The use of elements of literacy (i.e., reading & writing) for pleasure such as engaging in hobbies, forming friendships, and expanding/ enhancing other areas of one’s life (exploring new subjects) is often lost in our classrooms for typical students and is often non existent in classrooms for students with significant disabilities. We see this component of literacy as possibly the most important for students with significant DD for a variety of reasons, not the least of which it potentially holds the greatest promise for integrating these individuals with their peers in general education.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Transactional literacy is a component of literacy that is based on theories of how learners construct or assign meaning while interacting with text. These theories stress that a persons’ background information about a subject will effect how they gain meaning while interacting with text-based materials. A concern among professionals who understood that this lack of background information or the inability to bring background information into play when needed was a key reason why poor readers had difficulty constructing meaning from what they read. Our approach to transactional literacy has been that for students with significant DD, the ability to gain meaning from text (in this case electronic text) will be directly proportional to our ability to provide them with high quality visual and auditory supports that compensate for their lack of background knowledge and/or their ability to access background knowledge they interacted with at a previous time. Significant deficits in memory, particularly resulting in problems with working memory, may impede the ability of these learners to interact with text in any form if we do not provide them with the power of immediate and/ or hyperlinked supports such as photos, graphics, animations, video, and sound. Our current research endeavors are focusing on how best to provide these supports and in what format the supports should take. One final component of a global definition of literacy that has long been debated by professionals is emergent literacy. This component has surfaced in professional discussions for why developing activities related to the general education curriculum and for access to alternative assessment programs. In a sense, some professionals appear to latch on to the developmental basis for emergent literacy in the sense that if learners with significant DD have DD they must be ready for emergent literacy activities. That may be why we are observing more activities in classes for older students teaching the alphabetic principles.

We believe that there are a number of principles associated with emergent literacy that are important for all student with significant DD if we maintain an age appropriate approach to the instruction and activities. Our activities should involve all the tools of literacy including listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities while they engage in age appropriate activities (e.g., email friends with text-based messages or audio files of their message). This directly relates to the role of UDL and assistive technology.

research on reading and Moderate to severe disabilities Students with significant DD need intense, systematic instruction in order to learn to read (Erickson & Koppenhaver, 1995; Kliewer & Landis, 1999). If reading becomes a higher priority, students may increase opportunities for themselves in adulthood (Browder et al., 2006). The National Reading Panel (NRP; 2000) identified five essential components of reading instruction: (a) phonemic awareness, (b) phonics, (c) fluency, (d) vocabulary, and (e) comprehension. Literacy research conducted with students with moderate to severe DD usually addresses only one of these components. Even though phonemic awareness and letter knowledge are the best predictors for how well students will learn to read (Ehri, 2004; Share, Jorm, MacLean, & Matthews, 1984), only a few studies have focused on teaching phonics to students with severe intellectual disabilities (Basil & Reyes, 2003; Hoogeveen & Smeets, 1988; Hoogeveen, Smeets, & van der Houven, 1987), and of these studies, only one had a strong effect size (Hoogeveen et al., 1987). Additional research should focus on how to teach phonemic awareness and phonics to students with DD as a generalized skill. Since there is little research in these areas, the potential outcomes of explicit instruction are unknown (Browder et al., 2006). The challenge is to balance these the time required to meet these goals, with the time needed to address functional life skills. 21

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

In another area of literacy for students with DD, research has evaluated fluency. These studies have included measures of counting words read correctly by individuals with moderate disabilities (Singh & Singh, 1984, 1985, 1988; Singh, Winston, & Singh, 1985). Future research in these areas may further evaluate the effectiveness of guided oral reading and repeated readings as possible strategies for students to become more fluent readers. The part of literacy instruction for students with DD with the most empirical supports is in the area of sight word reading. Students with moderate to severe DD have been taught to read sight word vocabulary through repeated (massed) trials with systematic prompting (Moseley, Flynt, & Morton, 1997; Rohena, Jitendra, & Browder, 2002; Mechling & Gast, 2003), as well as through picture and symbol identification (Romski, Sevcik, Robinson, Mervis, & Bertrand, 1996; Worrall & Singh, 1983). Learning word and picture vocabulary has been beneficial to improving comprehension. While students demonstrated comprehension by matching words to pictures (Eikeseth & Jahr, 2001; Mechling, Gast, & Langone, 2002; Rehfeldt, Latimore, & Stromer, 2003), there is not a database yet that shows the effects of metacognitive comprehension monitoring, cooperative learning, graphic organizers, story structure, questioning, and summarizing on comprehension (all typical interventions used with other struggling reader populations). The use of assistive technology and electronic text with supports may be the most effective and efficient method for teaching individuals with moderate to severe disabilities to become literate and this may take the form of UDL

universal design for learning: guidance for literacy Activities for persons with severe dd UDL originated from the field of architecture and the practice of universal design, where the goal

22

was to create and plan structures to be universally accessible that would not require later adaptation (CUD, 1997). For example, a universally designed building would have curb cuts and would integrate entrances that do not require stairs (e.g. ramps) rather than add a ramp after construction when a potential user of the building was unable to navigate a wheel chair into the building. These features, when integrated into the initial conceptualization of a building design are often used by, but not noticed by users who do not need them (e.g. consider oversized door knobs that are engaged with a downward pushing motion on a handle rather than the twisting of a knob). This integrated flexibility allows users to access the building using the supports they need without being marginalized because of their disability. When these principles are applied to learning and academic content, we commonly refer to this as Universal Design for Learning (Meyer & Rose, 1998; Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL is perfectly blended with the flexibility offered by new media because users of new media (e.g. electronic text) can access ands use that text in multiple ways based on their individual needs. There are three underlying principles of UDL and they directly relate to literacy and our broadened definition of literacy: multiple means of representation, multiple means of expression, and multiple means of engagement (CAST, 1998). We will take each of these in turn and describe the principle as well as examples and applications of how current technologies work to achieve universal design. We will then discuss how to evaluate the appropriateness of any single technology based support. Multiple means of representation. As we have stated, individuals with moderate to severe DD do not learn concepts and skills easily. They will always take longer to learn and will require many concrete examples relating to the skills or concepts we have targeted for their use. Our ability to provide them with many visual and auditory examples, which are directly related to the salient

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

features of the task, will determine whether not they are able to master the target skills and gain information from what is being read to them. The first principle of universal design for learning, multiple means of representation, provides an important foundation for the use of e-text and the supporting visual and auditory anchors that can help these individuals gain meaning from literacy-based activities (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 2007; Beck, 2002). The simplest form of this comes in the use of electronic text that is supported by audio (the text being read from the computer). Some teachers use the free Microsoft Reader software to generate their own e-text materials (see Figure 1 for an example). More elaborate electronic adaptations are available as well. For example, short targeted videos that support a storyline potentially will assist learners understand key concepts related to characters, location of the story, and sequence of events. Simple photographs with an accompanying auditory description may also provide users of the

Figure 1. Microsoft Reader document. A teacher generated MS Reader document that includes hyperlinks to key words in a glossary and also is read to the student by a speech synthesizer.

material with a richer understanding of the story being read to them. Similarly, symbols that help individuals’ associate meaning with words and phrases are also being used more readily in classroom-based programs for students with significant cognitive delays (See Figure 2 for an example). It is also possible that over the next few years researchers will discover that some form of cognitive mapping strategy may also be of assistance in helping individuals gain meaning from text. Cognitive mapping strategies that are solely text-based, however, will probably not be of much use unless they are augmented with video and audio supports. Developing materials that provide users with many representations of information being presented in text or e-text formats will help learners interact with materials associated with a variety of curricular areas. For example, individuals with moderate to severe DD frequently participate in activities designed to help them become as independent as possible in the areas related to independent living, vocational, and leisure recreation. Modified recipes that include e-text with supporting visual anchors can be helpful for learners who are mastering cooking skills (See Figure 3 for an example). These can be generated by a teacher in programs like PowerPoint that can include a wide range of supports. There are number of methods that can be used to assess the extent to which individuals gain meaning from e-text with these types of visual and auditory supports. Generally speaking, simple frequency counts relating to an individual’s ability to answer comprehension questions related to the story lines is a fairly quick, yet accurate measure (Cook, Langone, & Ayres, in review; Ayres, Langone, Douglas, Meade & Bell, in review). Some form of a simple checklist that monitors and individuals use of the e-text product is simple method for assessing use of the literacy materials. Teachers can also assess the value of these types of supports using traditional multiple choice or

23

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Figure 2. News-2-You Screen Capture. This shows an example of multiple means of representation where a news story is shown with words and pictures. This is an alternative to a traditional news article and provides students with another means for accessing similar information. This is commercially available from www.news-2-you.com

Figure 3. Teacher Generated Adapted E-text recipe. Teachers can use readily available technologies to adapted recipes or other materials to make them accessible to a wider range of students.

cloze activities that provide a student with the opportunity to express what they have gleaned from the text. Teachers have to be cognizant at this point to be flexible in their means of assessment to allow students the greatest opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned and this

24

is reflected in the next principle of UDL, multiple means of expression. Multiple means of expression. Most individuals with moderate to severe DD have significant language differences and require alternative and or augmentative methods in order to communicate their thoughts. Too often we as a society over rely on speaking or writing as the only means of expression we accept in our interactions with each other. The second principle of UDL this has been termed multiple means of expression, helps us to understand that individuals with various learning differences and capabilities often require different methods to communicate what they want and what they know. For students with moderate to severe DD their need to use alternative and augmentative forms of expression is critical if they are to get the most out of literacy-based activities. As readers we often enjoy discussing with others information we have gathered from things we have read. This information can be related to factual knowledge gained from nonfiction readings as well as storylines in character related

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

information we have gained from reading works of fiction. As individuals with DD gain access to reading materials through the use of e-text, their ability to discuss the information with others can help to improve their overall language development, understanding of the information presented in the readings, and general social skills (Beck, 2002). Electronic communication boards, symbol system communication devices, and photographic based communications and can assist individuals in participating with their peers. For example, an elementary school student with moderate DD who is participating in a general education class, specifically in a story time activity, can answer questions related to the story and presented by the teacher by using an electronic communication board if that student is unable to produce speech. Similarly, students can use photographs to support their ideas when they can produce speech but have difficulty being understood (Bondy & Frost, 2001; Schwartz, Garfinkle, & Bauer, 1999). There are a number of opportunities for individuals with DD to socially interact with typical peers and the ability to be able to discuss culturally relevant information that has been gained from interacting with text increases their chances to make friends and to improve their social skills. Due to significant learning deficits related to written language, specifically spelling problems, vocabulary acquisition problems, grammar deficits, and problems relating to handwriting, individuals with moderate to severe DD have traditionally been unable to express their thoughts in writing. New software solutions that provide individuals with a structure for creating sentences by choosing between pre developed grids containing the parts of sentences and/or vocabulary can help these individuals express their thoughts in writing. For example, a program entitled Clicker 5 can provide users with models of sentences and pre develops grades for their choice in conveying their ideas. There are a number of programs that are similar to this on the market with more to come in the immediate future.

Word prediction programs also may be of use for individuals who have significant learning challenges. Some individuals with DD who are unable to spell because of language deficits can identify the appropriate word if it is provided in a list of similarly spelled words. Programs such as Co:Writer (by Don Johnston) when paired with talking word processors such as Write Out Loud (also by Don Johnston) can help learners create written products. For example, word prediction and talking word processors might be used to assist individuals with DD to create e-mail messages that they can use to interact with their friends. There are a variety of other software solutions that can be used by individuals with DD to express their ideas, demonstrate their abilities, and improve their own self determination. For example, electronic portfolios and resumes have been developed by older individuals with mental retardation to assist them in applying for jobs. PowerPoint has been used to present photographs and/or videos depicting an individual’s work experience as a method to support their job application. Multiple means of engagement. Educators have long realized that learning activities that capture their students’ attention is the key to increasing the probability that they will learn targeted skills. At the most basic level, it seems obvious that the more engaging (i.e., interesting) the activity the better the chances the students will stay on task and learn what we want them to learn. In terms of UDL, the principle of multiple means of engagement especially as it applies to individuals with disabilities can have a broader meaning than simply providing interesting and exciting materials. Activities that are designed to capture the attention of not only students with disabilities, but also the attention of their typical peers can serve to improve the inclusion of those students with disabilities. Technology solutions that appeal to all individuals increase the probability that we can foster relationships that go beyond simply completing

25

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

the task. Electronic readings about topics that appeal to all learners of a certain age group and that also include video and audio supports, establish an environment where educators can use the opportunities fostered by group activities to teach social communication and related skills (see screen capture of reading related to High School Musical). When activities and simulations related to topics of interest can also be in an engaging format for group activities they can serve as a springboard for teaching socially related communication and other skills (e.g., cooperation, manners). Perhaps, overwhelmingly, the most important factor for individuals with DD is for literacy related activities to be meaningful. Engaging in meaningful activities either alone or with companions (whether the activities are leisure related or functional in nature) are, in the end, why literacy is so important.

conclusIon As evidenced by the state of research for literacy instruction for students with severe DD, and the possibilities presented by technology, we must remember that materials are only as good as the pedagogy on which they are based and the way they are used by teachers, students, and society in general. Applying the principles of UDL to the development of literacy materials for individuals with moderate to severe DD is one of the more promising and exciting movements from the perspective of societal change. Unfortunately there are pitfalls that are not a function of universal design, but may be a function of where researchers and practitioners are placing their emphasis in developing these materials. Problems seem to be occurring when, in their enthusiasm to implement a new tool or set of materials, researchers and practitioners inadvertently

26

overlook the need to identify what is important for individuals to learn and what is interesting for them to have access to while they engage in literacy based activities. We believe that we need to look at the content of what individuals are interacting with and decide if, in fact, it is worth learning. Keeping in mind that the individuals being discussed in this chapter may not have the ability to comprehend such complex concepts due to their DD, the more important question may be what value does this material have to them even if they do have the ability to gain knowledge from the information. One could argue that if these activities are being implemented in the general education classes, that the students with disabilities and their typical peers are gaining valuable social interactions while engaging in the general education curriculum. In the larger world though, does this matter? Does this type of literacy translate? If any instructional tools fall short of helping students to develop knowledge and learn skills that will lead to their becoming independent workers and enjoying a high quality of life then these materials are a waste of time. Many of these general education related curriculum materials that are being touted by our schools and available today suffer from the same problems inherent in most textbooks, that is, they are simply text based with some supporting images. Often, they do not meet the litmus test of being functional and interesting to the learner. Universal design of poorly conceived materials is not going to result in better outcomes for individuals with severe DD. Rather, we should conceptualize and develop literacy materials rich in functional information, and then look to universal design principles when presenting it. This information would be presented in multiple formats to allow students many forms of expression, and to encourage student engagement with materials in a variety of ways.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Author note The preparation of the chapter was supported in part by funding from a grant of the Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs that was awarded to the National Center for the Study of Supported Text in Electronic Learning Environments, University of Oregon.

reFerences

Borkowski, J. G., Peck, V. A., & Damberg, P. R. (1983). Attention, memory and cognition. In J. L. Matson & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Handbook of mental retardation (pp. 479-497). New York: Pergamon. Brochner, S., Outhred, L., & Pieterse, M. (2001). A study of functional literacy skills in young adults with down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 48, 67-90.

Alexander, K. L. (2007, March 19). Illiteracy aid found to lag in district: High rates said to hurt economy. The Washington Post, pp. B01.

Brooks, P. H., & McCauley, C. (1984). Cognitive research in mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 479-486.

Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153-160.

Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. Journal of Special Education, 37, 211-223.

Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., Douglas, K. H., Meade, C., & Bell, V. (in review). Structural analysis of UDL reading supports for students with intellectual disabilities. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Basil, C., & Reyes, S. (2003). Acquisition of literacy skills by children with severe disabilities. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 19(1), 27-48. Beck, J. (2002). Emerging literacy through assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 44-48. Beirne-Smith, M., Ittenbach, R. F., & Kim, S. H. (2006) Mental Retardation: An introduction to intellectual disability (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Belmont, J. M., & Butterfield, E. C. (1971). Learning strategies as determinants of memory deficiencies. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 411-420. Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (2001). The picture exchange communication system. Behavioral Modification, 25, 725-745.

Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., AhlgrimDelzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 392-408. Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Murphy, M. D. (1974). Keeping track of changing variables: Long-term retention of a trained rehearsal strategy by retarded adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 453-466. Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST]. (1998). What is universal design for learning? Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www.cast.org/research/udl/ index.html. Center for Universal Design [CUD]. (1997). Principles of Universal Design. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ Conners, F. A. (1992). Reading instruction for students with moderate mental retardation: Review and analysis of research. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 96, 577-597.

27

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Cook J., Langone, J. & Ayres, K. M. (in review). Effects of UDL for improving comprehension of age-appropriate leisure reading material by students with intellectual disabilities. Cook, E., Tessier, A., & Klein, M. D. (2007). Adapting Early Childhood Curricula for Children with Special Needs (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Copeland, S. R., & Keefe, E. B. (2007). Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Moderate or Severe Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Co:Writer. [Computer Software]. Volo, IL: Don Johnson. Davies, D., Stock, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002a). Enhancing independent task performance for individuals with mental retardation through use of a handheld self-directed visual and audio prompting system. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 209-218. Davies, D., Stock, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002b). Enhancing independent time management and personal scheduling for individuals with mental retardation through use of a palmtop visual and audio prompting system. Mental Retardation, 40, 358-365. Detheridge, T. (1996). Developing literacy through symbols. Closing the Gap, 15(1), Apr/ May, 12-14. Dever, R. B., & Knapczyk, D. R. (1997). Teaching Persons with Mental Retardation: A Model for Curriculum Development and Teaching. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. ( 2001, Autumn). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393-447.

28

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willow, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287. Ehri, L. C. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics: An explanation of the National Reading Panel meta-analyses. In P. McCardle & V. Chhadbra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 153-186). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Eikeseth, S., & Jahr, E. (2001). The UCLA reading and writing program: An evaluation of the beginning stages. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 289-307. Ellis, N. R. (1963). The stimulus trace and behavioral inadequacy. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency (pp. 134-158). New York: McGraw-Hill. Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). Developing a literacy program for children with severe disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 48, 676-684. Fish, T. R., Rabidoux, P., Ober, J., & Graff, V. (2006). Community literacy and friendship model for people with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation, 44, 443-446. Frywell, D., & Kennedy, C. H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students’ social relationships. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 259-269. Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working Memory and Language. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Publishers.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Grossman, H. J. (1983). Classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Hintze J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 372-386. Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Hoogeveen, F. R., & Smeets, P. M. (1988). Establishing phoneme blending in trainable mentally retarded children. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 45-53. Hoogeveen, F. R., Smeets, P. M., & van der Houven, J. E. (1987). Establishing letter-sound correspondences in children classifies as trainable mentally retarded. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22, 77-84. Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creating socially supportive environments for fully included students who experience multiple disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 53-71. Katims, D. (1996). The emergence of literacy in elementary students with mild mental retardation. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 147-157. Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3-15. Kennedy, C. H., Cushing, L. S., & Itkonen, T. (1997). General education participation improves the social contacts and friendship networks of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 167-189.

Kliewer, C., & Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy instruction for young children with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66, 85-100. Koppenhaver, D. A., Coleman, P. P., Kalman, S. L., & Yoder, D. E. (1991). The implications of emergent literacy research for children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1(1), 38-44. Langone, J., Shade, J., Clees, T., & Day, T. (1999). Effects of multimedia instruction on teaching funcational discrimination skills to students with moderate/severe intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 493-513. Luckasson, R., Coulter, D., Polloway, E. A., Reiss, S., Schalock, R. L., Snell, M. E., Spitalnik, D. M., & Stark, J. A. (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classifictation, and systems of supports. Washington, DC: AAMR. Mechling, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2003). Multi-media instruction to teach grocery word associations and store location: A study of generalization. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 62-76. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Langone, J. (2002). Computer-based video instruction to teach persons with moderate intellectual disabilities to read grocery aisle signs and locate items. Journal of Special Education, 35, 224-240. Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (1998). Learning to read in the computer age (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Moseley, V. P., Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (1997). Teaching sight words to students with moderate mental retardation. Reading Improvement, 34, 2-7. National Literacy Trust. (2008). Definitions of Literacy. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http:// www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/quote.html.

29

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Olson, J. L., Platt, J. C., & Dieker, L. A. (2007). Teaching Children and Adolescents with Special Needs (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Polloway, E. A., & Patton, J. R. (1997). Strategies for teaching learners with special needs (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Rehfeldt, R. A., Latimore, D., & Stromer, R. (2003). Observational learning and the formation of classes of reading skills by individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 333-358. Riffel, L., Wehmeyer, M., Turnbull, A., Lattimore, J., Davies, D., Stock, S., & Fisher, S. (2005). Promoting independent performance of transition-related tasks using a palmtop PC-based self-directed visual and auditory prompting system. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 5-14. Rohena, E., Jitendra, A. K., & Browder, D. M. (2002). Comparison of the effects of Spanish and English constant time delay instruction on sight word reading by Hispanic learners with mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, 36, 169-184. Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., Robinson, B. F., Mervis, C. G., & Bertrand, J. (1996). Mapping the meanings of novel visual symbols by youth with moderate or severe mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 391-402. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

30

Schwartz, I. S., Garfinkle, A. N., & Bauer, J. (1999). The picture exchange communication system: Communicative outcomes for young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 144-159. Share, D., Jorm, A., MacLean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences in reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324. Silver-Pacuilla, H., & Fleischman, S. (2006). Technology to help struggling students. Educational Leadership, 63, 84-85. Singh, J. & Singh, N. N. (1985). Comparison of word-supply and word-analysis error-correction procedures on oral reading by mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 64-70. Singh, N. N., & Singh, J. (1984). Antecedent control of oral reading errors and self-corrections by mentally retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 111-119. Singh, N. N., & Singh, J. (1988). Increasing oral reading proficiency through overcorrection and phonic analysis. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 312-319. Singh, N. N., Winston, A. S., & Singh, J. (1985). Effects of delayed versus immediate attention to oral reading errors on the reading proficiency of mentally retarded children. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 6, 283-293. Wells, G. (Winter, 1990). Talk about text: Where literacy is learned and taught. Curriculum Inquiry, 20(4), 369-405. Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2000). Teaching students with severe disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Worrall, N., & Singh, Y. (1983). Teaching TMR children to read using integrated picture cueing. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 422-429.

Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays

Write Out Loud. [Computer Software]. Volo, IL: Don Johnson.

Key terMs And deFInItIons e-Text: A visual, electronic depiction of text whereby the text itself is digitally recognizable by both the user and the computer. Allows for the use of screen/text readers and other assistive technology. Literacy: Gaining meaning from text. This might include phonetically decoding and comprehending words as well as listening to those same words being spoken. Multiple Means of Engagement: A UDL practice where by students are presented with several ways to interact with and learn from instructional materials and where teachers allow

students flexibility to work with instructional materials (or text) in the way that best meets their needs. Multiple Means of Expression: A UDL practice of allowing different students, based on their abilities, to communicate “the answer” in a way best suited to their communication strengths. Multiple Means of Representation: The UDL practice of presenting the same basic learning materials in more than one medium or manner. This could include text-based presentation coupled with auditory presentation. Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Derived from the field of architecture and the practice of making buildings universally accessible to users, UDL is an education practice founded on designing learning materials and environments so that all students are able to learn to the greatest extent of their abilities, regardless of disability.

31

32

Chapter III

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy Maureen Walsh ACU National, Australia

AbstrAct This chapter discusses the changed nature of literacy within new communication contexts, the literacy that is needed for reading, viewing, responding to and producing multimodal and digital texts. Potentials for redesigning literacy pedagogy within new modes of communication are demonstrated for educational contexts. As a basis for this discussion, the author analyses classroom evidence using examples of three case studies from a research project conducted in primary schools in Sydney, Australia. In the research project teachers in several primary schools worked with the author/researcher to consider ways of redesigning literacy pedagogy within e-learning and multimodal classroom contexts. Interesting and significant changes occurred in their classroom practice. Teachers developed programs that incorporated a range of technology, including Web 2.0, and were able to maintain a balance between print-based and new literacies. Examples are presented and discussed to highlight the differences in pedagogy needed for ‘multimodal literacy’ combined with traditional literacy practices.

IntroductIon There is now an acceptance of the textual shift that has occurred for today’s students whose environment is filled with visual, electronic and digital texts. The terms ‘multiliteracies’ (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Unsworth, 2001), ‘new literacies’ (Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. 2003), ‘multimodal texts’, ‘multimodal discourse’ and ‘multimodality’1 (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, 2001, 2006)

represent attempts to describe the textual shift that has occurred and to conceptualise the changed learning paradigm that is fundamental for literacy and learning in an age of increased digital communication. Students of today quickly learn the range of technology that allows them to multi-task with a variety of digital media and mobile technology to surf the internet, send a text message or photo to a friend, play a digital game while listening

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

to music, or create their own multimedia texts through hybrid texts such as weblogs. ‘Texting’ or SMS messaging is part of what has been termed the new ‘textual landscape’ (Carrington, 2005) that has expanded rapidly with the introduction of Web 2.0 technology. The multi-tasking involved in texting, that may incorporate rapid use of abbreviated spelling, numbers, photos, graphics and icons, is a skill needed for activities such as blogs, wikis, podcasting or gaming. Moreover, this multitasking itself incorporates the merging and synchronising of text, images, sound and movement. Do we really know how such multi-tasking and morphing is affecting the way children learn? Are the processes involved in activities such as texting, blogging, or communicating online developing different cognitive abilities than those required for reading and writing traditional print-based texts? Or are these new modes of communication merely requiring traditional literacy skills to be applied to new types of texts? Such questions are currently being investigated by many researchers world wide. We are in a time of transition with new theories and new pedagogy evolving while at the same time newer forms of digital communication are emerging. There are arguments that classrooms are in danger of becoming redundant unless significant changes are made to curriculum and assessment practices. A recent report in the United Kingdom (Bearne et al, 2007) has shown that children of all ages are more likely to access digital rather than print-based texts outside school. This research has implications for the use of texts inside school. We need to consider what type of pedagogical shift is needed to incorporate the textual shift that has occurred and the underlying digital cultures that are embedded within multimodal communication. There are many reasons why schools cannot be expected to replicate the multimedia experiences that students engage in outside school. However we do need to examine how new modes of communication can be integral to classroom communication.

Curriculum documents and assessment requirements for reading and writing are based on established theories around the reading and writing of print-based texts. These theories have determined specific approaches and strategies for teaching reading and writing to assist learners at all stages of learning. We need ongoing research to theorise the interactions that occur as readers process various visual, aural, spatial and textual modes, separately or simultaneously, in digital texts. Do students read digital texts for meaning in the same way as they read print-based texts? What digital reading strategies need to be developed for deeper levels of inferential, analytical, critical and evaluative understandings? What differences are there between the process of sending a text message and handwriting a message on paper? How do we incorporate the possibilities of imaginative design and production possible for a website, blog or DVD into the writing curriculum? If we consider the types of digital texts that students may access from the perspective of literacy education, it is evident that such texts involve much more than the traditional processes of reading and writing print-based texts. Often ‘reading’ may involve viewing, listening and responding, while ‘writing’ may involve talking, listening, designing and producing. In fact the traditional ideas of texts are blurred, as are the processes of literacy. Many texts have become hybrid texts that may involve an interchange of modalities and processes. For example, a blog is designed, produced and written for a screen to function online. It may include written text, images, graphics, video and sound and can be read, listened to and responded to by others with text, images, video or sound. The increased popularity of social networking sites like YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and Second Life, where people can participate with information about themselves or with a different identity, demonstrates that people are responding to the need to participate, create and produce their own texts for communication. Brun (2007) has highlighted this trend and has

33

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

developed a theoretical framework around “produsers” to encapsulate the practices and cultures that have developed around user-led environments of the Web, especially Web 2.0. People are not just viewing and engaging with the Web but using and producing their own versions of texts and/ or participating in the texts of others. They are designing, creating and authoring their own work on the web in various ways. This is the digital environment that students of today are able to access and participate in. While we may acknowledge this changed paradigm, we are a long way from understanding how these changes can be realised pedagogically. We need to investigate the way meaning is constructed through multimodal texts and different semiotic systems. The synchronous functioning of the modes of image, movement, colour, gesture, 3D objects, music and sound on a digital screen require a different type of ‘reading’ or ‘writing’, a literacy that entails non-linear and simultaneous processing. We need to understand the impact and demands of new forms of literacy mediated through more varied technologies including digital communication devices, internet search engines, social networking, interactive gaming, digital imaging, film and video. In addition to understanding how these are influencing students’ motivation and learning, we need to know how to develop classroom learning experiences that are appropriate for both conventional and new forms of literacy. Several studies in recent years have investigated specific aspects of this complex area emphasising the importance of teachers knowing how to use multimodal texts and how to develop multimodal learning environments to enhance student learning. Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis (2001) have looked at the multimodal environments of Science classrooms while Jewitt (2002) has examined these environments in English classrooms. Bearne (2003) has examined students’ production of their own multimodal texts, demonstrating how they need to be incorporated in literacy as-

34

sessment. Callow and Zammitt (2002), Unsworth (2003) and Walsh (2006) have examined the different types of reading needed for multimodal texts. Several ongoing studies are providing insight into the way the literacy curriculum needs be reframed for new modes of communication. For example, Unsworth, Thomas & Bush (2004) have investigated the way images are used in standardised tests while Simpson (2005) has analysed the pedagogy of online communication through ‘Book Raps’. Several researchers in the UK are investigating different aspects of digital literacies. For example, Marsh (2007) has been researching Primary school student’s use of blogs within the literacy curriculum. More recently Kalantis and Cope (2005) and Healy (2008) have been developing and applying a ‘Learning by Design’ curriculum that extends further on Cope & Kalanzis’ (2000) ‘multiliteracies framework’, and Walsh (2008) is analysing classroom examples to theorise the exact nature of multimodal literacy within classrooms. This chapter now presents an analysis of three examples of case studies from a recent research project to demonstrate the potential for changed pedagogy. The three examples are from a large study conducted in several primary schools in the metropolitan area of Sydney, Australia. Each of the schools had large numbers of students from language backgrounds other than English and from a range of home languages. Although only three out of seven case studies are described here, they represent patterns and interactions that were typical of all the case studies across the different classes and schools.

the study The aim of the research project was to consider the pedagogical applications of new modes of communication within classroom contexts. The project’s research focus was designed to investigate two questions:

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

i.

ii.

What are the literacy strategies that students need for reading, using and producing multimodal texts? What is the relevant and explicit pedagogy appropriate for integrating multimodal literacy with conventional literacy practices?

The design of the study was an incorporation of professional learning and research, therefore collaborative and investigative on a number of levels. Teachers were engaged in learning to review theories of literacy within new communicative or multimodal environments while considering current research in the area. They worked collaboratively with the researcher who provided input and support at different stages through the project. Teachers in many of the schools worked in a team and this collegial process was reinforced by the meetings with the whole group at different times throughout the year. The research undertaken was qualitative, using a multiple case study focus. Each case study involved one or more teacher or, in some cases, students from different classes across the years of primary school. Data consisted of teachers’ programs, video tapes of classroom episodes, teachers’ notes, observations of students by researcher and teachers, and samples of students’ work in print and digital mode. The project involved teachers and students in primary classes ranging from Kindergarten (first year of school) to Year 6 (11 to 12 year olds). A wide variety of programs were planned by the teachers so that they addressed a range of outcomes across different Curriculum areas, such as Mathematics, Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE), Science and Technology and Creative and Practical Arts (CPA). The study entailed progressive stages that involved three full day meetings with all the teachers. In these meetings teachers were given detailed information about the purpose of the project, guidelines and procedures, their role as ‘teacher researchers’ and further professional development regarding current theories and research

on visual and multimodal literacy. Ethics approval was obtained from the researcher’s university and appropriate procedures were followed according to the guidelines to obtain consent from principals, teachers, parents and students to maintain confidentiality and privacy. At the end of the project, the teachers demonstrated, discussed and reflected on the outcomes of their work. Teachers produced their own written and/or digital reports and a DVD with examples of classroom episodes was produced. Some teachers have since presented at conferences with the researcher. A rich range of data was obtained and analysed in relation to the two research questions. While each case study involved students of different ages and topics, consistency was maintained through the analysis which coded data to identify specific aspects of literacy and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) skills used within the learning experiences. Specific aspects of literacy that were identified were talking, listening, reading and writing. In talking and listening experiences, we identified where students were using talking and listening to learn, to respond to texts, to problem solve, to collaborate, and to develop metalanguage of the literacy/learning process itself or of the content area. For reading, we used Luke and Freebody’s (2002) reading practices (coding practice, semantic practice, pragmatic practice and critical practice) to identify various aspects of decoding, comprehending and responding to texts. For writing, we identified knowledge of text genre, structure and language that was needed for particular tasks. All of the literacy criteria were not identified in all tasks but they provided a consistent framework for analysis. Similarly we identified where students used different ICT skills and strategies as they worked with digital texts. The ensuing discussion shows some of the analysis with reference to three examples from the research project. The examples demonstrate how, through the analysis, we examined ICT skills that were linked to literacy processes. Through this

35

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

analysis we were considering whether the use and production of digital texts was changing the nature of literacy itself, and to what extent pedagogy needs to be redesigned for such changes.

the lIterAcy strAtegIes students need For reAdIng, usIng And producIng MultIModAl teXts In each of the case studies, the teachers embedded digital technology into their literacy program thereby creating multimodal environments where students worked with and incorporated different modes of print-based and digital texts within curriculum tasks. There were many literacy strategies that were used by the students that could be described as ‘the same’ as those used with traditional classroom texts in English and other Curriculum areas. Aspects of literacy that are defined in current curricula, i.e. talking, listening, reading and writing occurred with various levels of meaningmaking. There were, however, a number of ‘differences’ in the way these aspects were operating. These differences have been identified in the data as related to the convergence and interrelationship between modes of spoken and written language, sound, image and gesture. This convergence will be examined in the following discussion, using several examples from the learning episodes that students were engaged in.

Example 1. Convergence of the modes of sound and image with traditional writing Podcasting is a development within Web 2.0 technology and it enables a range of modes to be used in the production of a multimedia experience. Example 1 illustrates a teacher’s work with a class of Year 3 (8 year old) students who produced podcasts. The students were engaged in a range of literacy tasks of researching, planning and writing texts for broadcasting while learning about the technology of using audio and video files to produce their podcasts. In pairs, students were required to plan, develop, draft, produce and edit a 5-8 minute podcast suitable for sharing with a broad audience. The final podcasts were uploaded to iTunes as well as onto the School’s website. Table 1 summarises the learning experiences that students were engaged in. The description in Table 1 is a summary of detailed work that occurred over a number of weeks with the teacher modelling and scaffolding different stages of the process. The students’ work was linked to curriculum outcomes and assessed within this rich learning environment that incorporated those aspects of literacy identified in curriculum documents as talking, listening, reading and writing along with aspects of digital technology. Table 2 shows an analysis of the literacy processes within these learning experiences, considering those processes that would normally be considered ‘literacy’ and those that

Table 1. Learning experiences with podcasting, integrating English, Science, Mathematics and Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE)  Teachers and students examined the components of a podcast and the technology needed. Students listened to examples of other podcasts and the teacher explained the stages of the podcast that students would produce: Title, Greeting, Introduction, Information Report (Spider), Narrative Episode, Conclusion.  In pairs students planned different parts of their podcast with the additional criteria of combining words, pictures, music and sound effects.  Students wrote storyboards for each section, took digital photos, saved and varied these using ‘Comic Strip’/Photo story software, used graphics, pictures, artwork and learnt how to combine these into the podcast files.  Students practised recording in pairs with microphone and edited their recordings; added and edited sound and music using Garage Band software.  Students evaluated each other’s podcasts then podcasts were uploaded to iTunes.

36

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

are ‘different’ because of the incorporation of digital technology. The left hand column shows those literacy practices defined in current English/ Literacy curriculum documents. The right hand column shows processes that are now identified as ‘different’, different because they suggest changed literacy and learning practices that occur within digital communication. Although viewing has been included in some English curricula in Australia for some time, aspects of viewing are included in the right hand column as it is less related to traditional views of literacy. While the columns are separated for the purpose of analysis, these processes were usually occurring together as indicated by the arrow at the top of the table. It is this integration of processes that can be defined as a new type of literacy or multimodal literacy. The differences in literacy practices evident in the right-hand column are not just the result of the use or integration of technology. Students were engaged in processes that combine traditional aspects of literacy with other modalities and semiotic systems. These processes involve multimodality, which is a convergence, or an interconnection and interdependence between the modalities of written text, image and sound. In the podcast the mode of sound was predominant

as students incorporated written text and visuals into the audio production that included their use of voice with simultaneous integration of music and sound effects. There was the further visual process of the editing of the recording, music and sound occurring on the screen along with images and graphics. All of these needed to be synchronised into the final product that would be logged as audio and visual files onto a website. If we consider our first research question, What are the literacy strategies that students need for reading, using and producing multimodal texts?, the answer has to include traditional literacy strategies combined with the use of different modalities and semiotic systems. These modalities have always existed but have not had the potential within communication that now exists within many aspects of everyday communication. As students combine different modalities it is essential that they understand them. For example, in the podcasting text the mode of sound was predominant so students needed to learn to use aspects of tone, intonation, pause, pitch, modulation and stress in their voices as they prepared their text. Our observations showed that they became very conscious of their enunciation and of the effect of their voice on the listener/audience. Music and

Table 2. Analysis of literacy practices Literacy processes

‘Different’ processes

 Reading: use of coding, semantic and pragmatic practice - linking of students’ background to new knowledge, understanding the purpose of different types of texts and audience.  Researching and reading for information across other content areas. Integration of different content areas.  At relevant times, teacher modelled and scaffolded the overall podcast genre with the different text types: information report and narrative, including concept of ‘serialised’ version or ‘chapters’ of narrative.  Students planned and wrote different text types needed.  Peer collaboration and support essential throughout with teacher demonstration and scaffolding. Talking and listening occurred throughout.  Varied use of ‘voice’ for different sections.

 Teachers and students learning together: using and learning ‘Web 2.0’ the technology of podcasting.  Understanding combined use of audio and video files.  Viewing and designing.  Awareness of elements of sound production through voice, sound effects, music and timing with visuals - use of laptops and iPods.  Production of ‘storyboards’ for both information report and narrative using digital photos, graphics or drawings.  Combination of visual, written and audio modes - students composed and designed, read and recorded programs within a time limit with sound and music.  Used different ICT software, web protocols with associated metalanguage.  Visual and digital modes combined with text.  Viewing, designing, producing combined with talking, listening, reading, writing: all used in an interdependent process.  Developed a sense of an audience - ‘authentic task’.

37

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

sound effects were integrated while producing a text on screen and these were synchronised with visual modes. At the same time the use of written text was integral as a dominant mode since the students had to write each text-type, or genre, and plan the sequencing of the language for their audio production. This whole process demonstrates a different literacy where modes converge. It was evident that these 8 year old students achieved a depth of literacy and learning about information reports and narratives along with the design and production of the podcasting process. Engagement of students was high, particularly of the boys whom the teacher had found were often disengaged from classroom learning. There was a cohesion in the literacy and learning that occurred. This was indeed a multimodal learning environment that involved students working together: talking, listening, planning, reading, researching, designing, writing and producing. Example 2 demonstrates how multimodal literacy was being developed in a different way with Kindergarten students (first year of school). Example 2. Interactivity of visual and gestural modes with reading and writing One of the predominant features of an Interactive White Board (IWB) is its interactivity and this interactivity has been established by other

researchers (e.g. Munns et al, 2006). IWBs were used in two different Kindergarten classes in this project and teachers spoke of the IWB as a most motivating, challenging and successful learning tool. Students enjoyed the speed, colour and movement of the texts and the kinaesthetic opportunities that the technology provided. Example 2 demonstrates where visual and gestural modes combined both literacy and learning in other content areas. In this case the school librarian and Kindergarten teacher planned a unit of work using an IWB within a unit of work on the theme of ‘Healthy Eating’, integrating the subjects English, Mathematics and Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE). Table 3 summarises these integrated learning experiences. In this program the teachers used a variety of multimodal texts and concrete materials to engage their young students in developing concepts of print for reading, understanding of a literary narrative, shapes for mathematics and concepts of healthy food types. The tasks were based around the mathematical concepts of shapes found in the environment. Teachers aimed to relate these to the students’ life experiences and integrated the mathematical manipulatives with Science and Technology, focusing on both healthy eating and farm animals. Story reading and concrete experiences were combined with use of the IWB, digital photography, interactive computer programs and

Table 3. Kindergarten students working with the theme of ‘Healthy Eating’  Teachers developed shared reading and reading activities with picture book The Very Hungry Caterpillar, including phonics, word recognition and comprehension activities.  Students were encouraged to consider concepts of food types and healthy food.  Shapes of food that represented healthy eating were examined as well as other shapes. Concrete objects were used to reinforce shapes e.g. an orange cut in half with discussion of what the shape looked like.  Teacher modelled correct computer/mathematical terminology for the students.  Students used a Tangram computer program to manipulate shapes. 2 & 3 dimensional shapes were made with playdough then on a geoboard. Students worked in groups to identify and make patterns with different shapes, then created an image of piece of fruit with Microsoft Paint.  Students used interactive website - ‘The Salad Factory’ - making a healthy salad [shapes/colours].  Visual identification and digital photography were used as students explored playground/local environment to identify shapes in a ‘shape hunt’. Students found a shape, took a digital photo, downloaded it on to the computer and IWB. Digital photos were categorised and highlighted to identify shapes. The IWB was used to transfer photos of shapes and work with these.  Students used blocks to make the shapes that they could see on the IWB.

38

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

Photo Story software. The differences between literacy practices with print and digital texts are displayed in the two columns in Table 4. Table 4 demonstrates that a variety of rich literacy and learning experiences occurred for these young students across different curriculum areas. It is evident that the teachers continually scaffolded students’ learning as they segued between prior knowledge and new experiences, concrete and abstract learning, and print and digital modes. In this case the modalities that were used to accompany traditional literacy and learning were principally visual and gestural, with gestural linked to both tactile and kinaesthetic senses. These modalities were operating as students identified and made different concrete shapes that were transferred into digital interactions either with computers or the IWB. These interactions involved visual recognition of images and gestural aspects that included the physical movement of using the mouse to click on icons or hypertexts and students pointing to significant images or shapes as well as using and manipulating the IWB board marker on the board. Visual, tactile and kinaesthetic senses have always been important for learning, particularly

for young learners. However the differences that were occurring in this example, and in other cases in the project, were in the way these sense experiences were used with and transferred into digital modes. In one way we could argue that this is traditional learning being enhanced by new technologies, however we need to acknowledge the possibility that a different process of learning is occurring in the way modalities are merging. This interdependence of print and digital modes, with the dominance of visual, sound or other modes together with the immediacy of technology, provides the potential for establishing classroom literacy and learning experiences that are dynamic and cohesive. Clearly the IWB technology engaged students’ attention so that they were motivated and interested in their learning. As one Kindergarten teacher commented, “Students are motivated by being able to touch something on the screen and move it around.” The main differences in literacy processes while using the IWB were that activities were occurring within a digital mode using the electronic screen, windows and facilities of a computer and its software. This is quite different from the traditional reading lesson for young students

Table 4. Analysis of literacy practices for Example 2 Literacy processes

‘Different’ processes

 Talking and listening were essential and ongoing for these young learners throughout. Language for students was continually modelled and scaffolded. For example, teachers encouraged students when they were outside and modelled language e.g. “Can you see something around here that is a triangle?” “I can see a rectangle over there. That is a window”. “How many triangles can you see?” “Why are the wheels round?”  Reading and writing: concepts of print, word-picture recognition, understanding of a narrative.  Concepts of healthy/unhealthy food.  Concepts: names and identification of foods, life cycle.  Integrated with mathematical concept of shapes, building shapes, development of tessellations with concrete materials and on screen.  Concrete manipulation of 3D shapes to 2D representations.  Use of positional language, e.g. “flipping and sliding”.

 Manipulation of shapes on screen. Tangram computer program - flipping, sliding, rotating, tessellating and discussion of shapes/features.  Transfer of concrete and visual 3D knowledge to 2D in digital mode.  Reading of digital texts - reading ‘on screen’. Visuals, graphics, audio, animation, text and interactive tools.  Visual modes: design and creation on digital screen.  Kinaesthetic: Importance of shape, colour, line direction and mouse control.  Visual, graphic mode with animation and sound. Students used visual and audio skills to make a healthy salad.  Visual, tactile and gestural modes. Reinforcement of 3D shapes then 2D - digital mode used to take photos of different shapes from playground.  ICT skills: students used tool bar and navigated the IWBused a highlighter to examine the shapes found in the photograph on the screen. Students needed to correctly identify icon and use the tool bar to access the next photo.  Using the downloaded photos, students highlighted the shapes using the IWB pen, e.g. rectangle.

39

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

where a teacher might demonstrate reading with print-based texts using a large book or text on a conventional board or an overhead projector. The facility of the IWB for teaching reading, for example, meant that the whole class could easily view and manipulate the ‘reading text’ on a screen that had the same components and files as a computer. Teacher and students were simultaneously identifying and moving the words within a digital text. The obvious advantages were the facilities for displaying different aspects of the text easily, speed for completion and potentials for self-correction. Obvious questions that arise are, how do we ensure that students are not becoming dependent on the screen if they are not writing the words themselves? Are the same ‘reading/learning processes’ occurring as previously? The analysis of the data from this project is demonstrating that there are differences in the processing of modes and in the affordances that technology provides for simultaneous articulation of these modes (Kress, 2003; Walsh, 2006). One teacher commented on how she would not like to revert to a classroom without technology, saying, “I’ve become used to just dragging things across, making them easy that way. I would have to go back to pen and paper method… photocopying things and sticking it up on the board to draw the children in that way. I would find it very difficult.” At the other end of the spectrum Example 3 shows the results of work by older students in

Year 6. The teacher, who was initially nervous about using new technology, engaged her students in highly productive and innovative learning in a unit of work. This teacher created opportunities for students to read, write, view, design and produce in both print and digital modes so that there was a continual articulation between written and digital modes. Example 3. Articulation between written and digital modes This Year 6 class consisted of high ability students so the teacher developed the content to provide for students to work on material that required higher levels of abstraction and complexity. The unit of work was on the theme of ‘Change’. It integrated English, HSIE, CPA and Technology. There was a strong focus on creative thinking, group problem solving and divergent thinking. Within the theme of ‘Change’ the focus was on the Australian Gold Rush but students were required to research and report on information using a variety of resources, including the library and the internet. Table 5 summarises the learning experiences that occurred. All tasks planned for this unit were product orientated and students were able to present their work to the rest of the class and, in the case of the movies, to other classes and parents. It was expected that students would demonstrate their

Table 5. Year 6 filming and editing within the theme of ‘Change’  Within the theme of ‘Change’ students researched the history of gold and gold rushes: ancient civilisations, legends, fables and language about gold. They developed a timeline of events in Australia from 1700-2006; gathered information, identified and reported on an individual or group involved in the discovery of gold.  Students examined the impact of the discovery of gold on the Australian Aboriginal community and used statistics to graph the population increase at the time and evaluate the reporting process.  Excursion to Bathurst assisted them to understand the experience of life on the Goldfields; compared different perspectives of life on the Goldfields; evaluated the influence these events had on the growth of Australia as a nation.  Students categorised the effects the goldrush and current mining techniques have on the environment.  Concept of Change was further explored through literature and film e.g.: Reading the novel “Jeremy, Jeremiah”; viewing the film: “Fairytale, A True Story”. Guided reading from websites was based on topics from the movie.  Students researched the Holtermann Nugget and developed a mind map to plan a group film which was to be a narrative from the perspective of an individual effected by the discovery of the Holtermann Nugget.  Students used storyboarding on Comic Life as a narrative scaffold & iLife; wrote a script as a narrative, set up scenes and costumes; dramatised the script, filmed & edited it using GarageBand to import music and sound effects.

40

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

engage in the tasks. When asked about the film study and listening to the story read aloud, many commented on the fact that all were sharing the same experience simultaneously so discussion and clarification of ideas could be shared together as opposed to individually reading a novel whereby students read at their own pace. The group included some reluctant readers who found it very difficult to settle to prolonged independent reading. In this work a rather quiet student became the class expert on all things to do with camerawork and editing. The teacher had to open the classroom at lunchtimes to have the movies completed and most students attended these extra sessions. Before the teacher could call in an expert to demonstrate the iMovie application, the students had taught themselves and were teaching other class members. Students taught themselves how to use GarageBand to add music and sound effects to the movies. All movies contained authentic details of life on the goldfields and some used the narrative technique of a time slip, as was used in the novel read aloud to them. Parents attended the premiere and were very supportive of the learning their children had been involved in. The three examples presented have demonstrated that the merging and interdependence, or convergence of modes, that occurs within

abilities to produce creative projects that exemplified the growth of their higher order thinking skills. Students were able to select from a wide range of products, both written and oral, to present their individual and group tasks. Opportunities were provided for short term and long term projects. The teacher commented, “The depth to which they undertook each task was far beyond my original expectations. It was interesting to observe the group task of movie making in particular and to note the ability of different members of the group to cooperate, negotiate and lead.” This unit had very little emphasis on teacher talk and indeed even discussions after viewing the movie and during Guided Reading rarely had the teacher in a central role, as the teacher said, “I enjoyed this aspect of the unit and found myself learning alongside the students. They responded to this in a positive manner and were eager to share their knowledge, not just with me but also with their peers. It was almost as if the classroom became a level playing field.” Table 6 shows that the literacy practices were occurring more often with digital than print-based texts. Some students found the flexibility of structure a little difficult at first and struggled to work independently, but as the unit unfolded and the students observed their peers, they were able to Table 6. Analysis of literacy practices for Example 3 Literacy processes

‘Different’ processes

 Talking listening & reading throughout: research skills, working individually and in groups.  Reading: semantic, pragmatic and critical reading practice occurred with various developments of inferential and evaluative comprehension needed.  Writing and talking: students presented a report on their research to the class.  Understanding the difference between information texts and narratives.  Understanding and writing narratives.  Understanding narratives in print compared with film.

 Research used both print and digital texts.  Reading digital texts and screens: students navigated and evaluated websites with laptops instead of books used for Guided Reading groups.  Group of boys assigned the role of “web detectives”.  Guided reading activities conducted as a group discussion or online as a forum.  Report produced as digital text.  Produced graphs in digital form.  Narrative aspects of novel and film compared - print and digital texts. Used factual events and settings as basis [the Holtermann Nugget].  Students wrote narrative scripts for film as a collaborative project, using the same narrative from different perspectives.  Reading ‘contract’ applied to reading of film.  Narrative presented as a movie.  Narrative storyboarding to represent episodes and sequence.

41

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

multimodal literacy and learning experiences involves a different literacy that many researchers are still attempting to theorise. In the podcasting example the process of the students’ writing being produced in audio and video files on to a website for others to access digitally is what Kress (2003) has referred to as “transduction”. Transduction is “…a process in which something which has been configured or shaped in one or more modes is reconfigured, reshaped according to the affordances of a quite different mode” (p.47). This transduction process is one aspect of multimodality. Alternatively there are other aspects that can occur within multimodality such as the interaction between visual and gestural modes that occurred in Example 2. Sometimes it is not transduction that occurs but a simultaneity and interdependence as different modes are processed together as in the modes of image, sound, gesture and movement that occur in a movie or in other combinations of modes. Currently other researchers are developing different terms, for example, “intersemiosis” (O’Halloran, 2003) and “co-articulation” (Martin, 2007), to further theorise the interrelationship between modes in a multimodal text or activity. Much more research and theorising are needed for us to understand such processes and to consider their educational applications. Nevertheless the classroom experiences that occurred through this project provide evidence of a variety of ways in which students were making interconnections or transitions between traditional aspects of reading and writing within visual and digital modes. Further examples of a multimodal process occurred in other tasks where students were working with combinations of print-based texts and digital texts. For example, various activities on the IWB required students to identify information, drag across the appropriate text or visuals, enlarge items and change colour or size. These actions entailed simultaneous processing of visual and tactile modes, sometimes with sound effects along with aspects of reading, spelling or writing. In conjunction with this enthusiasm was a will-

42

ingness to learn the metalanguage of computers. Teachers in the case study schools were conscious of encouraging its use. One Kindergarten teacher said children moved from ‘I am pushing on X’to ‘should I close the window?’ ‘Do you want me to minimize or maximize this?’.” Children were able to explain their processes to others: “We get the pictures ‘from [the] file … from the desktop … we’re using Max Paint. These three examples demonstrate that teachers were finding significant ways to integrate multimodal with traditional literacy practices and that all the teachers were involved in combining these in a variety of ways. Through their planning teachers were engaged in reframing pedagogy and this reframing is discussed in the next section.

the relevAnt, eXplIcIt pedAgogy ApproprIAte For IntegrAtIng MultIModAl lIterAcy WIth conventIonAl lIterAcy prActIces As with the cohesive learning illustrated through Examples 1, 2 and 3, other case studies revealed teacher approaches to pedagogy that incorporated both print-based and digital texts, integrated different curriculum areas, and focused on learning through different modalities, especially by transferring concrete experiences to digital modes. Teacher planning demonstrated that teachers were considering how to incorporate digital technology within one or more curriculum area in order to maximise students’ literacy and learning while using a combination of traditional, print-based texts as well as digital texts. Each teacher’s plan showed extreme detail that considered aspects such as the background knowledge and literacy ability of individual learners as well as the learning content needed for one or more curriculum area. There was effective integration of content

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

learning together with the strategies and skills that would be needed for researching, reading, writing and/or using ICT. Assessment was planned to be integral to the work and related to the relevant Syllabus requirements. Innovative features of planning and multimodality occurred. There were significant changes that teachers made that were different from previous approaches to their teaching. These changes demonstrated that teachers were developing multimodal learning environments in their classrooms in various ways to allow for the stage of their learners and the resources available. One aspect that emerged through the data was the predominance of design within the reading and production of digital and multimodal texts.

design within the literacy/english curriculum Design in the school curriculum is usually associated with the curriculum areas of Science and Technology or Visual Arts. It is significant that design emerged as an integral process in all of the seven case studies. The potentials of digital technology provide facilities for photographs, film, graphics and sound to be incorporated in a text, including easier access and variation for layout, fonts and publishing forms. In recent years literacy theorists, particularly the New London Group (Cope and Kalantzis, 2000), Kress (2003) and Christie (2005), have stressed the importance of design within new modes of communication. As previously mentioned, Kalantzis & Cope (2005) and Healy (2008) are applying a new learning pedagogy of design within the context of multiliteracies. Such a focus on design within new pedagogy confirms Kress’s (2003) explication that design is a link between old and new media of communication, stating that: The world of communication is now constituted in ways that make it imperative to highlight the concept of design, rather than of concepts such

as acquisition, or competence, or critique.” He adds: “In multimodal communication, the concept of design is the sine qua non of informed, reflective and productive practice. (pp.36-37) Our data supports Kress’s contention, as design was predominant through all the case studies so that ‘informed, reflective and productive practice’ was occurring for teachers and students alike. Design was integral within the literacy processes and learning experiences of students throughout the project. To read and respond to multimodal texts students often need to navigate and manipulate, as well as understand, the relationship between images, text, sound and other modes that may occur. They need to understand how the affordances of particular modes are constructing meaning separately or combined with other modes, particularly through photography, animation, film and the effect of hypermedia. Design was central within one of the case studies, for example, where the teachers developed a unit of work on fairytales using literature, drama, art and craft. Activities led to the design and creation of concrete as well as digital products so there was a cohesive merging of print-based and digital texts within the fairytale theme. Students produced a story in a print version and then a digital version with claymation, using props and puppets they had made. In another example students in a Year 6 class produced e-narratives for Kindergarten students. Design was pivotal to this process. Within the development of narratives in digital form, along with filming and sequencing, students needed to understand the relationships between image and words, the colour and size of image and text, the importance of volume, pace and tone in the use of voice and sound to accompany the narrative. Through this process the teacher encouraged students to visualise what they thought was happening in their story. Once again this example shows that design was an essential feature of students producing a digital product for their

43

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

younger audience. Students needed to understand the whole design of pages on screen, visual and digital metalanguage, along with the technology needed to create narrative in digital form, e.g. loading photography, storyboarding, scanning, filming, recording and editing. When creating screen segments, students consistently requested other students to critique the effectiveness of their images in relation to their text. Evidence, from all the case studies, confirms that design is an important element that needs to be considered for literacy in all curriculum areas, particularly the subject English itself, where multimodal texts are being read or produced. Thus the conceptual understanding of design may assist teachers in redesigning pedagogy.

conclusIon The data from this research project provides classroom evidence that enables closer theorising about multimodal literacy, particularly in relation to our two research questions. In response to the first question, What are the literacy strategies that students need for reading, using and producing multimodal texts?, significant conclusions can be drawn. To read and produce multimodal texts, students need to be able to combine traditional literacy practices with the understanding, design and manipulation of different modes of image, graphics, sound and movement with text. The case studies have shown that this combining of traditional literacy with new technology can incorporate a range of variations. Sometimes there will be a transference between written and digital modes that transforms the product. At other times there will be interactivity between modes, at other times a convergence of modes. This may be a simultaneous process or a particular mode, such as written text, image or sound, may be dominant. Then there is the consideration of how particular modes, for example sound or visual, are constructing meaning and being processed. While

44

researchers may still be searching for the exact terminology, there is an articulation and interdependence that occurs when multiple modes are processed. This processing is quite different from our traditional theories of the processes involved in reading and writing print-based texts. For the range of communication needed in their future lives students need to be able to understand, use and combine these different modes as well as being able to communicate with printbased and multimodal texts that combine these modes. While students may be adept at the skills for using and combining different modalities outside school, it is essential that they learn the meaning-making potential of these modes within different curriculum areas and learn to evaluate and critique these. Proficiency in literacy indeed requires multimodal literacy, that is the practices of talking, listening, reading and writing together with processing the modes of image, sound and movement. As the varied examples in our case studies have shown, there was cohesiveness in teacher planning and student learning when these were developed carefully with different stages that scaffolded the particular literacy or learning required. In response to our second question, What is the relevant, explicit pedagogy appropriate for integrating multimodal literacy with conventional literacy practices?, each of the case studies contributed to the ways in which theory can be realised in practice. Each case study demonstrated how teachers planned units of work that drew on the potentials of multimodal texts or digital technology in innovative ways. Teachers constructed learning experiences with multiple layers of learning ensembles, combining concrete experiences and print-based texts with digital texts. There was a strong focus on teachers’ modelling and scaffolding students’ learning with all types of texts used and produced. Rich learning experiences were developed and these experiences enabled the gradual development of metalanguage and metacognition. The common

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

elements of the learning experiences were peer collaboration in investigating, reading, writing and producing multimodal texts as well as learning the content and skills needed for specific curriculum areas. The innovative approaches to cross-age grouping or learning were a result of teachers being given the opportunity to plan creatively to engage learners and to utilise the potentials of technology resources. Although the term and process of design was not a focus in the initial briefing and planning of the teachers, the data reveals that it is an essential feature for multimodal literacy. The potential of design being considered within literacy pedagogy provides scope for understanding and planning with multimodality. If we consider the processes involved in reading, critically evaluating texts, writing and producing texts for particular purposes and audiences, then design is an integral factor. Design may be the significant factor that will assist teachers in the future as they need to incorporate traditional with multimedia and digital communication. While a great deal of further research is needed, this research study has illustrated the potential for change in classroom practice in ways that can be beneficial for both teachers and students. Different aspects of literacy and pedagogy have been demonstrated and these have implications for new theories of literacy and for future pedagogy. Dynamic and cohesive learning experiences occurred without radical changes, within current Syllabus requirements and in ways that can be sustained. Teachers developed multimodal environments that were appropriate for our multi-media age but within the realities of their schools’ resources and students’ development. The case studies are evidence that classrooms can be places where print-based texts and digital texts are read, viewed, responded to, designed and produced. Such approaches can engender a holistic literacy and learning that involves listening, reading, viewing, talking and interacting with texts and with others. In this project teachers and students explored

and demonstrated the potentials for literacy and learning in a new age.

AcKnoWledgMent The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the Catholic Education Office Sydney for its ongoing support for this research, and to thank the teachers and students involved for their enthusiastic participation in the project.

reFerences Bearne, E. (2003). Rethinking Literacy: Communication, Representation and Text. Reading Literacy and Language, 37(3), 98-103. Bearne, E., Clark, C., Johnson, A., Manford, P., Mottram, M., Wolstencroft, H., Anderson, R., Gamble, N. & Overall, L. (2007). Reading On Screen. United Kingdom Literacy Association/ Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Bearne, E. (2007). Personal communication. Brun, A. (2007, March). Beyond Difference: Reconfiguring Education for the User-Led Age. Paper presented at Ideas, Cyberspace, Education (ICE) 3 Symposium, Scotland, UK. Callow, J. and Zammitt, K. (2002). Visual literacy: from picture book to electronic texts. In Monteith, M. (Ed.) Teaching Primary Literacy with ICT (pp.189-201). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Carrington, V. (2005). New textual landscapes, information and early literacy. In J. Marsh, (ed.) Popular Culture, New Media and Digital Literacy in Early Childhood. London: Routledge Falmer. Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan.

45

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

Healy, A. (ed.) (2008). Multiliteracies and Diversity in Education. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Jewitt, C. (2002). The move from page to screen: the multimodal reshaping of school English. Visual Communication, 1(2), 171-195. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & the Learning by Design Project Group (2005). Learning by Design. Altona, Australia: Common Ground Publishing with the Victorian Schools Innovation Commission. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1996; 2006). Reading Images The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse. London: Routledge. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning. The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London: Continuum. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Kress, G. & Jewitt, C. (Eds.) (2003). Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang. Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (2002). Further notes on the four resources model. Reading Online. http:// www.readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody. html Martin, J. (2007, April). Described in a Seminar on Multimodality, University of Sydney, Australia. Marsh, J. (2007, March). Play, Learning and Digital Cultures. Seminar presentation, Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln, UK.

46

Munns, G., Arthur, L., Downes, T., Gregson, R., Power, A., Sawyer, W., Singh, M., Thistleon-Martin, J. and Steele, F. (2006). Motivation & engagement for boys. Evidence-based teaching practices. Canberra, Australia: DEST. http://www.dest.gov. au/NR/rdonlyres/29CFF6D4-7567-4C06-A43CA82079197F1F/13866/FinalReport1.pdf O’Halloran, K. (2003). Intersemiosis in mathematics and science: Grammatical metaphor and semiotic metaphor. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Ser. 4(236), 337-366. Simpson, A. (2005). Booktalk ‘on line’. Learning about literature through ‘book raps’. In L. Unsworth, A. Thomas, A. Simpson, & J. Asha, Children’s Literature and Computer Based Teaching. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Unsworth, L. (2003). Re-framing research and literacy relating to CD ROM narratives: Addressing ‘radical change’ in digital age literature for children. Issues in Educational Research, 13(2), 55-70. Unsworth, L., Thomas, A. and Bush, R. (2004). The role of images and image-text relations in group ‘basic skills tests’ of literacy for children in the primary years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 27(1), 46-65. Walsh, M. (2006). The ‘textual shift’: examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 24-37. Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have meerged: classroom evidence of changed literacy practices. Literacy, 42(2), 102-108.

Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy

Key terMs And deFInItIons Multimodality: Refers to the simultaneous reading, processing and/or producing and interacting with various modes of print, image, movement, graphics, animation, sound, music and gesture. These modes, as well as language, are often referred to as different semiotic resources (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) in that they each are symbol systems for communicating meaning. Multimodal Texts: Those texts that have more than one mode, such as print and image or print, image, sound and movement. A multimodal text is often a digital text but can be a book, such as picture book, information text or graphic text. Multimodal texts require the processing of more than one mode and the recognition of the interconnections between modes. This process is different from the linear reading of print-based texts. Multimodal Literacy: Refers to meaningmaking that occurs at different levels through the reading, viewing, understanding, responding to, producing and interacting with multimodal texts and multimodal communication (Kress & Jewitt, 2003). It may include listening, talking and dramatising as well as the writing, designing and producing of such texts.

Multimodal Learning Environments: Refer to classroom environments where teachers and students are using and interacting with different types of texts and tasks across a range of curriculum areas. Literacy and learning may occur as cohesive processes in the interchange between texts and learners.

endnote 1

Definitions: ‘multimodality’, ‘multimodal texts’, ‘multimodal literacy’ and ‘multimodal learning environments’. Different terms have been used to describe literacy for new forms of communication, for example ‘new literacies’ (Lankshear & Knobel, 2000, 2003, 2006), ‘multiliteracies’ (Cope & Kalantzis, 2001; Unsworth, 2001, 2006) and various terms such as ‘digital literacy’, ‘information literacy’ or ‘e-literacy’. While these are all valid, the above terms are maintained within this study because of the theoretical and research base of multimodality within the field of literacy education (e.g. Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, 2001, 2006; Kress, 2003).

47

48

Chapter IV

Pedagogical Mash Up:

Gen Y, Social Media and Learning in the Digital Age Derek E. Baird Yahoo!, Inc., USA Mercedes Fisher Milwaukee Applied Technical College, USA

AbstrAct In this chapter we outline how educators are creating a “mash up” of traditional pedagogy with new media to create a 21st Century pedagogy designed to support the digital learning styles of Gen Y students. The research included in this paper is intended as a directional means to help instructors and course designers identify social and new media resources and other emerging technologies that will enhance the delivery of instruction while meeting the needs of today’s digital learning styles. The media-centric Generation Y values its ability to use the web to create self-paced, customized, on-demand learning paths that include using multiple platforms for mobile, interactive, social, and self-publishing experiences. These can include wiki, blogs, podcasts and other developing social platforms like Second Life, Twitter, Yackpack and Facebook. New media provides these hyper-connected students with a medium for understanding, social interaction, idea negotiation, as well as an intrinsic motivation for participation. The active nature of today’s digitally connected student culture is one that more resourcefully fosters idea generation and experience-oriented innovation than traditional schooling models. In addition, we describe our approach to utilizing current and emerging social media to support Gen Y learners, facilitate the formation of learning communities, foster student engagement, reflection, and enhance the overall learning experience for students in synchronous and asynchronous virtual learning environments (VLE). Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Pedagogical Mash Up

IntroductIon to Web 2.0 & generAtIon y The basic idea of the Web is that an information space through which people can communicate, but communicate in a special way: communicate by sharing their knowledge in a pool. The idea was not just that it should be a big browsing medium. The idea was that everybody would be putting their ideas in, as well as taking them out. — Tim Berners-Lee

Web 2.0: It’s All About relationships (and Interaction) In the past social interaction required students and teachers to be tied to a physical space—such as a brick and mortar classroom. But as the Web has evolved, students and teachers have been able to utilize new media technologies to replicate face-to-face social interactions into Web-based learning environments. This movement of using Web-based platforms for social interaction has been dubbed “Web 2.0.” One of the main attributes of Web 2.0 is the transition of the user as passive participant to an active co-participant who creates both the content and context for their experience. Web 2.0 (social media) is based on three very simple, yet often overlooked principles: 1) humans are inherently social creatures; 2) the continued

viability of any social system is rooted in an individual’s ability to trust the members of the group and control their level of interaction; and 3) social networking should be used in a situated and engaging context. A 2005 study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (Lenhart & Madden, 2005) reported that 48% of teens feel that using the Internet improves their relationships, and 74% report using Instant Messaging (IM) as the technology of choice when it comes to fostering and supporting social relationships with their peers. In an educational context, social technologies, such as those outlined in the Pew Internet Study, have the potential to engage students in the learning materials and allow them to be included as active participants. Since Gen Y students are drawn to Web 2.0 tools, learning is facilitated by technology as they construct a learning landscape rooted in social interaction, knowledge exchange, and optimum cognitive development with their peers.

Meet generation y: Wired, digital, and Always-on Raised in the world of interactive, Web-based new media, today’s student has different expectations and learning styles than previous generations. A key attribute valued by Gen Y is their ability to use the Web as a platform on which to create a

Table 1. What are the key attributes of Web 2.0? Foundation Attributes • User-contributed value: Users make substantive contributions to enhance the overall value of a service. • Network effect: For users, the value of a network substantially increases with the addition of each new user. Experience Attributes: • Decentralization: Users experience learning on their terms, not those of a centralized authority, such as a teacher. • Co-Creation: Users participate in the creation and delivery of the learning content. • Re-mixability: Experiences are created and tailored to user needs, learning style, and multiple intelligences by integrating the capabilities of multiple types of social media. • Emergent systems: Cumulative actions at the lowest levels of the system drive the form and value of the overall system. Users derive value not only from the service itself, but also the overall shape that a service inherits from user behaviors.

(Schauer, 2005)

49

Pedagogical Mash Up

self-paced, customized, interactive, on-demand experience, with plenty of opportunities for social networking with peers, and self-publish content to the Web. A recent study conducted by the US-based Kaiser Family Foundation (Rideout, Roberts, & Foehr, 2005) found that teens routinely incorporate multiple forms of new and old media into their daily practice. For example, teens listen to music on their iPod, while simultaneously sending instant messages, watching TV, scouring the Web for information and writing a report for school. The end result is 8.5 hours of media consumption and multitasking squeezed into 6.5 hours a day (Rideout et al., 2005). Moreover, although 90% of teen online access occurs in the home, the Kaiser Foundation Study (Rideout et al., 2005) found that many students access the Web via mobile devices such as a cell-phone (39%), portable game (55%), or other Web-enabled handheld device (13%).

Everyone involved in education needs to pay attention to these emerging sociological trends and design learning environments that will appeal to the “digital reality” of today’s students. While the move from “Mass Media” to “My Media” is a shift in thinking for many, Gen Y views the world of virtual, social and always-on interactivity as their reality.

understanding gen y & digital learning styles In the 21st Century classroom, the student wants to control the how, what, and when a task is completed. Social media and other Web-based technologies are well suited to provide avenues for students to engage in a social, collaborative, and active dialogue in the online learning environment with their peers and instructor. A study conducted by the UK-based NESTA FutureLabs (2005) reported that the education

Table 2. Gen Y digital learning attributes •

Interactive

Interactive, engaging content and course material that motivates them to learn through challenging pedagogy, conceptual review, and feedback. Students expect to find, use, and “mash up” various types of web-based media: audio, video, multimedia, edutainment and/or educational gaming/simulation.

•

Student-Centered

Shifts the learning responsibility to the student, and emphasizes teacher-guided instruction and modeling. Customized, ability to use interactive and social media tools, and ability to self-direct how they learn.

•

Situated

Reconcile classroom use of social media with how technology is being used outside of the classroom. Use of technology is tied to both authentic (learning) activity and intrinsic motivation.

•

Collaborative

Learning is a social activity, and students learn best through observation, collaboration, and intrinsic motivation and from self-organizing social systems comprised of peers. This can take place in either a virtual or in-person environment.

•

On-Demand

Ability to multitask and handle multiple streams of information and juggle both short and long term goals. Access content via different media platforms, including mobile, PC based, or other handheld (portable) computer device.

Authentic

Active and meaningful activities based on real-world learning models. Industry driven problems and situations are the focus and require reflective elements, multiple perspectives and collaborative processes for relevant applicable responses from today’s student.

•

(Baird, 2006)

50

Pedagogical Mash Up

“should be reversed to conform to the learner, rather than the learner to the system.” Moreover, NESTA found that social media should be used to enable learners to study and be assessed according to their own learning style (BBC, 2005). Digital learning theory and pedagogical practice also centers on the concept that learning needs to be situated in a social and collaborative context. Discussion among peers can make the often invisible community threads more visible and accessible, and may lead students to find others in the group who share the same interests. Students are hard wired to look at the variety of available Web 2.0 technologies and then construct their own learning path, and content based on their intrinsic learning needs. As students go through process of choosing, utilizing, integrating and sharing content it provides opportunities for them to be actively engaged, provide and receive feedback, as well as acquire, share, and make use of community knowledge. More importantly, this emerging digital pedagogy emphasizes providing students with a broad range of technology tools, then providing them with avenues to develop their own understanding and knowledge. As a result, students are highly motivated to discuss and create content, solve problems together, and apply new concepts which relate to their own practice. This approach also provides student’s with access to flexible, selfpaced, customizable content available on-demand for learning opportunities. The use of social and new media provides students with an opportunity to self-assess their understanding (or lack of) of the current course topic with their peers. Moreover, as students utilize social technologies to share their thought processes and provide feedback to their learning community, they are able to help each other work through cognitive roadblocks, modify their perceptions, and negotiate their own views while simultaneously building a collaborative peer support system. In addition, collaborative project-based learning environments help students develop critical

thinking and problem solving skills—both essential skills for students to compete in today’s global knowledge-based workforce.

digital disconnect: sociological trends and Implications As you may expect, traditional academic institutions have generally resisted the influence and increasingly pervasive presence of social networking activities in the life of their students, but recently the same institutions have had to look with new eyes at all of the aspects and consequences of these new modes of technological socialization sweeping the younger generations. — Ruth Reynard Gen Y students have grown up surrounded by new media and value the ability to choose how, what, where, and when they will learn. According to the 2005 Pew Internet study, teenagers are actively embracing the interactive capabilities of the Internet to create, publish, and share their own content (blogs, podcasts, Web pages, photographs, wiki, and/or video). In fact, the Pew Internet Study concluded that fully half of all teens who use the internet could be considered content creators (Lenhart & Madden, 2005). Students report feeling a sense of growing disconnect between the authentic ways they use technology outside of the classroom and the ways they use it in the classroom (Levin, Arafes, Lenhart, & Rainie, 2002). This growing disconnect has resulted in many students feeling bored and constrained by traditional curriculum and pedagogical theory. According to the High School Survey of Student Engagement, the majority of students interviewed reported they don’t feel challenged in their coursework at school. Students also cited that they never or rarely received feedback from their teachers (Sanoff, 2005). The expectation for highly interactive, flexible, collaborative, and desire to play a more active

51

Pedagogical Mash Up

role in their own learning has already had an impact on the way colleges and even high schools educate students. The Michigan State Board of Education recently mandated that every high school student would have to take at least one online course to receive a diploma (Carnevale, 2005). Among the many reasons cited for adding the online course requirement was the realization that “much learning is going to take place in the 21st Century online.” The combination of social interaction with opportunities for peer support and collaboration creates an interesting, engaging, stimulating, and intuitive learning environment for students (Fisher & Baird, 2005). Effective course design will blend traditional pedagogy with the reality of the new media multitasking learner.

digital divide The infusion of social and new media into the 21st Century pedagogy isn’t without challenges. One of the key areas of concern is providing universal access to the Internet and bridging the digital divide between students and/or teachers who have technology and those who don’t. The issues around the digital divide, first raised in the 1990s, continue to be an area of concern. Even in countries where the Internet is widely accessible, there are still regions that remain digitally isolated. According to 2008 National Technology Scan, a report conducted by Parks Associates, nearly 20 million American homes report being without Internet access and/or self-identified as lacking the technological expertise required to create content, search for information, or send an email. At the 2008 ad:tech Miami Conference, Fabia Juliasz of ibope/NetRatings noted that Internet access in Latin America (Brazil 22%, Mexico 22%, Argentina 26%, and Chile 41%) continues to expand at a steady but slow pace. Since most student consumption of new and social media technologies occurs in the home, lack of at home

52

access makes educational uses of the Internet problematic. This also makes it difficult for the teacher to assign projects or homework to students that require Internet access. Increasingly there is a trend towards providing professional development online via Web-based platforms (Elluminate, Tapped-In, Facebook, Classroom 2.0, LearnHub etc.) all of which require participants to have Internet access. Teachers without access to the Internet at school or at home will miss out on these valuable opportunities to network with their colleagues and learn emerging and new best practices. On a positive note, the divide has closed and the rapid adoption of mobile devices and broadband connections will continue to help shrink the divide and provide opportunities for students to participate in mobile learning (mLearning) environments.

neW MedIA, socIAl netWorKs, & vIrtuAl leArnIng envIronMents (vle) Learning requires more than just information, but also the ability to engage in the practice. — Paul Duguid The use of new media and social networks in a situated context provides both the structure and building blocks for interaction to take place. The end result is an environment which combines social media, Web-based information resources, and communities to provide a more diverse, active, and engaging learning experience. Papert (1996) asserts that learning “is grounded in the idea that people learn by actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information ‘poured’ into their heads.” Moreover, he asserts that people learn with particular effectiveness when they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful artifacts”, such as Weblogs, iPod, podcasting/audio blogs, wiki, social

Pedagogical Mash Up

bookmarking, and other types of user-generated content (UGC).

how social Media supports digital learning styles The formation of an online learning community allows students to learn in a social context and turn to peers who are subject matter experts for immediate feedback and assistance. This approach also provides opportunities for students to learn through a cognitive apprentice with instructor and/or peers. In addition, opportunities should be provided for students to quantify their knowledge and skills in order to help them identify their place as well as other students with specific expertise. It’s important to allow a community the freedom to discover where they fit in the learning community. The collaborative and interactive aspects of projects undertaken in a course allow students to interact with other members of the class, allow students to identify who has a particular skill or expertise they want to acquire, and then provides opportunities for them to model and scaffold this knowledge from their peers. In addition the virtual learning environment allows students to explore and negotiate their understanding of the course content and find ways for the learner to develop a sense of intellectual identity (Papert, 1999). When students collaborate they form social ties which motivate them to establish an identity within the group through active participation and contributions to the collective knowledge pool. Through this process learners become motivated on an individual level as well as fostering a sense of accountability to the group to continue to participate. Anthropologist Lori Kendall, who spent almost two years researching the dynamics of social identity and community, concluded that members of virtual environments have intact social systems, and at times highly charged social relations. But unlike the electronic window of television,

Kendall found that members of an online community feel that when they connect to an online forum, they enter a social, if not physical space (Kendall, 1999). In this new digital age, we need to redefine our concept of what constitutes a legitimate “social system”, “learning community” or “social interaction.” In many ways, the effective use of new media to support instruction provides the same or better quality of socialization than a traditional classroom. If we are truly to expand educational opportunities via virtual learning environments and social networks, we will need to recognize and validate the existence of online communities, relationships, and interaction.

teaching & learning in social networks Critics of e-learning often characterize online classrooms as neutral spaces devoid of human connection, emotion, or interaction with instructors or peers. However, effective use of social networking and new media technologies provides educators and students with the ability to interject emotion in the online space, thereby providing opportunities for peers to make emotional connections with classmates, and create a community of practice just as they do in the ‘real time’ world of the brick and mortar classroom. Social networks can also provide an outlet for students who are socially isolated or shy in the traditional classroom, a way connect, share ideas and collaborate with their peers. Clearly, the key to a successful online user experience is to help students find ways to construct relationships with their peers, while simultaneously meeting their digital learning styles. A digital ethnographic study conducted by Goldman-Segall (1997) at the University of British Columbia pointed out how media tools create a constructivist learning environment which allows people to build interpretations of their data and utilize their individual life experi-

53

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 3. Education social networks Platform •

LearnHub

http://learnhub.com

•

Tutor Linker

http://tutorlinker.com/

•

Apple Learning Interchange

http://edcommunity.apple.com/ali/

•

Discovery Education Network

http://www.discoveryeducatornetwork.com/

•

Elgg Spaces

http://elggspaces.com/

•

Classroom 2.0/Ning

http://classroom20.com

ence, multiple intelligences, while still working as part of a collaborative team. Tosh and Werdmuller (2004) point out that students can use social networking to create their own learning and social communities. These self-directed learning communities could then provide resources, increase engagement in the course content, as well as provide a “network of knowledge transfer.” In the same vein as Vygotsky and other social learning theorist, their “power in the process” hypothesis states that the development of optimum cognitive development is rooted in the social exchange of information on both “the individual and collective levels” resulting in “opportunities to build one’s learning instead of just being the recipients of information (Tosh & Werdmuller, 2004).” Social networking media is an effective and authentic tool that engages the user in the content and allows them to be included as an active participant social interaction, knowledge exchange, and engagement with their peers.

theory to practice: social Media in the classroom While teens have become increasingly hyperconnected and mobile, schools have been slow to respond to this cultural shift in the way students learn and communicate with each other. For the most part, educators, parents and school administrators have responded to the new digital reality by filtering, blocking, and restricting the use of

54

url

digital devices, Web sites, new media and social networking in the classroom. This growing tension between the digitally wired teens and their schools is reflected in a 2007 study by the US-based National School Board Association which showed that 96% of students use social networking technologies, such as chatting, text messaging, blogging, and participating in online communities such as Facebook, MySpace, and Webkinz, or Moshi Monsters (NSBA, 2007). Adding to the growing sense of disconnect between wired teens and their schools, nearly 96% of districts participating in the NSBA study report that teachers are assigning homework that requires internet (NSBA, 2007). Moreover, the NSBA study found that nearly 60% of online students report discussing education-related topics such as college or college planning, learning outside of school, and 50% of students reported that they use social networks to connect with peers to talk specifically about schoolwork. In short, today’s Web-savvy students are stuck in text-dominated classrooms.

preparing teachers for 21st century learning The other challenge is providing educators with the necessary professional development and training they need in order to effectively integrate new and social media technologies into their curriculum, as well as helping them develop a deeper understanding of the sociological shifts in students’ learning styles.

Pedagogical Mash Up

In his book, “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns”, Harvard University professor Clayton Christensen focuses on how education, technology, and innovation will impact the future of learning. Among other things, Christensen predicts that by 2019 half of all high school courses will be taught online. If learning moves online as Christensen predicts, what are the implications for educators? Teaching online with new and social media requires a different pedagogical approach from traditional teaching methods. Which raises an important question: Are educators getting the training and/or professional development required to teach our 21st Century students? In the immediate future, teachers will need access to the correct pedagogical training for this shift — especially so they can realize the possibility that new and social media technology can truly improve learning.

student safety & social networks Many educators face resistance from parents and school administrators about student use of the social Web. As a result, many schools use Web filters that block out large swaths of information. Understandably, the concern is that students will encounter inappropriate information or sexual predators. However a recent study in the Journal of the American Psychologist (Wolak, Finkelhor, David, Mitchell, and Ybarra, 2008) found that many of the beliefs about sexual predators on the Web are overblown and, in some cases, not true. The study found that “the stereotype of the Internet ‘predator’ who uses trickery and violence to assault children is largely inaccurate.” While there isn’t an easy solution when it comes to student Internet use, parents, teachers, and educators--need to take a less hyped, rational, measured approach on using social media in the classroom—and at home.

As a community, educators need to work on educating students to be more aware of the potential hazards and implications of disclosing too much personal information on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. At a time when teens are constantly being reminded about the dangers lurking in social networks, it’s always good to remind them that there are still plenty of dangers left in the nondigital world.

pedAgogIcAl MAsh up: gen y & leArnIng In the dIgItAl Age Perhaps our generation focused on information, but these kids focus on meaning -- how does information take on meaning? – John Seeley Brown The variety of Web 2.0 tools are providing students with the opportunity to socialize around the context of the content, in terms of subject matter, production and commentary. These experiences become integrated into today’s use of everyday devices in the everyday lives of the students for whom we design. As a result, the learning is embedded in and transferable to other contexts for the student. Here we provide an overview of the current wave of Web-based tools and outline how social and new media can work together to support learning, and foster community in the frontline and offline classroom.

social bookmarking and social search Social bookmarking provides students with a platform to exchange and share information found on the Web. As students search the Web they can save their search results, tag them with keywords, and then depending on whether they have marked the links private or public, share their pool of links

55

Pedagogical Mash Up

and resources with their learning community and classmates. Members of a community can also search, structure, and self-organize content via tags (keywords). You can then see what resources they are sharing with the community and add the ones you find most relevant to your tag list. And vice-versa. In this way, social bookmarking becomes an organic learning tool, evolving with the interests and needs of the community and the course.

using social bookmarking to support Instruction A teacher can place links in a community knowledge repository as a jumping off point for students. As students begin to research a topic, they can add content to and search the community pool. In this manner, students are scaffolding their own knowledge and the teacher is working as a facilitator, instead of a “sage on the stage”. Table 4. Social search/bookmarking resources Platform

url

•

del.icio.us

http://del.icio.us

•

H20 Playlist

http://h2obeta.law.harvard.edu

•

Rollyo

http://rollyo.com

•

Blinklist

http://blinklist.com

•

Diigo

http:// diigo.com

Weblogs/blogs Weblogs, more commonly known as “blogs”, allow students to publish their thoughts and reflections while participating in a collective environment. As students reflect on their own Weblog entries, read their peers posts, receive feedback and network with their community of learners they are creating an environment for knowledge transfer to take place. The user’s ability to connect with members of their learning community via differing types of social media is an important consideration for today’s learner. The interactive, collaborative, engaging nature of a blog combined with the ability to instantaneously publish content on the Web, enables students to use technology as a vehicle for presenting their own work as well as providing opportunities for feedback from their peers. Moreover, blogs give students a chance to read, write, and expand their computing skills. For example, if one student reads another student’s blog and sees a video in the blog, they want to learn how to complete that same skill. As a result, they collaborate with their peers to learn how to complete the same task (put video in a blog). Vlogs or Movlogs are blogs which allow users to put video content on their blog. Platforms such as Flickr, contain mobile blogging tools, titled Moblogs, in which users post photographs or video taken from their camera enabled mobile phone.

Table 5. Student perspectives on blogging Source • Synchronous Course Discussion

• Course Blog

Comment “One ‘attitude’ that might have changed for me regarding blogs, is that they don’t necessarily have to be eloquently written (personal conversation, Mar 1, 2005)” “Other than using mandatory course-related academic discussion boards, I have never participated in this particular style of communication medium. It is necessary to become technologically informed and literate so thanks for providing this opportunity (personal conversation, February, 2005).”

• Synchronous Course Discussion

“I think if there is a focus or topic to blog on then the impact on a learning community would be tremendous—a guided blog. This type of journaling would offer a variety of POVs (point of views) and foster a culture of learning (personal conversation, March 1, 2005).”

56

Pedagogical Mash Up

using blogs to support Instruction The key feature of blogs is the author’s ability to self-publish in an easy and quick manner on the Web. Students could be required to maintain a Web log (blog) or other Web-based journal throughout the program, as well as individual blogs for each course. Reflection is a major component in online courses, and provides students with an avenue for expressing their own observed growth, and ability to make multiple connections within a course. Many students today use these types of blogs naturally and almost automatically. In addition, unlike previous generations, today’s digital student doesn’t learn or consume information in a linear path. Rather they have an “always-on” learning style that is driven by their intrinsic interests and looking at chunks of materials how and when they want. Table 6. Weblog/blog resources Platform

url

•

Blogger

http://www.blogger.com

•

Vox

http://vox.com

•

Squidoo

http://www.squidoo.com

•

Typepad

http://www.typepad.com

•

Wordpress

http://wordpress.com

•

Edublogs

http://edu.blogs.com

•

Gaggle

http://gaggle.net

By integrating a blog into your course, your class materials are available “on demand” thereby meeting the new digital learning styles of today’s Gen Y student. In addition, students are able to utilize the latest in mobile technologies to access a myriad of information—including your course blog, right from their mobile phone.

podcasts & Audio tools The Kaiser Family Foundation Study (Rideout et al., 2005) found that 65% of teens have a portable mp3 device. The ubiquitous use of these types of portable devices provides educators with a unique opportunity to use podcasts as a mobile content delivery tool. Not only will students and teachers will be able to use podcasting technology to locate and then download audio content, but it will also provide them with the software and tools to be able to create and share their own content in a podcast. Teachers who incorporate podcasting into their curriculum cite many benefits, including an increased sense of student motivation stemming from community feedback, authentic and situated use of social technology in an instructional context, and the freedom to download the podcast content “on-demand.”

using podcasts to support Instruction

Vlogs/Movlogs (Video Blog) Platform

url

•

Blip.tv

http://www.blip.tv

•

OurMedia

http://www.ourmedia.org

•

YouTube

http://youtube.com

•

Jumpcut

http://jumpcut.com

•

Vimeo

http://vimeo.com

Moblogs (Mobile Blog) Platform

Podcasting will allow teachers to easily publish (or podcast) lectures, photos (perfect for the art history or architecture student), or foreign language accents pronunciations and drills, along with a myriad of other course content. Students will be able to subscribe to a course content feed and then automatically receive the content on their mp3 device.

url

•

Flickr

http://flickr.com

•

Shozu

http://shozu.com

•

Vox

http://vox.com

yackpack Developed by researchers at the Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford University, YackPack is a 57

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 7. Podcasting/audio resources Platform

url

•

Kidcast

http://www.ftcpublishing.com/kidcast.html

•

Odeo

http://odeo.com

•

Education Podcast Network

http://epnweb.org

•

Yahoo! Podcasts

http://podcast.yahoo.com

•

iTunes U

http://www.apple.com/education/itunesu/

•

BBC MP3

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/mp3.shtml

•

Yahoo! Audio Search

http://audio.search.yahoo.com/audio/learnmore

social audio platform that allows users to record and send audio messages to friends inside privately formed groups. While there are other products that provide avenues for collaboration over the Web—most notably message boards, email, and instant messaging—YackPack is among the first social media tools to allow users to share both live and asynchronous voice messages. The ability to interject voice into an online space is important because it provides opportunities for members of a community to convey the expression, emotion, and intimacy embedded in human speech. The ability to integrate human speech into the curriculum becomes even more important in pure online learning context where students and teachers only meet in a virtual environment.

using Audio Messaging to support Instruction An EFL (English Foreign Language) teacher (or Spanish, German, etc.) can post audio messages (verb conjugation, dialogue, etc) to an entire class. In turn, the students can respond to the teacher via a YackPack audio message. Instructors can Table 8. Yackpack resources

58

•

Yackpack

http://yackpack.com

•

StorytellingU

http://storytellingu.com

•

Yacklearning

http://yacklearning.net

•

Yackpack + PBWiki

http://www.blip.tv/file/196824

also use YackPack as a tool to provide narrative feedback, assessment, and student support. In addition, you can also post Yackpack audio in PBWiki.

Wiki A wiki is a collaborative Website where members can add, delete and change the content as needed. Wiki’s can be used to brainstorm on ideas, create “work-in-progress” drafts, organize content, and provide participants with opportunities for interaction. Wikipedia is one of the most extensive and popular wiki’s on the Web. Many wiki clients allow you to create a mash up of rich media such as video, audio, PowerPoint, RSS feeds, widgets and other social media into your wiki. Not only does this make your wiki more interactive, but it also allows you to offer a variety of media that supports the multiple learning styles of students. The WikiMedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that maintains several wiki’s including one of the most well known, Wikipedia, a Web-based collaborative encyclopedia project. Since WikiMedia is an open-source technology, students take can actively contribute to any of the WikiMedia projects.

using a Wiki to support Instruction An instructor can have students form groups, conduct research on a topic of their choice, and then add their findings to the corresponding entry

Pedagogical Mash Up

in Wikipedia. Or teachers could start a wiki to share teaching resources, curriculum ideas, or a forum for community support and interaction. Wiki’s are well suited to facilitate collaboration, communication and extend learning between peers. Most wiki clients provide privacy controls allowing you to choose which wiki pages you want to be public. Most importantly, wiki’s provide a platform where everyone can contribute their ideas and extend the virtual boundaries of classrooms.

rss Really Simple Syndication (RSS) technology is an XML based format that provides the backbone for the distribution of Weblog, podcasting, and other content. RSS allows users to easily syndicate or publish their content for use by others. There are several free RSS aggregators or news readers available, including Bloglines, Feedburner, My Yahoo!, Google Reader and Yahoo! Pipes. After a user subscribes to a RSS feed, the content (blogs, Websites, online community groups) automatically updates and is displayed in the feed reader. RSS readers also allow students to self-publish and share their content feed with members of their learning community.

using rss to support Instruction A key benefit is the users ability to pick and choose (subscribe) to a particular RSS feed and then have

the content updated in real time. In this manner, RSS is an important educational media tool to facilitate and support the “always on” learning styles of Gen Y. RSS readers allow students to self-publish and share their content feed with members of their learning community. The use of RSS further supports multiple learning styles by allowing the user to select which content is relevant and then have it delivered directly to them for “on demand” viewing at their convenience. As an assessment tool, RSS feeds provide teachers with several benefits. For example, instructors can subscribe to each students RSS feed and have their homework delivered directly into their aggregator, saving them the time consuming task of entering each student’s URL in order to view their e-portfolio or blog.

Flickr Sharing photos is an inherently social activity and Flickr, a Yahoo! company, was the first Web-based photo hosting service to successfully translate this experience into the online space. The key element that makes Flickr so unique is that active exploration and community are interwoven as main components of the design. Flickr is important because its ease-of-use allows students to keep their focus on acquiring new skills, building on existing knowledge while at the same time developing writing, software, and strengthening social ties within their learning

Table 9. Wiki resources Platform

url

•

PBWiki

http://pbwiki.com

•

Swicki

http://hnu.ida.liu.se/scwiki/Wiki.jsp

•

Wikimedia/Wikipedia

http://www.wikimedia.org

•

Zoho

http://wiki.zoho.com

•

Wetpaint

http://wetpaint.com

•

Social Text

http://www.socialtext.net/medialiteracy/index.cgi?wiki_resources

•

Miki (mobile wiki)

http://www.socialtext.com/node/75

59

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 10. RSS resources & tools Platform Yahoo! Pipes

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes

•

Google Reader

www.google.com/reader

•

Bloglines

http://www.bloglines.com

•

Feedburner

http://www.feedburner.com

•

New York Times RSS Generator

http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink

circle. This is especially important in geographically dispersed learning communities, where students may have limited face-to-face time to build a support network with their peers.

using Flickr to support Instruction One of the unique features of Flickr is the ability of users to use their camera phones to take and upload pictures directly to their photoblog. Since most students already have access to a camera enabled cell phone, students can integrate Flickr into a mLearning activity. For example, students can use their camera phone fon a field trip to take pictures, and easily post them to their own Flickr photoblog. Later, students can write about their experiences on the field trip, reflect, and share their thoughts with their learning community via a Flickr group (Baird, 2005). Flickr holds great potential as part of a multifaceted approach that blends constructivist learning theory and mobile technologies in the curriculum. To be sure, Flickr and other mobile social media cannot, and should not, replace faceto-face communication between teachers and students; rather, it should be used as one of many digital tools that, when skillfully integrated into the curriculum, has the potential to open lines of dialogue, communication, and learning. One of the challenges for educators is finding open copyright images and graphics they can use in their classroom. A partnership between Creative Commons, a non-profit that provides an alterna-

60

url

•

tive to copyright, Flickr and the generosity of the Flickr community has resulted in over a million photographs being made available for educators to use in their classroom. Flickr provides educators with a powerful resource that can support differentiated instruction and support the multiple learning styles of their students. The visual and interactive nature of Flickr supports students who excel in learning activities that are centered on visual, kinthestic, and tactile learning activities. Moreover, Flickr provides opportunities for students and instructors to create an engaging, open, and decentralized learning environment where ideas, creativity, and dialogue can be shared in an “always on” format that meets the needs of today’s digital learner.

educAtIon 2.0: MAsh up, reMIX, reuse A mash up is a Website, widget, or Web application that uses content from more than one source to create a completely new service (Wikipedia, 2006). They combine separate, stand-alone technologies into a new application. The following chart illustrates how mash ups of new media platforms have been mashed up to create social and interactive learning activities that appeal to the digital and mobile sensibility of Gen Y students.

Pedagogical Mash Up

Looking towards the future, the next wave of learning will take place in the mobile space. The convergence of mobile technologies into student-centered learning environments requires academic institutions to design new and more

eMergIng educAtIonAl MedIA The fates guide those who go willingly; those who do not, they drag. — Seneca Table 11. Educational mash-up of Web 2.0 platforms Platform

URL

About

Flickr •

http://www.delivr.net

Search Flickr tags to find photos and create postcard or greeting cards.

http://www.slide.com/flickr

Create embeddable slideshows using Flickr tag(s).

http://metaatem.net/words

Use Flickr tags to enhance your spelling lists.

delivr

•

Slide

•

Spell with Flickr

•

Huge Big Labs

http://bighugelabs.com/flickr

Several Flickr mashups including mosaic maker, slideshows, calendar & more.

•

Bubblr

http://pimpampum.net/bubblr/

Create comic strips using Flickr photos and/or tags.

•

Findr

•

Spell with Flickr

http://www.krazydad.com/defacement/squirclescope.php

Create a kaleidoscope using Flickr tags.

•

North American Wildflower Guide

http://www.flickr.com/groups/wildflowers/

Search and discover hundreds of images of North American wildflowers.

•

Boardr

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/12356/locale/en

Create a storyboard using Flickr photos.

http://maps.google.com

View landmarks & read narratives of the historic Route 66

http://www.googlelittrips.org

Google Earth Maps mashed together with pictures, videos and other information tied to classic literature.

http://www.forestandthetrees.com/findr

Use Findr to locate photographs by related tags and refining your tag search.

Google Maps •

•

Oral History of Route 66

Lit Trips

•

Google Mars

http://www.google.com/mars/

View topography, narratives of space explorers, and view spacecraft used to explore the Red Planet. Created in conjunction with NASA.

•

Jack Kerouac

http://maps.google.com

View landmarks and see pictures of the places in Kerouac’s “On the Road.”

continued on following page

61

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 11. continued Yahoo! Maps Created by the Kennedy Center, this map plots the life and works of William Shakespeare.

•

Exploring Shakespeare

•

Geologic Atlas of the United States

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/2490/locale/en

Map gallery of geologic features.

•

Life in San Francisco

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/1/locale/en

Watch videos mashed together with Yahoo! Maps explore San Francisco.

•

Disappearing Places

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/13126/locale/en

Archive and collective map of places that no longer exist.

•

Mile Calculator

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/5551/locale/en

http://gallery.yahoo.com/apps/11863/locale/en

Allows users to drag a path using the mouse on a mapped location and finds the miles or kilometers traversed over it.

Yahoo! Pipes (RSS) •

Yahoo! Pipes

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_id=hMj_ M5_42xG0ZSPIJhOy0Q

Edublog mash up

•

WPR Science & Education

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_ id=DrfI595U3BG5Ef_VouNLYQ

WPR interviews on science and education.

•

Second Life

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_ id=qswEzwu92xGA5Up_lfXiAA

Mash up of RSS feeds on using Second Life in education.

•

CS Education

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_ id=Hr9BCQTE2xGFf5qPmLokhQ

Mash up of K-12 CS education blogs.

•

Yackpack + PBwiki

http://www.blip.tv/file/196824

Video showing how to embed Yackpack audio into a PBWiki.

•

WikiMapia

http://www.wikimapia.org/

Community generated content and Google Map mash up.

•

Musipedia

http://www.musipedia.org/

Collective musical encyclopedia & wiki platform.

http://www.frappr.com/

Social map application; created with Google Maps. Users can create maps and embed on wiki, blog or web page.

http://memorywiki.org

Community generated collective encyclopedia of first-person narratives of historical events. Created using the Wikimedia suite of tools.

Wiki

•

•

Frappr

MemoryWiki

continued on following page

62

Pedagogical Mash Up

Table 11. continued MS Office •

Blogger for Word

•

Creative Commons for MS Office

http://buzz.blogger.com/bloggerforword.html

Publish to Blogger via MS Word plug-in.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Microsoft_Office_Addin

Easily apply a Creative Commons license to your MS Word documents with this plug-in.

effective learning, teaching, and user experience strategies. The rapid adoption of wireless, mobile and cloud computing by Gen Y learners will require educators to designl earning environments for wireless, mobile, or other portable Web-enabled devices (video iPod, PSP, Palm, iPhone). In addition to mLearning (mobile learning), Web applications like Twitter, Facebook and Second Life hold great promise as an educational platform.

twitter Twitter is an online microblogging application that is part blog, part social networking site, and part mobile phone/IM tool. It is designed to let users describe what they are doing or thinking at a given moment in 140 characters or less. As a tool for students and faculty, Twitter could be used academically to foster interaction and support metacognition (Educase, 2007). Twitter also holds great promise as a way for seasoned educators to easily and quickly share their practice with novice or pre-service teachers. In this way, Twitter is being used as a digital legitimate peripheral participation or mentoring tool (Holahan, 2007).

Facebook Facebook has taken an open source approach by releasing an API which allows developers to create Facebook Applications for the education

community. The Facebook team has issued a call to action for the developer community to “create the applications that help people connect, track, and collaborate with their teachers, professors, and classmates (Moran, 2007).” This open platform approach has resulted in an influx of new educational oriented Facebook Apps as well as a mash up of existing Web 2.0 tools. For example the wiki you created with Zoho can now be used in Facebook with a mash up between Zoho and Facebook. Other popular education tools like Slideshare, Flickr, Twitter, delicious and YouTube have all recently created Facebook applications.

second life Second Life is an advanced virtual world simulation where users can create their own avatar (digital identity) and connect with other members of the Second Life community. Many higher education institutions, including ISTE, have already set up a virtual campus, classroom space and other learning environments within the Second Life grid. This globally connected virtual learning environment (VLE) is also being used as a way to supplement traditional classroom activities, provide avenues for collaboration, as well as hosting distance-learning courses. There is also a new mobile version of Second Life that allows users to be connected anywhere they have an internet connection.

63

Pedagogical Mash Up

iphone The iPhone, a mobile device created by Apple, is getting a lot of buzz in educational circles as the next “killer app” for e-learning. In fact, since its release, several higher education institutions have started pilot programs to test the viability of using the iPhone as a mobile learning platform. The App Store on iTunes has thousands of applications, many of them educational, that users can download to their iPhone. In addition, students can download podcasts and video from iTunes U and YouTube, created by their professors, onto the iPhone for on-demand viewing.

learning 3.0: Mobile learning The use of mobile technologies continues to grow and represents the next frontier for learning. Increasingly we will continue to see academic and corporate research invest, design and launch new mobile applications, many of which can be used in a learning context. Learning 3.0 and beyond will be about harnessing the ubiquity of the mobile phone/handheld device and using it as an educational tool. At the 2006 International Consumer Electronic Show, Yahoo! CEO Terry Semel outlined the ex-

plosive growth of mobile technology. According to Semel (2006), there are 900 million personal computers in the world. But this number pales in comparison to the 2 billion mobile phones currently being used in the world. Even more astounding is how mobile devices are increasingly being used as the primary way in which people connect to the Internet. In fact, Semel notes that 50% of the Internet users outside the US will most likely never use a personal computer to connect to the Internet. Rather, they will access information, community, and create content on the Internet via a mobile device. The convergence of mobile and social technologies, on-demand content delivery, and early adoption of portable media devices by students provides academia with an opportunity to leverage these tools into learning environments that seem authentic to the digital natives filling the 21st Century classroom. Clearly, the spread of Web-based technology into both the cognitive and social spheres requires educators to reexamine and redefine our teaching and learning methods. The 2005 study conducted by the USA-based Kaiser Family Foundation (Rideout et al, 2005) found that, although 90% of teen online access occurs in the home, most students also have

Table 12. Second life teaching resources Platform

url

•

Tutorial for Teen Second Life

http://wintermute.linguistics.ucla.edu/lsl

•

Salamander Project

http://www.eduisland.net/salamanderwiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

•

Second Life Tutorial

http://cterport.ed.uiuc.edu/technologies_folder/SL

Table 13. Other emerging educational technologies Platform

64

url

•

Twitter (Mobile)

http://twitter.com

•

Second Life

http://secondlife.com/education

•

Red Halo (Mobile)

http://redhalo.com

Pedagogical Mash Up

Web access via mobile devices such as a mobile phone (39%), portable game (55%), or other Web-enabled handheld device (13%). Palm estimates that mobile and handheld devices for public schools will be a 300 million dollar market. A few progressive school districts in the USA, UK, and Ireland have already started using mobile devices in the classroom. Mobile devices are also seen by many as the solution bringing Internet access and information to students living in developing countries. In order to create a better learning environment designed for the digital learning styles of Generation Y, there is a need to use strategies and methods that support and foster motivation, collaboration, and interaction. The use of mobile devices is directly connected with the personal experiences and authentic use of technology students bring to the classroom (Fisher & Baird, 2006). The use of mobile technologies is growing and represents the next great frontier for learning. Increasingly we will continue to see academic and corporate research invest, design and launch new mobile applications, many of which can be used in a learning context.

age: “We now accept the fact that learning is a lifelong process of keeping abreast of change. And the most pressing task is to teach people how to learn.” The proliferation of old and new media, including the Internet and other emerging social and mobile technologies, has changed the way students communicate, interact, and learn. And a new digital pedagogy, based on authentic learning activities, observation, collaboration, intrinsic motivation, and self-organizing social systems, is emerging to meet the needs of Gen Y students filling our educational institutions. In many cases, students spend as much (or more) time, receive more feedback, and interact with peers more in an online environment than they do with their teachers in the classroom. In fact, a 2002 Pew Internet Study (Levin, et al, 2002) found that 90% of student media consumption (8 hours worth) occurs outside the classroom. Now more than ever, instructors must keep track of these sociological trends and learn how to effectively integrate social media into their curriculum as a means to meet both the learning goals and digital learning styles of their Gen Y students.

conclusIon: It’s About leArnIng, not technology

reFerences

With knowledge doubling every year or two, “expertise” now has a shelf life measured in days; everyone must be both learner and teacher; and the sheer challenge of learning can be managed only through a globe-girdling network that links all minds and all knowledge…We have the technology today to enable virtually anyone to learn anything…anywhere, anytime. — Lewis Pereleman Looking towards the future, perhaps the advice of management guru Peter Drucker provides educators with a mantra for teaching in the digital

Baird, D. (2006). Learning 2.0: Digital, Social and Always-On. Barking Robot. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www.debaird.net/blendededunet/2006/04/learning_styles.html Baird, D. (2005). FlickrEdu: The Promise of Social Networks. TechLEARNING, 4(22).. San Francisco, CA: New Bay Media. British Broadcasting Corporation. (2005). Make Lessons ‘Fit the Learner’. BBC News Education. Retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://news. bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4482372.stm Carnevale, Dan (2005). Michigan Considers Requiring High-School Students to Take at Least

65

Pedagogical Mash Up

One Online Course. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 14, 2005 from http:// chronicle.com/free/2005/12/2005121301t.htm Christensen, Clayton. “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns.” Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. Educase (2007). 7 Things You Should Know. EDUCASE Learning Initiative. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/7Things YouShouldKnowAboutSeries/7495 Fisher, M. & Baird, D. (2007). Making mLearning Work: Utilizing Mobile Technology for Active Exploration, Collaboration, Assessment and Reflection in Higher Education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(1). Fisher, M. & Baird, D. (2005). Online Learning Design that Fosters Student Support, Self-Regulation, and Retention. Campus Wide Information Systems: An International Journal of E-Learning, 22. Fisher, M., Coleman, P., Sparks, P. & Plett, C. (2006). Designing Community Learning in Webbased Environments. In B.H. Khan, (Ed.), Flexible Learning in an Information Society. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Goldman-Segall. (1998). Points of Viewing Children’s Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer’s Journey. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Holahan, C. (2007). The Twitterization of Blogs. Business Week. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070604_254236.htm Kendall, Lori. (2002). Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lenhart, A, & Madden, M (2005). Teen Content Creators and Consumers. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 4, 2005,

66

from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/166/ report_display.asp Levin, D; Araheh, S; Lenhart, A, & Rainie, L. (2002). The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between Internet-Savvy Students and their Schools. Pew Internet and American Life. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www. pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=67 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006). 2005 Program Evaluation Findings Report. Available at http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/FA49E066B838-4985-B548-F85C40B538B8/0/05_Prog_ Eval_Report_Final.pdf (last accessed Sept. 19, 2006). Moran, D (2007). Goodbye Facebook Courses, Hello Facebook Platform Courses. The Facebook Blog. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://blog. facebook.com/blog.php?post=4314497130 National School Board Association (2007). Creating & Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social and Educational Networking. Retrieved August 14, 2007 from http://nsba.org/ site/doc.asp?TRACKID=&VID=2&CID=90& DID=41336 Navidad, Angela. Potentially Useful Data on Latin American Internet Culture. ad:tech Blog. Retrieved June 3, 2008 from http://www.adtechblog.com/archives/20080603/potentially_useful_data_on_latin_american_internet_culture/ Papert, Seymour. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Parks Associates. National Technology Scan. Retrieved May 13, 2008 from http://newsroom. parksassociates.com/article_display.cfm?article_ id=5067 Pope, Justin (2006). Some Students Prefer Classes Online. ABC News. Retrieved January 15, 2006 from http://abcnews.go.com/Technol-

Pedagogical Mash Up

ogy/wireStory?id=1505420&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 Reynard, Ruth. (2008). Social Networking: Learning Theory in Action. Campus Technology. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved May 29, 2008 from http:// www.campustechnology.com/articles/63319/ Richmond, T. (2006, September 15). OER in 2010 – Wither Portals? Innovate Journal of Online Education, 3(1), October/November . Online wiki article retreived Sept. 21, 2006 from http:// www.nostatic.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Rideout, V, Roberts, D., & Foehra (2005). Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year Olds. Kaiser Family Foundation Study. Retrieved November, 24, 2005, from http://www.kff.org/ entmedia/7251.cfm Sanoff, Alvin. (2005). Survey: High School Fails to Engage Students. USA Today. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/ education/2005-05-08-high-school-usat_x.htm Schauer, B. (2005). Experience Attributes: Crucial DNA of Web 2.0. Adaptive Path. Retrieved December 5, 2005 from: http://www.adaptivepath. com/publications/essays/archives/000547.php Semel, T. (2006). Yahoo! Keynote at 2006 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES). Retrieved January 6, 2006 from: http://podcasts. yahoo.com/episode?s=fa88e89d49dbbdbc77221b 561570105a&e=15 Tosh, D. & Werdmuller, B. (2004). Creation of a learning landscape: Weblogging and social networking in the context of e-portfolios. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from: http://www.eradc.org/papers/ Learning_landscape.pdf Wikipedia, (2007). Multiple Learning Styles. Retrieved (n.d.) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Multiple_intelligence Wikipedia, (2006). Mashup (Web application hybrid). Retrieved (n.d.), from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Mashup_(Web_application_hybrid)

Wikipedia, (2006). RSS (file format). Retrieved (n.d.), from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_ file_format Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M. L. (2008). Online “predators” and their victims: Myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63(2) Feb-Mar, 111-128.

Author note Links for all of the resources, references, and services cited in this chapter can be found at http:// del.icio.us/mashup.edu

Key terMs And deFInItIons Blog: A blog, short for “Weblog”, is a Web site in which the author writes their opinions, impressions, etc., so as to make them public and receive reactions and comments about them. Instant Messaging (IM): Instant messaging is the act of instantly communicating between two or more people over a network such as the Web. Mash Up: A Web application that combines data from more than one source into an integrated experience. Moblog (Mobile + Blog): A site for posting blog content from a mobile device, usually a cellular phone. Most often refers to photo sharing via a camera phone. Palm: A handheld portable device or personal digital assistant. Really Simple Syndication (RSS): Really Simple Syndication feeds provide Web content or summaries of Web content together with links to the full versions of the content. RSS is used by news Websites, Weblogs and podcasting to synch and deliver content. 67

Pedagogical Mash Up

SMS (Short Message Service): Written messages that you can send through a mobile phone. Social Networks: A term used to describe virtual or online communities of shared practice. Social Software, Social Media: Social software enables people to connect or collaborate through computer-mediated communication (wiki, Weblog, podcasts) and form online communities. Text Messaging (TM): Another term used to describe SMS.

68

Web 2.0: Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the Web that lets people collaborate, and share information online. Vlog (Video + Blog): A Weblog using video as its primary presentation format. Wiki: A collaborative environment where any user can contribute information, knowledge or embed rich media such as video, audio, or widget(s) (Adapted from Wikipedia and Wiktionary, 2006).

Pedagogical Mash Up

AppendIX A: overvIeW oF socIAl leArnIng theory

•

• • Situated Learning (Lave/Wenger)

• • •

•

Constructivist Theory (Bruner)

•

Social Development Theory (Vygotsky)

•

Multiple Intelligences (Gardner)

•

•

•

Social Life of Information (Seeley/Duguid)

Cognitive Apprenticeship (Brown, Collins, and Duguid)

Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave/ Wegner)

• •

Knowledge needs to be presented in an authentic context. Learning requires social interaction and collaboration with peers. As learners engage in social interaction they become involved in a community of knowledge and practice. Learners construct new ideas based on their current or past knowledge or experiences. Learners acquire new knowledge by building upon what they have already learned. Understanding comes through “active dialogue” Learning takes place via collaboration and social interaction with peers.

• •

Full cognitive development requires social interaction. The range of skills that can be developed with peer collaboration exceeds what can be attained alone.

•

Human intelligence is comprised of several faculties that work in conjunction or individually with each other to achieve full cognitive development.

• • •

Become a member of a community of practice (CoP) Engage in its practice Acquire and make use of its knowledge

•

Cognitive apprenticeship is an instructional design and learning theory wherein the instructor through socialization, models the skill or task at hand for the student. Students may also receive guidance from their peers. The role of the teacher is to help novices clear cognitive roadblocks by providing them with the resources needed to develop a better understanding of the topic.

•

• •

Theoretical description of how newcomers are integrated into a community of practice (CoP). Newcomers ability to observe experts in practice enables them to be integrated deeper into the community of practice. Chart adapted from Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com)

69

Pedagogical Mash Up

AppendIX b: roles oF students In vIrtuAl leArnIng envIronMents/socIAl netWorKs Roles

Task

Procedure

Group Value

Organizer

Provides an ordered way of examining information

Presents outlines, overviews, or summary of all information

Facilitator

Moderates, keeps on task

Assures all work is done and/or all participants have opportunity

Strategist

Decides the best way to proceed on a task

Organization

Analyst

Looks for meaning within the content

Realizes potential of content to practical application

Supporter

Provides overall support for an individual or group

Looks for ways to help members or groups

Summarizer

Highlights significant points; restates conclusion

Reviews material looking for important concepts

Narrator

Generally relates information in order

Provides group with a reminder of order

Keeps group focused on goal

Elaborator

Relates discussion with prior learned concepts or knowledge

Presents previous information as a comparative measure

Application or expansion

Researcher

Supplies outside resources to comparative information

Goes looking for other information with which to compare discussion

Inclusiveness

Antagonist

Supplies contrasting ideas

Looks for opposing viewpoints and presents in a relative way

Opposing viewpoint

Lead thinker Inclusive Detail Analytical Helpful Gives the overall big picture

(Fisher, Coleman, Sparks, & Plett, 2006)

70

Pedagogical Mash Up

AppendIX c: glossAry oF neW/socIAl MedIA terMs Definition

Term •

Mash up

A Web application that combines data from more than one source into an integrated experience.

•

Social Software, Social Media

Social software enables people to connect or collaborate through computer-mediated communication (wiki, Weblog, podcasts) and form online communities.

•

Blog

A blog, short for “Weblog”, is a Web site in which the author writes their opinions, impressions, etc., so as to make them public and receive reactions and comments about them.

•

Moblog (mobile + blog)

A site for posting blog content from a mobile device, usually a cellular phone. Most often refers to photo sharing via a camera phone.

•

Vlog (video + blog)

A Weblog using video as its primary presentation format.

•

SMS (Short Message Service)

Written messages that you can send through a mobile phone.

•

Palm

A handheld portable device or personal digital assistant.

•

Social Networks

A term used to describe virtual or online communities of shared practice.

•

Web 2.0

Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the Web that lets people collaborate, and share information online.

•

Instant Messaging (IM)

Instant messaging is the act of instantly communicating between two or more people over a network such as the Web.

•

Text Messaging (TM)

Another term used to describe SMS.

•

Really Simple Syndication (RSS)

Really Simple Syndication feeds provide Web content or summaries of Web content together with links to the full versions of the content. RSS is used by news Websites, Weblogs and podcasting to synch and deliver content.

•

Wiki

A collaborative environment where any user can contribute information, knowledge or embed rich media such as video, audio, or widget(s). (Adapted from Wikipedia and Wiktionary, 2006)

71

72

Chapter V

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide Jörg Müller Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain Juana M. Sancho University of Barcelona, Spain Fernando Hernández University of Barcelona, Spain

AbstrAct This chapter explores the intimate relationship between new media literacy and the digital divide. The longer and deeper digital technology (DT) penetrates the fabric of society, the more it becomes connected to broader social concerns such as disadvantaged minorities, long-term poverty, access to resources or equal opportunities for all citizens. Contrary to initial expectations, DT is far from providing immediate responses to educational problems and even less, automatic relief to real world injustice; left to its own devices, it tends to reflect and increase existing forms of exclusion rather than ameliorate them. In order to address these issues, this chapter combines three major topics. Firstly, we summarize the argument on the closing vs. deepening digital divide. Physical access figures are presented according to adult and younger population, their socio-economic status and in relation to schools. Secondly, more recent findings are shown, dealing with the quality and use of the Internet by pupils. Thirdly, a more general reflection is introduced in relation to the role of schools and intervention strategies for implementing sustainable educational projects aimed at helping to improve social participation in a society for all.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

FroM the dIgItAl dIvIde to socIAl InclusIon

computer and Internet Access in schools

The more digital technology (DT) pervades society, the more it becomes attached to existing patterns of social inequalities. It is increasingly evident that DT does not provide a ready-made remedy for real-world injustice. On the contrary, it rather tends to strengthen existing social structures and inequalities (van Dijk, 2005; Warschauer, 2000). Young people are no exception. Nevertheless, they use DT more than any other age group. As their lives are increasingly mediated by DT at home and at school, existing socio-economic patterns permeate their usage. Schools are crucial in this context because they provide a major access opportunity, especially for less advantaged, students and can offer alternative usage profiles. As the academic and policy discussion has moved beyond a binary understanding of the digital divide between “haves” and “have-nots”, different concepts of media-, computer-, information- and multi-literacies have emerged. Indeed, the early concerns with providing physical access have been largely resolved in OECD countries –although it is not the case for the great majority of the rest. Despite this success in terms of infrastructure in technologically developed countries, social inequalities at large are still present. The question, therefore, is how can schools contribute to a more encompassing sense of digital equity and ameliorate the multi-dimensional gaps that separate the information poor from the information rich? This is an especially pressing problem, since new media literacy cannot be addressed in an isolated fashion within schools (Kalantzis, Cope, & Learning by Design Group, 2005). Wider social networks and pupils’ cultural capital emerge as decisive differential factors. Earlier differences in access are thus repeated in contemporary inequities of skills and sophistication of usage of DT. This implies that theoretical and practical counter-measures directed at reducing inequalities in the digital realm have to merge forces with strategies for social inclusion as such.

To the degree that societal organization resorts, to a large extent, on information, social participation depends on having access to a communication infrastructure. Early conceptions of the digital divide foregrounded consequentially the gap between those who have access to technology and those who do not. The ensuing policies to close the gap in terms of providing inclusive access to DT have been successful, at least in technologically developed countries. According to the latest figures of the PEW Internet & American Life Project (2006, 2007b), compared to 66 percent of online users in 2006, 75 percent of all United States adults were connected by the end of 2007. Access is clearly patterned in terms of socioeconomic status (SES), although the gap is not as big as it was in earlier years. Data from different statistical sources coincide in a strong correlation between income and likelihood of being online (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Among family households with income above US$100,000, 95 percent had at least one computer and 92 percent had Internet access at home. This contrasts with only 41 percent of households with income below US$25,000 having a computer. The inequality of computer and network access for low-income households appears to remain fairly stable when compared to more recent data from PEW (2006). Again, just 53 percent of adults with less than US$30,000 annual income go online versus 91% of adults living in households earning more than US$75,000. A similar pattern has to be described when taking ethnicity into account. 71 percent of all whites vs. 60 percent all Afro-Americans and 56 percent of Hispanics of the adult population are connected. Language barrier is, for example, an important aspect for the Hispanic and other non-English speaking population. Only 32 percent of the non-English speaking Hispanics are online (PEW, 2007a).

73

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Sonia Livingstone has recently argued for substantial differences between the digital divide for young people and adults in the UK, concluding that, “... binary divide between “haves” and “have-nots,” or users and non-users, no longer applies to young people as it does to the adult population.” (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007, p. 676). Similar data is available for Germany, for example, where 97 percent of young people aged 10-24 have had access to the Internet since 2005 (Federal Statistical Office, 2007, p. 114). Taking into account the figures presented by the survey of the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2004, opportunity of access is equally distributed in the U.S. with 96 percent of young people aged 8 to 18 reporting to have gone online independent of ethnicity, household income or parent education. One reason for these positive figures is the high penetration of computers in schools. Since 9 out of 10 children across the K-12 grades used a computer in school, most children have come in contact with the online world (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, p. 7). Broadband is a reality for 97 percent of state schools and the ratio of students to instructional computers has dropped from 12.1 to 1 in 1998 to 3.8 to 1 in 2005. These gratifying figures even hold when school characteristics are taken into account: independent of minority enrollment or the socio-economic status of the communities they serve, Internet penetration in state schools rose to nearly 100 percent. Clearly, the physical divide in terms of access to DT in schools has been closed. Schools, at least in technologically developed countries, guarantee that most children can connect, however sporadically, to the Internet leaving only a very small percentage of non-users. However, widening the perspective from the narrow focus on schools being hooked up to the general younger population also re-introduces well-known patterns of social inequalities. The nearly 100 percent access to the Internet in state schools irrespective of poverty levels contrasts with persisting disparities in terms of ethnicity

74

and income for computer access at home. This fact can hardly be overestimated since home connections introduce a qualitative difference to usage and literacy skills that children and young adults will have (see the following). The general pattern of differences in computer accessibility and Internet access holds for children enrolled in Grades K-12 (see U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, p. 8). Children from affluent family households (US$100,000 or more) exhibit the highest rates of computer use at home, 92 percent vs. 41 percent of families with income less than $25,000. Again, the highest and lowest rates for computer use at home correlates with race: 80 percent of non-Hispanic white children compared to 48 percent each of Afro-American children and Hispanic children. This emerging pattern can be extended to most OECD countries and their respective minorities.

social Inequality and schooling Digital equality in terms of access in schools does not mean social equity. Rather, the closing of the digital divide in schools appears to be a tiny drop in the ocean of social injustice. The review of school inequity in the U.S. by Philips & Chin (2004) makes the case in point. Over the period covering the 1980s and 1990s, access to computers and the Internet has improved for the whole student population. Class size and nonserious crimes also have declined across the board. However, during the same period gaps in teachers’ education, credentials, subject matter knowledge, or cognitive skills favoring white and non-poor schools have increased. The continuing inequalities of infrastructure, support staff or overcrowded classes for non-white and poor students continue to exist and stand in sharp contrast to the only improvement in access to computers. More recent data confirms this picture. The 2006 edition of PISA underlines the continuing relationship between academic performance and socio-economic status. However, there are

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

decisive differences in how SES determines academic outcome across countries (OECD, 2007, p. 183). The study for the U.S. portrays a rather negative picture. Together with Luxembourg and the Slovak Republic, the U.S. students in science display below-average performance combined with an above-average impact of socio-economic background (ibid., p. 189). Finland, Canada, Korea and Hong-Kong China are countries with belowaverage impact of SES on student performance whereas France, Germany, Belgium, Hungary and the U.S are among the countries with the highest impact of socio-economic background on student performance. They can be characterized by a high degree of inequity since SES background determines above average educational outcomes of OECD countries. Moreover, this relationship appears to be non-linear especially for the U.S.: the higher the socio-economic advantage, the greater the advantage this has in terms of student performance (ibid., p. 187). This paints a rather negative picture for schools, since they do not ameliorate the impact of socio-economic status on their students. Considering school dropout rates for high schools there is equally no clear sign of increased equity. Although dropout rates have continually declined over the decades, disparities between white and non-white students remained stable. Summarizing the literature and statistical trends one can argue that the physical access barrier is in the process of becoming partially resolved. Almost every school is connected and a growing percentage of citizens in OECD countries have gone online. However, considering the wider socio-economic picture, familiar patterns of social inequality re-emerge. Questions of access show little impact on the deeply ingrained racial, ethnic and income disparities. In order to appreciate further these multi-dimensional aspects of the digital divide we have to turn now to quality of access, usage and skills of digital technologies.

dIgItAl lIterAcy by non-dIgItAl MeAns The analysis of the preceding paragraphs juxtaposes the rising digitalization of society with rather stable patterns of socio-economic inequalities. The “knowledge gap” hypothesis as already established in the 1970s has not lost its plausibility. It states that new flows of information into a community are likely to increase further the existing inequities as higher status groups possess more resources to convert potential benefits of information into real advantages (Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1970). Theories of social stratification confirm this view. As the market continually innovates, higher SES households can secure their advantageous position because their resources guarantee faster access to emerging technologies, which also translates into quality of uptake (Bourdieu, 1984). Partly inspired by this persisting and even deepening divide, research has refined its vocabulary. Seemingly too simple questions of equality of access have been supplanted with explorations of the multiple dimensions of digital inequalities.

diversifying Access DiMaggio and collaborators (2004) propose a five-fold model of digital inequalities. Besides inequalities of “technical means” a more realistic picture of the digital divide is achieved by taking into account “autonomy of use”, “skill”, “social support” and “purpose of use.” Technical access refers to the much-discussed availability of hardware, software and connectivity as described in the preceding section. Autonomy of use captures the level of control users have over the technical infrastructure: at home or at work, bound to leisure activities or certain tasks, if they have to share computers with others or not. Access to computers at home for example has been shown to have a decisive impact on student performance (Cleary, Pierce, & Trauth, 2006; Livingstone

75

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

& Helsper, 2007). Inequalities of skill refer to the varying abilities of people to use computers and the Internet. As such, it involves the whole range of technical skills as well as information literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Hargittai (2003) has conducted pioneering research in this field showing that skills understood as the ability and the time required for completing information retrieval tasks strongly correlate with the level of education. Newer findings on search-engine usage suggest that hands-on experience over several years can ameliorate socio-economic status and education levels (Howard & Massanari, 2007). A fourth dimension of digital inequality concerns social support. It has been shown that people who have peers, parents, or co-workers with experience in DT are usually better-off in terms of acquiring information literacy (Cleary, Pierce, & Trauth, 2006). Household access to computer resources combined with a strong social capital in the form of technical support, informal training and expertise shows a strong potential to reduce differences in Internet use. Finally, the fifth dimension of inequality concerns variations in DT usage. Income, education and other factors appear to influence the purposes for which DT and especially the Internet is used. Thus, young people from low-income homes show a limited range of Internet usages, most commonly e-mail and chats, whereas youngsters from higher income families use the Internet in much more varied ways including creating websites or contributing to message boards (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007). Similar sub-divisions of the digital divide can be found with van Dijk (2005) and Warschauer (2003). The overall schema that distinguishes between certain technical skills and more strategic objectives remains the same. What unites both approaches, however, is a certain need to take into account cultural beliefs and values in order to understand the digital divide. Van Dijk proposes along these lines to take into account “motivational access”, besides “material access”, “skills access”, and “usage access”. Motivational

76

access explains, for example, that elderly people are online less not because of a small pension but the general difficulty of interpreting and contextualizing the available online information within their social environment (Paul & Stegbauer 2005). The Internet simply does not appear as something meaningful, useful and desirable in the first place, as it fails to overlap with values and interests of close peers. Warschauer draws upon the literature of “communities of practice” (Brown & Duguid, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991) to underline the importance of the wider social context for learning. He distinguishes between operational (computer literacy), informational (searching, selecting, processing information towards own goals) and strategic skills to assess the digital divide. Strategic skills show to which degree DT is used as self-evident resources in daily activities across business, employment, education, politics, social relations or leisure activities. Interestingly, strategic skills are often not learned explicitly by “transmission or discovery but by acting as members of a particular social and cultural context” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 91).

the socio-economic skills gap in schools As the notion of the digital divide has become more sophisticated, empirical research has scrutinized the situation in schools. A recent report from the 2007 National Educational Computing Conference published in Education Week on the Digital Divide foregrounds the fact that SES is related to quality of use. Children from low-income households are often put to “skill-and-fact drills” opposed to creative, “constructivist” experiences available to their middle-class peers. One reason for this performative oriented approach to computer usage was seen in the “No Child Left Behind” law of the Bush administration. As the report continues “...school districts are spending their educational technology budgets on ‘drill and kill’ tools because of the overwhelming pressure

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

to meet federal requirements for test performance ...” (Trotter, 2007). The finding that types of computer usage correlate with SES is not new. This is a persisting problem. In 1998, Wenglensky already presented similar results by analyzing National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data. Students pertaining to a minority (Afro-American or Hispanic) were considerably more exposed to drill practices with computers than white and middle-class students. They were less likely to work with DT in a creative way, fostering higherorder thinking skills. Becker (2000) came to similar conclusions based on national survey data of 4,000 teachers from grades 4-12 in 1998. Low SES students currently use computers more frequently than students with higher SES. However, the way computers are used differs as well with low-income pupils engaging in drill exercises in Math and English whereas high-income pupils use computers in science for simulation and research. “The main advantage for students in higher-SES schools is their access to a teaching approach that enables them to master computer skills in the context of solving real problems and gaining deeper understanding of an area of study, compared with an approach more common in lower-SES schools that emphasizes skills reinforcement and remediation” (Becker, 2000, p. 69). Similar findings emerge from the work of Mark Warschauer. His one-year research in Hawaii into low and high socio-economic schools implementing similar school reforms revealed that technology was put to remarkably different uses. The elite school continues to socialize students into academia whereas the poorer school socializes students into the workforce (Warschauer, 2000). What becomes especially pointed is the fact that DT tends to increase further existing inequalities; it does not change the nature of schooling in itself. “Evidence suggests that the use of computers in education is tending to worsen rather than help to overcome societal inequality” (ibid., p. 129-

30). This was also the crucial finding that came from a qualitative survey among 12 Californian state high schools (Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004). The accent changes slightly with this research: usage patterns are not directly related to the different socio-economic status. Rather, the introduction of technology into schools serves to amplify existing forms of inequality. “Differences in human support systems for technology use, homework assignment patterns, and emphases on preparation for testing all mitigated the extent to which technology could be used effectively for academic preparation in low-SES schools.” (ibid., p. 584).

looking beyond technology What these findings from digital divide research show is the fact that digital technology in itself does not ameliorate school experience and social inequalities. DT does not produce any “megachanges” in itself. Rather, social inequalities affect the potential impact a given technology might have. How DT will be used depends on the existing cultural beliefs, the social context and individual idiosyncrasies (such as education or motivation). Present research acknowledges the non-technical dimensions of the digital divide theoretically but not practically. Otherwise van Dijk’s call (2006) for more interdisciplinary and phenomenological research to unlock the cultural dimensions of the everyday digital divide would not be plausible. A positivist, technical lens clearly prevails for assessing the gap: skills are framed in terms of information retrieval and evaluation; social support is framed in terms of available peer support to solve technical questions; variation of use is confined to frequency and duration of using different software applications! In contrast, from our perspective in order to go beyond the mapping of socio-economic disparities that mirror the digital divide it becomes crucial to address the cultural and social context first. The recent exhaustive review of Effective Use of ICT

77

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

in Schools by the Swedish National Agency for School Improvement (SNASI, 2008) confirms this point, “... simply focusing on the technology as such will not contribute to the attainment of positive effects; rather, focused efforts to link technology to a pedagogical concept are necessary.” In other words, the social inequalities of the high-tech society have to be addressed by taking non-technological means into account. This is especially true for the context of education and schools. As the research has shown, the principal difficulties for taking advantage of DT in education are the prevailing “grammar” of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994) and the cultural beliefs about teaching and learning (Catalan Open University, 2004). These are inherently non-technological reasons to explain why the update of DT has remained quite superficial in contemporary schools. The comparative overview of 17 DT impact studies in Europe shows that even when teachers are sufficiently confident about their technical skills, they lack the pedagogical training to make effective use of DT in their classrooms (Balanskat, Blamire, & Kefala, 2006). Lacking adequate training, they tend to incorporate DT according to the prevailing cultural beliefs about education in which teaching is telling, learning is listening, and knowledge is what is in books or online (Cuban, 1993). Thus the results are the already describe drill-practices that concentrate on mastering certain technical skills instead of engaging students in more complex and creative tasks. On the other hand, existing assessment and evaluation methods focus primarily on factual and conceptual content and little on complex issues that usually top 21st century skill lists, such as critical thinking, teamwork and collaboration, or creativity (e.g. enGauge, 2003). However, as long as teaching and learning practice is dictated by scoring in standardized tests, there is neither time to use DT in innovative ways nor space for

78

exploring alternative but much-needed pedagogical models. In fact, the reflection on standardized tests especially prevalent in U.S. and U.K. schools invites a further reflection on the shortcomings of digital divide research itself. In the face of the multi-dimensional nature of the digital divide that goes beyond the purely technical, the question is, to which degree does research tend to simplify the problem at hand because it aims to establish clear, measurable inequalities. Indeed, as Sonia Livingstone remarks, research on the digital divide gets messy when assessing how people use the Internet and with what consequences: “For example, how should we conceptualize the practical skills and subtle competencies which facilitate confident Internet use, the lack of which limits the use of new and inexpert users if not excluding them altogether?” (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007, p. 674). The drive to produce comparable, general data that hold for all digital gaps, threatens to erase precisely the mechanisms that would explain the success or failure of DT usage. Research studies generally agree that the way DT is used is decisive for student learning. However, the fact that there is not one single and specific definition of “innovative” teaching makes it difficult to demonstrate a direct correlation between a certain situation, a certain type of usage or specific teaching approach and a positive impact (SNASI, 2008, p. 5). The result is that such important factors as teachers’ pedagogical approach are largely absent from digital divide research in schools. This is to say that in the same way that standardized tests prevent schools from effectively incorporating DT into their education, standardized measurements re-inscribe a certain simplified notion of the digital divide in research. Underlying this duality is a general trend towards conceiving these problems in terms of performativity.

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

chAngIng schools For neW MedIA lIterAcy: WhAt MIght WorK For socIAl InclusIon Western societies are increasingly permeated by the principles of the technological imperative, based on the idea that having a particular technology available means that we can do something (it is technically possible) then this action either ought to (as a moral imperative), must (as an operational requirement) or inevitably will (in time) be taken (Ozbekhan, 1968). The technological imperative is a common assumption amongst new technologies’ gurus who not only see the digital technology revolution as unavoidable and urge users to learn to cope with it, but invest it with special powers to solve current educational and social problems (Papert, Perelman, Gates, among others). One of the effects of the technical imperative in education is the tendency to pursue problems not only because they are technically sweet but because those clinging to this idea seem to be convinced, against all evidence, that the greatest feat of technical performance which is currently available will be the solutions to all educational and social problems. As we have discussed in the previous sections, these assumptions have been proved not only to be wrong, but must assume the responsibility of having laid the foundations for inadequate policies which only focus on providing educational systems with hardware and software (never enough, mostly not fitted to meet educational needs); while systematically forgetting the massive complexity of educational and social systems. In this part of the chapter we map out those fundamental issues often forgotten in educational policy and practice that might be the base for major changes for schools wanting to envision new media literacy as a trigger for improving learning processes and making progress towards social inclusion. This includes the links between new media literacy demands and the current voices that reclaim the necessity of a more inclusive

narrative for schooling; and the need to take into account the socio-economic implications and the sustainability of the use of DT in current educational systems.

new digital literacies for an Inclusive education With the advent of the Knowledge Society and the overload of multimodal information, scholars are focusing their attention on people’s relationship to new media (Castells, 2002; Tyner, 1998). Much research in this field has focused on the influence of new media on people, particularly on young people’s behavior and attitudes (Buckingham, 2000). There is a plethora of studies dedicated to cell-phone usage (Humphreys 2005; Wei & Lo, 2006); to the effects of the Internet on users (Livingstone, 2003; Wolak, Kimberly, & Finkelhor, 2003; Gross, 2004; Lee, 2005). The underlined interest in these studies seems to be the belief that new audiovisual media are powerful resources that permeate everyday life; especially of young people because it constitutes one of the pillars of their life experience (Vadenboncouer & Patel, 2005; Sancho, in press). While debates rage as to the advantages (e.g., Johnson, 2005; Sefton-Green, 1999) and disadvantages (e.g., Anderson, 2004; Wingood, et al., 2003) of these practices, a certainty is the ubiquity and relative permanence of these experiences, particularly in terms of how today’s learners are growing up fully immersed in an information age that demands wholly different kinds of literacy practices, skills, and processes. In the case of young people, they move fluently among different technologies such as the Internet (e-mail, surfing, chats, blogs), cell phones, TV, MP3, radio and printed material, rather than being dominated by one specific medium. In this context, as Kress (2003, p. 1) has argued, nowadays we are able to observe, “the broad move from the now centuries-long dominance of writing to the new dominance of the image

79

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

and, (…) from the dominance of the medium of the book to the dominance of the medium of the screen.” This change is producing a shift in the uses and effects of literacy and of associated means for representing and communicating at every level and in every domain of social and cultural experiences. This turn was noticed in the mid-1990s, when the seminal article “A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures” (New London Group, 1996) was published. One of its impacts on the rethinking of schooling was the questioning of the concept of literacy isolated from the vast range of social, technological and economic factors. In this context, as Matthews (2005, p. 209) has pointed out, “the term ‘multiliteracies’ refers in a broad sense to the impact of new economic and cultural conditions on literacy. Because communication is conducted though new texts and media and because literacy now takes place through visual, audio, and gestural mediums, it is necessary to change how literacy is taught.” Another consequence of this new scenario was a displacement from a linguistic notion of literacy to a socio-cultural one. Social and academic reasons for this twist have been explained in detail by Lankshear and Knobel (2003, p. 5-11) and some of them could illustrate our arguments on the relevance of including multiliteracy forms of learning into the new narrative for an inclusive schooling. In contemporary societies students need to learn to proficiently analyze, evaluate, and produce meaning in visual, oral, corporal, musical and alphabetical forms of communication. However, “meaning does not reside in the media text itself. Audiences negotiate meaning from the various media they consume depending on a range of factors including gender, class, race, ethnicity, age, and culture” (Goodman, 2005, p. 221). To respond to this necessity learners need new operational and cultural knowledge and skills that allow them to acquire new languages and strategies to understand and produce those meanings

80

represented in cultural texts. This background could provide students access to new forms of work, civic, and private practices in their everyday lives. They are also required to learn how to read (as interpretative cultural process) new and old media and multiple conflicting discourses and meet the challenges posed by visuality –the cultural forms of seeing and representing what has been seen (Matthews, 2005). The main consequence of this approach is, as Lankshear and Knobel have pointed out (2003, p. 12), that, “being literate involves much more than simply knowing how to operate the language system. The cultural and critical facets of knowledge integral to being literate are considerable”. Paying attention to these issues seems relevant because with, “a new work life comes a new language, with much of it attributable to new technologies like iconographic, text and screen-based modes of interacting with automated machinery and to changes in the social relations of work.” (Kalantzis & Cope, 1996, p. 5). Kress’s (2000) notion of “design” is pivotal in order to bring the consequences of this turn into school. It is intended to provide a broad metalanguage which replaces the term “grammar” and focuses attention on the historical and social production of multiple texts. Design for Kress supersedes critique in as much as, “critique looks at the present through the means of past production” while, “design shapes the future through deliberate deployment of representational resources in the designer’s interest” (Kress, 2000, p. 160). Translating this conception of “design” into a pedagogic approach leads to connect functional linguistics to linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial, and multimodal design and meaning making; and the notion of multiliteracies engages with: (a) a student’s own experience-situated practice; (b) teaching meta-languages -overt instruction; (c) investigating the cultural context of designs (critical framing); and (d) applying designs to new contexts-transformed practice (Matthews, 2005, p. 209). Kalantzis, Cope, and the Learning

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

by Design Group (2005) have brought the notion of design into classroom practice by offering schools a conceptual frame where teaching and learning pedagogies can be developed. This frame organizes the learning experience according to four objectives, named experiential (related to the self), analytic (linked with the ways students think about things), conceptual (aimed at establishing connections) and applied (making public the learning process). In this latter one, students are encouraged to represent the development and results of their learning by using a variety of forms of literacy expression. One of the best and at the same time paradoxical examples that illustrate how the multiliteracies approach could be placed in the school context has been the experience developed by Queensland Educational Department (2001) in the “New Basics” for its educational reform. This foundational document recognizes that, “communications media require mastery of symbolic codes ranging from number systems to sign language, from linguistic grammars to computer codes. Networked societies call for various kinds of literacy simultaneously, the mastery of many different codes, and the capacity to switch between and blend Multiliteracies”. However, policies, including this reform effort in Australia, failed not in its conceptualization or in the resources put into its development and implementation. The main difficulty was, “to link what is new in the policy to what has already been existing practice. For many teachers, this lack of historical reference to their existing practices acts as implicit criticism, telling them that what they have been doing is insufficient and that they should now overhaul both their ideologies and practices in order to more closely reflect the new policy. Predictably, educational policies and professional development are then met with resistance, challenges and sometimes even silence” (Patel Stevens, 2007, p. 56). On the other hand, the introduction of a multiliteracies approach into schooling is not a neutral

and solely pedagogical decision. “Multiliteracies takes as given the primacy and inevitability of a particular permutation of capitalist economic globalization and assumes a future global scenario driven by technology and economic imperatives” (Matthews, 2005, p. 210). Assuming this aim the multiliteracies approach to schooling contributes to providing a necessary fuel to the, “new spirit of capitalism” (Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999), by giving to “the marketable workplace expertise, abilities, innovation, and creativity needed to compete with other nation states in a technological and knowledge-based economy of the 21st century. This vision of the future extends current Western-oriented perspectives and lends currency and credence to neo-liberal, skills-based, employment-oriented, technocentric radicalism” (Matthews, 2005, p. 210). In this ambivalent scenario, we could ask ourselves how giving students alternative strategies for understanding and appropriating elements of literacy and textual components of discourse could do something more than replicate a system that traditionally transfers privileged monocultural knowledge, skills, values, and identities. Alternatively, how can we offer students literacy skills in a way that allows them to question the existing structures of inequality, old hierarchies, and patterns of exclusion? How can we promote a critical education based on a multiliteracies approach that contributes to create a new narrative for schooling where all kinds of learners have access –not only as consumers but also as producers– to new media and feel empowered to write their own history? If we want a future other than the one the mainstream of economic power is projecting, it is necessary to go beyond the idea of media literacy for efficient economic globalization and consider literacy for a desirable and alternative future; this may well translate into critical literacies for sustainability, peace, justice, collaboration, and human and animal rights.

81

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

socio-economic dimensions of new Media literacy An essential philosophical, moral and political question underlying the topic addressed in this chapter is to what extent profoundly uneven and unjust societies which maintain a large percentage of their population under unbearable rates of material, intellectual, emotional and moral poverty can implement educational systems, allowing every child to fully develop their own potential and being a fundamental means for social inclusion? Most educational systems were developed under the idea or the wish of converting compulsory education into the major driving force of economic growth and social cohesion. Today both endeavors are under debate; but as made evident in the 1970’s by Bowles and Gintis (1976) and has been repeatedly confirmed by empirical research, educational systems tend to maintain (or even deepen –as they certify poor people’s inadequacy) the social divide. The digital divide being, as discussed earlier, a consubstantial part of the social divide, the former cannot be addressed if the latter is ignored.

“teaching to change the World” The claim that education is both a moral and a political endeavor has frequently been made by prominent educators wanting to meet the dangers brought about by a pretended neutral and technical approach to a profoundly human and social issue (Freire, 1970; Postman, 1995, among others). This idea has been perfectly understood by scholars such as Jeannie Oakes and Martin Lipton -after whose book we have titled this section-, and all those who consider quality education as a civil right. For this reason they look critically at digital technologies and put them to use in order to serve their educational ideas and social aims. These ideas are anchored in two fundamental concepts: the thought of a socially just education and the notion of rigorous authentic learning experiences.

82

For those that see changing the world as the central aim of teaching, a socially just education as one built on three main dimensions: “(1) It considers the values and politics that pervade education, as well as the more technical issues of teaching and organizing schools; (2) it asks critical questions about how conventional thinking and practice came to be, and who in society benefits from them; and (3) it pays particular attention to inequalities associated with race, social class, language, gender and other social categories, and looks for alternatives to the inequalities.” (Oakes & Lipton, 2007, p. xix). While they understand rigorous authentic learning experiences, “as curriculum, teaching, and assessment that allow students to construct and use knowledge in ways that: (1) transform their thinking, (2) promote their intellectual development, and, over time, (3) prepare them to participate in and benefit from their society and knowledgeable citizens, capable force participants, and contributing members of families and communities. By knowledge, we mean culturally valued traditions, facts and skills, as well as new and dynamic forms of intelligence, understanding, and problem-solving skills necessary to fill important roles in a diverse and democratic society” (ibid, p. xix). This and other social and politically committed and critical educational movements recognize that new media literacy has clearly become a fundamental part of education. However, to be coherent with an education system aimed at empowering all students and achieving a more inclusive society, traditional instruction wrapped up in electronic packages should be systematically avoided, especially with students with poorer learning opportunities. Digital technologies used in the context of authentic and active learning communities can scaffold learners’ explorations beyond the bounds of their current knowledge and provide multidimensional routes of investigation. As an example of such kinds of usages, Oakes & Lipton (2007, p. 196) propose to use digital technology for:

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

• •

•

Providing challenging tasks, opportunities and experiences. Allowing students to learn by doing. Engaging students in planning, reflecting, making decisions, experiencing consequences, and examining alternative solutions and ideas. Providing guided participation and content customized to suit the particular needs or interests of students.

This educational use of digital technology ranges far beyond the mere access to digital devices to be located in the complex socio-economic realm surrounding education made up of cultural inertia, power relationships, deeply rooted practice, etc. This scenario was made evident in a European project (School+ More than a platform to build the school of tomorrow - http://fint.doe.d5.ub. es/school-plus/ ) aimed at creating a culture of pedagogical and technological change within schools which included the design, development and testing of a virtual Learning Management System (LMS), based on the idea that technological implementations must be reliant on innovative educational practices in order to become effective tools for educational change. In this context, taking into account the socio-economic dimensions involved in such a process allowed us to draw a complex picture of the multiple features involved in the incorporation of digital technologies into sound educational proposals.

estimating the real cost of a digitally Inclusive school As discussed earlier the socio-economic costs of digital infrastructure in schools has been traditionally made up of two basic aspects: on the one hand, the availability of hardware and software, and on the other, Internet connectivity. However, in the School+ project we built on the idea that progress in the use of digital technology to promote school change and new media literacy

remains sterile inasmuch as it is not linked to a rethinking of prevailing beliefs underpinning the persisting “grammar” of schooling (Tyack & Tobin 1994). As a result of this basic principle, as we have discussed in a previous work (Müller, Sancho, Hernández, Giró, & Bosco, 2007) the School+ project continuously stressed the active role of the school community –paying special attention to the whole educational community, including families’ involvement through technology– as an agent for change and innovation. A socio-economic evaluation of all dimensions drawn in the process showed that the real costs related to such a comprehensive model of educational change could not be reduced to the price of the technological infrastructure, but should take into account the investment required to empower primarily the school and the teachers –which requires some of the scarcest resources: time and the willingness to learn and change-, and also the educational community as a whole. As an integral part of the school community, lower middle class and working class families find it difficult to meet both the educational and technological challenges posed by emerging digital technologies.

concludIng reMArK: the sustAInAbIlIty oF educAtIonAl chAnge The socio-economic aspects of fostering new media literacy at school must not only indicate the immediate economic requirements for starting, but also the capacity for providing a lasting impact beyond initial funding. This means assessing the sustainability of educational achievements during the project’s lifetime. Indeed, sustainability according to Hargreaves (2002) has become one of the key priorities of the educational field. As Sarason (1990) pointed out, change over time in education has the rather dubious fame of resulting in predictable failure. In the long run, initial enthusiasm and improvements fall prey to the ingrained

83

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

teaching and learning practices, the very persistent “grammar” of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). An additional drawback, as Hargreaves emphasizes, lies in the accumulative aspect of stalled change which easily produces a cynical attitude being shown by teachers towards prospects for future improvements. Since the experience of repeated failures undermines the possibility of change, it becomes vital to guarantee its sustainability, to make improvements that last. Hargreaves maps out an extended notion of sustainability. The first step is precisely to recognize that sustainable change involves more than simply the durability of some innovations that have been implemented. Sustainability has to be understood as a conscious strategy that takes into account the availability and restrictions of resources over a long period of time with the aim of nourishing diversity without “feeding” on other, parallel initiatives. Hargreaves (2002) endows “sustainability” with the following four dimensions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Improvement endures over time. This touches on the very meaning of sustainability. Improvement that can be supported by available or achievable resources. Improvement should not have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. Ecological diversity: only diverse school environments are sufficiently flexible and stimulating to build up a self-sustaining dynamic.

Extending the notion of sustainability in this way deepens our understanding of true and lasting change but it tells us little about its methodological aspects. It informs us as to what it is, but little about how to implement and achieve it. Drawing from the literature available on the one hand and from the experiences of School+ project on the other, strategies for enduring educational change include:

84

• • • • • • • • •

Building a teachers network inside the school. Building a teachers network among schools. Involvement of the wider school community. Community support. Fostering organizational changes and institutionalization. Encouraging school initiatives. Paying attention to affective dimension of participants; their emotional involvement. Establishing relationship with official policies. Challenging existing structures. Analysing the resources available and needed after the project ends.

The main challenge for educational systems relies on the fact that identifying indicators of sustainable change can become a vicious circle, since it assumes from the outset that lasting changes have taken place.

reFerences Anderson, C. (2004). An Update on the Effects of Violent Video Games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113-122. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT Impact Report. A Review of Studies of ICT Impact on Schools in Europe. European Schoolnet. Retrieved January 27, 2008 from http://insight. eun.org/shared/data/pdf/impact_study.pdf Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s Wired and Who’s Not? The Future of Children, 10(2), 44-75. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (1999). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books. Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of childhood. Growing up in the age of electronic media. Cambridge: Polity Press. Castells, M. (2002). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Catalan Open University (2004). La escuela en la sociedad red. Internet en el ámbito educativo no universitario. Barcelona: UOC. Retrieved July 10, 2006 from www.ouc.edu/in3/pic Clearly, P., Pierce, G., & Trauth, E. M. (2006). Closing the Digital Divide: Understanding Racial, Ethnic, Social Class, Gender and Geographic Disparities in Internet Use Among School Age Children in the United States. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(4), 354-373. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990. New York: Teachers College Press. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital Inequality: From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social Inequality (355–400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. enGauge (2003). enGauge 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group. Retrieved January 17, 2008 from http:// www.ncrel.org/engauge Federal Statistical Office (2007). Statistical Yearbook 2007. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Goodman, S. (2005, April 26-28). The Practice and Principles of Teaching Critical Literacy at the Education Video Center. A collection of articles and chapters submitted by participants. 21st Century Literacy Summit, pp. 217-240. San Jose, CA. Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report? Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633–649. Hargittai, E. (2003). How Wide a Web: Inequalities in Access to Information Online. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton. Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainable Educational Change: The Role of Social Geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3-4), 189-214. Howard, P., & Massanari, A. (2007). Learning to search and searching to learn: Income, education, and experience online. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12(3). Retrieved February 4, 2008 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol12/issue3/howard.html Humphreys, L. (2005). Cellphones in public: Social interactions in a wireless ear. New Media & Society, 7(6), 810-833. Johnson, S. (2005). Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today’s Popular Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Kaiser Family Foundation (2004). Survey snapshot: The digital divide. Retrieved February 23, 2008 from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/7151. cfm Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (1996). Multiliteracies: Rethinking what We Mean by Literacy and What We Teach as Literacy –The Context of Global Cultural Diversity and New Communication Technologies (Occasional paper no. 21). Haymarker,

85

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Austraila: Centre for Workplace Communication and Culture. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Learning by Design Group (2005). Learning by Design. Melbourne, Australia: VSIC, Victorian Schools Innovation Commission. Kress. G. (2000). Design and Transformation. New Theories of Meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies. Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London and New York: Routledge. Kress, G. (2003). Literacies in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies. Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E., (Eds.). (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, L. (2005). Young people and the Internet: From theory to practice. Young Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 13(4), 315-326. Livingstone, S. (2003). The Changing Nature and Uses of Media Literacy. MEDIA@LSE Electronic Working Papers. Retrieved 17 March, 2006 from http://ww.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/pdf/ Media@lseEWP4_ july03.pdf Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in Digital Inclusion: Children, Young People and the Digital Divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671-696. Matthews, J. (2005). Visual Culture and Critical Pedagogy in ‘Terrorist Times’. Discourse. Studies in the cultural politics of education, 26 (2), 203-224. Müller, J., Sancho, J. M., Hernández, F., Giró, X., & Bosco, A. (2007). The Socio-Economic Dimensions of ICT-driven Educational Change. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1175-1188.

86

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92. Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (2007). Teaching to change the world (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. OECD (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World (Vol. 1).Paris: OECD. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from http://www.pisa. oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf Ozbekhan, Hasan (1968). The triumph of technology - “can” implies “ought”. In N. Cross, D. E. Nigel, & R. Roy (Eds.), Man-Made Futures: Readings in Society, Technology and Design. London: Hutchinson. Patel Stevens, L. (2007). Para una alfabetización crítica en Australia. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 374, 54-57. Paul, G., & Stegbauer, C. (2005). Is the digital divide between young and elderly people increasing? Firstmonday, 10(10). Retrieved October 19, 2005 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/ issue10_10/paul/index.html Pew Internet & American Life Project (2006). Data Memo: Internet Penetration and Impact. Retrieved January 27, 2007 from http://www. pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_Impact.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project (2007a). Latinos Online. Retrieved February 17, 2008 from http://www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/Latinos_Online_March_14_2007.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project (2007b). Tracking Survey. Retrieved February 17, 2008 from http://www.pewInternet.org/trends.asp Philips, M. & Chin, T. (2004). School Inequality: What Do We Know? In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social Inequality (467–519). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Postman, N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Knopf.

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Queensland Department of Education (2001). The New Basics Curriculum Organisers. Retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://education.qld.gov.au/ corporate/newbasics/html/curric-org/curricorg. html

(CPS). Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http:// www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p23-208.pdf

Sancho, J. M. (in press). Digital Technologies and Educational Change. In A. Hargreaves, M. Fullan, A. Lieberman, & D. Hopkings (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change. London: Kluwer Academic Press.

van Dijk, J. A.G.M. (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sefton Green, J. (1999). Creativity, Young People and New Technologies: the Challenge of Digital Arts. London: Routledge. Swedish National Agency for School Improvement (SNASI) (2008). Effective Use of ICT ini Schools: Analysis of International Research. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from http://www.skolutveckling.se/publdb-portlet/fileDownload?publ_ id=594&file=publication Tichenor, P., George D., & Olien, C. (1970). Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth of Knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159-170. Trotter, Andrew (2007). Digital Divide 2.0. Education Weeks Digital Directions, 1, 26-28. Retrieved January 25, 2008 from http://www.edweek.org/ dd/articles/2007/09/12/02divide.h01.html Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-480. Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (2005). Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2003 Current Population Survey Reports

Vadeboncoeur, J. A., & Patel Stevens, L. (Eds.) (2005). Re/Constructing ‘the Adolescent’. New York: Peter Lang.

van Dijk, J. A.G.M. (2006). Digital Divide Research, Achievements and Shortcomings. Poetics, 34, 221-235. Warschauer, M. (2000). Technology and School Reform: A View from Both Sides of the Tracks. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(4). Retrieved Feburary 15, 2008 from http://epaa.asu. edu/epaa/v8n4.html Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588. Wei, R., & Lo, W. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8(1), 53-72. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center. Retrieved February 12, 2008 from ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/ technolog.pdf Wingood, G., DiClemente, R., Bernhardt, J., Harrington, K., Davies, S., Robillard, A. & Hook, E. (2003). A Prospective Study of Exposure to Rap Music Videos and African American Female Adolescents’ Health, American Journal of Public Health, 93(3), 437-439.

87

New Media Literacy and the Digital Divide

Wolak, J., Kimberly, J. M., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26(1), 105-119.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Digital Divide: Inequality in terms of access and usage of digital technologies. This includes imbalance in physical access to communication networks, computer hard- and software as well as imbalance in terms of motivation, skills and usage. Digital Equity: Broad, encompassing formulation of digital inequality taking into account not only inequalities in terms of resources and opportunities but also inequalities in terms of constrains under which given groups of people have to perform. Equitable situations take into account the equal distribution of opportunities and constrains.

88

Digital Inclusion: The incorporation and use of information and communication technologies into communities in order to promote education and improve the quality of life. Multiliteracy: Multiliteracy is the ability to identify, interpret, create, and communicate meaning across a variety of visual, oral, corporal, musical and alphabetical forms of communication. Beyond a linguistic notion of literacy, multiliteracy involves an awareness of the social, economic and wider cultural factors that frame communication. Socio-Economic Barriers: Include a lack of general acknowledgment of technology’s growing importance, a lack of acceptance of technology, and a lack of resources- maintenance, use, and effectiveness-for poorer schools and families. Sustainability Change: Sustainable improvement endures over time while being supported by available resources and without diminishing the ecological diversity of the environment in which it takes place.

89

Chapter VI

Teaching and Technology: Issues, Caution and Concerns Thomas G. Ryan Nipissing University, Canada

AbstrAct In this chapter technology is viewed as a tool and an enterprise that can be used to educate, change and empower people in schools and society. However, we need to remember that teaching is still a personal human journey that is influenced by many forces related to technologic change which are infused with human relations. We are duty-bound to become self-aware through the clarification of values, reflection and action research. We need to remind ourselves to look at the messages we send, and most importantly, become aware of the behaviors, modeling and leadership we provide at all levels to ensure that we drive the vision for technology and not let technology mute nor drive the humanness from either the classroom or the education system.

IntroductIon The following illuminates several intersecting issues connecting technology and teaching. Technology is something that is used daily within a teacher’s life yet what is technology? Globally we may define technology as “. . . the know-how and creative process that may utilize tools, resources and systems to solve problems, to enhance control over the nature and man-made environment in an endeavor to improve the human condition” (UNESCO, 1985). However, within a local context this definition will be truncated to suit the immediate culture or cultures. Caution need be exercised

as the impact of technology in classrooms can be discrete and incremental leading to an erosion of the human element in teaching and education. This is the first of many cautions offered to teachers who must decide how to use technology while educating; yet what is teaching? Teaching is “the use of preplanned behaviours, founded in learning principles and child development theory and directed toward both instructional delivery and classroom management that increase the probability of affecting a positive change in student behaviour “(Levin & Nolan, 2004, p. 16). We need to be aware and reminded of the human traits expected by students, peers and the

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Teaching and Technology

community. Teachers need to employ a sense of humor, enthusiasm, a desire for learning, health and wellness, nonverbal qualities and be a role model (Kirchner & Fishburne, 1998). As well, the Ontario College of Teachers adds, Teachers share their enthusiasm for learning. They exude a passion for their subject matter that is infectious. They delight in the demands of a career that continually exposes them to new learning, new situations, new people, and new opportunities for personal and professional growth and leadership. They draw energy and satisfaction from sparking the achievement of others. Exceptional qualifications, curious by nature, dedicated to helping children grow and thrive – these are the hallmarks of good teachers. Good teachers build society one student at a time. Good teachers are organized, flexible, thoughtful, caring and nurturing. They are drawn to the profession b e c a u s e it’s demanding, exciting, and rewarding. It a t t r a c t s people who are committed to lifelong learning for themselves and others. It inspires people to learn as they teach and teach what they love. (Ontario College of Teachers, 2004) We need to ensure that humanness of teaching is not muted nor replaced by technology. Hence a cautionary tone is used henceforth via a Canadian perspective put forward to provide a view of teaching and technology that may be unique to Canada. The inherent issues and cautions detailed have been included to alert the reader to a North American stance. Hereafter, education and technology have been addressed in a gentle and narrow manner to raise concerns that teachers, who are the users of technology, may need to heed. Overall the message delivered is that behind all technology is human nature and it is this human nature that drives teaching and the use of technology and not technology that drives education in Canada.

90

educAtIon And technology Educational technology is much more than computers and calculators; it is all of the inventions that enable teachers to reach their goals, outcomes and expectations via the utilization of such tools as the chalkboard, overhead projector, digital videodisc and satellite communications. As with most technologic innovations, each must be employed in strategic and carefully planned programs. Technology within a program shall be employed by qualified professionals and not just a well-meaning individual (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006). For instance, the special educator who is using technology to aid learning-disabled students needs to be both trained and informed in order to implement technology in an ethical and prudent manner. Furthermore, as we educate our students for the computerdominated future, we must address the growing opportunities for dishonest use of technology . . . . Educators unaware of the possibilities and resources available to computer-age students are at the mercy of these technologically hip kids. (Renard, 2000, p. 38) This observation is not a new reality, just a prominent and on-going concern for educators and students who may be ethically challenged users. Educators have choices, look at the concerns or look away. However, according to futurists, students will continue to use more and more technology in the coming years. Is this good news or bad news? Many say that it is great news! They claim that failing to use such technologic advances will shortchange children and prevent them from fully participating in the global village of the future. Others disagree and direct educators to ask why, to what end, and what regarding the uses of technology, not just how and how soon. They believe that educators are unthinkingly accepting technology without

Teaching and Technology

evaluating its impact on the curriculum, student learning, and the social settings for education. (Parkay, Hardcastle Stanford, Vaillancourt, Stephens, 2005, p. 348) Teachers need to be reflective and time needs to be provided for collective groups of educators to explore the issues while discussing concerns and heeding sensible cautions from well informed colleagues.

base and graphics programs, accessing wide-area networking capabilities such as e-mail and the Internet, learning the basics of developmenttype programs such as Logo or HyperStudio and developing an awareness of the social impact of technological change. Technology does affect us and in ways users may not be aware of therefore it is not enough to just monitor usage we must look beyond narrow curriculum towards emerging issues and technologic innovations within a human context.

Issues And cAutIons teAchIng WIth technology The issues surrounding the use of technology are multifaceted yet attempting to confront each concern is a proactive enterprise. By addressing technologic concerns in the educational arena, we suggest to others that we ought to be cautious while working towards our vision for the use of technology in education. After all, “the use of technology should not drive the vision. The vision should drive the use of technology” (Surgenor, 1992, p. 137). Our human capacity to take and shape technology is of prime importance as a creative, inventive energy within education. Energetic educators with vision are likely to be involved with discovery teaching (Whittier & Hewit, 1997) as they make use of multiple and varied means to move students towards preplanned outcomes in a manner guided by values, beliefs and ethics. The paths chosen are very much personal matters for teachers that often are endorsed by larger organizations such as teacher unions, government bodies (Canadian Teachers Federation; Ontario College of Teachers), or local school Boards. Typically, a student in Ontario will be focusing on several basic functions such as keyboarding skill development, basic computer operation and care of files and media, working on basic concepts and terminology (the core of technological literacy), using common tool-type computer applications, word processing, spreadsheets, data

Teaching today is a personal journey that is influenced by many forces that are in some way related to technology. Students in their classrooms can watch real time footage of astronauts, soldiers, mountain climbers and deep-sea divers. Students have a new level of awareness when it comes to current events both globally and in their community. They carry iPods, digital camera phones and work in class at powerful computers. At each moment of the school day technology is involved. Indeed, “technology is so deeply intertwined throughout our lives that it is sometimes hard to recognize, because of its pervasive nature . . . . [and] when people consciously alter their environment, they are creating technology” (Ortega & Ortega, 1995, p. 11). The creation and use of technology is a human exercise that needs to be guided by other human qualities such as attitude, values, and ethics. We are reminded of the humanness of the activity underpinning technology in that people and their actions (behaviors) create technologic innovations sometimes without fully understanding the impact of such actions. Technology can be used to work within, or outside certain laws hence, “the key to successful implementation of technology into the curriculum is the teacher’s attitude “(Johnson, 1999, p. 162). For instance instructing the class to back-up their own work on compact disc is quite a different enterprise than

91

Teaching and Technology

suggesting to students that they can now make illegal copies of copyright materials. Society, expects an approved ethical stance from teachers, and students, and yet “educational systems are hard-pressed to meet today’s expectations, so raising the bar so far in one generation will put enormous pressure on an already troubled institution “ (Walker, 1999, p. 21). Schools are moving forward faster than policy can be laid down (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006). For example, the cell phone that is also a digital camera can be used to take inappropriate pictures within the school and these same images can appear on school web sites within minutes. This technologic concern is not limited to a local school it is a societal problem that spans our entire country.

AssessMent And evAluAtIon: outcoMes And IMplIcAtIons Within Canada, we have begun to evaluate our curricula, students and performance on a large scale and this process is aided by technology that can produce results rapidly. Canada, as a country regularly compares educational results (Standardized Testing) with other countries, and we then borrow and use other country’s ideas in order to match or exceed their academic success (Naested, Potvin & Waldron, 2004). Is this comparative existence appropriate or necessary within our education system? Probably not, as Woelders & Moes (2002) explain, Koreans are flocking to Australia, America, Britain, and Canada. The reason? For many it is to ensure that their children avoid the Korean public education system, unaffectionately known by some students as ‘exam hell’. . . . The career and lifestyle choices for both high achievers and low achievers are limited early in life. (p.20) Canada and its moderate approach to testing is attractive to people outside its borders yet it is

92

possible that the attraction is to an educational system that is flexible, innovative and constantly evolving. We have many good ideas in our classrooms and we need not compare ourselves to others to advance our students or our society. Still, many of our local innovations are hidden behind the walls of the school and not publicized. What is often publicized via the media (TV, papers, mail, radio) on a daily basis, is the seemly endless controversies in education. Faced with technologic intrusion of decidedly downbeat media messages, such as a low evaluation ranking from large scale global and provincial testing, teachers need to self-examine and situate themselves along a continuum of growth and development in order to maintain perspective. In other words, keep pace somehow and work to mitigate the ever-present forces of media. In so doing, teachers can illuminate certain elements of practice such as image, accomplishments, originality, and professional development.

InForMed And reFlectIve Educators realize that cutting and pasting no longer only involves scissors and glue, it can mean that someone has used computer programs to produce a product (paper), than could be fraudulent. Educators need to align themselves with technology and not cling to denial hoping that students are being honest and ethical in task completion. Choosing not to embrace technology, however, sends messages to students. Teachers, in this fast-paced technologic environment need to be aware of the messages they send to the children, peers and the community both verbally and nonverbally. Daily reflection in this technological age helps us to understand ourselves and determine the degree to which we are achieving personal, professional, and political outcomes. Reflection may include personal narratives, pictorial images, and action research. Action research has a presence in all Canadian provinces and it is

Teaching and Technology

for good reason that this has occurred as Squire (1999) advocates; action research is seen as a viable way for teachers to research and explore their own work instead of looking to “outside experts” for theoretical answers. Respecting the professionalism of teachers by validating their experience and practical knowledge, action research also allows teachers to model the kinds of learning experiences they encourage for students. Action research offers teachers and teacher educators an opportunity for individual professional growth through ongoing dialogues with people and texts and an equally important opportunity to create a learning community within a school. (p.2) Faced with media misrepresentation, and the isolation of classroom educators in this time deficient profession, can make the use of technology necessary to reach out and investigate their own practice. Educators are turning to email, digital cameras, and video conferencing to diminish isolation. Also, action research can be a tool and a means to publicize their discoveries, daily work and on-going professional development using technology (seminars, workshops, chat rooms, journals, presentations).

educAtIon – WhAt guIdes teAchers And teAchIng? Teaching, as defined earlier is also a means to get children to understand and embrace values (Beck, 1995). In other words, a “planned arrangement of experiences to help a learner develop understanding and to achieve a desirable change in behavior “(Kellough & Kellough, 2003, p. 410). Educators can realize this outcome regularly through dialogue, modeling, and reflective tasks. Teachers model thoughtfulness, integrity, and relationship development each day (Naested, et al. 2004). These modeled teaching qualities, it can

be argued, are also values which can be utilized to demonstrate other values such as the work ethic, the completion of tasks, and the production of work of a certain quality. Educating at the moment, and in the future requires us to look into not only the impact of technology but also the way in which we imagine its use and abuse. Teachers have to be aware of boundaries and limitations. Teachers need to value standards. Dugger (1995) suggests in The Technology Teacher that “in educational terms, standards can be considered as descriptive statements established by key professionals, used as a model, to assess the degree to which a curriculum, student performance, or educational program meets qualitative and quantitative characteristics of excellence” (p. 3). Is it enough that only key teachers invest in, or be saddled with this responsibility? No. Each teacher is responsible. Each teacher needs to be aware of their personal and practical knowledge, values, behavior, and then move on to the task of educating in a manner that achieves certain standards. In a sense, the policy for technology education should reside in each one of us and be communicated to others by means of modeling, dialogue and reflection. John Dewey (1938) suggested, the teacher’s business is to see that the occasion is taken advantage of. Since freedom resides in the operations of intelligent observance and judgment by which a purpose is developed, guidance given by the teacher to the exercise of the pupil’s intelligence is an aid to freedom, not a restriction upon it. Sometimes teachers seem to be afraid even to make suggestions to the members of a group as to what they should do. (p. 71) There is a need for breadth and balance in education through the sharing of perspectives and discourse. These activities encourage thinking because if only the teacher asks questions; who is learning? We need an exchange of ideas to ensure that educators receive feedback from

93

Teaching and Technology

students. This in turn contributes to the reflective process and leads to self-analysis and growth. Teachers and students alike begin to question, and this can cause changes in behavior. Further, reflection can change not only attitudes and behaviors but our individual values as well. Neden (1994) explains, Technology education programs grew out of a self-analysis of the profession and the insight to move into the curriculum designs that would adequately prepare students for a future that would be much different than anything we can imagine at this time. For some, this transition was seen as a natural progression, while others felt confused, uncertain and inadequate to meet this challenge. (p.29) This viewpoint addresses the concern that a gap between what is intended and what is implemented is inevitable. Again, the human element needs attention. Our perception of a change causes emotive reactions that may alienate colleagues from one another. Still, as Hodson (1994) makes clear “. . . teachers will need to work closely together and assign responsibilities appropriately . . . . teachers will also need to work closely with colleagues . . . . (p. 78). Educators need to move forward together putting values first and not our fragile egos. Some educators may fear technology and some embrace it yet each educator will need to put their personal feelings aside if the profession is to advance technologically, professionally and politically (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006). Barlow and Robertson (1994) point out that, “we have reached the limits of the changes possible through incrementalism; transformational change is required” (p. 147). In addition, the editorial in Business Week (April 17, 1995) pointed out that “re-engineering this [school] apparatus, in much the same way Corporate America has been restructured, is critical to providing quality education. Most schools are nothing less than a caricature of an old industrial factory - rigid, top-down, bureaucratic, and rules-

94

driven, it makes for incredible inefficiency” (p. 114). We need to ask: Where are we going and how will we get there?

ontArIo post-secondAry trAnsForMAtIon: K-12’s Future We need to look at this level of education in order to predict what may be coming to the secondary and/or elementary levels in the near future. In Ontario there is a well established trickle down effect that has both a tradition and impact on teaching and technology usage. At present within the post-secondary level there is a transformation in progress. Ontario, a province in Canada, has retained a former premier (transformative leader) to lead the transformation of post-secondary education using technology as a tool to unite post-secondary institutions. Recently it has been announced that, Ontario’s high performance computing community is ecstatic over to day’s announcement that the Ontario Government has come through with $19.3 million in matching funds for a $50 million expansion of the project, giving the green light to a new consortium of 11 Ontario institutions and creating among the top 70 most powerful research facilities in the world. The July 24 announcement from the London [Ontario] based Shared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing Network (SHARCNET), follows a previous announcement of $19 million from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). Providing the globally-leading optical network infrastructure that connects the computing facilities at the 11 member institutions, ORION is among the private sector and institutional partners contributing up of $10 million in in-kind and equipment support. (ORION, 2004, p. 1) The stakeholders in the project need to be reminded that even though vast sums of money have been invested, the people behind the technology remain anchored to the same values, ethics and

Teaching and Technology

accountability criteria. It is one decision to invest and build the network it is another task to oversee and monitor its usage as intended. Specifically we are told that, ORION is an advanced high-speed fibre optic network that connects research and education institutions to each other and to colleagues around the world. Spanning 4,200 kilometres to 21 cities throughout the Province of Ontario, ORION was created to bring leading-edge network capability to the publicly funded R&E community and to become a catalyst for creative and innovative next generation Internet applications. ORION is owned and operated by the Optical Regional Advanced Network of Ontario ORANO). For more information, visit our web site at http://www.orion. on.ca. (ORION, 2004, p. 1) Consider the intersection of teaching and transformational change, and ask: Are values changed as teachers attempt to respond to changing technology and curricular demands?

vAlues, teAchIng & technology At any level authentic education is or should be constructed carefully and demands that “values learning must be in context to specific problems . . . . People learn a great deal about values through their own everyday experience and through reflecting on these and discussing them” (Beck, 1993, p. 229), with others. Teachers as agents of society transmit values via instruction, rules and procedures. As well, “individual perspectives and personal feelings are always subtly present in the classroom, no matter how apparently ‘objective’ the lesson or how much the teacher attempts to remain neutral” (Kobrin, 1992, p. 173). This is so because “technology is so deeply intertwined throughout our lives that it is sometimes hard to recognize, because of its pervasive nature” (Or-

tega & Ortega, 1995, p. 11). Teachers therefore may be unaware of the extent or attitude toward technology they transmit to students. A student may mistakenly learn that certain areas of the curriculum (technology) are not valued and thus not important. Kellough and Kellough (2003) state, Today, there seems to be much agreement that the essence of the learning process is combined selfawareness, self-monitoring, and active reflection. Young people learn these skills best when exposed to teachers who themselves effectively model those same behaviors. The most effective teaching and learning is an interactive process, and involves not only learning, but also thinking about learning and learning how to learn. (p. 66) Teachers who model discipline and values such as honesty, trust, and consideration soon may find that this becomes a characteristic within a class. Instruction in these classes most often is learner focused within small groups of three to five students who work on well-defined tasks to realize mastery (Naested, et al. 2004). Naturally, this cooperative learning environment is built upon valuable and intense communications. However, teachers who elect to ignore opportunities to discuss emotions, values or affective concerns are actually dehumanizing the teaching experience. In fact, “we now realize that if we had pursued using technology and a cooperative learning approach separately, we undoubtedly would have remained in the constricting boxes of our disciplines . . . . [instead we] . . . help train . . . . students to work cooperatively and how to effectively communicate in the workplace. . . . a team approach to real life” (Olds & Lightner,1995, p. 24). The days of doing your own thing in solitude are numbered. The focus is, and really has been for many years, on team building in elementary and secondary classrooms and to do this you need to know yourself and understand the humility of others. Indeed, “a rich emotionality is essential to well being - and even to academic learning for both students and

95

Teaching and Technology

teachers” (Beck and Kosnik, 1994, p. 15). Experiences within affective curricula are certain to impact values of students and teachers alike. Ultimately, educators are interested in teaching people however, effective teaching requires “one who is able to convince not half or three-quarters but essentially all of his or her students to do quality work in school. This means to work up to their capacity, not to ‘lean on their shovels’ as so many are doing now ” (Glasser, 1990, p. 14-15). To move and inspire people is to motivate. This is very important not only to the student but the teacher as well. Educators use past experiences to motivate themselves to go forward and to arouse interest in students. Unfortunately, negative experiences can stop an educator and cause them to move backwards to safer less risk-taking traditional teaching behaviours. For instance, the loss of report cards on a computer is traumatic enough to propel teachers back to hand written reports.

reFlectIve prActItIoner Back in 1987, Donald Schon coined the phrase ‘reflective practitioner’, “as a way of describing and developing skilled and thoughtful judgment in professions like teaching” (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1991, p. 67). To question what was done or how it was done is a critical element of reflection and periodically becomes a time of values clarification. This task can be unsettling, depending on who questions. Take for example the only crime that Socrates committed as he, was asking questions of a lot of people - especially young people. For that he was put to death . . . . The relentless questioning was designed to force people to know more about themselves . . . . Discussions can be ‘dangerous’ because they have the power to unsettle people and initiate change. (Korbrin, 1992, p. 111)

96

Frequently reflection, questioning and eventual self-analysis provides limited information. Skynner and Cleese (1993) explain that “we never have enough experience ourselves so, to fill in the gaps, we have to rely on advice that is based on the experience of other people” (p. 242). In essence, no educator is an expert; we are more like, or hope to be like, a community of learners sharing experiences. An astute educator, upon reflection, may discover that neither personal goals nor student goals have been achieved and even though this can be stressful, it may be viewed positively. The teacher, reflecting, may notice an opportunity even though goals have not been achieved, to change, to grow and to move forward. Moreover, Wood (1992) explains that “good teachers do not teach subject matter, they teach who they are” (p. 71); a three dimensional person with feelings as well as cognitive and physical abilities. Hungerford and Volk (1989) advise us to provide “a curriculum that will teach learners the citizenship skills needed for issue remediation as well as the time needed for the application of these skills; and.... provide an instructional setting that increases learners’ expectancy of reinforcement for acting in responsible ways, i.e., attempt to develop an internal focus of control in learners” (p. 14). If we fall short, will we be unduly punished? Is this the prudent guidance we need? Recent paradigms in education promote and encourage disclosures admitting, “total teachers are not perfect teachers” (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991, p. 16), and therein resides a potential source of stress for those who believe they should be competent in all areas. As we reflect upon our performance we decide, what we need to change, and often, what we change is in reaction to external pressures from such as parents, administrators, colleagues and students who are using or may want to use the latest technology.

Teaching and Technology

school & coMMunIty Community realization that teachers need other people to help in the schoolhouse is now commonplace in many schools. Most contemporary scholars such as Beck (1995) promote the view that “teachers do not need more pressure; rather, they need support and help” (p. 4). This change in attitude towards education and teaching has been encouraged by other researchers, such as Parkay, et al. (2005), and Squire, (1999), who promote ideas such as community, collaboration, and networking, as well as affective education and reflection. Even the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (March 2004) has begun to identify the degree and form of support both the Ministry and parents will provide via curriculum development and school councils mentioned in the Backgrounder. Educators can only wait and see if these changes will improve results found in the classroom. Yet the interaction of parents and teachers is essential. Communication between people whether they be parents or educators brings about shared responsibility. It is easy to see why networking and collaboration have become the ‘buzz’ words in education. Whittier and Hewit (1993) found “teaching in today’s educational system involves the development and imparting of positive attitudes learned through interpersonal communication and collaborative efforts” (p. 86). Educators therefore need to reach out, get involved and become more aware of self. Most often self-directed learning is best because “learning directed by others is often ineffective, either because the learner is not vitally engaged or because the program of study is not sufficiently focused on what the learner needs” (Beck, 1993, p. 260). An educator is required to be proactive and initiate rather than passive and reactive however, one study demonstrated that teachers were less willing to accept the technology if they believed its implementation would require them to alter their teaching style (Dorman, 1998). Overall, educators often “feel inadequately prepared to

use newer technology in their teaching “ (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006). A survey by Volk (1995) found that representatives from manufacturing firms ranked the following skills as most important. These include from most to least: • • • • • • • • •

Group interaction skills - team member, respecting others Employability skills - work habits, pride in work Personal development skills - self-esteem, personal goals Critical thinking skills Leadership skills Technological system skills Reading, writing and math skills - just basic skills Communication Skills Computer skills - desktop publishing. p. 38

A “lack of interaction among teachers at various placements along the continuum brings rigidness and narrowness to all teachers” (Ringlaben & Weller, 1981, p. 20). Teachers and students need to improve interpersonal skills since our focus in education is nowadays on life-long learning both for students and teachers. Korbin (1992) has suggested teaching is a complicated moral craft and to survive, “as in life, it’s either change and grow or wither and ‘die’” (p. XIV). To change is to adapt to stress with an aim of achieving a healthy ‘good-life’. To do this we need to examine, question and reflect on our experiences. As a result, our individual value systems may change. Occasionally we remodel our value laden mind-maps and from time-totime as suggested by Skynner and Cleese (1993) we use “experience. . . . and myths” (p. 247), and “we have to rely on advice, which is based on the experience of other people” (p. 242), to complete our perspective. Doing so allows us to fill-in the grey or unknown areas of our mind-map. Indeed,

97

Teaching and Technology

each remodeling or change in personal values is stressful for the educator and this appears to be a constant developmental stress that increases and decreases over a period of years.

conclusIon The previous discussion has included several aspects of both technology and teaching. Technology is a tool and an enterprise that can be used to educate, change and empower people in schools and society. We need informed and reflective educators to ensure desired outcomes however. We have faced this technologic hurdle before with the motion picture innovation of 1922, the radio station of 1945, followed by 1960’s programmed instruction and then television was predicted to revolutionize education yet instead it merely provided another mode to instruct. Arguably, the revolution forecasted failed to appear. Teaching in the present day is still a personal human journey that is influenced by many forces that are in some way related to technologic change infused with human relations. Educators must respond because it is this constant technologic innovation that is affecting and altering the educational landscape. We are duty-bound to become aware of ourselves as teachers through the clarification of values, reflection and action research yet how do we keep pace, current and informed with wave after wave of technologic innovation? We need to remind ourselves to look at the messages we send, and most importantly, become aware of the behaviors, modeling and leadership we provide at all levels to ensure that we drive the vision for technology and not let technology mute nor drive the humanness from either the classroom or the education system.

reFerences Barlow, M. & Robertson, H.J. (1994). Class warfare. New York: Plume Books. 98

Beck, C. (1993). Learning to live the good life: Values in adulthood. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press. Beck, C. (1995, February 3rd). Let’s work WITH teachers. A response to the Royal Commission’s “Vision for schools,” (Vol. 2). Presented at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, OISE/ UT Forum, (pp. 1-7), Toronto, Canada. Beck, C. & Kosnik, C.M. (1994). Caring for the emotions: Toward a more balanced schooling. Unpublished manuscript. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. Dorman, S. M. (1998). Assistive technology benefits for students with disabilities. Journal of Health, 68(3), 120-124. Dugger, W.E. (1995). Technology for all Americans. The Technology Teacher, 2, 3-6. Editorial. (1995, April 17). Now, reinvent the schools. Newsweek, p. 114. Fullan, M.G. & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’s worth fighting for? Toronto, ON: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation: OISE Press. Gage, N.L. & Berliner, D.C. (1984) Educational Psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. Toronto, Canada: Harper & Row. Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalization and politisation of science education. Curriculum Studies. 2(1), 71-98. Hungerford, H. R. & Volk, T. L. (1989). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 8-21. Kellough, N.G., & Kellough, R.D. (2003). Secondary school teaching: A guide to models and resources. (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice-Hall

Teaching and Technology

Kircher, G. & Fishburne, G. J. (1998). Physical education for elementary school children. (10th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Korbin, D. (1992). In there with the kids: Teaching in today’s classrooms.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Levin, J. & Nolan, J. F. (2004). Principles of classroom management: A professional decisionmaking model. (4th Ed.). New York:Allyn & Bacon. Liedtke, J.A. (1995). Changing the organizational culture. The Technology Teacher, 3, 9-14. Ministry of Education and Training. (March, 2004) Backgrounder. New foundations for Ontario education. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education. Naested, I., Potvin, B., & Waldron. (2004). Understanding the landscape of teaching. Toronto, Canada: Pearson-Prentice Hall. Neden, M.W. (1994). Technology 2000. The Technology Teacher, 9, 29. Okojie, M, & Olinzock A. (2006). Developing a positive mind-set toward the use of technology in classroom instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 33-41. Ontario College of Teachers (2004). How to become a teacher. Retrieved March 23, 2004, from http://www.oct.ca/en/CollegePublications/PDF/ becoming.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education (1994). The common curriculum. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education.. Olds, A. & Lightner, R. (1995). Technology as a tool for learning. The Technology Teacher, 4, 23-28. Ontario Royal Commission on Learning (1994) Ontario Royal Commission on Learning - For the love of learning. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer.

ORION. (2004, July). Orion research and discovery news. 2(7). 1-6. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.orion.on.ca/newsletter/ ordnjuly04.pdf Ortega, C.A. & Ortega, R. (1995). Integrated elementary technology education. The Technology Teacher, 2, 11-16. Parkay, F. W., Hardcastle Stanford, B., Vaillancourt, J.P., & Stephens, H.C. (2005). Becoming a teacher. (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson. Ringlaben, R.P. & Weller, C. (1981). Mainstreaming special education. Education Unlimited. 3(4), 19-22. Skynner, R. & Cleese J. (1993). Life and how to survive it. London: Methuen. Surgenor, E. (1992). Designing learning systems. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Squire, F. (1999) Action research and standards of practice fro the teaching profession: Making connections. The Ontario Action Researcher (6)1,4. Retrieved October 17, 2003, from http://www. nipissingu.ca/oar/oarArch99-20/webArc-99-20. html UNESCO (1985). Technology education as part of general education. Paris: UNESCO. Volk, K. (1995). Necessary skills for high school graduates. The Technology Teacher, 2, 37-38. Whittier, K.S. & Hewit. (1993). Collorative teacher education: The elementary education/special education connection. Intervention in School and Clinic, 2(29), 84-897. Woelders, A. , & Moes, E. (2002). Testing that undermines education in Korea. Teacher Newsmagazine for the B.C. Teachers’ Federation, 14 (4), 20. Wood, G.H. (1992). Schools that work. New York: Penguin Books.

99

Teaching and Technology

Key terMs And deFInItIons Action Research: A means of professional growth via dialogue with people and texts in order to reflect upon lived experiences in a strategic and systematic modes that produces both insight and direction for individuals, schools and the system they work within. Educational Technology: Inventions that enable teachers to reach their goals, outcomes and expectations via the utilization of tools. Ethical Stance: A position assumed that a person believes to be right and true.

100

Reflection: The process or mode of reviewing by playing back mentally and questioning what has happened to support self-analysis and examination of the lived experiences. Teaching: Preplanned behaviours informed by learning principles and child development theory which directs and guides instruction to ensure desired students outcomes. Technology: The creative energy used to solve problems which enhance control over nature and the man-made environment to improve the human condition. Values: The ideals that guide or qualify your personal conduct and interaction with others.

101

Chapter VII

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young Liisa Ilomäki University of Helsinki, Finland Marja Kankaanranta University of Jyväskylä, Finland

AbstrAct This chapter discusses the information and communication technology (ICT) competence of the young. The discussion focuses on students at lower and upper secondary school, especially young people aged 10-18. It explores how the strategic initiatives and implementation efforts of ICY have reached out to the level of young citizens. The aim is to consider their ICT competence as well as their use of ICT in school and during the leisure time. The authors also consider the significance and role of gaming, the gender differences regarding ICT skills and use, and the differences between the young and adults in their skills and use of ICT.

the KnoWledge socIety And eXpectAtIons oF Ict In educAtIon The rapid distribution of information and communication technology (ICT) in almost all areas of society has also occurred in education, and all OECD countries have invested heavily in ICT for educational use (OECD, 2004). The same trend

regarding heavy ICT investment in education has become evident in many developing countries, especially in South-East Asia (see Pelgrum, 2008). Worldwide, the utilization of information technology in education has been regarded an essential factor for economic growth, and the concept of the information society1 is based on the belief that knowledge is the driving force for technology development and that the knowledge work

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

and knowledge workers form a relatively large proportion of the employment. In policy discussions, the arguments for using ICT in education are often based on promoting the information society, which sets demands for improved teaching and learning. The new jobs require new skills, namely, those needed for interaction with the new technology (European Commission, 1998), but also more general skills, such as collaborative knowledge creation and sharing as well as metacognitive skills, as Kozma (2005) suggests based on pedagogical theories. ICT has also been regarded as a strategy to improve teaching and learning and to implement and facilitate the new pedagogy of the information society (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; OECD, 2004; Voogt & Pelgrum, 2005). For the knowledge economy, it is not only a question of whether people can access information but also how well they can process and utilize this information as well as create novel information (Hargreaves, 2003). Education is essential to answer the needs of technology and society (Waters, 1998), and it is regarded as not only as the means to meet the ICT revolution but also the means to keep pace with the continuing ICT development. This emphasis on ICT in the knowledge society also has practical consequences. As early as 1996, the European Commission emphasized the need to exploit new ICT in education, and to achieve this it was necessary to target teachers (and trainers) in introducing ICT into education and to link schools into the full networking potential of the information society (European Commission, 1998). In the same year, President Clinton laid out four similar goals in the USA: computers accessible to every student, classrooms wired to one another and to the outside world, educational software to be integrated with the curriculum, and teachers to be ready to use and teach with technology (Cuban, 2001). During the last decade, policy initiatives and diverse educational master plans around the world have generated national implementation priorities for ICT use at schools,

102

such as the provision for ICT-infrastructure, teachers’ professional development, and technical and pedagogical support for teachers (Pelgrum & Law, 2008). During recent years, there has been an obvious strategic shift in the focus from merely utilizing ICT to generating knowledge-based growth. The focus has also widened from the core promotion of work and employment purposes to efforts to contribute to the general well-being of people in their daily life, both at work and in their leisure time. This shift can be seen, for example, in the most recent Finnish knowledge society strategy which has as its general vision the promotion of a good life for all citizens vis-à-vis the information society (Prime Minister’s Office, 2006). The three main sectors of reformation concern competent and learning individuals and work communities, an innovation system in which ideas are turned into products and services, and the building of a human-centric and competitive service society. According to Ståhle (2007), the major challenges for enhancing learning in the global information society centre on gaining an understanding of virtual and actual knowledge creation processes, steering and managing such processes, and integrating them with other activities. Diverse new learning technologies such as social software and sharing technologies (wikis, blogs and RSS services) facilitate online learning in networks and within and across different communities and virtual learning environments, thereby expanding learning outside formal education for different age groups. This interest in information technology has often developed even into enthusiasm; Selwyn (2002) calls it ‘techno-romance’. The introduction of computers in education gave even rise to the expectations that they would revolutionize both learning and teaching (see Law, Pelgrum & Plomp, 2008). As a result, the role of information technologies in educational development is established – even to the extent that it is believed there would be no educational development without ICT (Nivala, in press; Selwyn, 2002; Waters, 1998).

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

From Ict skills to digital competence2 In the modern world, the competencies that an individual needs have become more complex, requiring more than the mastery of certain narrowly defined skills; it is necessary to go beyond taught knowledge and skills. This is also true in the question of ICT, or wider, digital competence, which has been discussed in various forums; nonetheless, there is still a lack of common agreement and definition about the necessary digital competence. The European Commission (see Punie & Cabrera, 2006) has defined digital competence as involving the confident and critical use of Information Society Technology for work, leisure and communication. Digital competence is grounded on basic skills in ICT, i.e. the use of computers to retrieve, assess, store, produce, present and exchange information, and to communicate and participate in collaborative networks via the Internet. The adoption of the necessary skills and competence to use ICT needs to be complemented with the mastering and understanding of ICT. In the Nordic ICT study (Pedersen et al., 2006), digital skills are defined as basic cultural skills, such as reading and writing. One further example of widening the technology-related skills to wider competencies is ISTE’s (International Society for Technology in Education) educational technology standards for students (ISTE, 2007). The main competencies are creativity and innovation; communication and collaboration; research and information fluency; critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making; digital citizenship, and technology operations and concepts. In The OECD Program Definition and Selection of Competencies (2005), a competency was defined as not only consisting of skills and knowledge, but also involving the ability to meet complex demands in a particular context. In the OECD’s framework, the key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society are classified into three

broad categories that the person should master: 1) use tools interactively, 2) interact in heterogeneous groups, and 3) act autonomously. Each of these key competencies implies the mobilization of knowledge, cognitive and practical skills, and social and behavioural components including attitudes, emotions, values and motivations. The first key competence, ‘use tools interactively’, is especially important when thinking about ICT in school. This competence means the ability to use technology interactively, which requires an awareness of new ways in which an individual can use technologies in his/her daily life. An individual should have the ability to make use of the potential of ICT to transfer the way of working, to access information, and to interact with others. A first step is to incorporate technologies into common practices to produce familiarity with the technology. In this article, we will explore how successfully the strategic initiatives and implementation efforts have reached out to the level of young citizens. The aim is to consider their ICT competence and skills as well as their use of ICT in school and during the leisure time. The aim is, further, to consider the significance and role of gaming, the gender differences regarding ICT skills and use, and the differences between the young and adults in their skills and use of ICT. The discussion focuses on students at lower and upper secondary schools, especially young people aged 10–18.

students’ Ict use And Access to Ict At homes: Ict use is Wide and Inspiring For students, ICT resources at home are most important for access and development of skills; Pedersen et al. (2006) even argue that there is a digital gap between school and home. Although potential access to computers is greater at schools

103

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

than at home, the 15-year-old students were using their computers at home more frequently than at school (OECD, 2005). Similar findings have been reported in some national studies, e.g. in Slovakia, nearly 90% of 15-19 year-old students used a computer at home but only about 60% in the school (Kubiatko, 2007; see also ImpaCT2, 2001). In the PISA 2003 survey (Eurydice, 2005), 81% of students aged 15 said that they had a computer at home, and that use of the computer was routine: 99.3% of students had used it. Over 50% said that they use it regularly, mainly for playing games (53% of the students), for looking for information on the Internet (55%) and for communicating via e-mail or ‘chat-rooms’ (56%) (OECD, 2005). Although usage is very common, the length of time using a computer varied widely from one country to another; it was highest in the Nordic countries, in which the majority of students had used a computer for over five years. Leisure time use is more active, richer, more extensive and more orientated toward recreational use of ICT and some advanced technologies than the school use. Young people, especially boys, use ICT as a tool but also, and mainly, for recreational surfing and downloading games and music (Ching, Basham, & Fang, 2005; Gansmo, Lagesen, & Sørensen., 2003; Lewin et al., 2004).

At schools: differences of Access between countries and schools In general, the access to ICT at schools has improved rapidly around the world during last 5– 8 years. National information strategy goals have been implemented through provisions that help educational establishments acquire the necessary infrastructure and by developing technical networking between schools. According to the results of the recent SITES 2006 study (Second Information Technology in Education Study), the majority of 22 participating educational systems around the word could provide students with almost full access to computers and Internet

104

at lower secondary schools in 2006 (Pelgrum, 2008). The increase has been especially rapid in Internet connections, as the results of the PISA surveys from 2000 to 2003 already indicated (Programme for International Student Assessment, 2005; see also Korte & Hüsing, 2007). In addition, the development has concerned the ratio regarding the number of students per computer (Pelgrum, 2008). Based on this ratio, the level of computerisation in schools varies widely from one country to another as, for example, Korte and Hüsing (2007) have pointed out. In 2006, on average, 9 students shared a computer, but the differences among 27 European countries are wide: in Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Luxemburg there are 4–5 students per computer. In Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Greece, 17 students share a computer (Korte & Hüsing 2007). SA similar trend is evident between educational systems around the world according to the SITES 2006 study (Pelgrum, 2008). The student-computer ratio was very favourable, which is considered to be fewer than 5 students per computer, in more than half of the schools in Norway and Alberta (Canada). In many countries (e.g. Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, and Singapore) the ratio is favourable (under 10 per computer) in the majority of the schools. Nevertheless, there were educational systems, especially in developing countries, in which this ratio still varies from 10 to 40 in most of the schools. A closer look at the average ratio indicates also the huge differences between schools in most of the countries that participated in the SITES study. For example, in about 20% of Finnish lower secondary schools there are fewer than 5 students per computer, and in almost 80% the ratio is less than 10. There are also almost 20% of schools in which the ratio is 10–19, and there are some schools with even more than 20 students per computer. The availability of different equipment, tools and software at schools is another important access-related factor. The Nordic countries, the

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Netherlands, Estonia and Malta have the highest share of broadband connections, in about 90% of the schools (Korte & Hüsing, 2007). The SITES study (Pelgrum 2008) provides an indication that general office software, such as word-processing, databases and spreadsheets, are available at almost all lower secondary schools around the world (except South Africa and Thailand), but in regard of other technology applications there is more variation between countries. The most distinct differences are in the availability of email accounts for teachers: while in some countries, such as Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and Finland, almost all schools provide their teachers with email accounts, there are many countries in which less than 70% of schools guarantee email accounts for teachers. Moreover, the availability of email accounts for students is much lower in all countries as in most countries less than 70% of schools report such provision. Simulation software, data logging tools, smart boards and mobile devices have not yet found their way to being typical ICT tools at schools.

the use of Ict at school For students, the use of ICT in education is only one part of the overall use of ICT, but it is very important, especially for achieving academic skills: in school, students receive models of learning and working with ICT. There are different estimations about the amount of computer use in education, probably depending on the methodology of the study, but the general trends are similar. The results of the PISA survey (OECD, 2004) of 15-year-old European students showed that frequency of computer use in school varies widely and that this is, naturally, related to the number of computers in the school (Korte & Hüsing, 2007; OECD, 2004). A first indicator is the amount of computer use in school, which is still quite low and varies remarkably among countries, as the results of the PISA survey in 2003 show (reported in Eurydice, 2005). However, the ratio

of students per computer or availability of different applications and tools does not directly reveal anything about the actual use of computers for teaching and learning, or about the pedagogical contents of the use; it simply provides information about the resources available. Altogether, 13% of students aged 15 said that they never used computers at school, and the girl/boy differences were significant in many countries, including the Nordic countries. In the Nordic countries and Austria, use of the Internet is particularly frequent (and low in Spain, Italy, Latvia, and Poland). Students use computers for email and browsing the Internet, while the use of educational software appears to be declining (OECD, 2004). According to Korte and Hüsing (2007), teachers often use computers in classroom, but again, the differences among countries are remarkable. The highest percentages of teachers that use ICT in the classroom are in UK (96) and in Denmark (95), the lowest in Latvia (35) and Greece (36). The SITES 2006 study highlights that at the moment the schools are not utilizing ICT in teaching and learning to the extent that the issues of access enable. The optimistic visions about deeplevel changes in educational practices towards desired pedagogical outcomes over the years have not been realised (see, e.g. Cuban, 2001; Meelissen & Drent, 2008). In many schools ICT is utilized in different subject domains ‘sometimes’ or ‘occasionally’, but more regular use is limited. For example, in Finland the use of ICT is most common in social sciences, foreign languages and the domestic tongue, in which subjects about 35% of Finnish schools report regular use (Kankaanranta & Puhakka, 2008). However, only about 15% of the science teachers and 9% of the mathematics teachers reported using ICT in their instruction once a week or more often, and 28% and 14% respectively reported using ICT during a specific period during the school year. The SITES study indicates, further, that even though the integration of ICT into science and mathematics is slowly

105

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

becoming commonplace in many countries in the world, there is still a sizeable proportion of teachers around the world that had not once used ICT with their target class (grade 8 in the SITES study) within the academic year. The differences between educational systems are again wide. In Singapore and Hong Kong, over 80% of science teachers and about 70% of maths teachers reported that they had utilized ICT with their grade 8 students during the academic year 2005–2006 whereas, there were 12 countries (out of 22 countries) in which less than 60% of science teachers and 15 countries with less than 60% of maths teachers reported ICT use. The lowest usage levels were in South Africa as 18% of the maths teachers and 16% of the science teachers reported the use in the academic year 2005–2006.

characteristics in students’ Ict skills The present-day students are essentially in a different situation from previous generations, with the large majority of students having ICT skills that are of a different type from their teachers’ and often better and wider than their teachers’; even the time spent using a computer efficiently supports the improvement of ICT skills (see, e.g. Kennewell & Morgan 2006). Digital skills divide into very different sub-skills of which only some are considered to be relevant or important and used in school. Students’ informal learning of ICT and experiences using ICT are far more attractive than the school can typically offer. As a result, students face few challenges in using ICT in school; in the curriculum of various subjects and in ICT itself: they are taught ICT skills that they already possess (ImpaCT2, 2001). Moreover, there is probably a group of students with high-level expertise in ICT in every school. These “student-experts” have the kind of adaptive expertise which is useful in novel situations with technology: they learn quickly in practice, they have networks to help and give guidance, they

106

are committed, and they are not afraid to face challenges (Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Ilomäki & Rantanen, 2007). To accept and value students’ ICT-related expertise is a question of shifting authority and power to students, but, according to Wexler (2000), it requires that teachers and school understand the value of integrating technology into learning. However, only seldom can these “student-experts” gain from the ICT use in school, although they could be an important source of help and support at school level, for instance in ICT maintenance. According to the SITES 2006 study, students’ technical expertise is still rarely utilized in different countries as a means for support (Pelgrum, 2008). Only in Hong Kong, Moscow and Singapore did more than half of the schools reported that students were providing technical support. In some earlier studies, students’ competence is reported to be used in schools with new and innovative ways of utilizing ICT (Venetzky & Davis, 2001). We do not need to over-romanticize the younger generations’ digital competence, but it should certainly have an effect on classroom practices and on the teacher’s role, and as such, it is a challenge to teachers; although less discussed. Erstad (2007) describes the different strategies that teachers used in Norwegian case studies when facing students’ better ICT competence. Some teachers competed with students, to some it was a challenge for their didactic and subject-oriented skills, while other teachers simply ignored computers. There are some characteristics in students’ ICT skills which are essential when thinking about their use in school. The Nordic comparison indicated that students and teachers have very different perceptions of what constitutes digital competencies (Pedersen et al., 2006). For example, the teachers emphasized that students’ ICT competences are highly overrated when it comes to school-related software. However, naturally the students did not agree with their teachers. Students’ ICT skills are often learned in informal learning contexts, at home and with friends; this

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

concerns especially boys (as discussed previously and reported in several studies, for example, Eurydice, 2005).The informal learning sometimes means insufficient or odd ways of working, and that especially the information-processing skills need support: students’ searching procedures are inefficient and they need more systematic guidance to develop these (Ruthven, Hennessy, & Deaney, 2005). Similar findings were reported, for example, in a study on sixth grade children studying science (Wallace, Kupperman, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2000): students were not very effective in finding useful information, but students were well engaged and involved in the inquiry and search activities. In another study on literacy skills of sixth grade children (Bowler, Largeb, & Rejskindc, 2001), the researchers found that factfinding skills were inadequate, and efficient use of the web implied a background of knowledge about computers and inquiry. Students did not understand their role as knowledge makers and the need for responsible use of information. As the authors say, understanding that one must back up statements and opinions with reliable proof should be seen as a life skill, but such understanding was missing. They emphasized further that the needs and abilities of grade-six students do not match the design of the Web. Similarly, it has been discovered that the older students also have problems. Most of the upper secondary school students only seldom evaluated the credibility of information, and the evaluation of relevance was more important than the evaluation of credibility. Some students did not find relevant and correct information, although teachers were not aware of this and they trusted the students’ information skills too much (Kiili, Laurinen & Marttinen, 2008-2009). Lallimo, Lakkala and Paavola (2004) present in their review3 that the starting point for effective information-seeking with technological support is embedded in a sound theoretical understanding of the information seeking process, as it is intertwined with meaningful pedagogical practices. The authors put the ques-

tion of whether ICT presents totally new challenges for students’ information-seeking skills, actual new knowledge practices, or is it more a question of supporting students’ basic information-seeking skills regardless of the technology.

the role oF dIgItAl gAMes As the PISA 2003 study indicated, one of the young students’ main purposes for regular use of ICT is game playing (OECD, 2005). It is even argued that games form one of the major media participation forms of the young (Jenkins, 2006). Jenkins (2006) emphasizes that these new forms and cultures offer young people new opportunities for emotional growth and intellectual development but also require new kinds of ethical responsibilities. Typically, young people play for the reasons of fun, entertainment, challenge and competition, and to spend relaxed and enjoyable spare time either alone or together with friends (Ermi, Heliö & Mäyrä, 2004; Salokoski, 2005). Games and game playing can also have different personal, social, emotional and collective dimensions (Eskelinen, 2005; Kankaanranta, Kirjavainen, Nousiainen & Ukkonen, 2006; Salokoski, 2005). Young people with their varied interests generally choose their own favourite games on the basis of their own and peer groups’ interests. Games provide them with important virtual spaces for identity formation and youth culture, which are necessary for their development towards adulthood as well as for their ‘existence’ as young people. The problem is that even though games are, for the younger generation, a distinct form of out-ofschool ICT literacy practice, they are still almost non-existent in the school-based lICT iteracy curriculum (Buckingham & Burns, 2007). In the SITES 2006 study, the majority of Finnish maths and science teachers at lower secondary schools reported that they had never used digital learning games in instruction (Kankaanranta, 2007). The technical co-ordinators stated that digital learning

107

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

games were available at only 20% of the Finnish lower secondary schools; however, 61% expressed a need for learning games at schools in which they were not currently available. The SITES 2006 study also revealed that maths and science teachers faced several problems and obstacles in the use of learning games at school. The most typical problem, mentioned by over half of the teachers, was the teachers’ lack of knowledge of learning games. Almost half of the teachers, moreover, thought that the use of learning games would take too much time during the lessons. Problems were also caused by a lack of good learning games (about 38% of the teachers) and relevant ICT resources (33% of the science and 41% of the maths teachers). About one fourth of the teachers also had problems with their own motivation to use games in teaching, and they did not see learning games as bringing any added value to teaching or supporting learning in any way. They also thought that familiarizing themselves with and using learning games would require too much effort. It may be expected that the attitudes towards the use of entertainment games are even more negative. In recent years, the educational value of digital games has been embraced at least in the emerging literature and studies related to the potential of games for learning (Gee, 2003). According to Jenkins (2006), it is through games that children learn how to play, perform, express themselves, and collaborate in large-scale communities. Children are also adept at learning new content, as has been revealed by studies in which digital games have been used in the classroom. There is growing evidence showing the importance of giving digital games and game playing space a significant role at schools as part of the curriculum and ICTenhanced school practices. The pedagogical use of digital games has the potential to intensify a more critical use and understanding of varied forms of media. As claimed by Jenkins (2006), different game literacy skills have implications for “how we will live, work, and vote in the future”.

108

At the same time, digital games have the potential to diversify the ways information and communication technology is utilized at schools and how schools help students to become digitally competent and ethical citizens of the information society; there is evidence that gaming can increase attainment in other aspects of computer use (Kennewell & Morgan, 2006). This would help us, among other things, to bridge the diverse digital divides – those between teachers and students, parents and students, boys and girls – and to better understand what kinds of digital worlds young people are living in. It would also give them the opportunity to have a say in the planning of learning goals and ICT-enhanced learning practices; to teachers and parents it would offer the opportunity to learn from these young natives of digital technologies.

Ict And gender Gender is an essential factor regarding the use of ICT (Gansmo et al., 2003; Melkas, 2004)4, but the relationship between gender and ICT appears to be in a state of flux because the use of ICT has changed so rapidly, and the Internet in particular has become an ordinary tool for many citizens. According to the PISA 2003 survey (Eurydice, 2005), the majority of students had the skills for performing simple activities, such as using a file and communicating via the Internet. Although the majority of students also managed more complex file management activities, girls more often had problems, and, further, girls had fewer skills in “complex communication” (such as attaching a file to an e-mail message) and advanced applications (such as constructing a web-page or creating a program). There are still several indications of gender differences in relation to the use of ICT. Boys use computers and the Internet more at home (Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Kubiatko, 2007; Papastergiou & Solomonidou, 2005; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008),

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

and during leisure time they are more computerorientated than girls (Ching et al., 2005; Gansmo et al., 2003; Melkas, 2004; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008). According to the Slovakian study, girls use the Internet for obtaining information and for communication (Kubiatko, 2007). Boys are also more involved in entertainment-related Internet activities (such as online gaming, and the downloading of music, games and video clips) than in using computers for more practical purposes (Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Nurmela 1997; Papastergiou & Solomonidou, 2005). Boys have a greater belief in their ability with games than girls have (Kennewell & Morgan, 2006) as well as in the use of computers and ICT-applications in general (Meelissen & Drent, 2008). However, the intensity of computer use and self-efficiency have a positive effect on both boys’ and girls computer attitude, but boys also tend to overestimate their skills while girls tend to underestimate their skills (Meelissen & Drent, 2008). For boys’ competence, informal learning is important; they learn computer technology at home independently, with friends or by themselves, while girls learn their ICT skills primarily at school. Their know-how is multidimensional (Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Ilomäki & Rantanen, 2007; Nurmela, Heinonen, Ollila & Virtanen, 2000; Pedersen et al. 2006). Boys network with other enthusiasts and perform various tasks that are difficult for them. The self-learning might explain also the boys’ stronger self-confidence about their proficiency in ICT skills, in comparison to the girls (see Nurmela, 1997; Pedersen et al. 2006). According to Sanford and Madill (2006), boys in particular are currently keeping up with the technological changes and developments better and also more productively than are schools. For boys, the use of computer technology is a way of maintaining and developing friendly relations with other boys (Facer, Furlong, Furlong & Sutherland, 2003). In general, the culture of ICT among boys seems to involve features of an adaptive expert culture (Alexander, 2004; Facer,

Sutherland, Furlong, Furlong, 2001; Mieg, 2001). The technology-orientated “student experts” are most often male (Hakkarainen et al., 2001; Ilomäki & Rantanen, 2007). An important finding by Meelissen and Drent (2008) showed that parents’ encouragement shows a very strong effect on the computer attitude of both girls and boys; and we may ask whether boys and girls are encouraged similarly at homes. There are results that show that the difference between boys and girls in ICT use and competence is diminishing. The difference between boys and girls is not simple and straightforward, and it is changing rapidly because of the extensive use of the Internet, but apparently, and especially, this equalization mainly concerns younger age groups (Facer et a., 2001; Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Knezek & Christensen, 2002; Melkas; 2004). ICT and technology have been thought of as a male issue (Clegg, 2001; Gansmo et al., 2003), and this male association has emphasized the technical aspect of ICT. With time, the technology has become less technical and its communicative and creative affordances have become stronger, easier to use, more popular and motivating; we can even call this technology ‘digital media’ (Buckingham, 2007). The gender issue is no longer apparent, and the gender differences diminish or disappear. However, the interest in technical features, such as hardware and programming languages, seem to remain male-related. In their study, concerning the relationship of gender and attitudes towards computers, Oosterwegel, Littleton and Light (2004) claim that it is necessary to recognize the diverse context and forms of computer use, and not only ask about children’s attitudes to and engagement with computers as an undifferentiated and uniform experience. Only then will we begin to understand which specific ICT applications are gendered. There might also be one important factor concerning skills, use and attitudes and gender differences: if access to computers is still low, i.e. not all young have access, then boys might

109

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

have better access, skills, and self-esteem; they use ICT more than girls. If the ICT penetration is close to 100%, then the use will perhaps become so ordinary that the gender differences diminish, at least outside school.

genders and Ict use in school In schools, there are gender-related differences in the use of ICT which indicate that apparently different things motivate girls and boys in learning with ICT. In an older study, boys participated more actively in collaborative virtual discussions, and the researchers proposed that the novel technology interested especially boys – at that time ICT was still very new in schools as well as at homes (Hakkarainen, Järvelä, Lipponen, Lonka & Lehtinen, 1998). This external motivation is no longer accurate. The use of ICT in teaching can at least partly increase or reduce differences in attitudes towards ICT between the genders. According to Stepulevage (2001), ICT competence is related to the development of gender identity, and she claims that teachers support the gender-based digital divide, often without noticing. Krapp and Lewlter (2001) suggest that when schools provide students with an opportunity to use ICT in learning they can increase equality in the use of ICT. Sølvberg (2002) found that girls benefited more from ICT teaching at school, because their beliefs in their own skills and know-how developed to the same level as the boys’ beliefs. According to Sølvberg (2002), girls have the same attitudes towards computers as boys when they have the same amount of similar experiences. The theory of the teacher as a role-model also in the use of ICT has been discussed. Jensen, de Castell & Bryson (2003) reported about a feminist intervention project in which girls and female teachers were trained to become ICT-experts in their school so that they would then train other students and teachers. This increased the consciousness of gender-based inequities, but it also showed the strongly male-dominance in ICT in

110

school. In addition, Meelissen and Drent (2008) found a small effect on girls’ computer attitude if the female teacher has computer experience. The importance of female role-models was also emphasized by Apiola (2008). A case study by Ilomäki and Rantanen (2007) about students’ intensive use of lap tops revealed that both genders achieved good competence in their usage, although some of the boys were more interested in the technical possibilities of ICT; the computer science teacher was a female. Some recent studies indicate results that there are no differences between the genders, as, for example, the study of Greek 12–16 years old students shows concerning the use of the Internet in school (Papastergiou & Solomonidou, 2004), so we may expect that the relationship between gender and ICT will change rapidly. Roe and Muijs (1998) examined children’s overall media use and found that a heavy use (more than two hours a day) of computer games is associated with negative outcomes in terms of academic achievement, school commitment, and academic self-concept. In the study, 9.4% of the respondents fell into this category, and 76.8% of these heavy users were male. Roe and Muijs (1998) also analyzed this result from the point of view of the structural-cultural model of media use, which reverses the perspective, seeing children’s school experience as affecting media use. They hypothesize that the more successful school achievers become more involved with more approved cultural forms and the more unsuccessful choose to compensate for their school failure with heavy engagement in generally disapproved media forms. Game playing is still commonly regarded as negative media use (Sanford & Madill, 2006). They continue that male youth in particular may utilize games to consciously or unconsciously resist institutional authority, school activities and assignments. It must be remembered, though, that games provide interesting, engaging, dynamic and social spaces for boys of many kinds, not only for those who are not doing well at school.

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Moreover, games are spaces in which the young can succeed. In these spaces they can also be involved in different out-of-school ICT activities and learn digital competencies. The problem is that such ICT-enhanced practices and digital competences are not valued at school and as school-related ICT-practices.

dIFFerIng dIgItAl cultures It is remarkable that young students’ ICT skills and attitudes are mainly based on home resources and leisure time use. School teaching has probably had the main impact on female students’ skills, although it has also improved ICT working practices in particular among boys for whose skills the leisure time use has been more important. In general, students have the skills to use new kinds of applications and new forms of technology, and their ICT skills are wide (see Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2003), although not necessarily adequate as their working habits might be ineffective and even incorrect Teachers’ skills are more heterogeneous. There are teachers with high-level digital skills; they are often male and young teachers. The large majority of teachers have sufficient skills for everyday and routine working practices, but many of them still have difficulties in finding meaningful pedagogical use for technology. There is still a small group of teachers, more often middle-aged and older females, who lack even basic ICT skills, which is probably a question of motivation and interest (see Korte & Hüsing, 2007). The generation difference is apparent also in applications used at school: based on the Nordic comparison, Pedersen et al. (2006) argue that students and teachers utilize entirely different software. The differences between young students but also the youngest male teachers and teachers is characterized by Selwyn (1999) as different computing identities; it is possible that these identities will grow even further apart because many new technology affordances are not familiar to

teachers, or older generations, in general. Very few teachers know what is going on in the digital world of a 13-year-old student. This differentiation and students’ ICT competence are challenges for teachers because digital skills are contemporary basic skills, such as reading and writing (Pedersen et al., 2006). The new technology has several such affordances and functionalities that are neither necessary nor needed for existing teaching and learning practices; one reason might be that to use the new functionalities effectively the existing practices should be changed. In formal learning contexts this seems to be difficult and demanding, as many studies indicate (Cuban, 2001; Ganesh & Berliner, 2005; Gibson & Oberg, 2004; Pedersen et al., 2006). However, the new features label characterisethe ICT culture of young people. Examples of new kinds of technology application, and affordances, are for instance, applications which support distributing personal information – even playing with identities – and networking in the Internet, in MySpace, Facebook or blogs. Similarly various wiki-applications are a challenge for the “copyright generation”: everything is free and the improvement is in collective responsibility. Technology is not essential; the social forms of it are in the centre (Buckingham, 2007). These new applications are not only tools that replace some previous manual practices; they change many of our existing conceptions, from own cultural basis to values, attitudes and practices; and, as Bryant (2007) reminds us, it is the social affordances, not the technology itself, that is new and exciting. The very different experiences and conceptions that generations have about technology leads, in the worst case, to a digital gap in education (and at homes!); the technology used in school is boring, ineffective, and it does not provide the competence needed for using advanced technology in learning. The concept ‘digital divide’ is used in discussion to describe different social groups’ access to digital services, and in general, different groups’

111

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

abilities to make use of various digital possibilities (see Facer, 2002; Norris, 2001; van Dijk & Hacker, 2003). Gaps based on age, gender, educational level and geographical location have been postulated. On the basis of large European and American statistical data, van Dijk & Hacker (2003) point out that the digital divide does not simply divide people into two classes but rather shows relative and gradual differences in the possibilities of using information and communication technology. The digital divide is usually discussed in the context of adults, but there is also a digital divide among children and the young concerning their resources to use ICT, as national studies from Greece (Vekiri and Chronaki, 2008) and the UK (ImpaCT2, 2001) show about ICT resources; the digital divide among children and the youth is based on economic background.

For Further dIscussIon Investigating ICT-related phenomena is strongly time-related. Distribution, use and practices, as well as individuals’ ICT skills change rapidly as new applications replace old ones, and new tools and applications come on the market every month. Research data inevitably describe a past situation. During the last twenty years, the nature of technology has changed from a technical connotation towards a communicative connotation, mainly because of the development of new applications in the Internet. This has increased the use of ICT dramatically. Similarly, access to ICT has improved among students and teachers, and both at home and at school. There is an obvious need for further studies: we need large international surveys about ICT resources and the use of ICT, both at school and at homes, but there is also a need for snapshot studies; qualitative studies which can catch the cultural practices of the young and which can also inform us about the rapid changes in the practices of ICT. For the younger generation, using ICT is easy and ordinary, characterizing a life-style which 112

consists of the functions of working and learning, as well as functions of leisure time, such as gaming or uploading and listening to music. Nardi and O´Day (1999) call this phenomenon ‘information ecology’, by which they mean a system of people, practices, values and technology in a certain environment. In such an “ecosystem”, technology in not in the centre, but it is integrated into the existing practices and manners, and users and tools form a wide range, complementing each other. In particular, Internet services challenge previous practices of working and learning. Weller (2007) suggests that the essence of the Internet is in robust, decentralized and open communication; these technological features have also become social features and influenced the social values of the net. Many virtual communities have adopted these, but, as Weller says, these elements do not characterize learning communities, not even elearning communities. Yet, the new generation of learners will become used (and some of them already are) to these features and they also demand them in the learning communities. The challenge is how to integrate the technological possibilities, the sophisticated communication strategies of the learners accustomed to the Internet, and the formal structures of learning organizations.

the challenge for school Recent results indicate the presence of further challenges, especially in the educational sector, for initiatives designed to intensify the use of ICT at school. It is acknowledged that not all students have equal opportunities to acquire information society skills. There is also growing evidence that the pedagogical use of ICT at schools is decreasing or that it is not at the level it could be based on the issues of access even though research indicates that ICT has a positive impact on students’ learning outcomes, (Law, Pelgrum, & Plomp, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2006). Moreover, although potential access to computers is greater at schools than at home, the home use is more

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

important, more effective and more inspiring for the students. These trends raise questions on how to support and encourage schools to become more diversified ICT users in order to support students in becoming competent members of the knowledge society. The role of informal learning is a current issue. Because ICT has so strong a status in children’s and students’ everyday life it is necessary to bridge out-of-school ICT-enhanced learning and schoolbased teaching and learning in computer or ICT literacy. This is necessary also in order to ensure that all children have an equal opportunity for varied ICT use and to become competent members of the knowledge society. This means that schools should take into account children’s out-of-school learning experiences and build school learning upon these (Marsh, 2002).

reFerences Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, Emotion and Cognition. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

becta.org.uk/uploaddir/downloads/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies07.pdf Buckingham, D., & Burns, A. (2007). Game literacy in theory and practice. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16, 323-349. Ching, C., Basham, J., & Fang, E. (2005). The legacy of the digital divide: Gender, socioeconomic status, and early exposure as predictors of full-spectrum technology use among young adults. Urban Education, 40, 394–411. Clegg, S. (2001). Theorising the Machine: gender, education and computing. Gender and Education, 13, 307–324. Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12, 113–124. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813–834.

Apiola, M. (2008). Sukupuoli ja kiinnostus tietotekniikkaan [Gender and the interest in information technology]. Kasvatus, 39, 72–77.

van Dijk, J. & Hacker, K. (2003). The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315–326.

Bowler, L., Largeb, A. & Rejskindc, G. (2001). Primary school students, information literacy and the Web. Education for Information, 19, 201–223.

Ermi, L., Heliö, S., & Mäyrä, F. (2004). Pelien voima ja pelaamisen hallinta. Lapset ja nuoret pelikulttuurien toimijoina [The power of games and the monitoring of games. Children and the young as actors in game cultures]. Hypermedia Laboratory Net Series 6. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from http://tampub.uta.fi/tup/951-445939-3.pdf

Bruer, J.T. (1993). Schools for thought. A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Bryant, L. (2007). Emerging trends in social software for education. In Emerging technologies for learning (Becta report Vol. 2/2007, pp. 9–18). Retrieved February 4, 2008, from http://partners.

Erstad, O. (2007). Integrating institutional and educational practices - Norwegian experiences on ICT and teacher professional development.

113

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Unpublished manuscript, Summer Institute 2005, University of Oslo, Norway..

ing and Instruction 2005 Biennial Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Eskelinen, M. (2005). Pelit ja pelitutkimus luovassa taloudessa [Games and game research in an innovative economy]. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from http://www.sitra.fi/Julkaisut/Raportti51.pdf

Gansmo, H., Lagesen, V., & Sørensen, K. (2003). Out if the boy’s room? A critical analysis of the understanding of gender and ICT in Norway. NORA, 11, 130-139.

Facer, K. (2002, February 19). What do we mean by the digital divide? Exploring the roles of access, relevance and resource networks. A collection of papers from the Toshiba/Becta seminar . Retrieved June 29, 2005, from http://www.becta.org.uk/ research/research.cfm?section=1&id=529 Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong, R., & Sutherland, R. (2003). ScreenPlay: Children and Computing in the Home. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Facer, K., Sutherland, R., Furlong, R., & Furlong, J. (2001). What’s the point of using computers? The development of computer expertise in the home. New media & society, 3, 199–219. European Commission (1998). Employment in the Information Society. In W. Cortada (Ed.) Rise of the knowledge worker (pp. 189–198 ). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Eurydice (2005). Key data on education in Europe. The information network on education in Europe, EU Commission. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from http://www.eurydice.org/ressources/ eurydice/pdf/052EN/008_chapD_052EN.pdf Facer, K. (2002 February 19). What do we mean by the digital divide? Exploring the roles of access, relevance and resource networks. A collection of papers from the Toshiba/Becta seminar. Retrieved June, 29, 2005 from http://www.becta.org.uk/ research/research.cfm?section=1&id=529 Ganesh, T. G. & Berliner, D. C. (2005). Practices of computer use in elementary education: Perceived and missed opportunities. In D. Wray (Chair), ICT in education. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learn-

114

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Gibson, S. & Oberg, D. (2004). Visions and reality of Internet use in schools: Canadian perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 569-585. Hakkarainen, K., Ilomäki, L., Lipponen, L., Muukkonen, H., Rahikainen, M., Tuominen, T., et al. (2000). Students’ skills and practices of using ICT: Results of a national assessment in Finland. Computers and Education, 34, 103–117. Hakkarainen, K., Järvelä, S., Lipponen, L., & Lehtinen, E. (1998). Culture of collaboration in computer-supported learning: Finnish perspectives. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9, 271–288. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the age of insecurity. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Ilomäki, L., & Lakkala, M. (Eds.) (2003). Computers in school’s daily life: A final report of the Educational Technology Project of City of Helsinki 1996-2000, (City of Helsinki Publication Series A3:2003). Available from http://www. hel.fi/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebd08a4c2d77570/ Loppuraportti_eng.pdf Ilomäki, L. & Rantanen, P. (2007). Intensive use of information and communication technology (ICT) in lower secondary school: Development of student expertise. Computers and Education, 48, 119–136. ImpaCT2 (2001). The impact of information and communications technology on pupil learning

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

and attainment. NGfL research and Evaluation Series. Available from http://www.becta.org.uk/ impact2 ISTE (= International Society for Technology in Education) (2007). Profines for Technology (ICT) Literate Students. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/ NETS-S_2007_Student_Profiles.pdf Jenkins, H. (2006). Threshold. New Media Literacies. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from http:// www.projectnml.org/node/306/ Jensen, J., de Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (2003). ”Girl talk”: gender, equity, and identity discourses in a school-based computer culture. Women’s Studies International Forum, 26, 561-573. Kankaanranta, M. (2007). Digital games and new literacies. In P. Linnakylä & I. Arffman (Eds.) Finnish Reading Literacy: When equality and equity meet (281-307). University of Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research.. Kankaanranta, M., Kirjavainen, A., Nousiainen, T., & Ukkonen, M. (2006). Digitaaliset pelit nuorten arkipäivässä – Tapaus VisioCafe [Digital games in the everyday life of the young – The case of VisioCafe]. In M. Kylmäkoski, K. Lind, T. Hintikka T. & Aittola (Eds.), Nuorten tilat [Spaces of the young] (Humanistisen ammattikorkeakoulun sarja C. Oppimateriaaleja 9, pp. 125–148). Helsinki, Finland: Humanistinen ammattikorkeakoulu. Kankaanranta, M. & Puhakka, E. (2008). Kohti innovatiivista tietotekniikan opetuskäyttöä. Kansainvälisen SITES 2006 -tutkimuksen tuloksia. [Towards innovative use of ICT at teaching. Results of the international SITES 2006 study]. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research. Kennewell, S. & Morgan, A. (2006). Factors influencing learning through play in ICT settings. Computer & Education, 46, 265–279.

Kiili, C., Laurinen, L. & Marttunen, M. (20082009). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of the Educational Computing Research, 39, 75-95. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of New Technologies on Teachers and Students. Education and Information Technologies, 7, 369–376. Korte, W. & Hüsing, T. (2007). Benchmarking access and use of ICT in european schools 2006: Results from head teacher and a classroom teacher surveys in 27 European countries. E-Learning Papers2(1). Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/ media11563.pdf Kozma, R. B. (2005). National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development. Human Technology Journal, 1, 117–156. Kubiatko, M. (2007). Information and computer literacy of high school students. Problems of education in the 21th century, 2, 31–36. Lallimo, J., Lakkala, M., & Paavola, S. (2004). How to Promote Students’ Information Seeking. European Schoolnet. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from http://insight.eun.org/ww/en/pub/ insight/school_innovation/teaching_models/ ernist_answers.htm Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J. & Plomp, T. Eds. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings for the IEA SITE 2006 study. The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre. Lewin, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Harrison, C., Hawe, K., Lunzer, E., et al. (2004). The UK ImpaCT2 Project. Education, Communication & Information, 4(2/3), 336-340. Marsh, J. (2002). Popular culture, computer games and the primary literacy curriculum. In M. Mon-

115

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

teith (Ed.), Teaching primary literacy with ICT. Buckingham: Open University Press, 127-143. Meelissen, M. & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 969–985. Melkas, T. (2004). Leisure uses of ICTs among persons aged 15–34. In J. Nurmela, T. Melkas, T. Sirkiä, M. Ylitalo, & L. Mustonen (Eds.), Finnish people’s communication capabilities in interactive society of the 2000s. Reviews 2004/7. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Mieg, H. A. (2001). The social psychology of expertise: case studies in research, professional domains, and expert roles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Nardi, B. A. & O´Day, V. (1999). Information ecologies. Using technology with heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nivala, M. (in press). Simple answers for complex problems: Education and ICT in Finnish information society strategies. Media, Culture and Society. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty & the Internet in Democratic Societies. New York: Cambridge Press. Nurmela, J. (1997). Suomalaiset ja uusi tietotekniikka [Finns and the new information technology]. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. Nurmela, J., Heinonen, R., Ollila, P., & Virtanen, V. (2000). Matkapuhelin ja tietokone suomalaisen arjessa. Suomalaiset ja tuleva tietoyhteiskunta -tutkimushanke, vaihe II raportti I [Mobile phone and computer in a Finn’s daily life. Finns and the future information society - research project, phase II report I]. Katsauksia 2000/2. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)( 2004). Educational Policy 116

Analysis. Retrieved January 21, 2007, from http:// www.oecd.org/document/34/0,2340,en_2649_37 455_34989090_1_1_1_37455,00.html OECD. (2005). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris: Author. Oosterwegel, A., Littleton, K., & Light, P. (2004). Understanding computer-related attitudes through an idiographic analysis of gender- and self-representations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 215–233. Papastergiou, M. & Solomonidou, C. (2005). Gender issues in Internet access and favourite Internet activities among Greek high school pupils inside and outside school. Computers & Education, 4, 377–393. Pedersen, S., Malmberg, P., Christensen, A. J., Pedersen, M., Nipper, S., Graem, C. D., & Norrgård, J. (Eds.). (2006). E-learning Nordic 2006: Impact of ICT on education. Copenhagen: Ramboll Management. Pelgrum, W. (2008). School practices and conditions for pedagogy and ICT. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.) Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 67–120). Hong Kong: Springer. Pelgrum, W. & Law, N. (2008). Introduction to SITES 2006. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.) Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 2–11).Hong Kong: Springer. Prime Minister’s Office. (2006). A renewing, human-centric and competitive Finland. The National Knowledge Society Strategy 2007–2015. Helsinki: Author. Punie, Y. & Cabrera, M. (Eds.) (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the Knowledge Society. Luxembourg: European Commission.

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Roe, K., & Muijs, D. (1998). Children and computer games: A Profile of the heavy user. European Journal of Communication, 13, 181. Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating Internet resources into classroom practice: pedagogical perspectives and strategies of secondary-school subject teachers. Computers and Education, 44, 1–34. Salokoski, T. (2005). Tietokonepelit ja niiden pelaaminen [Playing computer games]. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 277. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Sanford, K., & Madill, L. (2006). Resistance through video game play: It’s a boy thing. Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 287-306. Selwyn, N. (2002). Learning to love the micro: the discursive construction of ‘educational’ computing in the UK, 1979–89. British Journal of Sociology in Education, 23, 427–443. Stepulevage, L. (2001). Gender / technology relations: complicating the gender binary. Gender and Education, 13, 325–338. Ståhle, P. (Ed.). (2007). Five Steps for Finland’s Future. Technology Review 202. Helsinki: Tekes. The OECD Program Definition and Selection of Competencies (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies. Executive summary. 30th June, 2005. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367. pdf Vekiri, I. & Chronaki, A. (in press). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education. Venetzky, R. & Davis, C. (2001)’Que Vademus? The Transformation of Schooling in a Networked World. Unpublished research report, OECD/CERI. Available http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/48/20/2073054.pdf

Voogt, J. & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology, 1, 157–175. Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the Web: Students Online in a Sixth-Grade Classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 75–115. Waters, M. (1998). Daniel Bell and the postindustrial Society. In W. Cortada (Ed.) Rise of the Knowledge Worker (pp. 167–181). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Weller, M. (2007). The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning. Computers and Education, 40, 148–159. Wexler, D. (2000). Integrating Computer Technology: Blurring the Roles of teachers, Students, and Experts. Educational Studies, 31, 33–43.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Digital Competence: A wider concept of ICT competence. Consist of basic ICT skill but also understanding and knowledge how to use digital device and applications in novel and complex contexts demands in a particular context. Digital Divide: Describes different social groups’ access to digital services, abilities to make use of various digital possibilities. Digital Game: Popular form of entertainment and media use, which also offer possibilities for learning. Digital games are designed for play with e.g. a computer, videogame console, mobile device or interactive televisio. ICT: An abbreviation of information and communication technology ICT Competence: Competence to use ICT tools and applications in particular domains.

117

The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Competence of the Young

Information and Communication Technology: New digital technology which consists of various computer-based and Internet-based applications. It is used for creating and sharing information as well as creating new forms of communication. Information Society: The society in which information is regarded as essential means for new organizations of practices, increasing especially economic productivity. A large group of people work in information-related occupations. Policy-oriented concept with various national characteristics. Knowledge Society: A wider concept of information society; entails commitment of persons as knowers.

118

endnotes 1

2

3

4

The concept ‘information society’ has lately been replaced by ‘knowledge society’. In this chapter, we use 1) the concept the authors of the article referred to has used, or 2) ICT skills / competence when referring mostly to technical skills and digital skills / competence when referring more broadly to working and learning skills with ICT. The reviews were evidence-based “answers” to authentic questions of practitioners. This reviewing process was part of ERNISTproject of the European SchoolNet. There are also results of gender and age entanglement in ICT usage and competence; age, too, is a significant factor in ICT skills and usage, more significant than education, income level or geographical location (van Dijk and Hacker, 2003).

119

Chapter VIII

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century Wei-Ying Lim Nanyang Technological University, Singapore David Hung Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Horn-Mun Cheah Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract We are entering into a milieu which makes the global world look much smaller because of digital communications and technologies. More recently, there has also been a coming together of participants from the media world such as those in cinema and animation with those from the technology sectors. This partnership forms what we now know as interactive and digital media (or IDM). In this chapter, the authors aim to articulate the importance of IDM literacies in relation to the 21st century. They attempt to clarify the distinctions between ICT (information and communications technology) and IDM, and from their analysis, they propose a matrix integrating both.

BACKGROUND Today, with the amelioration of technology, in particular the Internet, information becomes increasingly accessible to people in our society. Apart from information search, people now use

the Internet as a platform for social activities such as online chat not counting the conduct of commercial activities such as online banking or online shopping. With the Internet, the means of communication amongst people have substantially expanded. Beyond the traditional modes of com-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

munication through surface mails and telephone calls, people now can stay connected via the sharing of their lives (and photos) in blogs, instant messaging, online forums or by calling someone on the mobile phone using a computer, just to name a few. This shift in the way our everyday activities are conducted constitute one distinct characteristic of the 21st century— a connected world (Carr, 2001) where geographic distance poses less of a barrier than before. In what follows, we expound the nature of the 21st century literacies and explicate how the Singapore Education Ministry, drawing upon these literacies, conceived a set of digital-age literacies for the local Singaporean context. This is followed by our attempt to outline the backdrop of Information Communication and Technologies (ICT), and Interactive Digital Media (IDM) in terms of teaching and learning interactions from which we argue that the relationship between ICT and IDM can be better understood in a matrix in terms of realism and connectivity. We conclude this chapter by articulating the productivity of this matrix and how it is useful for both research and practice.

nAture oF lIterAcIes In the 21st century Set against this backdrop of the 21st century world, there is now a demand for a knowledge workforce―people who are innovative, resourceful and efficient in order to increase the per capita output in order to grow the economy. Thus, a premium is given to employees who demonstrate 21st century skills such as critical thinking, risk-taking, social and collaborative skills (http://www.metiri.com/ features.html; http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/ index.php). To develop such employees, Jenkins (2006) stresses that learning must now occur in multi-cultural and multi-lingual contexts, and our technologies, media forms, and practices have to sustain communication among geographically

120

dispersed and culturally distinct communities. In this new learning landscape, we can no longer afford to focus on learners as autonomous and independent agents. Rather, they need to be understood as part of a larger learning community which actively collaborates. Literacy has traditionally been regarded as the acquisition of skills and knowledge for reading and writing. Partly influenced by social cultural theories, the notion of literacy has evolved to recognize the multiplicity of literacies, varying across time and space, as well as to view literacies as community-based social practices as opposed to universal autonomous cognitive skills (Street, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel 2007). This ontological position of literacies as practices offers an alternative perspective on understanding how people learn to read and write in a more situational sensitive way. Just as we subscribe to ideas of situated cognition, where knowledge, agency and context are tightly intertwined, we argue that literacy practices and contexts are an inseparable coupling. Literacies, when viewed as sociocultural practices, would enable us to examine the relationships between the social cultural contexts and literacy practices. In today’s modern society, the influence of technology, particularly the pervasiveness of the Internet, has changed the way our everyday lifeworld is done. Learning within and outside of schools is no exception. The Internet has given us the unprecedented power as knowledge consumers (& producers with Web 2.0 technologies) such that the challenge is no longer in the accessibility and creation of information but the ability to discern information and information sources. In fact, the concern to instill media literacy in people has given rise to a “New Literacies Perspective” (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004), one that rightfully addresses the complex interrelationship between literacy practices, ways of technology use and learning. Although the new literacies movement has yet to produce rigorous, comprehensive theories,

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

given that it is a growing phenomenon, its potential in furthering our current understanding of literacy practices, including variations in technology use, and learning is elevating. At this point, it is worthwhile to mention that the “mindset 2” notions advocated by Lankshear and Knobel (2007, p. 11) encapsulate the post-industrialization ways of thinking of the world and social relations shape our attempts to develop a set of digital-age literacies for the local Singaporean context. Such digitalage literacies would be founded on principles that leverage on the diverse expertise that are brought together via technological means into a collective that cuts across time and physical space.

InterActIve dIgItAl MedIA (IdM) lIterAcIes – the sIngApore conteXt In Singapore, attempts have been made to understand IDM literacies, in particular by the Ministry of Education (MOE). In this chapter, we use IDM literacies, digital-age literacies interchangeably with media literacies (http://www.medialit.org/; http://www.mediathink.org/aboutml.php; http:// www.aml.ca/whatis/). In order to prepare students for this future where people are both consumers and creators of media, the MOE has begun to study the implications of digital-age literacies on local K-12 schools. The sources of information analyzed include: 21st Century Skills (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, NCREL) at http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm, and Becoming Media Literate at http://www.sfsu. edu/~holistic/document/Down/Media_Society/ medialiterate.htm. In a nutshell, there are four kinds of IDM literacies as conceived by MOE: (i) media literacy, (ii) technological literacy, (iii) social and civic responsibility, and (iv) imagination and creativity. In media literacy, the emphasis is for the student to be able to interpret messages behind media forms and representations. There should be critical

thought and evaluation of the nature of the mass media, the representational techniques employed and the subtle and explicit effects it has on the learner. Not only is the learner to be a consumer of media, he or she should also have some degree of competency in working or producing artifacts and messages with media. Under technological literacy, the learner is to demonstrate a sound understanding of how technology works, both as consumers and producers. In social and civic responsibility, learners need to use technology and media in an ethical way, maintaining good cyber ethics and avoiding plagiarism. For imagination and creativity, learners need to draw on artistic expressions to be imaginative and creative in articulating their intended messages across the media. If the aforementioned are some of the competencies needed in the 21st century and we predict that such a focus is imminent, are our schools and universities adequately preparing students and professors/faculty for these challenges? And are the institutions doing this preparatory work at a pace suitable to the changing times? These are the questions motivating us to first outline the backdrop of Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) and Interactive Digital Media (IDM) and to propose a matrix integrating both ICT and IDM to help us transit into “mindset 2” (Lankshear and Knobel, 2007, p. 11) as we chart our educational plans for the times ahead.

bAcKdrop For Ict And IdM We found that it is necessary to outline the nature of Information, Communication and Technologies (ICT), technologies which we are familiar with for teaching and learning, with the more recently Interactive Digital Media (IDM) in order for us to articulate how we understand the two classes of technology forms to be similar or different. To outline this backdrop for ICT and IDM, we attempt to first explicate learning vis-à-vis teaching and learning interactions. 121

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

Technology can both afford and constrain teaching and learning interactions that take place. Depending on the state of technological advancement, the form and function of interactions can either serve to improve teacher-to-student efficiency or to transform teaching and learning interactions for learning to take place along the lines of constructivism in authentic learning contexts. Set against our proposed RC matrix, distinctions of such teaching and learning interactions will be further explained in Table 1. At the early introduction of ICT in education, contexts for learning remained fairly traditional due to technological limitation, and were often teacher-directed. Technology often served only to enhance the learning process by means of well-chunked text and graphics. An example of such learning is computer-based instruction. In contrast, brought about by today’s (and future) sophisticated technologies, learning is now more seamlessly embedded in everyday being and occurring in highly realistic contexts brought about by complex technological connectivity. Examples include the Classroom of the Future or 3-D immersive environments such as 2nd Life, where learners experience ‘living’ in particular ecosystems and learning, in this case, is seamlessly embedded in the process of being in such virtual spaces, not as a separate process. Such transformed teaching and learning interactions bring about a whole new meaning to embodiment in the sense that we now have a “sense” of the real world context not through our physical five senses but rather mediated through electronic devices. We argue that after prolonged interactivity within such environments, learners can be possibly enculturated with the IDM literacies we outlined earlier as espoused by social cultural studies.

proposed MAtrIX For both Ict And IdM With the earlier discussion in mind, in our attempt to clarify ICT and IDM, we propose to do 122

so in terms of the realism of contexts and level of connectivity (see our proposed matrix in figure 1). Realism of contexts is cast in terms of multi-modalmedia representations such as pictures, videos, animations, texts, audio, and others. Degree of fidelity & first person agency embodiment will vary according to modes of representation from 2-D simulations, e.g. SimLife, to 3-D immersive environment such as Tomb Raider, WarCraft, City Life and so on. Whereas heterogeneous connectivity is in terms of distributed expertise and diverse views affording social dialogues and again, they range from high human computer interactions in the case of real time communications and information via personal digital gadgets to dynamic social interactions in an online gaming environment such as 2nd Life. Our proposed matrix is as follows (see Figure 1). It is important to note that essentially we are concerned with the kinds of teaching and learning interactions and goals RC 1 to RC 4 can provide. It is not a necessary assumption that where there is pervasive connectivity and high realism that learning gains are superior. In Table 2 we have depicted the potential of transforming traditional pedagogical practices to social constructivist orientations along the axis of RC 1 to RC 4. Levels 1 to 3 in “teaching and learning interactions” describe the degree of pedagogical transformation, where level 1 connotes a mere adoption of ICT in “automating” traditional pedagogy; level 2 is where pedagogy differs from the traditional because either rich contexts are afforded to the learner or connectivity allows learners to be connected across time and physical space and with potential experts beyond the classroom. Because of the affordances of technology, increased learner-centric activities become possible, and in level 3 the goals of both RC 2 and RC 3 are combined and enriched to provide learners with a sense of embodiment and interactions. Essentially, we conjecture that whole person development may be possible as a learning goal in RC 4, although more research is needed to substantiate this claim.

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

Figure 1. 2-dimensional axis of: degree of realism of context and degree of heterogeneous connectivity Degree of Realism of Context (R axis)

High Realism High Connectivity (RC 4)

High Realism Low Connectivity (RC 3)

Low Realism High Connectivity (RC 2)

Low Realism Low Connectivity (RC 1)

Degree of heterogeneous connectivity (facilitated by communications) (C axis)

Table 1. Characteristics of RC1 to RC4 and the corresponding teaching and learning interactions RC Matrix

Characteristics

Teaching and Learning Interactions

RC 1 (Low Realism, Low Connectivity)

•

Level 1: Improved efficiency for learning

•

Characteristic feature – efficiency or automation of existing practice, in particular traditional didactic pedagogies; Simply use powerpoint to present concepts, quizzes to test for understanding etc.

Teacher-centered interactions, structure and sequence defined by the teacher-author of environment; learner has little or no autonomy. Goal: efficiency-driven learning of content material

RC 2 (Low Realism, High Connectivity)

• • •

RC 3 (High Realism, Low Connectivity)

• • •

RC 4 (High Realism, High Connectivity)

•

•

Characteristic feature – communications, in particular through text and multi-media Use of emails, video conferencing, skype, discussion boards; and Interactions are unpredictable because social participants may be different each time Characteristic feature – videos, single player in 2-D or 3-D gaming environment Including MicroLessons, SimLife and hypertext systems Along the continuum of interactions from low to high, somewhere along the mid point are virtual simulations-experiments Interactions are nevertheless well-structured and predictable Characteristic feature: immersive virtual environments; social participation in multi-player environments where level of interaction is high and ill-structured. 2nd Life: Interactions are unpredictable because social participants may be different each time.

Level 2: Transformed teaching and learning interactions Transformed teaching and learning interaction in having varying forms of student-centered learning by removing physical classroom barriers. Through the anytime-anywhere notion, learning is made more student-centered by linking up to real world experts (in the case of RC 2) or by anchoring real-world situations in simulated forms (in the case of RC 3). Teaching and learning interactions have transformed such that interactions manifest themselves as myriad complex social exchanges. Goal: focus on student-centered learning by providing highly realistic contexts or experience in the learning of content material. Level 3: Whole-person development Whole-person development, i.e. knowledge, skills, and values in a virtual real world (pun intended). Being in high realism entails behaving appropriately according to contexts. Thus teaching and learning interactions no longer just focused on thinking but also on an integrated way of being, involving actions and behavior. Goal: enculturate appropriate ways of thinking and behaving against the background of heterogeneous, complex and often unpredictable information and perspectives.

123

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

productIvIty oF MAtrIX - neW ApproAches to leArnIng to leArn The matrix found in Table 1 is useful to us for several reasons. We have received a recent funding endorsement in IDM at the Learning Sciences Lab (LSL) at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore. Using the matrix, we determined that the last 2 to 3 years of research efforts focused on projects (see Figure 2) in RC 2 and RC 3, but for these new IDM funds to have an impact, we should design projects that will fit in RC 4, supplemented with some projects on the border between RC 3 and RC 4 which take advantage of the affordances of interactive media. Second, the matrix enables clarity of focus when we engage in dialogue and negotiations with our stakeholders and funding agencies. Third, using the matrix also brings clarity to the researchers’ expectations, when we claim that we should focus on RC 4. A brief synopsis of the projects listed in Figure 2 are as follows: •

•

•

•

Knowledge Building Project - Ideas First: Developing a Model for Creating Knowledge Building Classrooms in Primary school

•

This study aims to understand the shift of classroom norms and practices towards a Knowledge Building Community. Knowledge Forum capitalizes on media such as static graphics and videos. Classroom of the Future (COTF) COTF is a showcase setup to display the possibilities of using technology to empower learning in a technology-empowered global community by removing the constraints of place and time. Technology Enhanced Learning in Science project (TELS) The research is to help students master complex scientific concepts via computer visualizations of scientific phenomena that teachers can customize. TELS is currently rather structured and the degree of heterogeneous interactions are not high. Scratch project Scratch is a programmable toolkit that enables students to create games, animated stories, and interactive art -- and to share their creations with one another over the internet. Mixed Reality Research is focused on the development and application of mixed reality to visualization, learning, leisure and cooperative work.

Figure 2. Examples of projects situated in the matrix Degree of Realism of Context (R axis)

Mixed Reality Electromagnetism

High Realism CoTF Low Connectivity (RC 3) Single-player gaming

Ideal force Interactive TV

Scratch project

NE game

High Realism2ND Life High Connectivity (RC 4)Quest Atlantis

Multiple-player gaming

Sing City

TELS project KB project

Low Realism Low Connectivity (RC 1)

Low Realism High Connectivity (RC 2)

Degree of heterogeneous connectivity (facilitated by communications) (C axis)

124

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

•

•

•

•

•

Students’ learning of Singapore National Education (NE) through game playing (NE Game) This research project seeks to research processes related to students’ problem solving, situated understandings, social practices, identity formation, and the development of shared community values through game play in highly interactive and rich game environment. 2nd Life project - Enhancing Junior College (K11 & 12) students’ critical thinking and writing skills through argumentation, enacted role play in immersive affinity spaces, and reflection This research seeks to enhance JC students’ critical thinking and writing skills through argumentation, enacted role play in immersive affinity spaces (2nd Life virtual environment), and reflection. Electromagnetism project- Developing students’ process learning skills and deep understanding of electromagnetism through the medium of a 3D simulation game This research intends to design and introduce a 3D multiplayer game as a medium of learning for a Sec. 3 Advanced Module on electromagnetism with the goal to develop desired learning traits. Ideal Force - Projectile physics in a gamelike VR learning environment The project developed a demonstration of virtual reality based learning with strong game elements that supports a strong sense of co-presence between students and allows them to participate in authentic situated practice. Singapore River City project - Virtual worlds and intelligent agents for learning science: Innovative technology and pedagogy for Singaporean schools

•

This project is to conduct research into how multi-user, agent-enabled virtual environments may be used to engage and motivate students at the lower secondary level in Singapore as they learn scientific knowledge and skills. Quest Atlantis (QA) Quest Atlantis uses a 3D multi-user environment to immerse children in educational tasks.

In essence, what may not appear very obvious is the pedagogical flavor of the matrix . While any claim that learning between RC 3 and RC 4 will lead to better learning outcomes is anecdotal, we argue that whole-person development types of teaching and learning interactions will develop a new way of being; in this case, it is learning to be the modern 21st century student. The rationale for our argument is that the meaning-making process in RC 4 types of activities such as online gaming environments - depending on when it was conducted, how it was conducted, with whom it was conducted, and where it was conducted - is often different and complex. This is largely due to the multiple perspectives held by different players, affording multiple roleplaying positions. Negotiating in such complex environments would thus encompass reflection, critique, and evaluation of meanings in relation to the social others. In other words, through this process, learning to learn would take on a different form compared to traditional notions of learning. The educational function that students acquire as game players, such as critical evaluation of information, new ways of collaboration, and active pursuit of knowledge, will serve them well in academic learning. In order to simulate the authentic construction of meanings in any practice is to be as close to the professional practice as possible such as simulating the discipline-specific genre and talk in science (O’Neill, 2001). In this case, students are engaged in active collaboration, fostering some

125

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

sort of dialogue about game play. Through the non-linear processing of media messages vis-à-vis multi-tasking and actively seeking dispositions, facilitated by heterogeneous connectivity and realistic context, students also acquire a way of learning. Thus, in order to enable this learning to learn and fostering whole-person development, we should, from an educational and learning point of view, encourage the following processes (see Figure 3). We conjecture that if learners engage in the learning processes as depicted in Figure 3, digital-age literacies would be facilitated - driven by social constructivist pedagogy to experience social interactions brought about by connectivity in realistic contexts. We further conjecture that the ability to perform these literacies may result through such a process. Performance or doing comes with the view that students can enact learning-to-learn strategies seamlessly with minimal ‘transfer’ issues.

conclusIon This leads us to the conclusion of this paper, which is to emphasize that for IDM literacy to be developed for learners in the 21st century, there

is a need to grow the culture. We recommend that there is an urgency for 21st century literacy awareness and there is a need for policy makers to recognize that the culture for IDM and the growth of such an industry would have to emerge over time. Policy makers can put in place mechanisms and rewards to encourage creative expression and diversity of ideas. Schools and universities need to create opportunities in learning situations and challenges which enable learners to practice their creative talents and develop them further. In the meantime, schools could infuse IDM into the existing curriculum where possible. In unique situations where it may be tough to infuse IDM into the curriculum, experiences such as of immersive environments and games should be made available outside of schools. In Singapore, for example, we are proposing a Media Experiential Lab where learners can come and experience media which would otherwise be impossible in real life (e.g. it would be too dangerous or too expensive). This is important because Within the spaces of virtual worlds, we can begin to see a new way of learning emerge, focused on the ideas of agency and disposition, facilitated by modes of transfer that are no longer about fidelity between worlds, but are about the power of imagination to explore the differences

Figure 3. Learning processes that cultivate digital-age literacies realism of context

connectivity Action Effects Consequences

Simulating Communicating Collaborating

performativity

Constructing Deconstructing Reconstructing

social constructivist pedagogy

126

An Interactive and Digital Media Literacy Framework for the 21st Century

and similarities between them and to use experience to translate those differences and similarities from the virtual to the physical world (Thomas & Brown, 2006).

reFerences Carr, N. G. (2001). Digital enterprise: How to reshape your business for a connected world.. Literacy for the 21st Century: An overview & orientation guide to media literacy education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved Nov 2006 from http://www.medialit. org/reading_room/article540.html Davila T., M. J & Shelton, R. (2006). Making innovation work: How to manage it, measure it, and profit from it. Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing Leu, Jr. D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Camack D. W. (2004). Towards a Theory of New Literacies Emerging from the Internet and Other Information and Communication Technologies. In R. B. Ruddell,and N. Unrau, (Eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading . Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the New” in New Literacies. In Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (Eds), A New Literacies Sampler (pp. 1-24). New York: Peter Lang

Street, B. (2003) What’s new in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77-91 The Association for Media Literacy. What is media literacy? Retrieved Nov 2006 from http:// www.aml.ca/whatis/ Thomas, D. & Brown, J. S. The play of imagination: Beyond the literary mind. http://www. johnseelybrown.com/playimagination.pdf [working paper]

Key terMs And deFInItIons Heterogeneous Connectivity: Refers to the distributed and diverse ways of connecting people both in face-to-face and online settings. Interactive Digital Media: Forms of digital media including the internet and other social media network tools. New Literacies: Ways of learning that encompass the use of technology. Realism of Context: Refers to the multi-modal ways of presenting media to bring about a sense of realism. Whole-Person Development: Refers to the wholistic development of a person’s actions and behavior in situations as compared to just acquisition of specific content knowledge.

Northwest Media Literacy Center. What is media literacy? Retrieved Nov 2006 from http://www. mediathink.org/

127

128

Chapter IX

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings: Sociotechnical Prescriptions for and Challenges to Curricular Reform Michael A. Evans Virginia Tech, USA

AbstrAct Mediated collaborative inquiry within communities of practice is proposed as a critical educational goal for the 21st century. Mediated collaborative inquiry promotes the process of participation in search of understanding via mobile, wireless devices and social software. Communities of practice provide sociotechnical scaffolding to define and legitimate inquiry. In this chapter we present a collaborative, collective perspective of learning and practice to demonstrate how we design to support communities of practice for scientific inquiry. The first project, the Mobile Malawi Project, was an exploratory proof-of-concept attempt to facilitate learning and communication among geographically and socially distributed participants in Malawi, Africa using mobile smart phones and social software. The second project, Kids for Change, is a rigorous design-based research project building from the former that encourages middle school students in after school settings to use 3D digital modeling software (Google SketchUp) in socially relevant and civically engaging activities. Both endeavors are designed to provide primary and secondary students opportunities to learn and apply important scientific processes and mathematical ideas to real world situations while interacting with key constituents, including teachers, parents, teacher educators, and community experts. The authors conclude by noting cautions toward an approach of promoting collaboration and community with ICTs. Traditional institutions, pedagogies, and ways of knowing might preclude or hamper smooth transitions to a participatory, network-based educational system built on a Web 2.0 infrastructure and services.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

IntroductIon Collaboration is driven by discourse where knowledge is seen as the objective of a process of inquiry. Mediated collaborative inquiry is a sociotechnical phenomenon that cannot occur without intent, or without result. The social concept of inquiry is further refined by Etienne Wenger (1998), who states, “learning is, in its essence, a fundamentally social phenomenon” (p. 3). A learning environment that focuses on developing the greater collective intelligence and not merely individual knowledge is characteristic of a participatory learning environment. By its very nature this type of learning involves a social group, or community (Wenger, 1998). This social group’s relationship to itself, its situational context and the learning activities it engages in is how knowledge and knowing is defined. A defining aspect of this relationship is how the group relates to each other. Lave & Wenger (1991) call this a community of practice (CoP) in which a common interest is the catalyst for participation in learning where the novice works to become an expert, or insider, through interaction with community partners. This socially negotiated aspect of learning is what gives the individual and the community an identity. Negotiation as a form of discourse is collaboration, and it is in collaboration that the group becomes defined and individuals find identity within the group (Schneider & Evans, 2008). The goal of this chapter is to briefly review current literature on mediated collaborative inquiry and communities of practice. The two constructs maintain mutually constitutive relationships as collaborative inquiry provides activities for group members while the community of practice defines, values, and legitimates proper forms of inquiry. Next, we review the devices and software that comprise our definition of Web 2.0. The term Web 2.0 is overused and thus elusive if not properly contextualized. Moreover, the type collaboration and interaction we envision is primarily mediated

via advanced ICTs. Afterward, we introduce a series of design evolutions of development on two projects (one international, one domestic) that demonstrate how collaborative inquiry and communities of practice guide instructional development and instructional technology in our stated view (Evans & Johri, 2008). We conclude by highlighting the challenges to using mediated collaborative inquiry and communities of practice as metaphors for design. One the one hand, collaboration is not the default in most instructionistbased (Sawyer, 2006) classroom settings creating tension among teachers, students, and designers. On the other hand, the communities-of-practice metaphor is still under-specified as a reference for design and thus demands thoughtful application. As several cases have demonstrated (see Schwen & Hara, 2001), members of organizations often resist explicit efforts to instill features that promote more communal learning atmospheres.

MedIAted collAborAtIve InquIry And coMMunItIes oF prActIce The concept of learning has shifted from recitation and recall from short-term memory, to a process of constructively using information in project-based settings to create new knowledge. Many current reform plans call for embedding the learning of basic skills in projects that engage students in critical thinking and problem solving in-group settings (Sawyer, 2006). Thus, the collaborative inquiry classroom provides a means to incorporate group settings into instructional strategies. According to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning (1986), these social settings are pivotal to the participation process. One of the key components of this new emphasis on social learning is collaborative inquiry (Roschelle, 1996). First, what exactly is collaboration? Collaboration is an effort of students to work together in a social context to create a knowledge artifact, a

129

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

publicly displayed product that externalizes cognition. The goal of collaborative inquiry strategies is to help students of different skills and abilities learn to build knowledge in groups. The premise is that when students work in groups, they have access to a much richer knowledge base than is available to any of the individuals working alone. Collaborative efforts challenge students to see problems or issues from more than one perspective. As one can imagine, there are potential academic and social gains to be made from such an environment. According to Kagan (1986, as cited in Riel, 1994), “research on [collaborative] learning with well-designed group goals and individual accountability has demonstrated increased academic skills, improved social skills, reduction of ethnic tension, and increased self-esteem.” The goal of collaborative inquiry is to participate in a community of practice in which this type of gain can occur. Without collaboration, this type of community is unlikely to be sustained. Fostering community building in a learning environment potentially benefits all involved. Learners gain from sharing experiences with other learners. They contribute information and agree or disagree with what each other says. Collaborating with a group of peers allows learners to tap into higher order learning skills. Relying on individual work alone may not give learners the opportunity to develop higher order thinking skills (Vygotsky, 1986). In the next section we present a subset of information and communication technologies and social software that we propose better facilitate collaborative inquiry. This suite of technologies and software is often referred to as Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005).

Web 2.0: leverAgIng the MobIle And the socIAl WIth Icts And soFtWAre Given emphasis on collaborative inquiry, our learning environment designs incorporate mul-

130

timedia production and networking technologies as integral to proposed activities (Evans & Johri, 2008; Evans, Ahuja, Wu, 2008). As a sociotechnical unit, social software provides a platform to conduct the proposed activities identified by our values, goals, and objectives. Social software refers to software that allows people to connect or collaborate through computer-mediated tools (Boyd, 2007). This type software has existed for several years in the form of listservs, forums, newsgroups, and other online systems. Recently, however, blogs, RSS feeds, tagging systems, and collaborative filters have made social software popular (Tepper 2003), particularly among young computer users. For example, a recent Pew Internet & American Life Project report (Lenhart, Madden, Macgill, & Smith, 2007) found that 55% of all American youth (ages 12-17) use some form of social networking site. Some of the most popular websites today provide excellent examples of social software systems, including: multimedia content-sharing systems like YouTube (www. youtube.com) and Flickr (www.flickr.com); and product recommendation systems like reviews on Amazon (www.amazon.com), and Netflix (www. netfix.com). Key to our instructional development model is that many social software systems provide some form of syndication. Most of the sites permit users to “subscribe” to a particular stream of information. This allows users to see information, in which they are interested, in one place by aggregating multiple sources of information. They read a brief portion of the information and decide to visit the site of the source of the information only when appropriate. Social software systems, in addition, contribute to creating systems that provide many new benefits to users, such as the idea of a “mashup.” A mashup is a website that provides some service making use of data from two or more sites together, in an integrated fashion. One of the first mashups created showed an online map (e.g., Google map) showing real estate prices. The data for the mashup came from two different and

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

independent sites (real estate prices and online maps). The result was a new service that mixed related information to provide new functionality or information. Today, mashups are an integral part of Web 2.0 systems. In our efforts, participants’ multimedia productions are shared through online social networks. These systems invite and support tagging and exchange of information to develop, collaborate, and comment on each other’s work. Participants learn how to create RSS feeds promoting their work and asking for advice and opinions, and they will aggregate feeds from the work produced by their peers to create mashups of topics and productions related to their topics of interest. These technologies and software create online collaborative environment to complement on-site activities of community participants. In the following sections, we present two design-based research narratives of projects designed to exploit mediated collaborative inquiry via Web 2.0 technologies. The first case is the Mobile Malawi Project, divided into two sections. The first section details the initial development process with emphasis on a proof-of-concept. In this phase, what we refer to as Mobile Malawi Project v1.0, focus was placed more on converting existing curriculum to a mobile platform. One unanticipated outcome of this phase was an over-emphasis on teacher and community elder. In phase two of the project, what we call Mobile Malawi Project v2.0, we took as an explicit goal a focus on learner-centeredness, that is, we challenged our team “to bring the student back to the center” of the curriculum. In light of the more traditional ways of the Malawi educational system, this was indeed an impressive challenge. We conclude this section of the chapter by detailing a domestic evolution of the Mobile Malawi Project. Given similar needs and constraints in southwest Virginia among community constituents (though not nearly as striking, obviously), we have re-configured our design into Kids for Change. The goal of Kids for Change adds an additional component, which is to engage second-

ary students in socially responsible and civically engaging projects that exploit Web 2.0 ICTs., in this case designing energy-efficient building and investigating renewable energy resources.

MobIle MAlAWI project v1.0: locAl KnoWledge, globAl technologIes The Mobile Malawi Project (http://www.mmp.soe. vt.edu/) facilitates connections among community experts, primary school teachers, and science teacher educators using mobile smartphones, instructional multimedia delivered via the web, and a blog software engine. The goal was to improve curriculum on sustainable agriculture in primary classrooms in Malawi, Africa. A stated goal of the science curriculum in Malawi is for children to learn from community members; thus, we explored how mobile phones, instructional multimedia, and Web 2.0 technologies could be used to establish and nurture connections among interested constituents for mediated collaborative inquiry in a community of practice.

purpose In the project, we investigated the facilitation of connections among community elders, primary school teachers, and science teacher educators using mobile phones and Web 2.0 technologies to learn about sustainable agriculture in Africa. In Malawi, the host country for the current project, past research has shown that elders are a valuable source of knowledge for schools and villages (Glasson, Frykholm, Mhango, Phiri, 2007). However, this knowledge has not been systematically connected to the school science curriculum, due to social and technical barriers. As an important goal of the primary school curriculum in Malawi is for children to learn from elders in the community, we were interested in how mobile phones and Web 2.0 technologies

131

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

(blogs and wikis, instant and text messaging, cf., O’Reilly, 2005) are used to establish and nurture connections. Establishing technological connections between indigenous knowledge and school curriculum was particularly important when posed within the context of developing nations that are struggling to modernize and improve the educational experiences of their citizens in the midst of widespread challenges such as poverty, hunger, disease, lack of infrastructure, and environmental degradation (Evans & Johri, 2008). As most primary schools in Malawi have limited access to electricity and wired telecommunications, the potential for using mobile devices for educational purposes to access and create information is immense. For example, in the year 2000, Malawi had 49,000 cell phones in use and by 2004 the number increased to 222,100. Mobile phones are being explored as a platform for delivery of instructional multimedia and are critical for addressing not only the digital divide, but also digital progress in developing countries (Jones & Marsden, 2006).

theoretical perspectives Teaching science to all students requires understanding the scientific worldviews and epistemologies of diverse cultures as well as the conflicts and problems that students may experience when crossing cultural borders to learn western science. Although science is potentially a driving force for economic solutions to poverty, little attention is given to the cultural context in which science is taught, particularly in reference to indigenous science and technology of which villagers in Malawi are most familiar. Indigenous science represents descriptive and explanatory knowledge about nature acquired across generations from cultures with strong oral traditions. Indigenous knowledge has transformed modern science in many areas, most notably taxonomy, medicine, agriculture, natural resource management and conservation (Evans, Ahuja, & Wu, 2008).

132

Research in developing countries requires a perspective of understanding emerging technologies as not simply external tools, but integral parts of socio-cultural practices within a community (Rogoff, 1991). Further, information and communication technology (ICT) can be “used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors [or elders]; between a learning community and its learning resources.” (Jones, 2004, p.1). Although the current network infrastructure in many African nations is underdeveloped, mobile phones are prevalent in developing countries and are inherently democratic as many poor people make sacrifices to pool resources within a community to purchase airtime for purposes such as conducting business in the market (Jones & Marsden, 2006). As mobile smart phones can now be used for maintaining communications, accessing computer networks, and capturing and delivering multimedia, there is vast potential for connecting African schools to the internet for the first time and for using mobile devices as a data gathering device to share and communicate ideas within the context of their local culture (Rogoff, 1991; Schneider & Evans, 2008).

Instructional systems development considerations We iteratively designed, implemented, and evaluated mobile and Web 2.0 technologies in a participatory manner with local constituents from August 2007 – February 2008. An activitycentered design approach created a living archive of traditional and scientific knowledge related to sustainable agriculture and hosted on the Mobile Malawi Project Data Center (http://bashful.cs.vt. edu/mmp/). The approach takes the position that “to understand development, it is essential not to impose assumptions about the goals of development of one group on individuals from another. Interpreting the activity of people without regard for their goals renders the observations meaning-

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

less” (Rogoff, 1991, p. 117, emphases in original). The pedagogical goal was to provide technologies for unfettered knowledge building and communication within real-world constraints found in large cities, where teacher educators work, and poor, rural areas, where primary schools are found. For this project, the nodes of the network to connect knowledge cultures within Africa and in the United States included the following: (1) A community elder, Daniel Chinkhuntha, in Lilongew (the capital) is a farmer providing knowledge of sustainable agriculture practices, including channel irrigation, composting, and organic pest control; (2) A science and agriculture educator, Dr. Wotchiwe M. Kalande, is conducting field testing of mobile devices and sustainable agriculture curriculum with pre-service teachers; and (3) Timothy Banda, the primary school teacher at Mchengawedi Primary School is implementing the curriculum and evaluating technologies. His class was involved in planning, building, and tending a sustainable garden based on Mr. Chinkhuntha’s expertise. In an effort to establish a culturally diverse virtual team connected by mobile phone technology, a living archive website was developed to share information and document the communication patterns and progress of the project. To support the project and explore alternative viable solutions blogs and wikis, using opensource software, WordPress (http://wordpress. org/) and MediaWiki (http://www.mediawiki. org/) were tested and implemented as distributed knowledge and communication platforms. Moreover, taking the lead from projects such as MobilED (http://mobiled.uiah.fi/), we are currently exploring text-, voice-, and multimedia messaging, and the potential of solar-powered devices, including battery chargers (Solio, http:// www.solio.com/) and wireless outdoor routers (Meraki, http://meraki.com/). The rationale for using mobile phones and handheld devices is that they consume less power than other hardware (e.g., laptops and tablet PCs) and can access the

Internet via a cellular network, much needed in a country such as that found in Africa. As of February 2008, the Mobile Malawi Project v1.0 was deemed a successful proof-ofconcept. The primary evaluation metric was that community elders, teacher educators, and primary school teachers could communicate via voice and web-based services provided by the Virginia Tech development team. This success led to a second iteration of development where a team of graduate students in instructional design and technology were presented with a mandate to apply learnercentered principles to the development process (Evans, Ahuha, & Wu, 2008). Based on expert review of Mobile Malawi Project v1.0, it was determined that although a proof-of-concept of technologies and software had been achieved, a collaborative inquiry pedagogy had not been fully realized. This second iteration is referred to as Mobile Malawi Project v2.0.

MobIle MAlAWI project v2.0: brIngIng the leArner to the center The second iteration of the Mobile Malawi Project v1.0 was developed during a semester-long graduate-level course titled Principles of Media Product Design in Spring 2008 conducted by the author. The course goal was to streamline the visual and information design aspects of curriculum resources while clearly advocating through design a mediated collaborative inquiry pedagogy.

Instructional and visual considerations Based on the system developed and knowledge garnered from MMP v1.0, the team of six graduate students entrusted with the task of developing for the Mobile Malawi Project 2.0 focused on the following objectives: (1) A unified visual design that scales from a mobile browser to a

133

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

full-sized computer screen and (2) An increase in learner-centered content and activities. In the initial design, the MMP v1.0 used two separate websites for its content: (1) the Mobile Curriculum Connection (MMC) site, an HTML site, and (2) the Mobile Malawi Project Data Center (MMPDC), a WordPress blog. The original MMC was hand-coded for the mobile interface and the MMPDC defaulted to a browser window for a desktop or laptop. The existing Mobile Malawi Project (v1.0) consisted of two separate web pages (see Figure 1). The mobile curriculum pages were static pages formatted for the mobile phone (Nokia e61i), while the discussion page was powered by a standard installation of the WordPress software, formatted for a 12” or above computer screen. While this arrangement succeeded from a technical standpoint, it had the following significant flaws: •

The WordPress site did not render consistently on the Nokia phone browser (OperaMini).

•

•

•

This inhibited the primary requirement to serve as the center for data sharing and communication. The Mobile Curriculum Connection mobile site had an awkward layout on a computer screen, taking up less than one-third of the screen and not centered. Although the target device was a handheld, that may not always be the case. Products like the XO Laptop from the One Laptop Per Child project and the Eee PC from Asus provide increasingly affordable computers for the developing world. On the other end of the spectrum Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch demonstrate how the mobile form factor will be less of a limitation in the future. The MCC site consisted of static pages created by hand with an HTML editor. Should users need to revise or add content it would require the aid of someone with the skills to work with the HTML files directly.

Figure 1. Mobile Malawi Project v1.0 – Parallel development for phone and laptop led to inconsistent interface

a. Formatted for mobile phone

134

b. Formatted for laptop

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

•

The visual design and functionality of the two sites were very different. While some functional differences are necessary for the two sites’ respective tasks, a unified look-and-feel would reduce the cognitive overhead of having to learn and navigate two entirely different systems.

We addressed the third and fourth flaws by migrating the mobile curriculum content entirely over to WordPress, taking advantage of the software’s ability to host static pages of content as well as dynamic weblogs (Figure 2). With both sections of the site in the same system they share the same visual design by default. WordPress uses a system of “themes” to dynamically generate HTML pages from a database of text and media content. In other words, the text content and the site’s visual design were stored in separate files, and one can be changed without altering the other. If the design needs to be updated, then modify the

theme file or change to a new one and the entire site changes. If new content needs to be added then it can be typed in through an interface in the web site itself, and it will automatically take on the site’s style and formatting. Migrating the curriculum content to WordPress also addresses the second flaw of displaying improperly on a laptop or desktop screen. It also inherits the first flaw: original formatting was wholly unsuited to a mobile device. Given that a mobile, wireless device was our primary platform, addressing this flaw was critical to the success of the project. Fortunately WordPress has a system of plugins that enable new features and functions. By adding a plugin to detect whether the page is accessed on a computer screen or a handheld device, WordPress can re-format the content for the appropriate screen size. To promote mediated collaborative inquiry, we revised content and design for increased readability for the learner. Content activity questions

Figure 2. Mobile Malawi Project v2.0 – Unified development for phone and laptop lead to consistent interface

135

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

were restructured using the jigsaw method to promote interdependent learning (see Figure 3). As of publication, the graduate team continues to revise MMP v2.0 and has turned to a domestic environment for further implementation and testing. A significant barrier to continued international work are the long iteration cycles of feedback from Malawi, creating hindrance to rapid reviews and revisions. That being the case, we have turned our sights to a local setting, the Boys and Girls Club of the New River Valley, an after school program where members likewise lack sufficient access to community expertise and experience with more sophisticated ICTs. The new project is titled, Kids for Change, which builds from lessons learned in the design and development of both versions of the Mobile Malawi Project.

KIds For chAnge: collAborAtIve InquIry on socIAlly-relevAnt Issues In Kids for Change (http://k4c.soe.vt.edu/), secondary students create multimedia animations, stories, simulations, and games around energy security and sustainability topics requiring design

and development using writing and composition, storyboarding, video editing, and web presentation software. K4C members use web-based collaboration technologies to broadcast and share narratives creating a social network of collaborators and peers. Digital artifact development and technology, using open-source software such as Google SketchUp further exposes participants to concepts and practices in computer science, human-computer interaction, and instructional design. Our latest approach additionally reflects the values of participatory culture, “…a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices” (Jenkins et al., 2006, p. 3). Participatory culture is a forward-looking principle for how scientists, engineers, citizens, and public officials will engage. Consequently, the after-school program staff participate in professional development workshops to introduce concepts of computer-supported collaborative learning, intellectual property, and copyright. Parents are invited to Family Fun Nights to learn about Internet privacy, safety, and monitoring online usage. Kids for Change

Figure 3. Mobile Malawi Project v2.0 – redesigning to promote learner-centered instruction

a. Original, teacher-centered instruction.

136

b. Revised learner-centered, collaborative instruction.

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

is a response to the constraints and limitations of the Mobile Malawi Project. Our goal was to take lessons learned from the previous initiative to further refine and develop our sociotechnical model to address the following: •

•

• •

Identify a more broadly relevant area of inquiry that engages schools and communities, e.g., energy security and sustainability; Focus more rigorously on individual and community competencies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; Embrace diversity in gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status; Prepare a participatory, engaged citizenry.

energy security & sustainability – socially relevant, civically engaging In broad terms, the US workforce of the 21st century will reflect an increasing need to train and hire managers, engineers, scientists, and technologists. Consequently, Kids for Change focuses directly on engineering, science, and technology related to energy security and sustainability. The next generation will be driven not only by workforce demands, but also demands for national security and innovation to release the US from over-dependency on foreign non-renewable fuel sources and changes to lifestyle that will reduce environmentally harmful emissions. As Dr. John Randolph, Professor of Environmental Planning at Virginia Tech and senior personnel on our team notes (Randolph & Masters, 2008), the area of energy security and sustainability presents an ideal scenario to consider existing and potential workforce needs of the US. By introducing students to the scientific method and algebraic concepts inherent in areas of energy security and sustainability, Kids for Change engages middle school students in fundamental knowledge and skills that can be applied a broad range of science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) disciplines, with a particular focus in energy, transportation, and information technology – all identified as high-growth sectors (U.S. Department of Labor, 2007, p. 8). More importantly, with the increasing attention to “green collar workers,” a category of careers that contribute to smart growth, sustainable architecture, and reuse, we will prepare students for STEM domains and disciplines yet to be defined.

Individual and community competencies At the individual level, we anticipate that the proposed activities will increase students’ value of STEM by engaging them in socially relevant and civically important issues at the local and national level. We are defining “value” as part of the expectancy-value model of motivation (Eccles, 2005) in which a student who values a topic will: 1) be more interested in it and enjoy it, 2) believe that the topic is important, 3) believe that the topic is useful, and 4) believe that it is worth the time and effort to learn about the topic. Our research hypotheses related to value are based on the fact that value can be increased by interesting students in the learning topic and showing students the importance and usefulness of the topic (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). We predict that participating in Kids for Change will increase students’ interests in STEM topics. In addition, the real-world problems they are addressing will allow them to see the importance and usefulness of the topics to their everyday lives. Students will become engaged in scientific thinking, processes, and analyses by relating what they experience in their own lives and communities and writing about it in online multimedia narratives. Furthermore, aspects of value have been found to predict students’ enrollment in future courses and occupational choices (Eccles, 2005). Therefore, as a result of students’ increased value in STEM/ICT-related activities, we predict that students will be less likely to drop out of school

137

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

and more likely to: a) enroll in STEM courses in the future, b) choose a STEM major in college, and c) choose a career in STEM. At the community level, we anticipate potential changes in civic awareness and engagement, collective efficacy, and knowledge sharing among diverse students. Internal political efficacy (Brady, 1999) refers to a person’s belief that s/he is personally capable of comprehending and participating in various aspects of political life. A person’s belief that government is trustworthy and competent is external political efficacy. In earlier work, we further developed these concepts of efficacy to encompass a community-wide sense of “collective efficacy” (Carroll & Reese, 2003), that is, a belief that one’s community can overcome obstacles to solve problems. A person’s social status and ethnicity, or prior experience over time can affect their political efficacy and community collective efficacy (Carroll & Reese, 2003). While broadly interested in political and collective efficacy of diverse citizens, we are especially interested in underrepresented groups: girls, physically disadvantaged, ethnic minorities, and low income.

diversity in gender, ethnicity, and Income: students in need According to Virginia Testing and 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, 8th grade Blacks, Hispanic, and Low Income students scored up to 20% lower on state proficiency, and up to 30% lower on NAEP basic, than White students. Basic is defined as partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient is defined as solid academic performance for each grade assessed (NAEP, 2006). Although achievement levels have increased from 1990, the gap between Whites and other groups still remains (see Table 1). The Area Director and Director of Club Services of the Boys and Girls Club of the New River Valley (BGCNRV) in Virginia have confirmed, in

138

Table 1. Math achievement in Virginia, 2006-2007. (USDOE, 2008) Virginia 8th Graders State Data – % Proficient

NAEP Data – % Basic

NAEP Data – % Proficient

All

77

77

37

White

84

86

47

Black

64

56

15

Hispanic

65

64

24

Low Income

64

57

15

several interviews that the middle school populations served are in need of more opportunities to be engaged with science, mathematics, and ICTs, particularly involving engaging activities around meaningful topics. The notion of constructing multimedia narratives, games, and simulations around energy security and sustainability is not only a socially responsible topic, but also one that personally and diversely affects students, parents, and staff. On a national level, recent reports (e.g., Banks et al., 2007) have identified after-school programs, communities, and homes as critical sites and resources for learning. Consequently, Kids for Change coordinates efforts and resources from these areas to provide students, staff, and parents opportunities to learn and participate by getting them involved in activities, workshops, and events that demonstrate why science and mathematics are important and exciting subjects, what disciplines and careers use these subjects in socially responsible ways, and how these knowledge and skills can be put to use to become civically engaged and have a positive impact on existing and future critical issues within the scope of energy security and sustainability.

preparing a participatory, engaged citizenry The program includes activities that are attractive to a middle school audience. In the program,

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

kids design and develop online content around this theme that will informally teach them the scientific method and algebraic concepts. While other programs such as The JASON Project (Bienkowski et al., 2005) uses similar techniques to promote science alone in the classroom, Kids for Change extends the opportunities to outside of the classroom in a way that it involves parents, and directly targets students at-risk, disadvantaged, or under-represented. Our approach is to model experiments that require materials and procedures less readily available or too large in scope, such as using algebraic models to predict outcomes of an economic impact from a town development project. To illustrate how the Kids for Change is implemented, we use the scenario of middle school students being challenged to propose a green solution to public land use. In this scenario the town council, in an effort to promote civic engagement, is sponsoring a competition seeking proposals that demonstrate the best use of an open plot of land in the town limits. The winning proposal must provide cost-benefit and environmental analyses and demonstrate clear and appropriate STEM knowledge and skills. Two techniques will help to frame the STEM analysis related to energy security and sustainability: scenario development and solution wedges to achieve a desired future condition (Randolph & Masters, 2008). The former uses a method developed and marketed by Global Business Network (GBN, Inc.: http://www.gbn.com/) and applied to many problems including energy, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scenarios of global development, the Electric Power Research Institute’s scenarios on the future of electricity, and two recent reports “Energy Strategy for the Road Ahead” and “Acting on Climate Change.” These are emerging methods for envisioning the future that are being embraced by government and business leaders. Yet, they are simple enough to engage young students to think about their own future and how the procedures might relate to

the rest of the world, and at the same time allow them to apply algebraic analysis, creative writing, and visualization to real-world issues. Ongoing results of K4C can be found at our website: http:// k4c.soe.vt.edu/

chAllenges to supportIng MedIAted collAborAtIve InquIry In coMMunItIes oF prActIce The Mobile Malawi Project (v1.0 & v2.0) and Kids for Change give us greater confidence that designing for mediated collaborative inquiry is a real possibility. Nevertheless, we would be remiss not to recognize the challenges to imposing such a radical change to existing STEM curriculum. In the rest of this section we touch upon a few of the issues that are most pertinent in light of our recent experience. As stated initially, though we remain skeptical of the ability of instructional designers to design communities of practice, we see value in continuing to understand existing CoPs for more successful interventions. Moreover, we are deeply committed to the values and behaviors promoted by the CoP metaphor, particularly the commitments to collaborative inquiry, participation, and the social activism. Thus, based on our experiences in the design-based research (Sawyer, 2006), we offer recommendations for those wishing to further understand and support mediated collaborative inquiry in communities of practice (Evans & Powell, 2007). Building on insights gained from Schwen and Hara (2003), we deem it critical to consider carefully the existing social fabric of a community targeted for change, in this case CoPs that exist around sustainable agriculture and green design and technologies. From our experience, inherent tensions exist between values espoused by national standards and administrators, and the actual behaviors reinforced in the primary and

139

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

secondary science classroom. One conclusion is that current curriculum is insufficiently attending to the existing social fabric of the school and community. If the CoP metaphor is to be upheld by instructional designers, then critical analysis of this apparent contradiction must be investigated. As it currently stands, science classrooms are not creating a nurturing environment in which newcomers can participate, share knowledge publicly, and learn the practice of science as prescribed by experts and teachers. Our recommendation to fellow instructional desginers working in this area to up front understand and appreciate the existing social fabric saving time-consuming effort to recuperate from lack of participation in, neglect of, or resistance to socio-technical structures designed to support and sustain inquiry in a CoP. Our analysis also supports a recommendation to follow methods and techniques similar to useror learner-centered design and rapid prototyping (Evans, Ahuja, & Wu, 2008). In a definitive way this approach has countered the tendencies toward “analysis paralysis.” That is, while our first recommendation advocates more critical analysis of the COP metaphor, our second states that this posture must be balanced with design techniques that prevent stagnation, promoting development that closely tracks changes in the community and its members. A closing recommendation is that intended and, more importantly, unintended consequences of intervention informed by the CoP metaphor must be tracked and reported more thoroughly. Our analysis of the Mobile Malawi Project and Kids for Change should not convey an unproblematic process. As we have indicated, the work n Malawi was tedious and hindered by social and cultural differences between the US investigators, and ministry officials, university administrators, teacher educators, and primary school teachers. Even when working in a domestic setting, there are differences in the values, norms, and beliefs of members from varying institutions, in the

140

Kids for Change project these included content area supervisors, non-profit directors, and university faculty and graduate students. Striving to induce curricular reform with collaborative inquiry strategies and tools, and a community of practice metaphor is far from mainstream and fraught with unanticipated challenges. Thus, our prescription is to propose that instructional designers conducting empirical and practical work on collaborative inquiry not down play unintended consequences as these experiences may well reveal errors in design conceptualization and shortcomings in development specifications. A corollary to our recommendation is that researchers and practitioners must conduct design work with, not on communities of practice (Schwen & Hara, 2003).

conclusIon This chapter presented metaphors of learning using collaborative inquiry and communities of practice as dual foci. At the classroom level, collaborative inquiry as an instructional strategy of choice provides teachers and students the power to engage in thoughtful, active engagement that goes beyond mere transmission of inert knowledge. The community of practice emphasizes the norms, values, and beliefs of the larger discipline while emphasizing the commitment of members of the group outside the classroom, including parents, teacher educators, and community experts. Our work has turned to mobile technologies and Web 2.0 technologies to facilitate and support inquiry and legitimacy. Projects such as the Mobile Malawi Project and Kids for Change demonstrate both the power of these strategies and technologies and the many challenges faced for design, development, implementation, and evaluation. It will be an interesting century where we experience the increasing ubiquity of these tools and media in our professional and personal lives.

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

reFerences Banks, J.A., Au, K.H., Ball, A.F., Bell, P., Gordon, E.W., Gutierrez, K.D., et al. (2008). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Lifelong, life-wide, life-deep. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://life-slc.org/wp-content/up/2007/05/ Banks-et-al-LIFE-Diversity-Report.pdf Bienkowski, M., Penuel, W., Toyama, Y., Molina, A., Hurst, K., Peck-Theis, L. (2005). JASON Academy Summative Program Evaluation, Final Report, Arlington, VA: SRI International. Boyd, D. (2007). The Significance of Social Software. In T. N. Burg and J. Schmidt (Eds.), BlogTalks Reloaded: Social Software Research & Cases (pp. 15-30). Norderstedt, Gemany.. Brady, H. (1999). Political Participation. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver & L. Wrightsman (Eds.) Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Carroll, J. M. & D. Reese, D. (2003). Community collective efficacy: Structure and consequences of perceived capacities in the Blacksburg Electronic Village. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kona, Hawaii. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation, (pp. 105-121). New York: The Guilford Press. Evans, M.A., & Johri, A. (in press). Facilitating guided participation through mobile technologies: Designing creative learning environments for self and others. Journal of Computing for Higher Education. Evans, M.A., Ahuja, S., & Wu, D. (2008, November 4-8). Mobile Malawi Project: Local Knowledge, Global Technologies. Paper to be presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology International Conference, Orlando, FL.

Evans, M.A., & Powell, A. (2007). Conceptual and practical issues related to the design for and sustainability of Communities of Practice: The case of e-portfolio use in preservice teacher training. Technology, Pedagogy, & Education, 16(2), 199-214. Glasson, G.E., Frykholm, J., Mhango, N., & Phiri, A. (2006). Understanding the earth systems of Malawi: Ecological sustainability, culture, and place-based education. Science Education, 90 (4), 660-680. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A.J., & Weigel, M. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF Jones, C. (2004). Network theory and description– The Lancaster ALT masters programme. In L. Dirckinck–Holmfeld, B. Lindstro¨m, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Jones, M. & Marsden, G. (2006). Mobile interaction design. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A.R., & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media: The use of social media gains a greater foothold in teen life as the embrace the conversational nature of interactive online media. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf National Assessment of Educational Progress (2006). The NAEP mathematics achievement

141

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

levels. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://nces. ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/achieve. asp

Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.). Building online communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation software. Retrieved July 27, 2007 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/ news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Tepper, M. (2003). The rise of social software. netWorker, 7(3), 18-23.

Randolph, J., & Gilbert M. Masters (2008). Energy for Sustainability: Technology, Planning, Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press. Riel, M. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computers in Education, 26, (4), 452-474. Rogoff, B. (1991). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In D. L. Day & D. K. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, Communication & Mental Models (pp. 13-25). London: Taylor & Francis. Sawyer, R.K (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, S.B., & Evans, M.A. (2008, October/November). Transforming e-learning into ee-learning: The centrality of sociocultural participation. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1). Retrieved October 30, 2008 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index. php?view=article&id=511. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Schwen, T.M. & Hara, N. (2003). Community of practice: A metaphor for online design? In S.

142

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Mapping Virginia’s educational progress 2008. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/results/progress/virginia.pdf U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: the role of the public workforce system in a national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://www.doleta.gov/youth_services/pdf/STEM_Report_4%2007.pdf Vygotsky, L.V. (1986). Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Collaborative Inquiry: A default organizational form for learning strategies developed form a social-constructivist framework; inquiry is what drives learning, and inquiry is always a collaborative effort. Communities of Practice: A term associated with the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) that denotes what Gee (2007) refers to as an affinity group or “semiotic domain”; individuals congregate in non-canonical, informal ways around norms, values, and beliefs associate with “how things are done.” Instructional Design: The systematic methods and methodology of developing materials for use by teachers and learners; a theoretically- and

Promoting Mediated Collaborative Inquiry in Primary and Secondary Science Settings

pedagogically-based based educational discipline. Design-Based Research: An engineering approach to educational intervention; the goal is primarily to prescribe iterations of requirements for implementation, results of prototypes possibility generating insights for theory. Mediate Collaborative Inquiry: A complex term that intends to invoke a non-individualistic, non-reductionist perspective of learning; learning is always driven by inquiry, mediated by semiotics, and conducted in a social setting.

Participatory: Modifier used in conjunction with culture, design, learning, which denotes the collaborative, communal, decentralized nature of a given activity, endeavor, or undertaking. Sociotechnical: A term used to remind analysts that learning and work are always conducted with tools and instruments, and in a social setting; technology is not deterministic. Web 2.0: A term accredited to Tim O’Reilly that depicts the decentralized structure of organization built on information and communication technologies; wikis, blogs, and file sharing networks are a few examples of the technology that contributes to this new organizational form.

143

144

Chapter X

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology: Enriched Classrooms Tamar Levin Tel Aviv University, Israel

AbstrAct Drawing on the empirical data from two longitudinal studies, the chapter describes the evolution of teachers’ educational beliefs and their actual classroom practices when using ICT in the schools. It also identifies three different classroom cultures with differing assumptions and practices concerning teaching, learning, and technology use. Highlighting the fact that teachers’ beliefs are shaped by everyday classroom and school experiences, and using teachers’ statements, metaphors and observations, the chapter shows changes occurring in the beliefs and classroom practices of several teachers. It shows that following several years of ICT use teachers changed their educational lenses, demonstrating multiple views rather than pure beliefs. Finally it demonstrates that the enculturation of teachers into ICTenriched classrooms is influenced not just by the technology used, but also by the richness of the overall learning environment with its emphasis on non-structured tasks and rich technology-based resources, and by their exposure to new educational vistas.

IntroductIon This chapter recognizes the powerful role of teachers in changing school practices when they overcome the constraints of habits developed as a result of their established educational beliefs, and challenges traditional school cultures in the context of using information and communication

technologies (ICT). It demonstrates the complex process that occurs when teachers learn to teach with ICT, and shows that in order to enhance teaching and learning in a technology-enriched environment, teachers’ beliefs on the meanings and roles of learning, teaching and technology have to change. Drawing on the empirical data from two longitudinal studies, the chapter describes teach-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

ers’ beliefs regarding classroom life when using ICT in the schools, and identifies three different classroom cultures with differing assumptions of teaching, learning, and technology use. The development and spread of new digital technologies has led to major changes in the way we do many things in our daily lives and our schools, and even affects our identities. ICT have become a natural part of people’s lives in western information societies, where for example, the internet is used for reading newspapers, keeping in touch with friends, paying bills, and searching for information for both private and professional purposes. In the educational context as well, digital technologies offer new resources for learning and support new modes of teaching and learning. They also challenge processes of knowledge interpretation, increase opportunities for educational research, and create new demands and expectations of teacher and student development as individuals, groups, and communities. For example, teachers and students are expected to develop the awareness and skills for accessing technology and media-based resources, which require the use of both print and non-print material, images, texts, language, sound, and motion. This all has to be done to produce, convey, analyze, and evaluate informational communications and messages, and selected subject matter or interdisciplinary knowledge. And, as for the schools, they are also expected to transform their goals, enrich their repertoire of classroom practices, and add ICT to their available teaching and learning tools and resources. Given that schools must respond to the demands of multi-media technology, the integration of learning and communication technologies into schools and schooling has been well supported by educators and greatly speeded up. Underlying this support is the belief that the successful incorporation of ICT empowers both teachers and students to produce better teaching and learning processes as well as outcomes. ICT has also been hailed as the catalyst for restructuring and re-culturing

school and classroom practices, for fostering environments that elicit constructivist-based learning and collaborative educational practices, and for encouraging the development of higher-order and multi-literal learning and inquiry skills. Through all these factors ICT can help to nurture mindful and self-regulated teachers and students. This approach to ICT use presents a challenge to the traditional use of information technology in the classroom, as viewed by Cuban and Tyack (1995), who despite their criticism of the implementation quality of ICT in schools, believe that computers are far the most powerful teaching and learning machines to enter the classroom and that students and teachers can interact with computers in ways impossible with film, radio, and television. However, researchers, techno-reformers, and teachers all admit that despite the research accumulated over the past three decades, the educational system has largely remained unchanged (Albion, 2003), and many questions regarding the effective use of ICT still remain unanswered. There is a gap between ambitious visions of ICT in new educational reform and its quality of use in school, and teachers only superficially accept technology into their work, even when it is available to their students (Cuban, et al., 2001). Typically, teachers use linear, authoritative, teacher-centered methods, they disregard computers and resist efforts to move the dominant paradigm away from teacher-centered teaching to a more student-centered classroom (Semple; 2000). While this gap is partly due to obstacles that impede the successful implementation of ICT, such as lack of infrastructure / access to educational software / and teachers’ ICT pedagogical skills, a major cause is attributed to teachers’ educational beliefs and their personal theories about teaching and learning, since these beliefs strongly influence classroom practices (Ertmer 2005; Lim & Khine, 2006). Fullan (2001) has emphasized the importance of teachers’ educational beliefs noting that educators’ visions of the potential for educational change

145

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

through the use of new educational technologies underestimate how difficult it is for teachers to implement reforms that require not only changes in their practices and skills but also in their educational beliefs. Ertmer also claimed that without a clear understanding of the relationship between teacher beliefs and technology “practitioners and researchers may continue to advocate for specific uses of technology that they are unable to facilitate or support” (Ertmer 2005 p. 35). We therefore need to confront and reappraise teachers’ beliefs in terms of the principles underpinning an innovation. Otherwise, changes will only be “cosmetic” or else be a “parody” of the original innovation, a fate, which has befallen a large number of large-scale innovations in the past (Burkhardt et al, 1990). Indeed, according to McKenzie (2004), teachers who were professionally trained in a particular technology and mindset (industrial age thinking) find it difficult to adjust to new technologies requiring an information age mindset. Often such teachers retain the same ideas about teaching and learning in their ICT-enhanced classroom as they had in their traditional classrooms. Such teachers can be compared to ‘digital immigrants’ (Prensky, 2001) in a new culture who experience major difficulties in accommodating to it and find themselves locked into old and familiar patterns of habits and beliefs. When this happens, teachers tend to use powerful technologies in a limited way, sustaining rather than transforming both their educational beliefs and educational practices. In other words, instead of using ICT to do different things, teachers do the same old things—but slightly differently. This is because a change in mindset requires not only a new set of skills or experience, but most importantly it calls for an entirely new approach to teaching and learning. Understanding how important teacher beliefs are to the successful application of ICT in schools, this chapter describes how teachers’ beliefs evolve in the technology-enriched classroom. Furthermore, understanding that the effects

146

of ICT depend not only on the tools, whether technological or cognitive, the chapter describes how different educational beliefs are reflected in different educational cultures that characterize schools and classroom environments.

theoretIcAl bAcKground teacher educational beliefs and Ict use: A two-Way relationships Teachers’ beliefs have been conceptualized as a set of assumptions that teachers hold on various educational processes such as schooling, students, teaching and learning, curriculum, and knowledge. Beliefs and personal theories are regarded as filters that influence teachers during instructional and curricular decision-making (Fang, 1996). These beliefs and theories form an “intuitive screen” through which teachers interpret teaching reforms. They can either further or impede change (Prawat, 1992). Thus, beliefs affect how teachers implement innovations and largely determine how and why they adopt new teaching methods (Golombek, 1998) or adapt to new classroom environments, processes, and goals. Moreover, since beliefs can be inferred from what people say, intend and do (Pajares, 1992), they offer us insights into why teachers do what they do. Undeniably, in the context of ICT in schools, studies have shown that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes influence their use of computers in the classroom (Tearle, 2004). They also show the existence of a relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional decisions (Mumtaz, 2000). Moreover, research suggests that there is a parallel between a teacher’s student-centered beliefs about instruction and the nature of the teacher’s experiences in technology-integrated teaching (Judson, 2006). Teachers with a traditional teaching philosophy who see their role as transmitting a rigid curriculum through highly controlled pedagogy

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

are teachers who avoid computers. Conversely, teachers with constructivist learning principles tend to use computers more frequently. Also, teachers with a student-oriented constructivist teaching style are more likely to use new technology in their classroom, and equally, teachers who readily integrate technology into their teaching are more likely to show constructivist’ teaching styles (Becker & Ravitz, 2001). This connection between technology application and constructivist pedagogy implies that constructivist-minded teachers provide dynamic student-centered classrooms where technology is used and conceived as a powerful learning tool. Of the various teachers’ belief dimensions, those regarding the nature of technology and its role in teaching and learning can present a major barrier to incorporating technology into the classroom. For example, Slough and Chamblee (2000) found that seeing technology as unstable and always changing creates a major barrier to its use in the classroom. Although most research on the relationship between teachers’ educational beliefs and the use of technology in the classroom focuses on how teachers’ beliefs shape their implementation of school reform, some studies explore how the use of educational technology affects teachers’ educational beliefs. Here, the results show that when technology-based educational reforms are introduced, some teachers find that technology encourages greater student-centeredness, openness toward multiple perspectives on problems, and willingness to experiment in their teaching (Knapp & Glenn, 1996). The Apple ACOT project also found that technology use shifts classrooms toward student-centered teaching and away from curriculum-centered teaching, towards collaborative tasks rather than individual tasks, and towards active rather than passive learning (Sandholtz et al., 1997). The shift away from emphasizing textbooks and teachers towards integrating technology and teachers in the role of facilitators is not just about

new tools, but represents a transformation in pedagogy and epistemology (Bruenjes, 2002). Burton (2003) shows, for example, that even professional development experiences involving technology can facilitate change in teacher beliefs on teaching and learning, and foster a more student-centered focus. This suggests that it is important to explore whether and how teacher beliefs develop as a consequence of their classroom experiences with ICT, which is indeed the focus of this chapter. Furthermore, according to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the strength of a belief is affected by a person’s subjective feeling that he or she will perform a particular behavior. This suggests that it is worthwhile not only to investigate teachers’ beliefs, but to also explore the implicit link between their views on learning, teaching, and technology and their actual classroom practices. Surprisingly, despite the large number of studies examining the relationships between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional practices, relatively few have examined the aforementioned effects in the context of a longitudinal study of a technology-enhanced school learning environment. Moreover, not many studies have used classroom observations to explore teachers’ actual classroom practices or identified the personal and school-related conditions that affect teachers’ change. This chapter addresses these questions in the context of technology-enhanced learning environments in two independent longitudinal studies: one in an elementary school, the other in a high school. Using observational studies and teachers’ questionnaires and interviews, the chapter describes changes in teachers’ practices and beliefs regarding teaching and learning in technology-enriched classrooms over a period of 3 to 4 years. These changes are presented and interpreted with reference to existing educational paradigms and to epistemological and pedagogical views. The implications from the evolution of teachers’ beliefs and behaviors onto the characteristics of three classroom cultures are then conceptualized and discussed.

147

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

Methodology the context of the two studies The two longitudinal studies summarized here were part of a national project to change the structure of the school curriculum and adapt it to everyday reality. In each study, the school and its teachers decided how to integrate technology into its curriculum. The first study was held in an elementary school and focused on 6 teachers, who for three years experienced an approach to teaching and learning with information-rich tasks (IRT) in an information-rich environment (Levin & Wadmany, 2005, 2006, 2008). The second study was conducted in a secondary school and focused on exploring a group of 8 teachers, who for 4 years were provided with professional experiences focusing on changing the school curricula in order to adapt it to the needs of the knowledge era, by integrating information and communication technology (ICT) in the school (Levin & BenAmarBaranga, 2005, 2007). Most teachers in the two studies are highly experienced teachers. Their teaching experience range: from 3 years through 6, 8 and 10-15 years to 23, 25 and 29 years. Their age --varies from 26, through 33-35 to 45 and 52. They all teach the various subject areas taught in the school including: science, history, mathematics, earth science, biology, English as a second language, bible, and three of the teachers served also as computer coordinators in the school. In the two studies, the newly introduced school curricula and classroom activities comprised information-rich tasks, characterized as ill structured, authentic, cognitively challenging, and requiring complex mental processes and creativity. The tasks required exploration of information and cooperative inquiry-based learning processes for negotiating understanding and modes of knowledge presentation, leaving considerable freedom for personal and group interpretation. Most of the learning tasks that were developed both for the

148

teachers’ professional development experiences or for the school curricula were interdisciplinary and project based, requiring a stimulating technologyrich environment that often required engagement beyond the classroom setting and school hours. Learning processes mainly occurred in cooperative teams and included discussion and reflection on classroom experiences, focusing on difficulties and problems, solutions and accomplishments, as well as on epistemological and disciplinary and interdisciplinary issues. Throughout the learning process, teachers in their own learning experiences and the students in their classrooms were encouraged to draw their own conclusions by thinking and analyzing databases, engaging in group or classroom discourse, and were often required to reach a collective decision or understanding. Since each one of the studies sought to investigate processes affecting teachers’ beliefs as well as those affecting classroom practices in a technology-based learning environment (studies 1 and 2) as well as school practices (study 2), a combination of an exploratory case study with a collective case study was used (Yin, 1992). The teachers were treated both as individual case studies and as a group. Therefore we could address each of the six teachers who participated in one study and the eight teachers in the second study separately, while at the same time relating to the teachers in each of the two studies, holistically, as a group.

the desIgn Prior to the beginning of each one of the studies, the school infrastructure prepared itself to cater for a technology-based teaching and learning environment, and the requisite instruments for the implementation phase were developed and tested. The preparatory phase took about six months, during which (1) technological equipment including computers, multimedia, and a variety of software were placed in classrooms to

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

form a communication network; (2) professional development strategies, contents, and workshops were tentatively planned and a plan for mentoring teachers’ classroom practices developed; (3) learning activities for both students and teachers, demonstrations, and research tools were developed and tested on samples of teachers; and (4) advisory teams of mentors who were both experts in educational technology and subject specialists were trained to assist teachers with their school and classroom work. The teams included school personnel and experts from Tel Aviv University and software development companies. At the elementary school, a group of students was also trained to function as “computer assistants” in their classrooms. During the years, as the research proceeded, the major challenge of each study was to implement an action research design (Glanz, 1998), an emergent research design, with a cycle of activities including: questioning, acting, reflecting, raising new questions and planning future actions, aiming to explore the evolving classroom processes and teachers’ beliefs in the process of integrating information and communication technologies in the school. In this cyclic research process some alterations were made in the questionnaires, the observations and the professional development experiences, based on renewed needs of the teachers and the school. Thus for example: towards the end of the study, more metaphor-eliciting questions were used rather than questions requiring explicit statements in the form of open questions or reflection questions. This was to ensure that teachers’ answers would reflect their beliefs and not simply express what they had heard or interpreted in their discussions with the advisory team. In the second study, with an aim to restructure the whole school curriculum and to transform the school into a technology-enriched learning environment, rather than to focus on a selected group of classrooms, the school had to change the basic principles that had guided its rationale and practices. This included its: physical infrastructure

(the availability of computers and peripherals, such as scanners, printers, multimedia devices and connection to the Internet, as well as the design of the school buildings), organizational structure (referring to school leadership and management structure, procedures and policies); and pedagogical worldview (reflecting the educational orientation, educational goals, and curriculum planning, and policies concerning teaching and evaluation processes). In the two studies, during each school year, teachers introduced new ideas relating to new ways of facilitating student learning. They also received ongoing assistance on request and attended weekly, in-school workshops (learning sessions that the teachers held with the external consultants while discussing issues that came out in their classroom experiences). They also worked together on problems they were facing either conceptually or practically, on their own, as a group. These workshops addressed two kinds of activities (1) activities initiated by the teachers based on their own experiences with students, and (2) activities planned by project leaders on the subjects of the basic concepts and structure of information-rich tasks, the uses of ICT, general software capabilities and ICT-based curricular issues. The teachers were also exposed to problem-based learning situations, simulating learning by the teachers as a group.

InstruMents And AnAlysIs Conducted as two longitudinal case studies of two schools (elementary and high school), during three and four years, respectively, the studies utilized mainly the principles of qualitative methodology. Acknowledging that the fulfillment of a collective school vision is highly dependent on individual teachers’ educational beliefs and personal visions (Fullan, 1999), the studies displays 6 and 8 case studies of teachers, respectively. This enabled us to relate to each of the teachers as a separate

149

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

case study, and simultaneously to relate to all of them holistically, as a group. A set of open-ended research tools was developed specifically for the purposes of each one of the two studies, in order to obtain a rich and comprehensive description of the change processes at the school and the teacher level. The research tools used include: Personal, partially structured interviews with the teachers, the principal and the technology coordinators; Open questionnaires for teachers; and Classroom observations. In addition, documents were used to study the rationale and processes characterizing the school’s change process. The questionnaires and interviews were mainly used to study explicit educational beliefs; the classroom observations and once weekly meetings with teachers were used to study teachers’ actual practices in the classroom. Yet, closed questionnaires were also used to explore the profile of change of each teacher through personal reflection. The open-ended questionnaires used to explore teachers’ beliefs contained several questions and metaphors on the meaning of the following concepts: teaching, learning, student roles, teacher roles, curriculum, knowledge and technology. The questionnaires were administered annually for 3 and 4 years respectively in each study. Teachers were interviewed following observations of the teachers at work in their classrooms or during in-service training. A constructivist paradigm and an interpretive research approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Schwandt, 1994) were used to interpret the teachers’ construction of their views on learning and teaching, which were then critically analysed. It applied the phenomenographic (Marton, 1986) approach to data analysis, which groups subjects’ expressions according to similarities, differences, and complementaries. Teachers’ responses and statements gathered at the beginning and at the end of each year were thus continuously and cumulatively analysed for commonalities. The data were organized and interpreted on the basis of categories: some established

150

from the raw data (emic categories), and some were formed and interpreted with reference to educational orientations concerning learning, teaching, and knowledge (etic categories). These categories distinguish between objectivist and constructivist educational orientations, and are based on Kember and Kwan’s (2000) categories on teaching and teaching modes; Doolittle (1999) and von Glasersfeld (1998) categories on learning; Habermas’ (1987) three knowledge constitutive interests, which were applied to teachers’ views on technology’s role in the classroom; approaches to educational change (Hargreaves, 1997) and models of technology integration (ACOT, 2001). The characteristics of each category are described in Levin and Wadmany (2006), and Levin and BenAmarbaranga (2007). Thus, category interpretation was also theory-based. A 90% agreement was found between three evaluators for data interpretation, database categories, and theory-based categories. After discussing minor differences, a consensus was reached between the evaluators.

results changes in teachers’ beliefs The results of the two studies on changes in the teachers’ views on teaching, learning, and technology show that whereas at the beginning of the study most teachers expressed behaviorist and transmissionist views on learning and teaching, respectively, after the study, their views were more varied. For example, before ICT was introduced into their classrooms, teachers’ statements and metaphors reflected behaviorist notions of learning. They thought of learning as “a process in which teachers transmit concepts and values to their students“ or “a formal process of knowledge accumulation”. Learning, according to these views, is sparked by external stimuli: “drinking

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

from a fountain, and teachers thought that there was a right way and a wrong way to internalize and remember information from outside sources. The learning process was also conceived as a routine, formal, passive process, which can be explicitly demonstrated, and which is influenced by a well-planned knowledge authority: “learning is a routine process at school and it takes place as always, when students absorb and can remember ideas they get from their teachers“. At the start of the study, only one teacher, Hadassa, in the elementary school, expressed a different view of learning—she described learning as “an infinite renewal—the wind that blows from young, lively and healthy fountains”. Embedded in most of the teachers’ views of learning at the beginning of the study was a conception of the student as a passive recipient of information with no power, role, or opinion. Metaphorically, they described the student as: ‘A sponge soaking everything up and then producing things that are relevant’; ‘A head or an antenna which receives information from the environment via all five senses’, or “a plant which receives all the conditions needed for growth, and dies if it is neglected and does not receive the appropriate treatment”. After three years (in study 1) or four years (in study 2) teachers’ views have noticeably changed following classroom and school experiences in technology-enhanced environments. They were less monolithic and more constructivist. For example, at the beginning of the study, Orli (high school history teacher) saw learning as “routine work that focuses on reading writing and testing”, but four years later thought that: “learning is an open and thorough process of observing and interpreting knowledge resources, the entire classroom environment, and the world around us, which requires and develops great openness from students and teachers”. Applying this concept to her own learning, Orli noted that “a teacher’s learning not only involves the acquisition of new skills (for example internet search skills) and

knowledge (for example a new interpretation of historical events), but mainly new perspectives on the students, their intellectual capabilities, and value systems, and their role in the learningteaching process”. In Orli’s case, four years of exposure to ICT had changed her view from seeing the student as a “receiver of knowledge” to seeing her as “a curious, capable and responsible human being”. Teaching accordingly has similarly changed from “Knowledge transmission” to “a mentoring process and in some of its aspects, a learning process”: Her views on ICT had also changed from conceiving “ICT as a search tool for looking up references and pictures or as a word processor“, to viewing ICT as “a meaningful partner for communication that enhances learning”. Similarly, Zipora’s (elementary-school math teacher) views had also changed. At the outset of the study, she associated learning with conditioning and “Pavlov’s dog”, and described teaching metaphorically as “a train, pulling wagons that can’t go forward without it”, indicating an objectivist-determinist view. She noted that: “Learning is experimental–you are mindful of what you are doing. You try to discover what is right and what is wrong”. However, at the end of the study, Zipora said “Learning is an experiential process that takes time and is powered by internal motives and interests” She also noted that “learning is a process of knowledge change occurring in cooperative groups as a result of being actively engaged in real-life situations”. However, Zipora only slightly changed her view of teaching from “knowledge telling” to “a meaningful support system, guiding student thinking and facilitating their self-efficacy”. From viewing students as her “audience or clients” Zipora came to appreciate students as “mindful partners in planning the teaching”. At the end of the study, she also saw technology “as a partner for empowering student and teacher capabilities” and not, as at the beginning of the study, as a “tool”. Interestingly however, Zipora’s view

151

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

of the curriculum had not changed as a result of her experiences and showed a highly determinist orientation and belief that only academic experts could devise curricula because teachers lack the authority to make curricular decisions. (For further details on each teacher’s beliefs profile see: Levin & Wadmany, 2006, 2008; Levin & Ben AmarBaranga, 2005, 2007; Levin, 2008). Characteristics of Change Patterns in Teachers’ Beliefs: As a group, the teachers in the two studies displayed three patterns of change in their beliefs: The first pattern entailed a ‘superficial process’ showing a slight change or no change at all in some or all of the educational beliefs, holding mainly positivist and behaviorist-based pedagogical ideology and a regular use of direct instruction (Levin & Wadmany, 2006; Levin& BenAmarBaranga, 2005, 2007). This pattern was marked by: a low level of reflective behavior, a low tolerance for ambiguous situations, and a high tolerance for dissonance between expected and actual classroom processes. For an effective change, in this pattern, teachers valued the support of the principal, the university expert, or their school superintendent. This pattern is backed up by the teacher’s own voice:

Every teacher has to learn about computers and use them in teaching, if we want to stay in touch with our students. But the technology is not reliable… too many technical problems; it’s a waste of time

I have always been a good teacher- now I am better, because I have learned to look differently at things, to understand the students- the ways they learn and what do they like to do. ……I became more open-minded towards students’ needs.

In the past I delivered knowledge and I thought I am doing a good job”…Now it is more important for me how the students deal with texts, and I would like them to develop into more independent learners (more independent learning skills); I learn to listen to the students; and as a result I can explain better, make better links among ideas and concepts and I can grant students much more responsibility. The topic was not totally defined and I needed to change the course of my teaching…the goals of the project were only generally, defined were not clear enough…although it was difficult - I managed. Learning is an experiential process. My work on the interdisciplinary project had changed my view: it is not enough to learn

I like balanced situations: so I use new methods along with old ones and the students obtain and absorb information from a richer set of outside resources. The teacher must transmit knowledge; or at least be responsible for this aspect; She also has to take care of learning materials and make it available to students …

152

The second pattern of change pointed to a profound change away from a positivist ideology and towards a more relativistic one. The process was not radical, however. It involves ‘significant change’ in the teacher’s educational beliefs (holding combined epistemological views or more relativistic one), viewing technology as a tool capable of transforming learning; implementing a collaborative learning environment; appreciating learning from students and colleagues, and being strongly aware of the need for conceptual change regarding school learning. This pattern was characterized by a relatively high level of reflective behavior accompanied by low tolerance for ambiguous situations and low tolerance for dissonance, or by high tolerance for ambiguous situations and high tolerance for dissonance. These teachers support their change on the basis of interactions with other teachers. An example of such a profile is reflected in the teacher’s voice:

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

from experts, one can learn important things from fellow teachers and even from students. The third change pattern was a ‘radical process of change’ in which the teachers’ views shifted towards social or radical constructivist educational orientation, a realization that technology is a partner in teaching and learning, and using classroom practices that promote discovery learning, enhancing self-regulatory capabilities of both students and the teacher. This pattern was characterized: by a high level of reflective behavior, high tolerance for ambiguous situations, and low tolerance for dissonance. Such teachers felt empowered by their interactions with students and colleagues and are highly reflective professionals. The teacher’s voice makes this profile explicit: In the past I viewed teaching as “knowledge transmission”, whereas now I see teaching as a collaborative process of learning for both teachers and students. The teacher should be a learner: a teacher who reads (content and pedagogy), checks what is new, evaluates herself and is capable to learn by herself or with a colleague. Learning is as an active, meaning making, authentic process concerned with real-life issues like an’ infinite renewal’. It is important to be open, willing to learn and [able] to use the computer at home as well. I learned also to value students, as human beings, not only as learners or equal partners in some aspects. The new classroom practices established a new reality for me: I ask a question and the students don’t answer. There is [complete] silence. I used to see this silence as my personal failure - and became scared…until I realized it’s a new role now for me to play and so I did, realizing they need the time to think. It is similar to thinking when interacting with the computer. We are all partners in the learning process: the students, I and the computer.

Generally, the group findings show that after 3 years (study 1) or 4 years (in study 2) of working in technology-enhanced classrooms, the teachers exhibited considerably fewer positivist beliefs. The teachers all exhibited different individual patterns of change showing that technology means different things to different teachers, and the practices that their individual views generated led to quite different classroom practices.

changes in technology use Based on the categories suggested by ACOT research (Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997), three levels of change in technology use were noted: 1) change at the personal level includes the entry and adoption stages; 2) change at the teaching level is formed by the adaptation and appropriation stages; and 3) change at the leadership level contains the invention stage. Among the teachers in the two studies about similar numbers reached each of the three stages. The level of change in technology integration as reflected by the teachers’ patterns of using information technology generally matched their epistemological beliefs: teachers who hold constructivist orientation adopted technology for a learner-centered learning and teaching style, while those with more positivist epistemological and educational beliefs used technology mostly in a teacher-centered information delivery-transmission style. However, the results show diversity in the patterns of change among the teachers indicating that significant changes in the use of technology are not always preceded by changes in beliefs.

changes in classroom practices The results show that most teachers significantly changed their classroom practices, discarding direct instruction and adopting practices focusing on facilitating collaborative learning processes with greater emphasis on coaching, modeling,

153

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

reflection, and exploration. Nevertheless, out of the 14 teachers participating in the studies, inquiry learning was only used quite regularly in 3 cases— Hadasa’s elementary class (Levin & Wadmany, 2006) and Orli and Leah’s high school classes (Levin & BenAmarBaranga, 2005). These teachers’ students were encouraged to draw on personal experiences and prior knowledge and to discover relationships, discuss conflicting perspectives on knowledge, assess the social value of knowledge, and produce collaborative work. Three patterns of change in teacher classroom practice were noted in the two studies: The first pattern of chance involved ‘partial or no change’ and showed a strong emphasis on centralized, rigid lesson management, in which the teacher inflexibly followed a preplanned route and goals, emphasized specific contents rather than skills and mental processes, used low level questions to elicit specific responses, and used technology as a technical-instructional tool for accomplishing well-defined tasks. The second pattern of change demonstrated ‘significant change’. Here, although teachers played a central role in the classroom (pre-planned lessons and activities), they also encouraged students to assume active roles in classroom discourse, mainly class discussions, thus allowing students greater freedom to choose their mode of learning and task engagement. Teachers seemed to accept students’ computer expertise and encouraged them to use ICT as a supplementary learning tool: at elementary school level to search for information and at high school level to communicate knowledge in order to negotiate meaning and achieve a shared meaning of learned phenomena. The third pattern of change involved a ‘remarkable level of change’ and a high degree of flexibility in classroom practices, both in designing learning tasks and coordinating learning processes. At this level of change, teachers acted as learning facilitators rather than instructors, learning was mainly collaborative, and learning activities were authentic, creative, and varied.

154

The learning environment was also found to extend beyond the classroom walls. Students became involved in curriculum planning and were given enough freedom to develop and selfregulate their own learning capabilities. Both teachers and students used ICT in a variety of ways as a communicative exploration tool, and learning partner. Epistemological questions were only posed in two classrooms; however, in these classrooms the social value of knowledge was also discussed.

dIscussIon The results of the two studies showed that teachers’ educational beliefs change after three or four years in a technology-enhanced environment in which open-ended, rich information tasks and resources, most of which are inter-disciplinary, constantly challenge students and teachers. The results support Ertmer’s (2005) views that teachers’ beliefs can be changed even though educational beliefs are often considered permanent and difficult to alter despite the teachers’ own teaching related education and experiences (Pajares, 1992). It also confirms that belief systems can be dynamic, changing and restructured when individuals become open and interested in evaluating their beliefs against a new set of experiences (Thompson, 1992), and have consensual, shared goals. The findings therefore highlight the fact that teachers’ beliefs are shaped by everyday classroom and school experiences and support Argyris and Schon’s theory of action (1974) and Engestrom’s (1999) activity theory, which maintains that humans learn from their actions, and use what they learn to plan and carry out future actions, which all ultimately affect their beliefs and behaviors. The results also suggest that teachers’ beliefs and practices were ultimately influenced not just by the technology used, but also by the richness of the overall learning environment with its emphasis on non-structured tasks and rich technology-

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

based resources, and by their exposure to new educational vistas. The two studies also showed that educational change achieved through the use of information technology is individual and unique to every teacher. Despite working with groups of teachers in a supportive, dynamic learning community with a guiding culture, each teacher responded differently to the educationally innovative ideas presented through information technology in a technology-rich school environment. The results support findings in other studies, which attest to the diversified experiences of teachers and the difficulty in meaningfully changing beliefs about teaching and learning processes and classroom skills, even when teachers firmly believed change is necessary and positively seek to change their professional performance (Clandinin & Connely, 1996). This implies that the constructivist orientation to learning, which conceives learning as complex, interactive, changing, active, and situated, and which allows learners to individually construct their knowledge in a unique and meaningful way while confronting challenges and dilemmas, fears and excitement, is not only applicable to students, but to teachers as well (Levin, 1999). It is important, however, to emphasize that the changes in teachers’ beliefs did not occur simultaneously across all dimensions relevant to the change, even though a belief system is built on interconnections between specific beliefs. There are indications in the studies that some beliefs are easier to change than others: For example, the results demonstrate that it is easier for teachers to change their views of students and students’ roles in the learning process than to change their view to seeing learning as “knowledge transformation” rather than “knowledge accumulation” or to see technology as “a challenging learning partner” or “dialogical tool that empowers students and teachers” as opposed to a technical instrument that supports practices and enhances students’

knowledge: “a tool that serves as a master tutor”. These results concur with Rokeach (1968) who argued that beliefs differ in intensity and power and vary along a central-peripheral dimension: The more central the dimension, the greater its resistance to change. The studies also showed that while at the outset of the studies we could identify each teacher’s views quite clearly, during and at the end of the studies, most teachers could not be classified as holding any particular, consistent orientation. Instead, they seemed to change educational lenses, demonstrating multiple views rather than pure beliefs (Levin & Wadmany, 2006). The coexistence of contrasting views on learning and teaching held by individual teachers and a group of teachers may indicate differences in the dimensions of beliefs, which teachers simultaneously discern and focus upon. This supports Gunstones’ (1994) idea of “multiple conceptions” which argues that educational beliefs gradually change and that multiple conceptions co-exist during the transition. Rather than regard this as an inconsistency in their views we should see these views as complementary. This interpretation of the multiple-conception perspective confirms that learning and teaching are complex, multifaceted phenomena just like the environment with which learning individuals and communities interact. Finally, the studies show that we cannot and should not simply rely on teachers’ explicit statements regarding their beliefs or practices. In a period of transition, with teachers facing new educational ideologies and goals, they may not be aware of their own emergent beliefs. Alternatively, they may nurture multiple conceptions caused by feelings of insecurity at the prospect of relinquishing long-held beliefs, even if these are irrelevant in an era when information technology assumes its place as a well-respected part of our educational repertoire. It is therefore highly recommended that, in order to learn about teachers’ beliefs, a variety of tools should be

155

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

used besides teachers’ statements. Particularly spontaneous and planned metaphors, since these are rich instruments, which if recognized and used mindfully and in a multidimensional way, will help augment our understanding of teachers thoughts and feelings (Blair & Banaji, 1996). Metaphors of learning, teaching, and technology not only help one to explain processes involved in classroom learning, but they can also serve as tools to understand and transform the quality of classroom and school practices to cope with the cognitive, social, and motivational challenges in ICT-enhanced classrooms.

Implications Based on the results showing that the power to change does not rest with the technology itself but with the restructured individual and collective vision and experiences of teachers in technologyenhanced environment classrooms, I have characterized three different learning and teaching cultures observed in the classrooms of the two studies. These three cultures are described by their philosophical paradigms, teaching and learning orientations (views), and uses of technologies. Each culture shows where teachers and students are positioned in the epistemological and learning and teaching theoretical universe of a classroom. It also shows how technology reorganizes interactions between human and technological agencies, and how it affects the ways knowledge is transferred, produced, shared, and assessed. Such a classification can help teachers and educators to explore patterns of technology use in classrooms, and make conscious pedagogical decisions based on present and future expectations and ICT practices in schools. The proposed classification does not pretend to be exhaustive, but rather illustrates the three classrooms cultures observed during the two studies, and describes their underlying educational orientations and practices in more generalized terms.

156

Educational Orientations in ICT Enhanced Classrooms: Three Learning Cultures In the classification of the different learning and teaching cultures I use three well known philosophical paradigms: positivism, interpretivism, and critical pluralism, along with a typology of knowledge interests, offered by Habermas (1978): instrumental-technical, interpretive, and critical-emancipatory. Based on Kuhn (1970) I conceive paradigms as ideological frameworks that are founded on congruent and logical thinking patterns supporting common assumptions and influenced and gradually changing by historical, sociological, psychological and educational forces. Thus, in the classification, theories on the meanings and processes of teaching, learning and information technology are interpreted within each of the (different) paradigms, pointing to their metaphoric expressions and underlying theories. I asked teachers to describe their beliefs using metaphors because metaphors serve as a filter of people’s perceptions, have a powerful influence upon people beliefs, shape their perspectives and actions, and provide concrete and unique insights, which are often not visible in other representations of meaning (Knowles, 1994; Hamilton, 2000). The following three classroom cultures were identified: A.

B.

Positivist-based culture: This culture strengthens the teacher’s power and improves student skills with additional instructional tools by emphasizing performance relating to pre-determined traditional educational goals using interactive multimedia resources. In this culture, ICT’s role is to teach and learn “from ICT.” Interpretive culture: This culture empowers classroom discourse and teacher and student competencies, focusing mainly on collaboration and multiple perspectives in an attempt to develop personal knowledge

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

C.

and skills. In terms of ICT roles, this culture reflects teaching and learning “about and with ICT.” Critical-pluralist culture: This culture challenges knowledge and teacher and student capabilities and identities by creating knowledge communities and stimulating personal and social insights, competencies, expectations and social norms. In terms of ICT usages it reflects learning “with and beyond ICT.”

A. Positivist-Based Culture This culture can be characterized as a resourceenriched, traditional classroom environment. Teaching and learning differ only slightly from traditional classrooms by the addition of ICT to their instructional resources, mainly for the ICT’s multimedia tools. Emphasis is thus on the expert, either teacher or technology, controlling the teaching and learning process, and directing student or teacher behavior to achieve predetermined ends. Technology is perceived as a tool for practicing knowledge, skills, or capabilities, but disregards specific contextual conditions, while focusing instead on the efficiency and effectiveness with which predefined objectives can be achieved. The positivist-based culture is aligned with Habermas’ technical knowledge interest (Habermas, 1978) and reflects a belief in the positivist paradigm, which views reality as objective, fragmented, and compartmentalized, and whose goal in terms of teaching is to predict and control. This culture is a product of the “scientific” method, which assumes that educational sciences are governed by a set of universal laws that recognizes positive facts and observable “objective” phenomena. Thus, knowledge is given and absolute, value free and objective, and is acquired by adopting an objective distance from the world. In such a dualistic culture, subjectivity and practice are invisible, and the social construction of the world is hidden in the background.

This culture is characterized by three major principles of teaching and learning: 1) The nature of the relationship between student and teacher and/or technology is monologic, where a set of predetermined goals dictate students’ expectations and experiences; 2) Reflection by teachers and students is limited to technical decision making, 3) Beyond the predefined ends, this culture’s educational impact on the students and teachers is minimal, leading to no collaborative inquiry into their learning and teaching experiences. Where this culture is present, teaching is described metaphorically as “telling” (Bullough, 1992); “knowledge transmission” (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992), and “banking” (Freire, 1970). Metaphors of “transfer” (filling empty vessels and minds), and “shaping” metaphors (raw material and minds) are also used (Fox, 1983). Such metaphors imply that the teaching-learning process is a one-way exchange in which teachers possessing power, authority, and expertise exert control over students. Knowledge is believed to exist in the head of the teacher who is trained to deposit information into students’ heads. This culture’s proponents see students as passive learners and tend to overlook opportunities for students to become actively, creatively and critically engaged with the material they are learning. This fits in well with the acquisition metaphor that is based on the cognitive approach to learning, and which characterizes the learning process as something that happens inside the individual’s mind, and stresses the role of mental models or schemata in learning (Sfard, 1998), often without recognizing the importance of the learning context. In terms of the social aspects of this classroom culture, each student performs his or her own role and actions, which are scripted or predetermined. It is therefore not surprising that a student is viewed here as ‘a product’ (Sirvanci, 1996), ‘a consumer’ of information, ‘a customer’ (Tovote, 2001); or ‘an ‘employee’ (Helms & Key, 1994).

157

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

In the positivist-based classroom culture, technology is perceived as a means of practicing knowledge, skills, understanding, and competency, and the context is not considered particularly relevant. The emphasis is on technology controlling and predicting student or teacher behavior and learning so that they conform to a predetermined end. Thus ICT is viewed as an external “operator” or cultural tool to learn from (Maddux et al 1997). Metaphorically, in the positivist-based classroom culture, ICT can be viewed as either a master or a servant (Galbraith et al, 2001), or an interactive magazine (Wiske et al., 1998). In this culture, technology is seen as a supplementary tool that amplifies cognitive processes but is not used in creative ways to change the nature of classroom activities. It is also viewed as a learning tool that serves a finite, well-defined, authoritative, informational-base, helps with a given task, or upgrades a less dynamic instructional tool. It often helps to manage and direct learning and learners by showing the “right” way to do things. It also frequently enables repetitive practices and supports preferred and traditional teaching methods, aiming to teach expert domain knowledge (Koedinger & Anderson, 1997). In this context, both students and teachers are subservient to the technology.

B. Interpretive Culture The interpretive culture is a manifestation of teachers’ and students’ needs to understand themselves and others. It seeks to improve teaching and learning practices by applying the personal wisdom of the participants. It is aligned with Habermas’ practical knowledge interest (Habermas, 1978) and draws from the historical-hermeneutic sciences. Its focus is not on discovering universal laws but on gaining a holistic understanding of classroom experiences. It examines individual and group interpretations of reality within specific contexts, and is sensitive to historical, societal, and cultural factors. The use of technology in the

158

teaching and learning processes is thus perceived as a means for allowing students and teachers to develop personal meaning by cooperatively discussing knowledge and the relationship between learning task components. Reality in this culture is seen as constructed, multiple, and holistic (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), and learners as controlling their own meaning. Therefore, both teachers and students are viewed as having different realities, and their opportunities to reflect on their life experiences are seen essential to facilitating their development. Knowledge is conceived as interpretive understanding constructed in a process of mutual negotiation and communication, which affects the development of each individual: students and teachers alike. Experts can facilitate knowledge but are not prerequisite authorities for learners to learn from, given students’ own reflections and negotiations with information technologies and equal others. The interpretive culture is characterized by three major principles of teaching and learning: 1) The relationship is “dialogic”: students, teachers and technologies enter into dialogue to gain an understanding of the goals, processes, strategies, and competencies established for them and other related learning issues; 2) The teaching-learning experiences encourage students to question the processes that they pursue in their efforts to improve their learning experiences and accomplishments, 3) Teachers’ and students’ reflections are based on their personal perspectives, which also affect their voice and personal growth. Viewed from the interpretative culture perspective, teaching is often metaphorically conceived as gardening (McKenzie. 2004), implying a natural view of the teaching-learning process. Although the teacher must nourish the soil, eliminate the weeds, and do all the hard work that creates a nurturing learning environment, this metaphor recognizes students as living beings with realities of their own. Another metaphor representing this culture is teaching as a guided journey of learn-

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

ing (Block, 1992). This perspective recognizes the superior knowledge and experience of the teacher, but also acknowledges the mutuality of the learning process. The teacher and his/her students experience the adventure of the journey together. The teacher may have been down the same path more often and may know more, but he or she is also a potential learner. Learning is viewed as a participatory activity (Sfard, 1998) in which students search for meaning in a collaborative interactive process with a view to constructing and maintaining a shared understanding. Learning is thus a process in which students and teachers focus on a shared problem and try to find a mutually acceptable ways to conceptualize it, either through resolving cognitive conflict in the individuals’ minds by constructing new conceptual structures and understanding (Piaget, 1972), or by engaging in collaborative activities, which facilitate development that could not have happened without such collaboration (Vygotsky, 1978). In other words, students develop by becoming members of a community and by acquiring the skills to communicate, and act according to that community’s socially negotiated norms (Lave & Wenger 1991). These aspects of the participation metaphor focus on shared learning activities and personal outcomes. In this culture, technology helps teachers and students to understand the environment through interaction based on a consensual interpretation of meaning, in other words, based on negotiation and communication. Technology is thus viewed as a partner (Galbraith et al, 2001) or a cultural tool to “learn from” and “learn with” (Jonassen, 1999; Boethel & Dimock, 1999). Students and teachers interact directly with the technology, treating it almost as a human partner that responds to their commands, and a learning partner capable of challenging teaching, thinking and learning. Being involved mainly with ill-structured problems, ICT is viewed as a medium through which students and teachers can and must negotiate meaning and achieve a shared knowledge conceptualiza-

tion based on interaction, collaboration, and interpretation. Metaphorically, technology can be associated with the “journey over the rainbow bridge”; a journey into higher awareness and understanding (Seale, 2006) that fosters an understanding of the value of different viewpoints regarding rationales and solutions. As long as the goal (building the bridge) is agreed, students will work together to resolve conflicts out of which new practices and shared understandings will emerge. Here, technology is creatively used to increase students and teachers’ power over their learning (Templer et al, 1998) by providing access to new kinds of tasks or new ways of approaching existing tasks. This cognitive reorganization effect may involve using technology to facilitate understanding or to explore different perspectives, finally arriving at a shared understanding between students and students and between students and teachers.

C. Critical-Pluralist Culture While sharing most of the assumptions of the interpretative paradigm, this culture considers unequal power positions detrimental to critical analysis and the development of individuals and groups, and to the development of insight into oppressive forces. This culture describes how societal structures and emerging knowledge, attitudes, assumptions and myths of individual students groups influence views of individuals and groups. Aligned with the Habermasian notion of emancipatory knowledge (Habermas, 1978), the critical-pluralist culture challenges both knowledge and social structures. It reflects a fundamental interest in the individual’s emancipation and their empowerment to engage in autonomous action as a result of gaining authentic and critical insights into the social construction of human society. Therefore, within the critical-pluralist culture, learning situations are structured so that power relations between learners, teachers, and technologies are more equal.

159

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

With their foundations in pluralist and evaluative epistemology, teaching and learning move away from causal linear processes. This culture holds a broader view of knowledge and society and of the interconnections between humans and their reality. It acknowledges the process of discovery, which draws not only on knowledge and skills but also on insight and intuition. Knowledge is thus viewed from multiple perspectives and its value assessed in terms of its contribution to social fairness and equality. This knowledge grows through collaboration with other people and technologies both “inside” and “outside” the classroom. Concerned as it is with the moral and ethical dimensions of human action, experiences are sought that help to lead people towards lives of equity, caring, and compassion (Gore & Zeichner, 1991). Teaching and learning processes in a criticalpluralist culture share three main characteristics: 1) The nature of the relationship is trialogic, in other words, students, teachers and technologybased activities not only engage in dialogue aimed at questioning, understanding, challenging, and creating new collaborative knowledge, but also seek to alter the traditional power hierarchy dividing authoritative resources, teachers, and students; 2) Students think critically about their learning goals, processes, competencies, strategies, and social relationships, and they observe and judge the social and political contexts of their classroom and the context implied values; 3) Learning processes are structured to challenge the institutional structures of school life. According to the critical-plural paradigm teaching is a process that promotes knowledge creation (Paavola et al, 2004) and facilitates student and teacher development, while focusing on personal, group, and knowledge growth in order to help students develop as intellectual, critical, and autonomous lifelong learners. Teaching is metaphorically described as a collaborative coaching process emphasizing a collaborative mentoring approach. Team members work in-group settings

160

to achieve learning outcomes that allow them to perform competently in the world outside the classroom. Teachers are conceived metaphorically as coaches, mediators, or resources to be consulted in building up students’ individual understanding (Reeves, 2001). They are also partners in creating and assessing emergent new knowledge. Their roles are to motivate, encourage, challenge, learn, and inspire students to achieve their potential as learners and a community, inside and beyond the school, with and without the use of ICT. However, since sometimes coaching might assume that the facilitator takes a superior position, which does not fit in with the equal partner view of the pluralistic paradigm, an alternative teaching metaphor might be “learning”, in which the teacher is a wholehearted learning partner. Learning in this culture is conceived as a process of participating in cultural practices, creating new knowledge and ideas of value to a community, and at the same time challenging social values. As such it adds something to the interpretist culture’s conception of learning. Learning in the critical-pluralist culture is based on activity theory. Therefore, metaphorically, learning is viewed as knowledge creation (Paavola et al, 2004), reflecting a process of dynamic and innovative collaborative inquiry where the individual’s initiative is embedded in fruitful social and institutional practices for developing shared objects of activity (like texts, conceptual artifacts, or practices) and where both objects and scripts are co-conceptualized. In other words, the mutual engagement with knowledge is a process of reflective communication within a framework of knowledge communities. Learning is thus a re-culturative process (Brufee, 1993) that helps students become members of knowledge communities or knowledge interaction networks, whose common property differs from the common property of the knowledge communities to which they already belong. In a critical-pluralist culture, discussion and collaboration are valued for building a climate of

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

intellectual challenge, which means that teaching and learning processes focus on advancing knowledge, transforming social practices, and developing expertise. The student is expected to develop into a self-directed learner who is sensitive to the task, the group, the learning process, and the social dimensions of this emerging process. Thus for the individual student or teacher, learning is a process of mutual engagement and co-construction of knowledge, which takes place through one’s increasing ability and sensitivity to take account of other peoples’ perspectives. Learning is also a matter of participation in a social process of knowledge construction in which knowledge emerges through a network of interactions and is distributed and mediated between all interacting humans and tools (Cole and Wertsch, 1996). Consistent with the pluralist, socio-cultural, and critical perspectives, technology is used not only to help students and teachers construct meaning for them, but also to reach a critical understanding of how this is done. Technology thus engages students in judging their own learning or their teachers’ work and fosters critical analysis aimed at transforming the educational practices, understandings, and values of those involved in the learning process. More specifically, in this culture, ICT is used to amplify, communicate, re-organize, reconstruct, and evaluate cognitive as well as social and emotional processes through their integration in the discursive practices of the knowledge community. Technology therefore serves as a cultural tool that challenges the knowledge, capabilities, attitudes, and identities of individuals and groups, so that the epistemological values and discourse conventions of the wider learning community are enacted and challenged. Metaphorically, technology is conceived as the most sophisticated mode of working/functioning, in which students and teachers incorporate technological expertise as an integral part of their own competencies and knowledge. ICT is considered a

cultural tool that expands students and teachers’ minds. The partnership between students and technology also seems to merge into a single identity, so that technology is used to support student learning and intellectual challenges as naturally as their own intellectual resources, rather than exist as a third entity. Therefore, metaphorically it is also viewed as an extension of the learner self (Galbraith et al, 2001). This view links technology use with autonomy and creativity and blurs the boundaries between mind and technology. In this critical-pluralist-culture the potential uses of technology are only limited by the human mind. ICT is therefore conceived as a transforming agent with a role in the interaction between all cultural tools, the general-social environment, the school environment and the people involved. Finally, these three classroom cultures demonstrate that the enculturation of teachers into ICTenriched classrooms involves a rich and complex dialogue between “old” and “new”, “internal” and “external”, “me” and “others”, “individual and collective”, “insiders” and “outsiders, “cognitive” and “social”, “sharing” and “inventing, “analyzing” and “making sense”, “simple” and “complex” and “clear” and “fuzzy”. This dialogue describes a transformation zone (Bresler, 2003)—a space where teachers’ knowledge, experience, beliefs and emotions interact to create new meaning and understandings through the process of their own inquiry. I believe that in this era of pluralistic societies and information technology rich as it is in expectations, demands, dreams, literacies, and realities, the dialogical skills involved in transforming teachers’ beliefs, competencies, and behaviors characterize their most important professional literacy skills.

reFerences ACOT, Apple Class of Tomorrow, (2001). Teacher-centered staff development. Available at http://www.apple.com/education/k12/staffdev/ tchrcenterstaff..html 161

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

Argyris, C., & Schon, D., (1978). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Albion, P.R., (2003). Graduating teachers’ dispositions for integrating information and communications technologies into their teaching. Retrieved July 2004, from http://www.usq.edu.au/users/ albion/papers/site03/3756.pdf Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions correct? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Block, D. (1992). Metaphors we teach and learn by. Prospect, 7(3), 42-55. Boethel, M & Dimock,, K. V.(1999). Constructing knowledge with technology. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. http:// www.sedl.org/pubs/tec27/10.html Bresler, L. (2003) The role of musicianship and music education in the twenty-first century. In S. Leong (Ed.), Musicianship in the 21st Century: Issues, Trends and Possibilities. Sydney, Austalia: Australian Music Centre. Bruenjes, L.S. (2002). A multi-case study investigating the disposition of faculty use of technology as a teaching and learning tool in the higher education classroom. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Lowell. UMI 3041377. Brufee, K, A.. (1993). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press Bullough, R. V., (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision-making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 239-252. Burkhardt, H, Fraser, R., & Ridgeway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Development in school math-

162

ematics education around the world (vol. 2, pp. 3-29). Reston, VA: NCTM. Burton, D. B. (2003). Technology Professional Development: A Case Study. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(2), 2378-2381. Caravita, S. and O. Hallden (1994). ”Re-framing the Problem of Conceptual Change.” Learning and Instruction, 4, 89-111. Clandinin, D .J, & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ Professional Knowledge Landscapes: Teachers Stories - Stories of Teachers - School Stories - Stories of Schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30. Cole, M. & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussion of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250-256. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. & Peck, C. (2001) High access and low use of technologies in High School classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813-834. Cuban L. & Tyack, D.B. (1995) Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. Doolittle, P E (1999) Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education. 16(1), 23–46. Engestrom, E., Y. Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press Ertmer, P.E.A. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (1), 54-72. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. Fang, 1996). Fang, Z. (1996). A Review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47-65. Fishbein, M, A. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Fox, D. (1983). Personal Theories Of Teaching. Studies in Higher Education. 8 (2), 151–163. Knowles, J. G. (1994). Metaphors as windows on a personal history: A beginning teacher’s experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(1), 37-66. Lakoff, G, & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Gore, J.M. & Zeichner, K.M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119-136. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of Metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, Gunstone, R.F., White, R.T., The Content of Science: A Constructivist Approach to its Teaching and Learning. London: Falmer Press. Habermas, J. (1987). Knowledge and Human Interests. Shapiro, J. (Trans.). London: Polity Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing.

Hamilton, A. (2000). Metaphor in Theory and Practice: the Influence of Metaphors on Expectations. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24(4), 237-253.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Helms, S., & Key, C. H. (1994). Are students more than customers in the classroom? Quality Progress, 27(9), 97–99.

Fullan, M, (1999). Change Forces: the Sequel. London: Falmer Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1997). Going deeper and wider in the quest for success. In Hargreaves, A. (Ed). Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., Goos, M. & Geiger, V. (2001). Integrating technology in mathematics learning: What some students say. In J. Bobis, B. Perry & M. Michael Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond: Proceedings of the 24nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 223-230). Sydney, Australia: MERGA. Glanz, J. (1998). Action research: An educational leader’s guide to action research. Norwood MA: Christopher-Gordon. Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers‘ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447-464.

Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40-73. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., Wilson, B. G., & Pfeiffer, W. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Judson, E. (2006). How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About Learning: Is

163

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

There a Connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597 Kember, D. & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5– 6), 469–490. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Illustrating principled design: The early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 161-179. Knapp, L. R., & Glenn, A. D. (1996). Restructuring schools with technology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structures of scientific revolutions (2nd Ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press Levin, T. (2008, March 23-28). A Dialogical Perspective on ICT and School Change: Interpreting Relations between the Individual, Social, and Cultural Dimensions. Paper presented at the AERA conference, New York. Levin T. (1999). The Non linear Curriculum. In Sharan, S., Shachar, H. and Levin, T. The Innovative School: Organization and Instruction. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc. Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of teachers and students in rich-technology-based classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 281-307. Levin, T., & BenAmarBaranga. (2005, March 1-5). Patterns of Change in a School and among its Teachers. SITE 2005--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference held in Phoenix, AZ.

164

Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ Views on Learning Teaching and Technology use in Rich technology-based Classrooms: A Developmental Perspective. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39 (2), 159-183. Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ Views on Factors Affecting Effective Integration of Information Technology in the Classroom: Developmental Scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 16(2), 233-263 Levin, T. & BenAmarBaranga, C. (2007, July 1214). ICT and school change: A Dialogue between Changes at the School and the Individual Teacher Level. Paper presented at ICICTE conference, Crete, Greece. Lim, C. P. & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97–125. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.), pp. 163-188. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press Maddux, C.D., Johnson, D.L., & Willis, J.W. (1997). Educational Computing: Learning With Tomorrow’s Technology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Marton F. (1986) Phenomenography–A research approach to investigating different understanding of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–49 McKenzie, J. (2004). Stuffing technology into the curriculum. The Educational Technology Journal, 13(8), 1-6. Retrieved November 4, 2004, from http://www.fno.org/jun04/stuffit.html

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319-341. Pajares, M. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of Innovative knowledge Communities and Three metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research 74(4), 557-576. Prawat, R.S. (1992). Teacher’s Beliefs about Teaching and Learning: A Constructivist Perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-394. Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Available from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J,D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-325. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student– centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Semple, A. (2000). Learning Theories and their influence of the development and use of educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46 (3), 21-28. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4-13.

Sirvanci, 1996 Sirvanci, M. (1996). Are students the true customers of higher education? Quality Progress, 29(10), 99–102. Slough, S. W., Chamblee, G. E. (2000). Implementing technology in secondary science and mathematics classrooms: A perspective on change. Proceeding of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego, 1-3, 1021-1026. Schwandt, T. A. (1994) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,. Tearle, P. (2004) Implementation of ICT in UK secondary schools. Presented at Becta Research Conference, Coventry, UK. Thompson, A. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 127-146) New York: MacMillan. Tovote, C. (2001, August). Customer or refined student? Reflections on the “customer” metaphor in the academic environment and the new pedagogical challenge to the libraries and librarians. Paper presented at the 67th International Federation of Library Associations General Conference, Boston, MA. Templer, R., Klug,, D., & Gould, I. (1998). Mathematics laboratories for Science Graduates. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the Mathematics Curriculum (pp. 140-154). London: Falmer Press. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Why constructivism must be radical. In M. Larochelle, Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 23–28). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

165

Re-Culturing Beliefs in Technology

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Metaphors: Comparisons between two things that are not alike in most ways, based on resemblance or similarity

Wiske, S. Booth Sweeney, L & Moore, J. (1998). Education with New Technologies: Rationale for the Design of an Online Learning Environment. Retrieved from: http://learnweb. harvard.edu/ent/library/avdreport_feb.html

Teachers’ Educational Beliefs: A tacit set of assumptions or generalizations that teachers hold on various educational processes

Key terMs And deFInItIons Classroom Culture: Critical features of classroom life that characterize its educational “personality” and reflect both tacit and explicit educational values, beliefs and processes concerning the meaning of learning, teaching, knowledge, technology, student and teacher roles, power and responsibilities.

166

Technology-Enriched Environments: Classrooms, in which open-ended, rich information tasks and resources, most of which use a range of technologies or digital tools in interactive, multi-media and inter-disciplinary formats, which constantly challenge students and teachers Technology Integration: Effective and meaningful uses of diversified kinds of technologies in the cirriculum and in classroom experiences that are practiced by both teachers and students to support learning and instruction.

167

Chapter XI

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia Piret Luik University of Tartu, Estonia

AbstrAct Developing effective educational software requires an understanding of the complexity of multimedia components. The relationship between the characteristics of learning multimedia and learning outcomes of students is explored in two studies carried out in Estonia with multimedia textbooks and multimedia drills. Included are those characteristics likely to be effective for all students, boys, girls, high-achieving students, and low achieving students. Concluding recommendations based on the results of these studies should be useful for teachers and for developers of multimedia software.

IntroductIon Educational software is used extensively in many schools all over the world. Comparisons of data supporting the effectiveness of educational software indicate that learning is enhanced by some but not all programs. Every teacher wants to use the best educational software but deciding which one is the best is challenging. Experimenting with educational software of unknown quality runs the risk of being useless or even detrimental to student learning. Prognostication based on correlations between the characteristics of edu-

cational software in concrete learning conditions and results in terms of student learning would be valuable in the selection and use of programs in the classroom. Knowledge of these relationships would also be useful for software designers who are interested in guaranteeing high product quality. If they know that specific characteristics of educational software influence learning, they can strategically design programs that incorporate the effective characteristics. The relationship between the characteristics of learning multimedia and learning outcomes of students are considered in this chapter.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

The aims of the chapter are as follows: 1.

2.

3.

To describe the characteristics of educational software that are effective in terms of student learning; To analyse the characteristics of effective educational software to determine gender differences; To analyse the characteristics of effective educational software to determine differences in terms of high-achieving students versus low-achieving students.

The chapter is organized into three parts. The structure of the chapter is as follows: Part one provides definitions and descriptions of multimedia and describes its components – text, static graphics, animations, sounds and video. Part two presents the results of prior research on the effectiveness of some characteristics of learning multimedia. Part three includes a discussion of the effective characteristics of learning multimedia, according to two investigations carried out by the author in Estonia with multimedia textbooks and drills. The effective characteristics of learning multimedia for all students, for boys, for girls, for high- and for low-achieving students are compared in this part. Recommendations based on findings are included.

MultIMedIA And Its coMponents As computers became available to schools and as various media for the computer were developed, educational software programs for students in the classroom came to the mainstream as a way to enhance student learning. Various elements of media (text, sound, static graphics, animation, video) were incorporated in educational software. Multimedia could be defined in different ways. Laurentiis (1993) defines multimedia as a means to display text, graphics, animation and video

168

with sound. Brett (1998) states that multimedia is a computer-delivered combination of communication elements (text, sound, pictures, photos, animations and video). Different elements of communication are combined and linked and therefore the multimedia message may be greater than the sum of the individual parts. Dubois and Vial (2000) note that a multimedia presentation uses different media in conjunction with each other. Gyselink et al. (2000) assert that multimedia usually consists of connections of various types of information: verbal (words, sentences or short text), presented in either visual or auditory formats; pictorial (illustrations, photos, graphics), presented visually in either a statica or animated way, and sound. Uden and Campion (2000) maintain that despite the typical conception of multimedia as interactive learning, it is also associated with traditional learning principles. Many aspects of multimedia are different from sequential, computer-based learning and hypertext. Goyne et al. (2000) recommend that learning multimedia should capitalize on aspects that support learning but are not available in traditional learning materials; for example, computer software programs can accommodate both visual and auditory learners. Boyle (1997) declares that text could be one of the most effective components of learning multimedia. Text has a great influence and it does not matter if it is presented on the paper or on the computer screen. According to some researchers, text in multimedia materials is not so easily processed as printed text. This point of view is based on some evidence of disorientation, non-tangibility, lack of resolution, and lack of experience (Cassie, 2003). On the other hand, Matthew (1997) states that electronically presented text enables multisensory learning that allows mutual influence of both text and illustration. The comprehensibility of electronic text might therefore be better than in the case of the printed text. Electronic text could be hypertext as well. Hyperlinks enable one to choose the content and

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

sequence of learning materials, change original documents, and involve students in the creation of activities (Barab et al., 1999; Lawless et al., 2003). A learner may decide which material is essential for him/her and which sequence and manner is most suitable to construct his/her own text (Rouet, 2000; Lawless et al., 2003). Students are promoted from reader to reader/author and thereby take responsibility for the implementation of learning goals (Reinking, 1997; Barab et al., 1999; Lawless et al., 2003). It requires not only understanding of the information presented, but also an understanding of which information is needed and in what sequence (Lawless et al., 2003). Besides text, graphics are another important multimedia component (Boyle, 1997). Graphics promote learning because the rate of retrieval of dually coded information is greater than either stand-alone text or visuals. According to Pavio’s theory (Szabo & Poohkay, 1996; Mayer, 2003), verbal and pictorial information is treated separately in the memory. Textual and visual (illustrations, diagrams, drawings etc.) materials are processed through different reception channels (Dubois & Vial, 2000; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Graphical presentation is more effective than presentation with text only, because textual information is retained mostly in the form of sentences while images are stored both visually and in the form of sentences. Because graphical presentation enables dual coding (Dubois & Vial, 2000), information portrayed is more efficiently stored in memory (Szabo & Poohkay, 1996; Mayer, 2003; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). The computer enables the presentation of information through movement and graphical change – animation. With animation, a series of graphics rotate quickly, thus creating the effect of movement (Szabo & Poohkay, 1996). Weiss et al. (2002) recommend the use of animation to describe complex procedures and concepts or to illustrate moving systems that are not possible to see in reality (for example, modelling movement of electrons). A behaviourist point of view is that

animation clues the construction of associations between verbal and nonverbal multimedia components (Szabo & Poohkay, 1996). Several authors (e.g. Boyle, 1997; Baxter & Preece, 1999; Lawless et al., 2003) claim that learning multimedia is effective because it uses sound and video, which is not possible for printed media. Goyne et al. (2000) states that video and sound make imagination real to the learner and provide more opportunity for learning when compared to printed media. Interactive video and sound is especially effective (Boyle, 1997). Riding and Grimley (1999) single out flexibility as an effective feature of learning multimedia. An example of flexibility would be the incorporation of choice as to the form of a presentation (text, graphic, sound, video). Learning multimedia therefore recommends itself as possibly more suitable than printed media for students with different learning styles. The question is how to combine these media elements in ways that are instructive and coherent (Laurentiis, 1993; Najjar, 1996).

hoW to study WhIch chArActerIstIcs oF leArnIng MultIMedIA Are eFFIcIent Since the late 1960s, researchers have been investigating the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), including the use of educational software and multimedia, in comparison with traditional methods of instruction. The findings of most of these studies suggest that CAI is sometimes effective in achieving study aims, but not all results have been positive. In some circumstances, traditional instruction resulted in greater learning outcomes than CAI (e.g. Liao, 1992; Najjar, 1996; Weller, 1996; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 1998). Teh and Fraser (1995) note that results are contradictory when circumstances of the studies are not the same. Among other factors, design of the educational software does

169

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

make a difference (McCoy, 1996; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 1998). As computers began to be used in schools throughout the United States in the early 1980s, there have been questions about the quality of educational software (Buckleitner, 1999; Higgins, 2000). Over the years, guidelines for developing and evaluating educational software have been devised and publicized. Singer’s publication “How do teacher and student evaluations of CAI software compare?” in The Computing Teacher was published in 1983. In this paper the author suggests publishing results of the use of educational software in schools to inform selection and use of programs (Higgins, 2000). According to ERIC, the greatest number of studies from 1982 to 1986 regarding the effectiveness of educational software came from such studies (Buckleitner, 1999) and such studies continue. There were 704 studies in the ERIC database using keywords ‘multimedia and education and evaluation’ and there has been rapid growth of studies in this category since 1999 (Luik, 2004). In education, researchers target particular characteristics of educational software including learning multimedia. Most investigations compare learning outcomes in a context that includes two or more forms of each characteristic studied. Various approaches abound; for example some researchers use student evaluations. Overall however, a large number studies tend to fall into one of two groups: gender differences and ability levels. The research of Hood and Togo (1993/94) studied gender differences in the use of tables and graphic format. That of McGrath (1992) focused on learner control and spatial ability. Research results and multimedia designer recommendations are sometimes in conflict when considering the concrete characteristics of multimedia. For example Lai (1998) and Nicholls & Merkel (1996) compare the efficiency of static and animated graphics. Lai found that students who learned with static graphics received significantly higher scores, but Nicholls and Merkel found a

170

significant advantage for subjects in the animated condition. One reason for the contradictory results could be the complexity of learning multimedia characteristics. Uden and Campion (2000) assert that different combinations of different characteristics make a difference. Characteristics interact and influence each other, suggesting that whole sets of the characteristics need to be investigated. The aim of the research conducted in Estonia was to examine all the known characteristics of learning multimedia that contribute to the learning outcome of students. For this purpose, 35 units from 6 different multimedia textbooks and 34 units from 27 drills were analysed from many aspects. The aim of the analysis was to determine the value of each characteristic of learning multimedia related to student learning. The basis for selecting characteristics for the study were derived from previous studies (e.g. Mayer & Gallini, 1990; Liao, 1992; Caftori, 1994; McCoy, 1996; Higgins, 2000), from handbooks on educational software (Boyle, 1997; Phillips, 1997; Alessi & Trollip, 2001), and from textbook research (Mikk, 2000). 136 different characteristics of multimedia textbooks (48 about the manipulation, 40 about the layout, 21 about the text, 24 about the self-control and 3 about the possibilities of the electronic textbook) and 145 characteristics of drills (42 about the manipulation, 11 about the possibilities of the drill, 30 about the presentation of information, 21 about the questions, 8 about the responding and 33 about the feedback) were analyzed. Effective characteristics of multimedia textbooks were found for 10th grade students (age 16-17) while effective characteristics of drills were found for 3rd grade students (age 9-10). The procedure of the investigation follows: First, students’ prior knowledge was measured through pre-tests before instruction through computer software programs. Next students were given the opportunity to learn content and concepts included in a multimedia textbook unit or to practice a skill in a drill. All the students

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

worked with the same units. Time on task was not limited for student use of the software programs, but only 15 minutes were provided for practice with the drills. After completion of the computer time or the drills, students were given post-tests, the results of which provided evidence of learning. Learning outcomes were determined for all students, for boys and girls and for high-achieving and low-achieving students. The tests used in these investigations were written by the expert (teacher) of the particular subject. A second teacher reviewed the tests and made corrections where needed. The second teacher and a student checked to see whether or not answers to the test questions could be answered based on information in the educational software. Reliability of the tests was determined by Cronbach’s alpha (.72 or higher), and the validity of the tests was checked by experts in the subject matter. SPSS 11.5 for Windows and Statistica 6.1 were used for the data analysis. The Pearson correlation analysis revealed a significant relationship between students' pre-test and post-test scores. Due to the significant correlation, pre-test scores were used as a covariate to adjust post-test means. The adjusted post-test scores were used as the learning outcomes in these investigations. The main aim of the research was to find the characteristics of educational software, which are related to the learning outcomes of different student groups (all students, boys, girls, high-and low-achieving students). To reach this goal, Spearman rank correlations between the values of the characteristics and mean adjusted post-test scores of these student groups were calculated. Also ANOVA was used for data analysis. Both studies lasted one academic year. Because it is possible that students in the study were not initially comfortable with learning multimedia; the relationship between the number of sequences of learning multimedia and the mean adjusted post-test score was determined. There was no evidence that the number of sequences of learn-

ing multimedia was related to the mean adjusted post-test score (linear correlation coefficient with sequences of multimedia textbooks r = -.12, p > .05 and the sequences of drill r = .01; p > .05).

eFFectIve chArActerIstIcs oF leArnIng MultIMedIA Summary conclusions of the two investigations carried out in Estonia together with those from previous studies provide recommendations that can be useful for teachers who are designing their own multimedia learning experiences, PowerPoint presentations, web pages, etc. and for the selection and use of programs available through different vendors. These recommendations are divided into five subgroups: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Characteristics of motivating the learner, such as competition, main character, playfulness; Characteristics of learner control, such as number, type, familiarity, placement of menus, buttons, icons; Characteristics of the presentation of information, such as number and types of media, number and type of graphics together with their connection to learning, colors (of graphics, background and text, number of colors), and text (style, font, size), placement of information; Characteristics of the questions-responses, such as type of questions, number and grouping of questions, modes of response (mouse, keyboard, or both), time given for response, economy of response (how many operations are needed for entering the answer); Characteristics of the feedback, such as types of feedback (corrective or affirmative, with text or sound) and hints.

The subgroups were selected according to previous studies and were grouped in a way that

171

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

172

.35* -.38* .05 .06 .09 .62 Attractiveness of the drill (median of expert opinions on 5-point scale)

1.04

.49** -.42** .09 .12 .16 .76 Utilisation of computer capabilities (median of expert opinions on 5-point scale)

.97 .71 Interesting realisation of the drill (median of expert opinions on 5-point scale)

.85

.36* -.39* .09 -.05

-.44* -.30 -.35* Multimedia drills

-.39* .15 Competition against oneself

Characteristic’s Name

.07

.07

Correlation with low-achieved students post-test score Correlation with high-achieved students posttest score Correlation with girls’ post-test score Correlation with boys’ post-test score Correlation with all students post-test score

It is often assumed that learning multimedia should be engaging to students. There are many ways to interest students through the unique features of learning multimedia (McCoy 1996, Goyne et al. 2000; Alessi & Trollip 2001). For example, Najjar (2001) suggests that according to his studies, learners are engaged through the use of metaphors, analogies, personal style, and connecting the content with the interests and needs of learners. The author (Najjar, 2001) declares that multimedia is motivating by itself because of its novelty, but that the motivating effect expires over time. On the other hand, Caftori (1994) warns that novelty can sometimes distract the student from learning goals. In the Estonian studies, motivational characteristics of multimedia textbooks do not correlate significantly for older students (age 16-17). For younger students, drills competition, attractiveness, interesting design and use of the computer capabilities show some promise (see Table 1). These results may suggest that older students do not let novelty distract them from learning

Standard deviation ***

characteristics of Motivating the learner

Table 1. Significantly correlated characteristics of motivating the learner

Mean value

teachers and designers of the learning multimedia could use them for different types of educational software. Learning includes some form of presentation along with motivation; the first and the third subgroups of the characteristics are therefore essential for all learning multimedia materials. Learning multimedia materials for use by students include worksheets, web pages, tests, and drills. The design of multimedia needs to address effective characteristics of learner control (the second subgroup). Multimedia drills, interactive worksheets and tests need to contain questions for learners that will in turn elicit feedback from the computer. Interactive worksheets or tests are sometimes used with web pages. Multimedia designers therefore need to consider the effective characteristics of the last two subgroups.

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level ***Standard deviation is not given for the characteristics in binary scale. In these characteristics, the positive answer was coded 1 and the negative answer 0.

Effective Characteristics of Learning Multimedia

goals. Results may also be due to differences in the aims of the software programs. Perhaps attractiveness is redundant in the case of drills, tests and worksheets, but is effective in learning multimedia formats that provide instruction. Of interest are data that support an effectiveness of characteristics for low-achieving students but which decrease the learning outcomes of highachieving students. Therefore drills, tests and worksheets with the questions should be composed differently for students of different abilities. For students at low achievement levels, attractive feedback appears to be motivating. For students who are generally successful, feedback meant to be attractive for every answer is apparently unnecessary, distracting, and annoying. Competition against oneself is not an effective characteristic of multimedia drills for all students. It does not improve scores for boys or for high-achieving students. Perhaps in such cases, the desire to achieve a better score attracted the learners more than obtaining the knowledge. Alessi and Trollip (2001) find that competition against oneself is less motivating than competition against a partner or against the computer. A possibility for the motivation of young learners is to identify with a character in the learning multimedia. An engaging character might be a boy, girl, pet or alien. Students differ and so do their favorite characters. Offering one type of character in learning multimedia may not be as effective as providing choices of character. For high-achieving students, characters may lead attention away from learning goals (with ANOVA F=12.21, p ENR, CONTROL after 2 months, INTEG, STRAT > OPER > ENR, CONTROL after 4 months, and INTEG, STRAT, OPER > ENR, CONTROL after 6 months;

For the more ‘stringent’ measure (deep understanding), the order of the results was identical, with some differences in grouping, as follows: • • •

INTEG, STRAT, OPER > ENR, CONTROL after 2 months, INTEG > STRAT > OPER > ENR, CONTROL after 4 months, and INTEG, STRAT > OPER > ENR > CONTROL after 6 months

Main conclusions: The main findings with regard to grouping, therefore, may be summarized as follows: A1: Students in INTEG and STRAT did better than those in OPER, who in turn outperformed ENR and CONTROL. Although INTEG and STRAT differed with regard to the subject-matter component--which by definition, should have affected achievement--they attained quite similar achievement outcomes. Similarly, OPER, which also included the subject-matter component,

222

had lower achievement. Thus, while the subject-matter component provided a limited contribution to achievement, the combination of structure and reflection components had a uniquely strong effect. A2: Examination of differential achievement outcomes as a function of time reveals that the structure component seems to have an early and dominant influence, while the influence of the other two components is still latent. A3: An incremental effect for the subject-matter component is evident at the second interval (INTEG vs. STRAT), while the incremental effect of the reflection component manifests itself at both the second and third intervals (INTEG and STRAT vs. OPER).

experiment b – cognitive and Meta-cognitive skills orientation Participants: N=187. Instruments: Participants were interviewed and observed while solving (at least) three science problems within the computerized environment. The observed problem-solving activities, including spontaneous remarks, questions, and explanations by the student, were carefully transcribed to derive problem-solving protocols. A two-level scoring system – large-scale and detailed–scheme – was constructed to analyze and evaluate the protocols, as follows: The ‘computerized science problem solving’ scheme: The construction of the ‘computerized science problem solving’ (COSPROS) scheme (see Fund, 2000, 2003 for more details) was based on three major steps involved in effective science problem solving: initial problem analysis (or problem description/representation); tentative construction of a solution; and self-monitoring of the solution allowing for appropriate revision--as necessary (Reif, 1995). The scheme, presented in Table 2, consists of eleven main skills (categories).

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Table 2. COSPROS Scheme for Analysis of Computerized Problem Solving Skills Stages

Main Categories of Cognitive/Meta-cognitive Skills

Initial problem analysis

Initial analysis: 1. Finding the goals of the problem 2. Collecting data for problem description Translation into scientific language: 3. Global: identifying the subject 4. Specific: mapping the subject to natural language

Construction of a solution

5. Collecting missing data 6. Using the collected data in the problem (reasoning is required) 7. Reaching a solution

Checking the solution

8. Self-assessing the problem-solving process * 9. Assessing the final answer * 10. Explaining the method of solution 11. For incorrect solution: finding the error and its causes *

* Meta-cognitive categories

Eight of these involve cognitive skills while three incorporate meta-cognitive skills during the selfmonitoring of the solution. For the detailed-level scheme, the main skills were subdivided into specific sub-categories or codes after a content validity process. Additionally, judges assigned an effectiveness score on a 5-point scale (0-4) to each sub-category. Each action or verbal statement (‘unit of analysis’) in the student protocols was ascribed and coded to a corresponding sub-category. Two external judges analyzed and coded the protocols independently to evaluate in a precise and quantified manner, the effectiveness of the main skills--or the whole solving process--of each student or each treatment group, allowing for further statistical analyses (Fund, 2002, 2003).

Effective Performance of Computerized Science Problem Solving - An Exemplary Analysis The COSPROS scheme described earlier, served to derive several measures of effectiveness. Maximal and Minimal effectiveness scores (the score of the most effective and least effective sub-category, respectively, performed at least once over the three observed problems) were

derived for each category, for each student. The effectiveness scores of all the 187 participants were subjected to a 5x3 MANOVA analysis (treatments x academic levels). The results for the “whole solution” indicated significant differences across these measures between treatments groups and between academic levels. Subsequent 5x3 ANOVA analyses of the Maximal effectiveness scores showed highly significant differences between the groups for all categories, as shown in Table 3. Significant differences between academic levels were found for some categories (5th, 7th, 10th, and 11th categories), and an interaction effect of treatment and academic level was found for one meta-cognitive category (9th category). As can be seen in Table 3, highly significant differences were found between the treatment groups for all the categories. Based on the F values, the most significant differences between groups were found in the translation categories (third + fourth) and the sixth category (“using the collected data in the problem”). Additional salient differences were found in the seventh (“concluding the solution”), eighth (“self-assessing the solving process”) and ninth (“assessing the final answer”) categories. The effectiveness measures were subjected to contrast analyses and Scheffe’s post hoc analyses. Main conclusions are summarized next.

223

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Table 3. Mean Scores and ANOVA analysis of Maximal effectiveness score for each category by experimental group Support program

Control group

F(4,172)

n=33

n=37

n=35

n=48

n=34

83.78

73.57

59.90

66.18

12.47 ***

75.00

74.32

69.11

61.08

57.04

3.85**

th

3 +4

80.30

47.30

32.86

9.90

11.76

25.34 ***

5th

96.97

100.00

84.29

73.96

71.32

6.73 **

th

77.27

53.38

17.86

6.25

13.23

32.24 ***

th

7

88.64

87.16

61.43

47.92

52.21

22.70 ***

8th (m)

71.97

68.24

24.29

14.58

19.85

18.57 ***

6

th

9

71.21

77.70

36.43

32.29

47.79

20.48 ***

10th

(m)

83.33

85.13

67.86

53.65

47.06

11.76 ***

th

53.57

82.00

38.23

26.67

23.61

9.56 ***

11 (m)

m = meta-cognitive skill

P 3 > 4, 5 _ √

Low Debugging

√ Low Strategy

Interaction Academic levels Treatment groups Reflection measures

√

1, 2 > 3, 4 > 5 √ √ √ Higher

Treatment groups

Academic levels

Interaction

Contrast analyses Second interval questionnaire

Contrast analyses First interval questionnaire

Values

Instruments: Two specifically designed paperand-pencil questionnaires, distributed after two and four months of exposure to the treatments, were used for indirect measurement of the effects of the scaffolding programs on reflective behavior. The “Strategy related” (Strategy) measure used both questionnaires, while the “reflection upon error identification” (Debugging) summed the values of cells 1 and 4 as coded from the first questionnaire. Main results: At the first time interval, the two reflection measures were subjected to a 5x3 MANOVA analysis (treatments x academic levels) which showed significant differences across the measures between treatments groups, between academic levels, as well as an interaction effect of treatment and ability level. The subsequent 5x3 ANOVA analyses for these two measures, as well as for the “strategy related” (Strategy) measure in the second interval are summarized in Table 5. It should be mentioned that the Debugging measure of the operative group was found to be significantly higher than that of the strategic

Values

Participants: N=473

ANOVA 5x3: Significant differences between:

experiment d – Indirect Measurement of Reflective behavior orientation

Table 5. A summary of the ANOVA 5X3 analyses and Contrast analyses of “strategy-related reflection” (Strategy) and “reflection upon error identification” (Debugging) measures for the first and second intervals questionnaires

ANOVA 5x3: Significant differences between:

Main conclusions: Reflective behavior depends, as expected, mostly on reflection support. Structural support is not enough. The same differentiation pattern found in experiment B for the three meta-cognitive skills appeared for the reflective behavior in experiment C. This supplies additional construct validity for the two schemes, while implying the complexity of reflective support effects on meta-cognitive performance. Furthermore, even by the end of the study, when the reflective processes had become internalized, an interaction effect of treatment and ability level still exists. As will be seen, the “Bridge Model” has been found useful in explaining these findings.

Note: Numbers indicate the treatment groups as follows: 1- Integrated; 2 – Strategic; 3 – Operative; 4 – Enrichment; 5 – Control

227

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

group. This is the only measurement in the study in which the operative group outperformed a reflection group. We suggest that this is so because Debugging reflects the lowest level of reflection, and is measured after only a two month exposure to the treatments. At this interval, we suggest, the reflection effect is still weak as compared to the subject-matter effect. The Strategy measure across two time intervals was subjected to additional ANCOVA 5x3 analyses, to examine changes along time for each of the treatment groups. Results showed highly significant differences between the groups, with significant increase for the reflection groups (INTEG and STRAT), no significant change for the OPER and ENR groups, and a significant decrease for the CONTROL group. Additional significant differences were found between academic levels as well as an interaction effect of treatment and academic level, not here described. Main conclusions: The increase in reflective behavior of the reflection groups (but not of the OPER group) emphasizes the unique combination of reflection and structural scaffolding on the one hand, and the incremental effect of the reflection component (but not the structural effect) on the other. Furthermore, after only a short exposure to the treatment (first interval), the reflection’s effect is still weak; hence it is not yet sufficiently evident (low values) and is “local” (explaining the variant “differentiation patterns” of Strategy and Debugging, and the superiority of the operative group in Debugging). Reflective behavior continues to improve (see experiment D and C, during the second and third intervals), until it becomes sufficiently internalized (high values) to direct “global” behavior (leading to similar differentiation patterns and high correlations among the three reflective measures – Strategy, Connecting and Inquiry). The “Bridge Model” presented next would supply further explanations for these findings.

228

the brIdge Model We now present our Bridge Model—based on the learning model of Pirolli & Recker (1994), in the domain of LISP programming—as an attempt to place the research findings into an improved theoretical-functional framework. The model might contribute to the ongoing attempts to understand learning—especially in a computerized science environment. It should be noted, however, that such a complicated formulation of a “new” theory involves some speculation, as additional research is necessary to further elaborate, develop and revise this model. Based on the cognitive and meta-cognitive skills orientation (Experiment B), work within a computerized environment was described as an interaction between two resources: the knowledge and thinking of the learner (the “learner’s resources”) and the resources and tools available in the computerized environment (the “environment’s resources”). We suggest that cognitive support results in an intellectual partnership between these resources (Salomon et al., 1991). This partnership notion is extended further, leading to the claim that cognitive support bridges, negotiates and communicates among these resources, enabling a more effective interaction and better operation of both, as presented in Figure 2. Cognitive support, somehow, activates the learner’s resources, thus turns computerized problem-solving into more mindful, conscious, thoughtful, responsible and motivated—and consequently more efficient—problem-solving. The quality of the interaction depends on the cognitive support given, and sometimes on the “composition” of the cognitive learner’s resources as well. Experiment B actually confirms this claim, as seen from the dependence of some skill effectiveness on the support programs, alone, while other skills depend on the “cognitive architecture” of the learner as well (see B1, main conclusion). Our “Bridge Model” helps us uncover and understand the bridging processes

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Figure 2. A general description of the bridge model

THE LEARNER’S RESOURCES

THE COGNITIVE SUPPORT

induced by the cognitive support, with respect to all of these findings. It suggests the processes involved in how cognitive support bridges the learner and the environmental resources. It also elucidates the functions of the support components and the ways that these components interact in skill acquisition and knowledge construction through computerized science problem-solving. Furthermore, the model allows predicting what happens in the absence of one of the components. Finally, it offers a way of explaining the research findings. Still, of course, additional studies are needed to test specifically the various cumulative steps suggested by the theory, and to affirm the validity of the theoretical model. The bridge analogy allows us to describe the “engineering architecture” based on three conclusions drawn from our achievement results. These structural components are further confirmed by findings on the cognitive and meta-cognitive skills and reflection aspects: 1.

2.

3.

The structural support component has a consistent and powerful influence, from the beginning of exposure to it. It is a sine qua non for success. Reflective support has an important effect on all three aspects – achievement, skills and reflection. It works cumulatively over time, probably as the reflective processes become internalized. Even though subject matter support improves achievement, as also some cognitive and meta-cognitive skills and reflective measures, it is mainly a condition for excel-

THE ENVIRONMENT’S RESOURCES

lence. Reasonable success can be achieved, however, without it--providing the cognitive support includes structural and reflective components. Thus, we may describe the “bridge” as composed of a “structural” skeleton (the aforementioned first conclusion). This skeleton is supported by a scaffolding of “reflection” (the second conclusion), and covered by the “concrete” of “subject-matter” (the third conclusion). A theoretical examination of these support components and how they work, is presented next.

three support components — the theory Structural Support The structural support component serves as a platform to organize information flow between the environment and the learner’s resources. This is achieved through the creation of work patterns, such as writing down the question or its main keywords, producing external representations while collecting given or missing data, and writing the full answer as well as explaining how it was obtained (all sub-components of the structural component, see Appendices A, B and C). Such effective work patterns are required to improve knowledge construction, understanding and the cognitive skills of all three structural groups (see conclusions A2, B2, i, ii, and iii). Without such information flow, neither knowledge construction, nor specific or general problem-solving skills

229

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

(such as effective data collection) would have developed. Such information flow seems likely to result from the structural sub-components, as suggested in the following: Transcribing the question to be answered: Since correct initial analysis of a problem can make the problem much easier to solve, activities such as writing down or copying the question might aid comprehension and initiate its data processing (Cox & Brna, 1995). Citations from our student interviews confirm the assumption that even the simple activity of transcribing the relevant question can promote initial processing, and the information flow between resources. Examples of such citations are “Copying the question helps me understand what the goals are and what should be found in the question”, or “Sometimes, when I copy the question, I begin to think about the question, that it might be this or that”. Producing external representations while collecting given or missing data (“Important data”): This sub-component endows students with efficient learning strategies, causing them to produce external representations (ERs), thus enabling better information flow between resources by easing the cognitive burden. This eased burden facilitates problem solving as well as helps students comprehend all the relevant data needed to solve the problem. Without operative guiding questions, this sub-component poses certain difficulties such as a need to decide which data should be recorded, as also a need to distinguish between important and irrelevant data. Consequently, students from the STRAT group, who get no operative guiding questions, are more successful, as they devote more effort to solving the problems. Merril (2006) makes a similar claim in his list of principles. The interviews revealed that with time, these students developed personal strategies that helped them decide what needed to be recorded (for details see Fund, 2002). This improved their work pattern as well as information flow between the learning environment and student’s previous knowledge.

230

Explaining how the answer was obtained: This sub-component is an essential part of the structural component. According to explanation-based learning theory and studies on self-explanation effects, “explaining the solution” creates links between previous and newly acquired knowledge (Chi, et al., 1994; Bielaczyc et al., 1995; Pirolli & Recker, 1994). Transcribing the explanation supports construction of a coherent model of the domain. This, in turn facilitates the acquisition of cognitive skills. Furthermore, during the writing process an internal dialogue takes place, improving knowledge construction and understanding (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991). Some students said that it assisted them in gaining a deeper understanding of the problem (e.g., “When you write down the explanation it makes every thing clear to you”; “If I can explain, it means I understand it.”). Both of these sub-components, thus, serve to organize the information flow between the two resources. Yet, when comparing the structural groups to the non-structural groups, the structural component was found to be necessary but insufficient for most measures. The reflection component was needed as well. This component is elaborated upon next.

Reflection Support The effectiveness of bridging the two resources and the information flow between them is a function of communication. It is the role of the reflection component to improve this communication by improving “coupling” the two types of resources. Since reflection couples and adjusts the learner’s and environment’s resources, its quality depends on both: work patterns with regard to the information flow (which depend on the support program), and the learner’s personal resources (measured in this study by ability level). This complex functioning of reflection explains, in our opinion, the interaction effect which we found in

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

all reflection measures (see main results of experiments C and D) and in one meta-cognitive skill (9th category, see experiment B, main conclusion B1), between type of support and student ability level. The interaction persisted even at the end of the study, by which time reflection had become fully internalized. Structural support serves as a platform for information flow between the resources, including new knowledge acquired due to the structural and reflection supports, which in turn, is coupled by the reflection component. Such cyclic and interconnected interactions supply insight into the unique contribution of the combination of the structure and reflection supports. While structural support is necessary, it is not sufficient, as found in all the four experiments described. The theory behind this unique combination is discussed later (see section “Declarative and procedural knowledge constructed through computerized problem solving”). For better understanding of the coupling processes, we should refer first to the learner’s resources. These consist of procedural and declarative knowledge2 (Anderson et al, 1995). Such procedural knowledge includes general and specific aspects-- referred to as general aptitude

and to skills for specific problems. Declarative knowledge consists of the learner’s previous knowledge and the newly acquired, preferably integrated, knowledge. The process of resource coupling takes place in two directions, as portrayed and described in Figure 3: 1. Through learning generated from the problem solving process, i.e., improvement of the learner’s resources, by assimilating and connecting new knowledge--derived from the process of solution--into the previous declarative and procedural knowledge (see the follwing for further elaboration). Such coupling concurs with Pirolli & Recker’s (1994, p. 271) claim that “reflection on one’s problem solution is an additional way to improve a declarative understanding of the domain and… improve subsequent skill acquisition”, elaborated upon mainly by “good problem solvers”. Connecting Reflection (a in Figure 3; see experiment C), serves this function in the current study. Other researchers termed it “cross-problem reflection” (ibid., p. 270) or “reflection integration” (Merril, 2006, p. 278) and suggested it increases the level of effort hence promotes learning and problemsolving efficiency.

Figure 3. The "coupling" processes of the reflection component, and the interactions with declarative and procedural knowledge THE ENVIRONMENT’S RESOURCES

THE LEARNER’S RESOURCES

Old Declarative Knowledge

New declarative knowledge

(a) Connecting

(d) Inquiry

Science Problem-Solving in a Computerized Learning Environment

(c) Strategy Specific procedural knowledge

General procedural knowledge

(b) Debugging

231

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Reflection Upon Error Identification in the current study (Debugging; b in Figure 3), functions to derive procedural knowledge in specific subject-matter areas. This was found to depend mostly on structural and subject-matter components (see experiment D, Table 5, first interval). Similarly, other researchers identify “detecting failures in comprehension or problem solving” as a characteristic of good problem solvers (Chi et al., 1994; Pirolli & Recker, 1994). Strategy-Related Reflection (Strategy, measured in experiments C and D; c in Figure 3) in the current study, functions to improve general procedural knowledge and skill acquisition (see Ohlsson, 1993), by formulating general strategies for problem solving. 2. Another direction taken by resource coupling is that of information extraction from the learner’s resources, for problem solving improvement (i.e. for better problem solving in the computerized environment). Such reflection was termed in the study “reflection upon methodical inquiry” (Inquiry) (experiment C; d in Figure 3). These theoretical considerations suggest that explaining the answer (sub-component of structure) and the connecting reflection are both involved in connecting new and previous knowledge. We will attempt to explain the significance of these findings, theoretically, (in section “Declarative and Procedural Knowledge Constructed Through Computerized Problem Solving”) further.

Subject-Matter Support The two elements that make up the subject-matter component – general guidance and operative specific instruction, are reflected in two types of knowledge - declarative and procedural knowledge, respectively. We suggest an explanation for the interrelationship of these types as follows: General Guidance General guidance (see Appendix A, prompt b) constitutes part of the declarative knowledge, and serves as most accessible already known declara232

tive knowledge since it is supplied just before solving a specific problem. Although such guidance is perceived as “information-only” instruction, and is unlikely to promote performance or lead to adequate schema representations (Merril, 2006), it focuses attention on the main principles of the problem and eases its solution (Pirolli & Recker, 1994). This guidance is then interpreted, elaborated upon and utilized for the current and other new problems, as also at problem solving impasses (Pirolli & Recker, 1994). General guidance also serves as an anchor for newly acquired knowledge. This then helps connect the new knowledge to previous knowledge. The quality of knowledge depends on the quality of such integration and connecting (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). In this way we might suggest that general guidance improves the quality of knowledge. Operative Specific Instruction Operative specific instruction (the “small” questions in Appendix A, prompt c) assists in problem solving by making it easier to form “production rules” (ACT-R3, Anderson et al., 1995, Anderson et al., 2004) by means of translation of declarative knowledge into procedural. Each production rule is essentially a condition-action rule that generates specified action if specified conditions are satisfied. An example of a production rule in our research context follows: IF, I am asked an operative question, such as – ‘What is coil 1 made of?’ or, ‘What is coil 2 made of?’ and, subsequently, I am asked to find missing data concerning a specific property (e.g. conductivity scale), THEN, the materials’ names are important for further data collection regarding specific properties. Thus, in such problems, I have to check the materials’ names and specific properties relevant to the problem. The “Adaptive Character of Thought - Rational” cognitive architecture (ACT-R, Anderson et

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

al., 1995; Anderson et al., 2004) is simultaneously a rigorous theory of human cognition and a working framework in which to build computational models of human behavior. The ACT-R is a hybrid architecture based on chunks of declarative knowledge and condition-action production rules that operate on these chunks. Declarative chunks (small logical units) can encode any fact, information or current goal. Procedural knowledge is made up of production rules representing procedural skills that manipulate declarative knowledge as well as the environment. When the rule “fires,” rule actions can add to or alter declarative knowledge as well as procedural. ACT-R states that cognitive skill acquisition involves the formulation of many production rules, and depends on converting goal-independent declarative knowledge into production rules. The theory assumes that production rules can only be learned by employing declarative knowledge in the context of a problem-solving activity. Required declarative knowledge, in our context, is readily translated into operative specific instructions; hence, the student can use this pre-formed translation to formulate production rules. Such facilitation helps the student apply production rules to error identification in new problems (Anderson et al., 1995; Ohlsson, 1993; Pirolli & Recker, 1994). “Reflection upon error identification” (Debugging) in our research was, accordingly, significantly higher for the OPER and INTEG groups (the two subject-matter groups, see experiment D, first interval) than for the other groups, mainly among medium and high ability level students, who more readily and easily benefit from specific instructions to produce production rules. This explains their superiority at the first interval. This benefit, however, diminishes with time, as the reflection effect increases--causing superiority among the reflection groups--and thus disappears at the later time intervals. Production rules as well as declarative and procedural knowledge, from the moment of their creation, acquire strength with practice. Thus,

every additional utility of the already prepared instruction causes its “compilation” into a production rule, with incremental strength. This might explain the incremental effect of the subject-matter component, which was found to work cumulatively over time (e.g. conclusion A3, experiment A). The low values of Debugging for all groups in the first interval may also be explained as due to the short time of practice in the computerized environment, when production rules have not yet been sufficiently strengthened. The high values of all the reflection measures at the end of the study are thus explained, by the incremental strength of the reflection effect. Still, specific instructions were found to develop some dependency on the support; its absence in the strategic support induces more effort and demanding problem-solving process, increasing learning efficiency as well as challenge and motivation (Fund, 2002; Merril, 2006; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). The Hierarchical Subject-Matter Components Our findings (the superiority of INTEG over STRAT) suggest that hierarchical subject-matter effects only a limited contribution. In achievement orientation, it improves only the more ‘stringent’—deep understanding measure— but not the ‘lenient’-surface knowledge measure, and then, only for a limited time, i.e., at the second time interval, before the reflection effect has had its full impact (see experiment A). Referring to ability level, the subject-matter component supports students who benefit most from such subjectmatter instruction, i.e., students of average and above-average ability. This we assume to be due to their flexibly and organized and easily retrievable knowledge (Sternberg, 1998). The interaction effect of treatment and academic level found, for example, for surface knowledge (see experiment A) primarily for medium- and high-level achievers further confirms this (Fund, 2007a). The skills orientation—pending further verification—seems, primarily, to facilitate the transla-

233

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

tion (3rd + 4th) and transplanting (6th) categories, (see conclusions B2, iv and v). The meta-cognitive skills, although dependant mostly on reflection-as seen in the superiority of INTEG and STRAT (see conclusion B2, vi)--are still sensitive to the subject-matter component. It decreases final assessment (INTEG < STRAT in the 9th category) due to increased confidence in the answer. Also, based on the ACT-R, it decreases the likelihood of being mistaken, hence remains less practiced in finding the causes of a mistake (INTEG < STRAT in the 11th category). In most other skills, however, it is mainly a condition for excellent performance. Reasonable success can be achieved without it--if the cognitive support element includes structural and reflective components. We suggest that the limited contribution of the subject-matter component may be explained as follows: The utility of declarative knowledge (when presented as general guidance) and procedural knowledge (derived from operative specific instruction), as well as for the construction of new knowledge is based on growing experience in problem solving. Both of these are only accelerated by the two elements of the subject-matter component, as it facilitates formulation of production rules. When this component is absent (i.e. in the strategic support) these processes will take place, probably at a reduced pace, and possibly more easily among high ability students. Yet, this limited contribution of the subject-matter component might be typical for “behaving environments”, i.e., environments in which the subject-matter is built into the system and operates according to specific rules, as in the present computerized learning environment or other computerized simulations (Fund, 2002).

declarative and procedural Knowledge constructed through computerized problem solving According to the human intelligence model of Sternberg (1990, 1998), acquisition of new declarative and procedural knowledge in all domains occurs in three main stages: 234

1.

2.

3.

Selective encoding: This involves determining what information in a large stream of information is relevant for the learner’s purposes. Selective combination: This involves interrelating selectively encoded pieces of information so that they fit together and are combined into integrated knowledge. Selective comparison: This involves relating newly acquired knowledge to knowledge acquired in the past, without which, new knowledge is useless. The encoding and combination of such new knowledge is guided by the retrieval of old information. This enables the integration of new knowledge into the cognitive schema.

We now suggest the determination of the stages of problem solving--in a computerized learning environment with cognitive support--serving as engines to drive Sternberg’s stages. The structural component guides the student to explain the solution by articulating the main aspects of the problem. This serves the first of Sternberg’s stages - “selective encoding” of the new knowledge gained from solving the problem. This stage, though necessary, is insufficient, both according to Sternberg as according to our findings. To enable all three of Sternberg’s stages, the whole cycle of scientific inquiry “predict--observe--compare-explain” is required. In a computerized learning environment, this cycle should be modified into “observe (examine the problem and its computerized simulated experiment), predict (the answer), compare (the prediction with the correct answer), and explain (the correct or wrong answer).” This formulation implies a need for the three main sub-components of reflection, namely: predicting and assessing the answer, and explaining errors when the answer is wrong. Predicting makes it possible to selectively combine new pieces of information (second stage), while comparing the prediction with the correct answer and trying to explain the causes of error, if present, corresponds to Sternberg’s “selective comparison”.

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

We believe that the aforementioned, suggests a process for the construction of (declarative) knowledge from procedural knowledge during science problem solving. While problem solving, the reflection component, thus, encourages meta-cognitive processes. These processes play a crucial part in knowledge construction, and in turn, affect understanding (Pirolli & Recker, 1994; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006; Sternberg, 1998) as well as other cognitive and affective measures. Procedural knowledge construction, however, is assumed to occur from observing possible problem solutions and then building upon familiar production rules or specific knowledge (ACT-R theory, Anderson et al, 1995).

In retrospect: the dynamic development of a Model - conclusions The functional-theoretical Bridge Model is an example of dynamic development of a model. At the beginning of our study, support components were identified, assumed to affect performance in certain directions and aspects. Possible interactions, in computerized problem solving, between these components were unknown, as well as the specific contribution of each component and their combinations. During the process of the study, an improved model was developed, leading to the Bridge Model. This model - although requiring further validation - elucidates the superiority of the reflection groups, on most measures. It describes the interactions of the three support components in knowledge construction, while at the same time pointing to the limited contribution of the subject-matter component. Hence, the practical claim resulting from the current experiment is that scaffolding computerized science problem solving, due to the unique combination of structure and reflection components, should include at least some sort of strategic support. Such support is quite easy to prepare and integrate into any computerized learn-

ing environment. Strategic support, implementing Teacher C model, induces “active learning” and turns over control of proximal development to the students, with the focus on activities that are generative of knowledge and skills (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991, 2006). It was found to stimulate motivation, benefit achievement and knowledge construction, cognitive and meta-cognitive skills and behavior, at all ability levels. Expanding this support by the additional inclusion of a subjectmatter component (integrated support) depends on the specific computerized environment (with or without built-in subject-matter), the specific goals, and on the learner’s experience in working with the environment. Additional subject-matter support (e.g., an integrated support) might be most helpful in the first stages of the work; when the learner becomes accustomed to the environment, the subject-matter support could be gradually withdrawn.

AcKnoWledgMent I would like to express my thanks to Prof. Zecharia Dor-Shav, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel, for his helpful contribution and remarks to this paper. I would like also to express my thanks to Prof. Bat-Sheva Eylon, Science Teaching Department, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, for her helpful contribution to this study and to the theoretical aspects of the Bridge Model. I would like also to thank Prof. Jossef Menis, Bar-Ilan University, for years of helpful friendship and professional support.

reFerences Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207.

235

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199-209. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221 - 252. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477. Cox, R. & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 239-302. De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249-266. de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Ellen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107-128). Oxford: Elsevier. de Jong T. & van Joolingen W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202. Fund, Z. (2000). Cognitive support for science problem solving in computerized environment: effects on cognitive and meta-cognitive skills. In P. Nasser, N. Hativa, & Z. Scherz (Eds.), Pro-

236

ceedings of the Twelfth Convention of the Israel Educational Research Association (pp. 259- 264). Tel-Aviv: Reches (Hebrew). Fund, Z. (2002). Cognitive support in computerized science problem solving: Eliciting external representation and improving search strategies. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The Role of Communication in Learning to Model (pp. 127-154). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fund, Z. (2003). How to evaluate science problem solving in a computerized learning environment? Construction of an analyzing scheme. In C. P. Constantinou & Z. C. Zacharia (Eds.). Computer Based Learning in Science, conference proceedings 2003, Vol 1 (pp. 737-745). Nicosia: University of Cyprus. Fund, Z. (2007a). The effects of scaffolded computerized science problem-solving on achievement outcomes: a comparative study of support programs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 410–424. Fund, Z. (2007b). The effects of different scaffolding programs on meta-cognitive skills within computerized science problem-solving. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary. Fund, Z., Court, D., Kramarski, B. (2002). Construction and application of an evaluative tool to assess reflection in teacher-training courses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 485-499. Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1-44. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. Golan Duncan, R. & Chinn, C.A (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Louden, W. (1992) Understanding reflection through collaborative research. In A. Hargreaves & M.G. Fullan (Eds.). Understanding Teacher Development (pp. 178 - 215). New York: Teachers College Press. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. Merril, M. D. (2006). Hypothesized performance on complex tasks as a function of scaled instructional strategies. In J. Ellen & R. E. Clark (Eds.). Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 265-281). Oxford: Elsevier. Njoo, M. & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory Learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 30, 821-844. Ohlsson, S. (1993). The interaction between knowledge and practice in the acquisition of cognitive skills. In S. Chipman & A.L. Meyrowitz (Eds.). Foundations of knowledge acquisition - cognitive models of complex learning (pp. 147 - 208). MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic. Pirolli, P. & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 235 - 275. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. Davis, E. Krajcik, J., Fretz, E. Dunca, R. et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects

of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244. Reif, F. (1995). Millikan lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal of Physics, 63(1), 17 - 32. Salomon, G. Perkins, D. & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2-9. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press. Shute, V. J. & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51-77. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Principles of teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 65-72. Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning: The effects of model regression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8(3), 235-252. Swartz, R. & Parks, S. (1992). Infusion critical and creative thinking into secondary instruction: A lesson design handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication.

237

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

Sweller, J., Kirshner, P.A., & Clark, R.E. (2007). Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115-121.

Reflection: the process of constructing, evaluating, and articulating what has been learned; meta-cognitive skills such as monitoring and control, self-assessment and self-regulation.

Vreman-de Olde, C & de Jong, T. (2004). Studentgenerated assignments about electrical circuits in a computer simulation. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 859-873.

Reflection Support: Providing a general framework to stimulate and activate meta-cognitive skills.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implication for integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705-735. Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 269-282. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Cognitive / Meta-Cognitive Scaffolding: Support and guidance addressing cognitive/metacognitive skills and work pattern. Computerized Learning Environment: Computerized environment designed mainly for open-ended learning tasks. Computerized Problem Solving: Problem solving performed in a computerized learning environment. Science Problem Solving: Solving problems in the scientific domain. 238

Structural Support: Providing a general framework that guides the student with the cognitive skills necessary to effect cognitive and work patterns. Subject-Matter Support Component: Clarifying ideas and concepts relevant to each problem, and addressing general domain-specific guidance, as well as providing short guiding questions for the solving process. The Bridge Model: A theoretical-functional model constructed, based on the research findings, to elucidate the functions of the structural, reflective and subject-matter support components upon the cognitive system, and to offer explanations of the research findings. Cognitive / Meta-Cognitive Skills: Construction of the ‘computerized science problem solving’ (COSPROS) scheme, based on three major steps involved in effective science problem solving: initial problem analysis; tentative construction of a solution; and self-monitoring of the solution allowing for appropriate revision-as necessary (Reif, 1995). This scheme consists of eleven main skills (categories). Eight of these involve cognitive skills while three incorporate meta-cognitive skills during the self-monitoring of the solution.

endnotes 1

Zone of proximal development is defined by Vygotsky (1978) as the difference between solved tasks that can be performed better

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

2

with adult guidance and help, or with more able peers, and the level of independently solved tasks. Thus, zone of proximal development is an analytical tool necessary to plan instruction and to explain its results. Declarative knowledge is the knowledge about facts and concepts; procedural knowledge is the knowledge about how to perform actions.

3

ACT, an acronym for “adaptive control of thought”, represents a series of network models. These models attempt to account for all of cognition. They are designed to explain memory, learning, spatial cognition, language, reasoning, and decision making.

239

240

Notes: The symbols denote  Subject-matter component: ′′ Specific instructions (in prompt c) Hierarchical mode (prompts b + c); Linear mode (prompt c)

c) The important data ′′ What are the components of the electric circuit? ′′ What is the current intensity with coil no. 1? _____ With coil no. 2? ______ ′′ Which coil is the best conductor?_______ Which is the worst?______ ′′ Use “data pages” to complete the conductivity scale of: copper _________ ; iron _________ ′′ Which given metal is the best conductor?_____ Which is the worst?______ * d) Proposed answer: __________________________________ * e) Did you give a correct answer? (Use the flag) yes /no : f) The correct answer: __________________________________

b) General guidance: each of the two coils is connected to the contacts of an electrical circuit. You should find out what each coil is made of, by measuring the current. The higher the current, the better the coil will conduct electricity. Then you can relate the metals to the coils, using the "data pages" tool.

: a)The problem to be solved __________________________________________

Student name: ________________

*3. Consider the following statement; and decide if it is correct or incorrect: If the described coils in the problem have different length or width we can still compare them as we did in the computerized problem. correct / incorrect Explain: _______________________________________

2. In the above question, the current meter has shown the following results: when coil no, 1 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.3 Ampere; when coil no, 2 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.7 Ampere; when coil no, 3 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.5 Ampere. What is coil no. 1 made of? bronze / nickel / lead Explain: _______________________________________

1. Three other coils are connected to the contacts of the same electrical circuit. The coils are made of bronze, nickel, and aluminum. Which coil is connected to the circuit when the current meter shows the highest current intensity? bronze / nickel / aluminum Explain: _______________________________________

: g) Explain your answer and how you obtained it _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________ * h) If you proposed a wrong answer, how does it differ from the correct answer? Explain why you were wrong ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Enrichment questions

Worksheet of problem 17

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

AppendIX A

 Structural component (prompts a, c [without specific instruction], f, g)  Reflection component (prompts d, e, h)

__________________________________________________

a)The problem to be solved __________________________________________ b) The important data ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ c) Proposed answer: __________________________________ d) Did you give a correct answer? (Use the flag) yes /no e) The correct answer: __________________________________ f) Explain your answer and how you obtained it __________________________________________ __________________________________________ g) If you proposed a wrong answer, how does it differ from the correct answer? Explain why you were wrong __________________________________________

Student name: ________________

Enrichment questions

26

*3. Consider the following statement; and decide if it is correct or incorrect: If the described coils in the problem have different length or width we can still compare them as we did in the computerized problem. correct / incorrect Explain: _______________________________________

2. In the above question, the current meter has shown the following results: when coil no, 1 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.3 Ampere; when coil no, 2 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is 0.7 Ampere; when coil no, 3 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.5 Ampere. What is coil no. 1 made of? bronze / nickel / lead Explain: _______________________________________

1. Three other coils are connected to the contacts of the same electrical circuit. The coils are made of bronze, nickel, and aluminum. Which coil is connected to the circuit when the current meter shows the highest current intensity? bronze / nickel / aluminum Explain: _______________________________________

Worksheet of problem 17

APPENDIX B: The Strategic Support Model (STRAT)

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

AppendIX b: the strAtegIc support Model (strAt)

241

242

d) Explain your answer and how you obtained it ________________________________________ ________________________________________

c) The correct answer: __________________________________

a)The problem to be solved __________________________________________ b) The important data What are the components of the electric circuit? What is the current intensity with coil no. 1? _____ With coil no. 2? ______ Which coil is the best conductor?_______ Which is the worst?______ Use “data pages” to complete the conductivity scale of: copper _________ ; iron _________ Which given metal is the best conductor?_____ Which is the worst?______

Student name: ________________

Enrichment questions

27

*3. Consider the following statement; and decide if it is correct or incorrect: If the described coils in the problem have different length or width we can still compare them as we did in the computerized problem. correct / incorrect Explain: _______________________________________

2. In the above question, the current meter has shown the following results: when coil no, 1 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.3 Ampere; when coil no, 2 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.7 Ampere; when coil no, 3 is connected to the circuit – the current intensity is - 0.5 Ampere. What is coil no. 1 made of? bronze / nickel / lead Explain: _______________________________________

1. Three other coils are connected to the contacts of the same electrical circuit. The coils are made of bronze, nickel, and aluminum. Which coil is connected to the circuit when the current meter shows the highest current intensity? bronze / nickel / aluminum Explain: _______________________________________

Worksheet of problem 17

APPENDIX C: The Operative Support Model (OPER)

Scaffolding Problem-Solving and Inquiry

AppendIX c: the operAtIve support Model (oper)

243

Chapter XV

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts Nicola Yelland The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Jennifer Masters La Trobe University, Australia

AbstrAct This chapter will discuss the ways in teachers can support their student’s learning in new media contexts with the use of effective scaffolding techniques. The authors present two learning scenarios of children to illustrate the ways in which scaffolding pedagogies are deployed in order to enhance learning opportunities that incorporate the use of new media. In Scenario One, the Year 2 children (approximately 7 years) use digital technologies to communicate their ideas and investigations through stop-motion animation. In Scenario Two, the Year 1 children (approximately 6 years) edit digital video to create an advertisement for a new sports drink. This work is important since the use of computers and other new technologies in schools remains peripheral and is frequently an afterthought to be aligned with specific curriculum objectives and mandated learning outcomes. An important question for educators is how can we ensure and describe the learning that takes place in contexts that incorporate new media. Implicit in this is that teachers and students will guide and support each other in order to complete tasks that exemplify specific learning outcomes. Our findings suggest that the main challenges and issues for teachers with regard to new media are centered on how they might incorporate them into their pedagogical repertoire and of finding effective ways to support student learning.

IntroductIon We are approaching the end of the first decade of the 21st century, and one thing that is glaringly

obvious is that there is a growing gap between what goes on in schools and outside of them (Yelland, 2007). New technologies have created new ways of working and we have evolved social practices

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

that have fundamentally changed how we do things. Yet many schools seem to be impervious to change and maintain a heritage curriculum that was founded in a different age. The rate of change in society has been tremendous. The children who attend our schools today were born on the eve of the 21st century and are called the “Millennial Generation” (Howe & Strauss, 2000). Their lives are digital and they communicate in a variety of modes with a myriad of materials that are made of bits and bytes. Their homes are full of media options that include; TVs, mobile phone, computers, mp3 players, DVD machines, digital cameras, interactive toys, video game consoles and mobile devices. Rideout, Vanderwater and Wartella (2003) reported that 99% of children up to the age of 6 years have a TV at home and 36% have one in their own bedroom. Nearly a half of their sample had a video game player and 63% lived in a home that had Internet access. Additionally, nearly half (48%) of the group under six years of age used a computer and 30% of them played video games. Parent reports of time spent with screen media indicate that this group spent approximately 2 hours a day using them and that this was about the same amount of time that they spent playing outdoors, and three times as much time as they spent reading (a book) or being read to. The report continues by suggesting that many of the toddlers and preschoolers that they surveyed are not passively consuming media that has been purchased by their family, but rather they paint a picture of these young people actively seeking out information or helping themselves to acquire it with the various electronic media at their disposal. Seventy seven per cent are turning on the TV by themselves, asking for particular shows (67%) using the remote control to change channels (62%) playing their favourite DVDs (71%) turning on the computer by themselves (33%) and loading CDRoms with games on (23%). The study revealed that listening to music (and dancing/ acting) is one of the most popular pastimes for young children in this age range with 79% listening to music daily

244

with just under half (42%) owning their own CD so they can listen when they want to. Children in the next age range (6 to 17 years) continue to diversify their practices with new media. Over two million American children in this cohort have created their own website (Grunwald, 2004) and there are similar trends in the UK (Livingstone & Bober, 2005). More recently the evolution of social media such as Myspace, Facebook, Club Penguin and the growing use of blogs, wikis and instant messaging enable young people to be in touch almost constantly with all their friends and families. These new lifeworlds require us to reconceptualise forms of communication and notions of identity that are so essential for effective learning in schools. These machines play different roles in the lives of children for different purposes at different junctures in time and in a variety of communities of practice (Lave, Smith & Butler, 1988). Yet, in many contexts, we still don’t have a clear idea about the ways in which students learn in such contexts. We need to be able to do this since when students use new technologies in the classroom we should be able to support their learning to acquire specific learning outcomes that are related to mandated curriculum as well as engage them in critical and creative thinking in new ways that were not possible prior to the use of the new media.

scAFFoldIng leArnIng In schools The influence of Vygotskian theory (Vygotsky, 1978) on educational practice is apparent in the popular use of the social constructive perspective to describe and rationalize exemplary learning contexts in schools. One of the main tenets of Vygotskian theory is the notion of a zone of proximal development (ZPD), which was conceptualized as “The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problemsolving and the level of potential development

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 86)”. Vygotsky (1978) believed that guided interactions, with an adult, or a more skilled peer, could facilitate a higher level of thinking within the zone and his ideas have been the subject of much research over the years (e.g. Newman, Griffin & Cole, 1989; Rogoff, 1990). There have been a number of ways of describing and representing the ways in which adults or more experiences others may assist novice learners within their ZPD. These have included “means of assisting” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991), Reciprocal Teaching, where the learner and the teacher take turns to lead the discussion (e.g. Brown, 1976, Palinscar & Brown, 1984) and the Cognitive Apprenticeship model of Collins, Brown, & Newman (1989) based on the traditional model where a master of a skill teaches a novice through active participation. Rogoff (1990) used the term Guided Participation to denote “that both guidance and participation in culturally valued activities are essential to children’s apprenticeship in thinking” (p 8). One of the key elements of Rogoff’s guided participation was the notion of intersubjectivity, which involved a shared focus and purpose between children and their tutor. As Rogoff noted, “From guided participation involving shared understanding and problem solving, children appropriate an increasingly advanced understanding of and skill in managing the intellectual problems of their community.” (p. 8). This notion is critical for the work reported here since the forms of scaffolding that we used were derived not only from our knowledge about effective ways of learning and knowing but also from observing children’s spontaneous problem solving in novel contexts and identifying aspects which were problematic for them in relation to solving a given task. Probably the most common way of describing the provision of assistance to learners has been related to the use of the building metaphor, scaffolding. The term “scaffolding” is generally

attributed to Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) who described it as a “process that enables a child or a novice to solve a problem, carry out a task, or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts (p.90)”. It was thought that if learning was scaffolded by adults, children could not only accomplish school tasks at a higher level but also would be able to internalize their thinking, strategies or mechanisms used to be able to approach other similar tasks. (Rogoff & Gardner, 1984). The metaphor of the ZPD as a construction zone promulgated by Newman, Griffin and Cole (1989) is an apt one, since scaffolding is used in the building profession during constructions, renovations and extensions, and removed once the building is complete. They also used Leont’ev’s notion of ‘appropriation’ to describe learning in the ZPD whereby children are guided to reach solutions to problems via the acquisition of skill in using tools, strategies and concepts. In this context learning is aligned with ‘relocation’ to a different zone. Research has shown that although the nature of the scaffolding is dynamic and must be modified according to the task and the learner, several key characteristics of scaffolding can be identified (Beed, Hawkins & Roller, 1991). First, the interaction must be collaborative, with the learner’s own intentions being the aim of the process (Searle, 1984). Second, the scaffolding must operate within the learner’s zone of proximal development. Rather than simply ensuring the task is completed, the scaffolder must access the learner’s level of comprehension and then work slightly beyond that level, drawing the learning into new areas of exploration (Rogoff, 1990). The third characteristic of scaffolding is that the scaffold is gradually withdrawn, as the learner becomes more competent. Palincsar (1986) suggests that this notion reinforces the metaphor of a scaffold as used when constructing buildings in that the means of support is both adjustable and temporary.

245

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

neW conteXts For scAFFoldIng There is a range of research that considered the use of various types of scaffolding in traditional subject areas of schooling, such as language, particularly reading (eg. Beed, Hawkins, & Roller, 1991; Graves, Graves & Braaten, 1996; WollmanBonilla & Werchadlo, 1999), mathematics (eg. Coltman, Petyaeva, & Anghileri, 2002) and science (eg. Flick, 1998). However, the study of scaffolding in which the computer or associated software is considered as a factor in scaffolding is less common. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1996) developed the Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE) to facilitate the interaction of experts, teachers, parents and students in a “knowledge building society” (p. 6). In this environment the computer software acted as a scaffold to support the creation and development of conceptual understandings. The online environment was also used by Oshima and Oshima (1999) who were interested in investigating the types of computer based environments that supported students and the interactions between the students, the computer and the teacher in such contexts. Cuthbert and Hoadley (1998) also used CSILE and employed it to allow students to work together on building design problems. Their research focused on the actual design problems presented to the students and how the structure of the problem could scaffold thinking and knowledge integration. These research examples provided rich descriptive case studies of the ways in which CSILE supported knowledge building via scaffolding by the computer, teachers and peers in a positive way and thus provided support and extended the notion of learning from the sociocultural perspective within the ZPD. A research project reported by Wood (2001) provided an example of the ways in which the computer can act as a scaffold via the use of a software program called the QUADRATIC tu-

246

tor. In this context the software provided cues that acted as a tutor and a guide for the learning of quadratic functions. Similar strategies were also engaged by Luckin (2001) using a program called EcoLab that required children to build food webs and by Revelle, Druin, Platner Bederson, Hourcade & Sherman (2002), who developed a computer-based search tool to search for information on animals in a hierarchical structure. Mercer and Wegerif (1999) also focused on the role that computer software could play in supporting children’s learning, with the use of TRAC (Talk, Reasoning, and Computers) software which was used to scaffold children’s use of language as a tool for reasoning and collaborative activity. In a different approach, Baron (1991) considered computer hardware itself to be a scaffold that could facilitate social interaction of young children. In this sense, she suggested that the computer served as a tool for the teacher to foster social interactions and subsequent cognitive skill building. In these studies the term “scaffolding” was viewed in a broad way to describe any aspect of interaction between a teacher, the computer and the student. Bull, Shuler, Overton, Kimbal, Boykin and Griffin (1999) discussed scaffolding within a computer-mediated environment by separating the computer-based supports from the teacher and peer support that was provided when children were working on the computer based tasks. They suggested that scaffolding could be provided online via techniques such as visual cueing, links to web-pages with directions, downloadable help pages and communication forms to contact the instructor or peers. They also considered and described scaffolding strategies in terms of the teacher’s role in supporting students using online tutorials. They claimed that “there are many kinds of scaffolding as many as there are techniques of teaching” (p. 243) and then went on to describe a broad range of teaching aspects such as explaining, resolving questions, inviting participation to those on the periphery, modeling problem-solving with think aloud strategies and providing evidence to support or refute statements.

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

One of the few studies that focused on the teacher’s role in scaffolding computer implementation was situated in a preschool setting (Schetz & Stremmel, 1994). The findings from this study indicated that the role of the teacher was critical regardless of the software used. It was also noted that the type and amount of scaffolding varied according to student needs and the objectives of the task. Barbuto, Swaminathan, Trawick-Smith, and Wright (2003) also examined the role of the teacher in supporting children using computers. They worked with novice computer-using early childhood teachers in the “Tech4PreK” program. Barbuto et al. found that teachers who demonstrated constructivist pedagogy and were enthusiastic about using computers, scaffolded the children effectively, even though they had no prior computing skills. Our previous work (Yelland & Masters, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 2007) has shown that not only does scaffolded instruction support learning and influence depth of understanding concerning a concept or use of strategic processes, but also that it can influence self efficacy and levels of interest that children display in novel problem solving tasks. We have worked in computer based contexts in which children have worked with partners of similar ability, based on either the decision of the teacher or their performance on a non verbal intelligence test (Colored Progressive Matrices) or both. The pairs were then scaffolded in computer based tasks, which always contained an off computer component, by a teacher/ researcher, and were also encouraged to work collaboratively and question and support each other during the task solution. Thus, our work has differed from previous work, since we incorporated: • •

Children working in pairs who were of similar ability Computer contexts characterized by tasks that enabled children to actively construct and play with ideas and concepts in an environment that supported a problem solving approach

Additionally, we have worked with teachers in authentic classroom setting in which students engaged in larger self selected groups. In these cases negotiating shared understandings about the task focus and working cooperatively to achieve the outcomes has required major shifts in behaviours by both learners and teachers and the use of new media in these creative contexts has been important to their success, especially in terms of engagement with ideas and representations of knowledge in multimodal formats. Thus, our work has illustrated the need to reconsider the types of scaffolding that we used with children. In our own research (e.g. Masters & Yelland, 2002; Yelland & Masters, 2007) we have identified that scaffolding with new media such as computers can also be classified into categories. We have used the term cognitive scaffolding to denote those activities that pertain to the development of conceptual and procedural understandings that involve either techniques or devices to assist the learner. These include the use of questions, modelling, assisting with making plans, drawing diagrams, and encouraging the children to collaborate with their partner. The nature of the collaborations has, in fact, proved to be an important dimension in the problem solving process. Children were more used to working individually in the classroom and in computer based work. One of the major factors that had promoted effective problem solving in our previous work was the ability to work collaboratively to plan and implement strategies and also to be able to listen to alternative viewpoints, reconcile them with your own and reach a consensus about what to do next (e.g. Yelland, 1998; Yelland & Masters, 1994). Thus cognitive scaffolding also included aspects of social cognitive behaviour that we had shown to be effective in the use of creative and critical thinking. Technical scaffolding related to the fact that we were working with computers. Features of the program meant that the tasks and the environment both had the potential to act as mediators for learning since their design incorporated the

247

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

use of inbuilt constructs to facilitate understandings and problem solution. As facilitators, we needed to highlight them and other features of the technological learning contexts that had the potential to effect learning outcomes. Finally, we found that the children we worked with needed affective scaffolding of varying amounts not only to keep them on task but also to encourage them to higher levels of thinking and operating when engaged with a variety of learning activities. Further, we did not take the view that as teachers or experts we knew the optimal way to achieve specific task goals. We generally observed the spontaneous problem solving of pairs and groups of students prior to intervening to support initial understandings and attempts to solve the problems. In the first instance this included scaffolding that was simultaneously cognitive, technical and affective but once the children became used to the particular computer context their confidence grew and the latter two forms were reduced and ultimately, of course, the need for cognitive scaffolding diminished.

scenario 1 – Minibeasts Animation In the animation the Year 2 children needed to illustrate the mini-beast’s home, the food source and its mechanism for movement. In order to conceptualise their animation, the children had examined a “Wallace and Grommit” movie, a popular children’s series that uses a modelling clay technique to produce animation. The activity was broken down into a number of tasks: 1. 2.

3.

4.

leArnIng scenArIos 5. The learning scenarios presented next, represent educational activities in classrooms. In the first scenario the Year 2 class (aged 7 years) was engaged in an integrated topic that extended across the traditional curriculum areas related to the lifestyle and habits of various small animals, such as insects, arachnids and small reptiles, eg. geckos. The culminating activity for the theme was for the children to work in groups of five or six and use the computer to produce a modelling clay animation (a quick-time movie) depicting a sequence in the life of a chosen mini-beast. In the second learning scenario the children (Year 1, aged 6 years of age) created a digital (movie) advertisement for a new product that improved performance in sport.

248

Decide on the minibeast and describe its home, food and how it moved Use a storyboard to plan the animation sequence. The sequence should include at least six stages. Design and produce the props to support the design of the set. This included the creation of a modelling clay mini-beast and the backdrop and foreground for the movie. Filming the sequence. The students had to assemble the set and set up the digital camera on a tripod. They were then required to take a series of still shots of the mini-beast on the set in order to create the animation Transfer of the files to a computer for processing with the i-movie/ quick-time software.

Figure 1. Animation stage showing a model bee, a beehive and a flower

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

6.

7.

Creating the movie. This required editing the still shots to make the animation sequence. It included sequencing the shots and removing any unwanted files. If the students wanted to add a music sound track – this was possible Sharing the movie with the class in order to reflect on the processes used and the decisions made.

The task was one of several on-going projects happening in the classroom at the time. The large class had two teachers who each worked with all groups within the class on a needs basis. In order to isolate the task in the milieu of classroom practice, we video-recorded the progress of two groups through the “mini-beast movie” production over several consecutive days. In these sessions, the more experienced teacher, Teacher 1, supported the “bee” group and the “spider” group in their work with the technology. Before the children began any work with the new media available, the technical processes of the task were explained to the class during a mat session in the activity room. A large monitor was used for this session and both teachers and all the children were present. While the children had had previous experience with both the digital camera and the editing software, Teacher 1 explained and demonstrated each step of the process in the context of the new task. In this situation, the other teacher adopted a secondary role that involved asking guiding questions and reinforcing the processes described by Teacher 1. After this briefing, the groups were allowed to move to the technical aspects of the task when they were ready for stage 4 or if it was their turn. It should be noted too, that this procedure was reinforced in a de-briefing session at the end of activities for the day. In a half-hour mat session, the groups were asked to briefly share their progress for the day, any problems they encountered and any strategies that they used to solve those problems. This

Figure 2. Children photographing the animation process

meant that children who had not yet attempted the animation task could benefit from the experiences and advice of others. In general the children appeared to be confident with the equipment (digital camera and editing software) and also the animation process. They also managed turn taking and the assignment of roles within the task, although this was one of the aspects that needing scaffolding from Teacher 1 (especially with the bee group). During this time Teacher 1 remained within range of the students, in order to help or contribute when necessary. The reflection stage consisted of a mat session with the large monitor for display. Each group nominated a spokesperson and another person to operate the computer. The presentation was not rehearsed; rather Teacher 1 choreographed the process through directed questioning. The structure tended to be a brief introduction on the content, a presentation of the product and then a reflection on decisions and problem-solving that occurred during the process. During the presentation the class members were prompted to ask questions and the spokesperson was encouraged to call on members of the team in order to respond thoroughly.

249

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

Scaffolding Strategies On first impressions it seemed that Teacher 1 had a passive role and during much of the activity monitored without comment, sometimes from the other side of the room. However when reviewing the process, it was obvious that she was actually providing scaffolding throughout the whole task. During the production of resource she implemented a number of scaffolding strategies. Theses included cognitive scaffolding as Teacher 1 systematically monitored the concept development in the group activity. This incorporated steering the children through decision making to reach their goal product. This included processes such as task reinforcement and planting ideas during group discussions, for example, in response to a spinning bee problem, “What about if you use two pieces of thread instead of one to suspend your bee?” She also helped the children by reviewing progress, identifying what had already been done and what was left to do. Cognitive scaffolding also included supporting the children with conceptualizing the problem and sometimes narrowing the choices the group had to make, such as “Well you could make the spider eat the fly now or you could wait until it gets back to the web. What do you think?” The groups that were engaged in the task during our observations were remarkably confident and supportive of each other. It is likely that for this reason we saw little in terms of affective scaffolding however the support we saw in this area, included reassurance, “You’re going really well. Just a few more shots and you will be finished.”, and granting permission when the group needed to make a choice. In terms of technical competence, the children obviously had experience using computers and were not afraid to try new options. It is probable too that the prior instruction session prepared the children effectively for their technical tasks. The technical scaffolding that we observed included giving technical instructions, such as how to use

250

the digital camera. If the children did make a technical mistake or something went wrong with the equipment, the teacher implemented a process of technical recovery, increasing the amount of intervention considerably. This incorporated prompts or guiding questions - “Lets look through the menu and see if we can find an option that will help” or even physical intervention - “Hang on, I’ll just get that back for you”. The support that Teacher 1 provided for the children might be regarded as typical teacher activity that takes place in any good primary classroom. However by analysing this activity we can begin to tease out strategies that can be suggested to other teachers for computer implementation in their classrooms. In particular we would like to identify whether this activity can be considered as scaffolding, in which the interaction is collaborative, with the learners’ intentions as a focus, where the learners are crossing their own zones of proximal development and the scaffolding is being progressively withdrawn. While the aspect of a teacher scaffolding a group of children simultaneously is somewhat complex, there is evidence to suggest that Teacher 1 was scaffolding during the task. The first aspect is to establish whether Teacher 1 worked in a collaborative mode with the children, with their intentions as the goal. The fact that the children were working in a group meant that individuals needed to negotiate in terms of their own intentions. However, the nature of the task did ensure that the goal was actually determined by the students. In this sense, the teacher’s intentions (that is, the objectives of the task) “faded” to groups’ intentions in that teacher direction did not dominate and the children had a great deal of control. Possibly the most difficult aspect of scaffolding to conceptualise is the notion of crossing the Zone of Proximal Development. Even with an individual child in a one to one scaffolding situation, it could be difficult to ascertain understanding levels and consequential shifts. The concept of promoting

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

equivalent learning with six children at once is quite unrealistic. This inequity in achievement was especially apparent with the bee group, which had several group members off-task and uninvolved, while two members dominated the activity. Nevertheless, it was also evident that with both groups, some participants seemed to be gaining key concepts and making significant shifts in understanding. This observation was reinforced when the children were able to reflect on their processes and achievements. An interesting observation was that Teacher 1 implemented quite different amounts of scaffolding for the two groups. While both groups were given the opportunity to experiment with both the technology and the task, Teacher 1 used far less intervention with the spider group. It is possible that the spider group was at a different stage of development to the bee group and that some early scaffolding had already been withdrawn. Our initial observation that Teacher 1 had a relatively passive role in the group work may also contribute to this notion. It is likely that much of the scaffolding that supported the children when they initially started using the digital camera and the computer had been withdrawn as the children became more comfortable with its use.

scenario 2 – Advertising speedo: A new sports drink In this activity the Year 1 children met as a whole class group in the first instance to preview advertisements and they discussed the ways in which they were composed for maximum effectiveness. The teacher advised the class that she wanted them to work in four groups of five children to think about a new product that would enhance sports performance since the Olympics was taking place at the time. The teacher had selected the group members in this instance because she wanted a balance in terms of ability so that some students could be supported while others extended. The children were used to working in both small and

large groups since they had started school and these were both self-selected and teacher determined. As she read out the names of the children in each group she asked them to sit together on the mat for the rest of this initial session. The teacher explained to the class that there were a number of sequences of activities that needed to be completed in order to produce the advertisement and she had written these on the white board. In this first session she went through each stage of the process with the whole class group and they remained on the board for the duration of the activities, which took place over a two week time period. 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

What type of product are you going to develop? (Think about what is its purpose and what will it do?) Draw a container for the product and design a label Plan how you are going to advertise your product by creating a story-board Become familiar with the video camera and how to use it Think about what props you will need. (Are they available? Do you have to make some? Do you have to bring some from home?) Film each of the sequences Download the movie to the computer and edit with Imovie. You will need your script for this. Present your advertisement to the class

At the same time the children were introduced to the video camera. Many of the children had a video camera at home but it became evident that few were allowed to use it. The teacher demonstrated the use of the camera to the children and then over the course of the next session worked with each of the four groups to show them the specific features that they would need to use it effectively for their presentation. In working with the groups over the next two weeks it was apparent that their ability to work in an independent and

251

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

successful way on this task had been established in the first two terms of their schooling. This was term three of a four-term year. This particular teacher had from day one, encouraged the children in her class to stop and think if they encountered a problem, ask a friend, ask the group and then come to the teacher if they were “really stuck!”

Scaffolding Strategies As the children embarked on the creation of their advertisement it was clearly evident that the teacher had already used specific scaffolding strategies outlined earlier. She was very specific in her instructions to the children, and explained that this was because this was a complex task that needed to be conducted as a series of events. Furthermore, it was the first time they had used the digital video camera and its functions. She noted that in other instances she might not be so detailed in her instructions and would let the children make decisions, but in this case she wanted to support them to make and follow a plan that required that the sequence be outlined and followed. In the two weeks that followed, it might have seemed that the teacher, like the one in Scenario 1 had quite a passive role during the activity. She monitored what the children were doing, both with supportive and questioning comments, and sometimes just watched them with no comment. Figure 3. Speedo makes you fast!

252

However, it was apparent that she was continually active and scaffolding their learning in diverse ways. In the first instance much of this seemed to be technical, since this was the first time that the groups had used the digital video camera in a school activity. The children needed to know the specific functions that would enable the production of the video but they also questioned her about whether they could incorporate additional features – such as being able to use still pictures as well as moving ones. At one point the teacher realized they needed to have a stand to hold the camera still so she went out and purchased a tripod. Then, when it was time to edit the video she demonstrated the basic editing features and made charts of the essential processes that were located just above the computer so that the children could easily refer to them. The editing work was completed in specifically organized sessions, which had to be adhered to in order for all four groups to complete the task. The teacher also made time for the groups to share the process with each other so that they could learn from each other about short cuts and things to be avoided. For example, timing sequences to the edited dialog were quite difficult and often had to be done several times before they were deemed to be satisfactory by the children. Based on their shared experiences the teacher identified that one of the most important features was to have your text clearly written, practiced and timed in order to match it to the timed frame that was being edited. This is where her cognitive scaffolding overlapped with the technical and in many instances it was difficult to differentiate them as they were so entwined. At the start of the project when the groups came to her with their development ideas the scaffolding was very much cognitive in terms of helping the groups to realize what was possible and what was not as well as to make suggestions about the scripts and how to make the advertisements more like the ones viewed at the start of the session. Similarly, there was a high degree of overlap between these forms of scaffolding with her

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

positive comments or affective scaffolding. Her encouragement in the form of comments such as, “That is a really good idea! I would like to have this product!” and “That was a well designed and filmed sequence!” were essential encouragement for the members of the groups. They were frequently linked to experiences where she had just showed them a new technique on the camera or in the editing process as well as being in the form of challenging questions to extend what they were doing to make it better. For example, if they had a sequence that was too long and needed shortening since there was not much action happening and advertisements by definition need to be short and to the point! This was a challenging task for these 6 year olds, both conceptually and in terms of the technical execution required for the advertisement to be shown. Even the most able children were challenged to do things that they had not done before and those who were struggling with ‘school mathematics’ such as that in basic number work worked effectively with coordinating time and motion in an applied context. The final advertisements were well designed, planned and constructed and the result of intensive work over a period of two weeks that was multidisciplinary in focus. The teacher did not organize the day with subject specific sessions such as English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, but rather had a literacy and numeracy hour and the topic work of which the Advertisement project was a part. In her planning she linked the various activities to the curriculum outcomes stated for Year 1 and in organizing her programme like this was able to incorporate authentic learning tasks as part of her planning for engagement with ideas. She was also concerned that she provided contexts for deep learning experiences that were captured in criteria referenced behaviours and outcomes that could be built on throughout their primary school years.

dIscussIon And conclusIon These learning scenarios demonstrate aspects of scaffolding that were also apparent in our previous work (e.g. Yelland and Masters, 1994, 1995b) about the social – cognitive strategies and interactions of children and the use of scaffolding that enhanced and extended their learning in computer based contexts. Scaffolding has often been viewed in terms of considering the expert way to complete a task and requiring children to model / mimic this by guiding them. We have considered scaffolding experiences that are responsive to the spontaneous actions that children used when independently solving the task. Effective scaffolding involves using a range of techniques and a variety of tasks that will provide opportunities for children to engage with concepts and creative thinking processes in new and dynamic ways. When these techniques are considered in terms of their cognitive, technical and affective qualities it has become apparent that their usefulness can be gauged more effectively in terms of learning outcomes. Our work has also indicated that the computer and the type of tasks used create a context that is a type of scaffold, that may be complemented with suitable cognitive and affective strategies. The environment in which we conducted our studies were ones that encouraged active exploration of ideas and afford the opportunity for children to work with mathematical concepts in new and dynamic ways. However, the role of the teacher is critical in this context. In working with teachers we have found that they are able to raise their level of confidence and incorporate scaffolding techniques while also planning for opportunities to encourage children to take risks. It is evident that a teacher who effectively scaffolds learning ensures that children are afforded the opportunity to maximize their potential and use creative thinking skills to solve problems. Teacher decisions about the level and type of scaffolding will depend on a number of factors which will include the nature of the task,

253

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

the needs and interests of the children and the concept / processes involved and opportunities to share ideas with peers or present them to an authentic audience. What is clearly evident is that teachers need to be cognisant of these features and incorporate them in all aspects of their teaching and learning environment. The description of the strategies used by experienced teachers in the learning scenarios provided some interesting insights into how teachers might scaffold when children are using technology. We have found that an experienced teacher constantly monitors children’s progress and contributes in a number of different ways during a task. The teacher must also know when to withdraw support in order to allow children to explore and construct new understandings. Further research in this area might investigate the role teacher scaffolding plays in an individual child’s learning while using new media and especially how the teacher can scaffold each class member while they use new media for specific and stated learning goals. Another aspect might examine strategies for how a novice teacher can acquire the scaffolding skills described here in order to establish scaffolding as a essential component of implementing new media in the classroom.

Baron, L. (1991). Peer tutoring, microcomputer learning and young children. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 2(4), 27-40.

reFerences

Coltman, P., Anghileri, J., & Petyaeva, D. (2002). Scaffolding learning through meaningful tasks and adult interaction. Early Years, 22(1), 39-49.

Barbuto, L., Swaminathan, S., Trawick-Smith, J., & Wright, J. (2003). The role of the teacher in scaffolding children’s interactions in a technological environment: How a technology project is transforming preschool teacher practices in urban schools. In J. Wright, A. McDougall, J. Murnane and J. Lowe (Eds.), Young children and learning technologies: Selected papers from the International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 3.5 open conference(Vol. 34). Melbourne, Australia: Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology. Retrieved: December 12, 2004, from http://crpit. com/confpapers/CRPITV34Barbuto.pdf 254

Beed, P., Hawkins, M., & Roller, C. (1991). Moving learners towards independence: The power of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher, 44 (9), 648-655. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser. (Ed.). Advances in Instructional Psychology Volume 1. (pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bull, K., Shuler, P., Overton, R., Kimball, S., Boykin, C., & Griffin, J. (1999). Processes for developing scaffolding in a computer mediated learning environment. In Rural Special Education for the New Millennium. Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Albuquerque, New Mexico: March. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429765) Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Mahwah: N J: Erlbaum.

Cuthbert, A., & Hoadley, C. M. (1998, April). Designing desert houses in the knowledge integration environment. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California. Davidson, J.E & Sternberg, R. (1985). Competence and performance in intellectual development. In E. Niemark, R Delisi and J.L. Newman (Eds.) Moderators of competence (pp 43-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

Flick, L. (1998, April). Integrating elements of inquiry into the flow of middle level teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego.

Oshima, J., & Oshima, R. (1999, April). Scaffolding for progressive discourse in CSILE: Case study of undergraduate programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Graves, M., Graves, M., & Braaten, S. (1996). Scaffolding reading experiences for inclusive classes. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 14-16.

Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73-98.

Grunwald, P. (2004). Children, families and the Internet. Bethesda, MD: Grunwals Association.

Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73 - 98.

Howe, N, and Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books. Lave, J., Smith, S., & Butler, M. (1988). Problem solving as everyday practice. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The Teaching and Assessing of Mathematical Problem Solving, (pp. 61-81). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Livingstone, S.& Bober, M. (2005) UK children go online: Final report of key project findings. Project Report. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Luckin, R. (2001). Designing children’s software to ensure productive interactivity through collaboration in the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 13, 57-85. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999) Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111. Masters, J. & Yelland, N. (2002) Teacher scaffolding: An exploration of exemplary practice. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 313-321. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rideout, V. J., Vandewater, E. A., & Wartella, E. A. (2003). Zero to six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Revelle, G., Druin, A., Platner, M., Bederson, B., Hourcade, J., & Sherman, L. (2002). A visual search tool for early elementary science students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(1), 49-57. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. & Gardener, W. P. (1984). Guidance in cognitive development: An examination of mother-child instruction. In B. Rogoff & J.Lave (Eds.). Everyday cognition: Its development in social contexts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 6-10. Schetz, K. & Stremmel, A. (1994). Teacherassisted computer implementation: A Vygotskian perspective. Early Education and Development, 5 (1), 18-26. Searle, D. (1984). Scaffolding: Who’s building who’s building? Language Arts, 61(5), 480-483.

255

Reconceptualising Scaffolding for New Media Contexts

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). A theory of teaching as assisted performance. In P. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (eds) Learning to Think (pp. 42-62). London & New York: The Open University. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wollman-Bonilla, J., & Werchadlo, B. (1999). Teacher and peer roles in scaffolding first graders’ responses to literature. The Reading Teacher, 52(6), 598-607. Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1978). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Wood, D. (2001). Scaffolding, contingent tutoring and computer-supported learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 280-292. Yelland, N.J.(1998). Empowerment and control with technology for young children. Educational Theory and Practie,20(2), 45-55. Yelland, N.J. & Masters, J.E. (1994, December). Innovation in practice: Learning in a technological environment. Paper presented at AARE, Newcastle.

256

Yelland, N.J. & Masters, J.E. (1995a). New ways with Logo: Powerful problem solving for young children. Quick, 54, 4-7. Yelland, N. & Masters, J. (1995b). Learning without limits: Empowerment for young children exploring with technology. Proceedings of Australian Computers in Education Conference (pp. 79-93), Perth, Australia. Yelland, N.J. & Masters, J.E. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding with technology. Computers in Education.48(3), 362-382. Yelland, N.J. (2007). Shift to the future: Rethinking learning with new technologies in education. New York: Routledge.

Key terMs And deFInItIons Millennial Learners: Children who were born post 1985. Scaffolding: Supporting children’s learning with prompts to encourage their thinking and reasoning.

257

Chapter XVI

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments Yufeng Qian St. Thomas University, USA

AbstrAct This chapter reviews the use of 3-D virtual learning environments in kindergarten through secondary education in the United States. This emerging new learning environment poses new challenges to learners and requires broader spectrum of media literacy skills. By examining exemplary 3-D virtual learning programs and current state of media literacy education, this chapter reconceptualizes media literacy as integrated learning skills required in the emerging learning environments and identifies new directions to media literacy education to better prepare students to be competent learners and citizens in the digital age.

IntroductIon Virtual worlds, evolving from virtual reality technology and expanding on the Internet, are growing at an exponential rate in recent years. Virtual worlds are visually immersive 3-Dimentional (3-D) online environments where individuals, represented by avatars, meet, socialize and interact with each other, computer-based agents, digital artifacts, and the environments in real time, just as they might in the real world (Clarke & Dede, 2005). Unlike in the real world, however, virtual worlds enable people to do things that are impossible or impractical in real life, such as fly-

ing, dressing wild, buying and building a land, teleporting from one place to another, and “physically” (via avatars) showing up in the same room with people from all around the world. Virtual worlds have been said to be a truly innovative medium of the 21st century that provides a brand new communication experience (Craver, 1994; The New Media Consortium, 2007). Over the last few years, there has been an increasing interest in virtual worlds in education. A variety of 3-D online learning environments has rapidly burst into the limelight in education, including Second Life, Active Worlds, There, River City, Quest Atlantis, and Whyville. Second

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

Life, in particular, has attracted over 12 million residents (Washington Post, 2008). A growing body of research suggests that virtual worlds are a powerful tool that may reshape teaching and learning in the 21st century (Cross, O’Driscoll, & Trondsen, 2006; Dede, 1995; Pantelidis, 1993; Watson, 2000). Some have argued that 3-D virtual world represents ideal online learning environments where spaces and artifacts, being as realistic and detailed as possible, may engage learners both perceptually and emotionally (Prensky, 2001; Selwood, Mikropoulos, & Whitelock, 2000). The social aspects inherent with virtual worlds may also have tremendous implication in education. Learners’ simulation, role-playing, reflection, and collaboration, enabled by the 3-D virtual technology, provide a more learner-centered knowledge building environment (Clarke & Dede, 2005) Parallel to the new possibilities and potential of 3-D virtual worlds to education, learning in virtual worlds demands a greater degree of participation, thinking, and learning, which poses new challenges to learners. Current curriculum at kindergarten through secondary (K-12) level in the United States has been slow in reacting to the emergence of 3-D learning environments, continuing to operate within a print-based cultural logic despite the technological changes that increasingly influence children’s lives (Squire & Jan, 2007), leaving children on their own to “swim or sink” in the pop media sea. This chapter examines and reconceptualizes media literacy skills in the context of emerging virtual world learning environments and discusses new directions for media literacy education that will better prepare this generation of learners for the new media landscape.

eXeMplAry 3-d vIrtuAl World leArnIng envIronMents To harness the power of 3-D virtual world technology and cater to the needs and preferences of

258

digital natives, a number of learning organizations and educational foundations have begun to explore the use of this emerging learning environment in K-12 education. While still at an exploratory stage, there exist a few 3-D virtual world learning programs that have shown great potential in engaging learners (Barab, Arici, & Jackson, 2005), fostering deep learning and thinking (Ketelhut, Nelson, Dede, & Clarke, 2006), and developing life-long learning skills (Gee, 2003). Three of such programs that have been widely cited in the literature are Global Kids Second Life, Quest Atlantis, and River City.

global Kids second life Among the most powerful and popular virtual worlds is probably Second Life. Linden Lab, the developer of Second Life, has dedicated Teen Second Life to youths of 13-17 years old. Global Kids, a New York-based nonprofit organization targeting teen youth, is one of the first to set up educational projects in Teen Second Life. Starting in the summer of 2006, Global Kids has launched Camp GK, Online Educational Leadership, GK Machinima Island, and GK Serious Gaming Island in Teen Second Life. Having received massive press attention from a number of media outlets (see for example, BusinessWeek, 2006; Education Week, 2007), GK Second Life has been regarded as an invaluable, pioneering effort in the use of 3-D virtual world technology in education. To make use of the vast virtual land available, kids are encouraged to build the facilities and material required for a program, such as meeting rooms, workshop materials, and t-shirts for the program (Second Life, 2007). A workshop in Second Life can start in the GK Clubhouse, move to the factory, transfer to the dance club, and then conclude at the campfire, which greatly enhance kids’ sense of ownership of their learning spaces and enjoyment of the learning experience. In this virtual world, multiple channels have been used to add social nuance, and to organize various

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

modes of communication. Local chatting (such as “talking,” “shouting,” and “whispering”) can be used between two or more avatars within 25 meters, whereas global “instant messaging” is distance-free allowing larger group of members’ communication instantly. In addition, teleporting allows “instantaneous travel” from one place to another at any time. To leverage the richness of Web 2.0 media, Global Kids also has integrated other types of Web 2.0 tools, scuh as blogs, wikis, in delivering meanignful end products to a broader audience possible (Arreguin, 2007). Another feature of Global Kids Second Life is its ability to engage kids in an active exploration and inquiry of real-life issues. On Global Kids Island, teenagers from around the world explored the global issues, commitment to civic participation, and leadership skills. In Camp GK, children participated in a four-week virtual workshop about child sex trafficking. As a result, campers built a maze to educate their online community to inspire them to take action on this issue. In its first eight weeks, the content-rich maze was visited by 2,500 teens (Global Kids Digital Media Initiative, 2007). Similarly, Ayiti: The Cost of Life is a role-playing game that requires the player to make life-and-death decisions for each member of an impoverished Haitian family of five in a farm town, which is a real-life problem that involves decision-making about schooling, medical care, work, and the family budget (Global Kids Digital Media Initiative, 2007). In addition, Global Kids Second Life aims to enhance kids’ social skills. Each location in Global Kids Second Life can be associated with different types of activities, norms and behaviors – meeting at the Clubhouse, working in the factory, and having fun at the dance club. Avatar “Lucky Figtree” wrote, “Since the first Camp GK in Teen Second Life, I can say with confidence that I have gained many social skills. I can hold out a meaningful debate, and I learned tons about important world causes” (Global Kids Digital Media Initiative, 2007). Global Kids Second Life

is also a unique virtual hangout created by teens who like to spend time there, playing games in GK Machinima Island and Serious Gaming Island. In this emerging, open-ended and somewhat anonymous social network, kids learn to develop their identities, form the ethos of the community, and adjust and fit into the community norm.

quest Atlantis Quest Atlantis (QA), funded by National Science Foundation and developed by the Center for Research on Learning & Technology at Indiana University, is a 3-D multi-user online learning community that is intended to engage children ages 9–12 in science and social studies tasks. Its legend is that the people of “Atlantis” face an impending disaster; their world is slowly being destroyed through environmental, moral, and social decay. The task of the project is to save Atlantis. QA consists of 11 worlds and each world features 3 villages that address different aspects of the world’s theme, such as urban ecology, water quality, astronomy, and weather. Each Quest is connected to local academic standards. Completing Quests involves children in real-world activities, such as conducting environmental studies, researching other cultures, calculating frequency distributions, analyzing newspaper articles, interviewing community members, and developing action plans (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux, & Tuzun, 2005). In QA, children can build virtual personae, virtually travel to places where they talk to other users and mentors, and conduct the Quests. Research has shown that QA has not only engaged children (both genders) in the 3-D fantasy setting and motivated them to complete the tasks (“Quests”) (Barab, Arici, Jackson, 2005), but it also has promoted deeper thinking and higher levels of learning in science, social studies, and language arts (Barab, Dodge, Tuzun, Job-Sluder, Jackson, Arici, et al, 2007). One of the core elements of QA is a storyline presented through a variety of media, including

259

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

videos, novellas, comic books, and movie-style posters. The storyline, spreading across various media, provides participants an integrated, memorable, and engaging game context. Like in other 3-D virtual worlds, children may develop online personae by way of avatar customization and their own personal homepages, which enhance children’s sense of identity, sense of belonging and ownership of their learning spaces. After children log into QA, they can interact with other children (in the form of avatars) around the world via avatar movements, text-chat, or email. As both consumers and producers of this digital environment, children need to acquire and develop skills of a variety of online tools (including productivity tools, modeling tools, visualization tools, communication tools, etc.) so as to interact, explore, and document their thinking process and learning products (Barab, Arici, Jackson, 2005). To echo the national call for inquiry-based math and science learning, QA has been designed to support children’s learning and thinking in the manner of scientific inquiry. As a core focus of this project, QA embeds a ‘socio-scientific inquiry’ process into its environment, “the process of using scientific methods to interrogate rich narratives about societal issues that have a scientific basis, yet whose solution requires balancing scientific claims with political, economic, and ethical concerns” (Barab, Sadler, Heiselt, Hickey, & Zuiker, 2006, p. 60). QA’s inquiry-based activities begin with a problem that is grounded in real-world issues. Leveraging 3-D technologies and game-based methodologies, the problems were presented in interactive narrative in which the ‘‘reader’’ has agency in co-determining how the story unfolds. The inquiry activities involve students in the process of refining questions, gathering data, evaluating information, developing plausible interpretations, and reflecting on their findings (Barab, Sadler, Heiselt, Hickey, & Zuiker, 2006). Similar to other multi-user virtual worlds, QA is a globally distributed community with over 4,500 participants from seven countries (Barab,

260

Arici, & Jackson, 2005). It provides a “context of participation” where children have the opportunity to interact with users from around the world in a protected virtual environment. Children communicate and collaborate through Co-Questing, Bulletin Boards, Blogs, and other group activities, in which they learn how to interact (socializing, discussing, negotiating, etc.) with other avatars. As one of the core elements of this virtual world, QA’ “value-sensitive community” supports not only collaborative activities for completing the tasks, but also promotes formation of identity, relationships and networks. In fact, each member of the QA community has formed his/her identity around participation related to the life commitments (Barab, Arici, & Jackson, 2005). Like most current virtual communities, QA is a self-organizing community where identity, relationships and networks would eventually emerge, evolve and transform. Participatory skills are critical in this online community where participants need to understand the complexity of the community and know how to cope with it.

river city River City, funded by the National Science Foundation and developed by Harvard University, is another widely cited 3-D virtual world targeting K-12 learners. Similar to Quest Atlantis, the objective of River City is to engage children in scientific inquiry-based learning. The virtual world is a simulated 19th-century city with a river running through it, and its citizens face chronic illness. The students’ task is to find out why the residents of River City are getting sick and what can be done to help them. Upon entering the city, students’ avatars can interact with each other, the avatars of instructors, and the digital artifacts of raw data and tacit clues as to possible causes of illness. Working in teams, students are engaged in solving multi-causal problems embedded within a complex environment. At the end of curriculum, students share and compare their hypothesis and

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

ways to solve the problem with that of other teams. The research results indicated that this 3-D virtual learning environment was highly motivating to all students, including lower ability students typically uninterested in classroom activities (Ketelhut, Dede, Clarke, Nelson, 2006); at the same time, it improved students’ content knowledge in biology and ecology and inquiry skills as compared to a similar paper-based curriculum (Ketelhut, Clarke, Dede, Nelson, & Bowman, 2005). The interface of River City consists of several key areas. The “Virtual Space” contains people, objects, and tools that carry information about the River City, which students can explore as well as meet avatars of all other visitors and chat with them. The “View and Action Space” allows students to change their viewpoint inside the virtual space and allows avatars to perform different actions (e.g., jumping, waving). The “Hints Machine” will flash periodically with hints and questions to help students better understand an issue. River City features a Global icon that shows the student’s current location within the city and that the student can teleport to another location by clicking the desired location (Ketelhut, Nelson, Dede, & Clarke, 2006). Enabled by 3-D virtual reality technologies, River City is a real compelling environment that draws on the strengths and interests of tech-savvy students (Abdul-Alim, 2006). Similar to Quest Atlantis, River City is centered on the scientific inquiry skills, as well as on the content in biology and ecology that are integrated with historical, social, and geographical content. The design of the River City environment consists of four scientific inquiry elements: connecting personal understandings with those of sound science, designing experiments, investigating phenomena, and constructing meaning from data and observations. Students are guided through the process of making observation, posing questions, developing hypothesis, investigating, proposing answers, explanations, and predictions, and communicating the results in the form of a

letter to the Mayor of River City. The problems are interdisciplinary that integrate content from science, history, and social studies, allowing students to experience real world inquiry skills required in disentangling multi-causal problems in a complex environment and start to develop scientific habits of mind (Ketelhut, Clarke, Dede, Nelson, & Bowman, 2005). Another focus of River City is the development of participation and collaboration skills, which is realized through teamwork (Clarke & Dede, 2005). Working in a small research team of two to four, students are engaged in a “participatory historical situation” in which they need to work closely to resolve an authentic problem. Students project to each other “snapshots” of their current individual thinking and also can “teleport” to join anyone on their team for joint investigation (Clarke, 2007). As one of the teachers who have adopted this project commented, “Value is placed on working together … They have to communicate, and they have to convey the results of what they did accurately and clearly” (Abdul-Alim, 2006). In the past few years, nearly 10,000 students in the United States and internationally have completed the River City curriculum as part of their middle school science classes (Nelson 2005).

rethInKIng MedIA lIterAcy sKIlls In 3-d vIrtuAl World leArnIng envIronMents Global Kids Second Life, Quest Atlantis, and River City represent an emerging new type of learning in the 21st century. Different from the traditional print-based learning in the classroom, learning in 3-D virtual worlds is demanding and requires learners’ sophisticated use of a variety of online technologies, greater levels of thinking and active participation and social skills. This new type of learning requires a new language for thinking about media literacy in the age of 3-D virtual worlds. The exemplary use of 3-D virtual worlds

261

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

in K-12 setting (as discussed earlier) has suggested the following emerging media literacy skills.

transmedia literacy skills Virtual world learning environments, bringing together the strength of so many different online technologies, require people to be sophisticated in using all the forms, not just reading and typing written words. Transmedia literacy, therefore, refers to the ability of sense-making, communication, and articulation across multiple media channels and modalities that requires a high degree of information processing. As demonstrated in Global Kids Second Life, Quest Atlantis, and River City, part of what makes working in these virtual worlds so engaging is the media-enriched environment and the process of exploring and manipulating different media and tools. The same piece of information could be presented in various media format - textual, aural, visual, or a combination of all, which conveys varied levels of meaning. Students thus need the skills to make sense of visualizations and sound, and to grasp what kinds of information are being conveyed by various systems of representations. Students should also understand that each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the use of transmedia allows each to augment the other to create a stronger whole. At the same time, students need the skills to express themselves, interact with others, and create final products (learning outcomes) across multiple media and understand how meaning will be shaped by each media.

Inquiry skills There has been a wide consensus in K-12 education that memorizing facts and information is not the most important skill in today’s world; instead students need to acquire the inquiry skill that is needed in real world. While there are varied definitions of inquiry focusing on different aspects, inquiry skill required in 3-D virtual

262

worlds consists of the desire of “I want to know” and the ability to question, analyze, and explore the many levels of meaning in the media-enriched and information-rich world. In virtual worlds, facts and information, stored and presented in multiple channels, are already abundant and easily assessable. Learning in the information-rich environment is not so much about memorizing factual knowledge and seeking the right answer, but rather about seeking contextual appropriate solutions to problems or issues. Just as in Global Kids, Quest Atlantis, and River City, children are exposed to real world issues and problems situated in complex contexts. Such issues have no right or wrong answers; instead, they require learners’ persistent exploration of solutions that are contextually appropriate. These educational virtual worlds have centered on the authentic inquiry process of making observations, posing questions, examining available resources, gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data, proposing answers/explanations/predictions, and communicating results (National Science Teachers Association, 2004). Therefore, for educators, inquiry skills and inquiring attitudes and habits of mind should be emphasized in daily teaching practice so as to well prepare the children for the real world.

participatory skills 3-D virtual worlds act like “affinity spaces” (Gee, 2003) where people who share common interests and endeavors, come together to share, learn, and contribute. Such worlds require students to have a participatory spirit and the skill to create, share, and sometimes mentor in a collective intelligence community. 3-D virtual worlds are also an emerging social network, in which individuals connect with each other and form networks of connections. Many tools are available in virtual worlds (for example Second Life) for social networking purposes, including creating and/or joining groups, instant messaging, or teleporting. Such

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

social networks are self-organizing, continually evolving, dynamically changing that is hard to predict and prescribe, which are challenging to participants, especially those who are new to this novel learning environment. Therefore, in addition to the transmedia and inquiry skills, the literacy for learning in the virtual worlds should include participatory skills. In the virtual world where students have the maximum freedom of being present, lurking, or totally invisible, students need to be equipped with the participatory spirit – a sense of belonging and desire of commitment to a community. Participatory spirit implies a willingness of “I want to be part of it.” With such desire, students will be able to actively participate, explore, and contribute, instead of passively receiving information. Students should also understand the ways of interacting within a larger community - how networks work, what the ethos of a community is, when to trust and when not to trust others, and how to work thing out. They need skills for working within social networks, for pooling knowledge within a collective intelligence, for negotiating differences and divergences within and across online communities, and making sense of a coherent picture from conflicting bits of data around them.

reconceptualizing Media literacy in the digital Age Defined generally as “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages in a wide variety of forms” (Aufderheide & Firestone, 1993, p. 7), the focus of traditional media literacy skills has centered on an individual’s critical analysis and creative expression of media messages in a variety of media formats. This view of media literacy was rooted in the print-based media and has expanded to include digital media messages in the multimedia format, such as MP3 music, films on DVDs, TV advertising, Web sites, digital story-telling, all of which are mainly in the one-way transmission mode.

Apparently, discrepancies exist between the dominant view of media literacy skills and the needed media literacy skills required in the new learning environment. As demonstrated in the exemplars of 3-D virtual world programs, the focus of the new learning environment has shifted from individual critical consumption to active involvement and contribution in a collective sense-making and knowledge-building community. Different from the traditional learning environment, 3-D learning environments are multi-dimensional that enable interaction at multiple levels (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many; local, distant, and global) and in different modes (synchronous vs. asynchronous; text-based vs. video-based). While an individual’s interpretation and analysis ability is still a very important skill in this environment, learners’ inquiry mind and participatory spirit and skills are even more critical to their success or failure in this environment. Therefore, the scope of media literacy skills in the new learning environments needs to expand to include inquiry and participatory skills as well.

rethInKIng MedIA lIterAcy educAtIon Pioneered by Marshall McLuhan and John Culkin (1964), explicit media literacy education in the United States began in the 1970s due to the pervasiveness of film, TV, and radio on the society, and focused on inoculation of children against the so-called “evil effects” of mass media (Starker, 1989). Beginning in the late 1980s, the focus of media education has shifted from “protection” to “empowerment,” aiming to equip children with the ability to identify the political, cultural, economic, and social implications of media messages (Thomas, 1986). With the advent of Internet technology and the emergence of 3-D virtual worlds, the focus and goals of media education may need to expand to adapt to the technology-rich and media-saturated learning environments.

263

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

current state of Media literacy education While still an underrepresented topic in the United States, media literacy education is gaining increasing visibility and status in K-12 schools (Heins & Cho, 2003; Hobbs, 2005). All 50 states have included some elements of media literacy education within state curriculum frameworks (Kubey & Baker, 1999). In Massachusetts, for example, the English language arts state curriculum framework recognizes media literacy as one of the ten guiding principles for teaching, learning, and assessing English language arts. “Media” has also been identified as one of the four main strands, in addition to “Language,” “Reading and Literature,” and “Composition” (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2001). In addition to English language arts, media literacy education has been incorporated into such curricular areas as communication arts, fine and performing arts, social studies, and health education (Hobbs, 2005). By April 2000, all 50 states (100%) have included at least one element of media literacy in English language arts and communication arts, 48 states (96%) in health, consumer skills, 38 states (76%) in social studies, history, and civics, and 7 states (14%) have listed media as a separate strand (content area) (Media Literacy Clearinghouse, n.d.). Prominent skills being emphasized among the state standards have centered on two strands: critical consumption and creative production of media messages. The critical strand emphasizes student’s ability to interpret, analyze, and evaluate media content within social, cultural, political, and economic contexts. The ultimate goal of this strand of media education is to empower students to be critical and wise consumers of media. One common classroom practice used, most likely in English language arts class, is to use critical questions to guide students’ interpretation and analysis of media “texts” – the “texts” in the forms of films, television programs, magazines,

264

newspapers, and popular music (Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999). Main topics include news, advertising, issues of representation and media violence, sexism, racism, stereotyping, and homophobia (Considine & Haley, 1999). As an effort to unify the field and guide schools and districts in organizing and structuring teaching activities using a media literacy lens, the Center for Media Literacy, a pioneering force in the development and practice of media literacy in the United States, has developed key concepts and questions to guide the instructional practice. The five key concepts are (1) All media messages are ‘constructed;’ (2) Media messages are constructed using a creative language with its own rules; (3) Different people experience the same media message differently; (4) Media have embedded values and points of view; (5) Most media messages are organized to gain profit and/or power. The five key questions are (1) Who created this message? (2) What creative techniques are used to attract my attention? (3) How might different people understand this message differently than me? (4) What values, lifestyles and points of view are represented in, or omitted from, this message? (5) Why is this message being sent? In contrast, the creative strand teaches students how to communicate effectively and creatively in a variety of media formats. Clearly, media literacy education in the creative strand has been used to empower the students to be creative media makers. Most media production courses are offered as elective courses, often as part of vocational education (Cuban, 2002). In these courses, students learn how to operate media production equipments (such as digital camcorders, switching and sound equipment) and multimedia editing software programs (such as PowerPoint, iMovie, Adobe Photoshop Elements). Common projects include writing for school newspapers and magazine articles; creating public service announcements, narrative films, and music yearbooks; writing film scripts, song lyrics; and designing class or project web sites and computer games. Lagging behind the

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

critical strand of media literacy education, there has not been a nationwide effort to develop a set of key principles to guide the teaching practice in the creative strand. There is also a tendency to confuse media literacy in the creative strand with technology skills, with media production strand focusing solely on technical operations and skills, thus losing the point of media literacy education.

Redefining Directions of Media literacy education As discussed earlier, building upon the research in the fields of humanities, current approaches to media education in U.S. schools are limited to the subject areas akin to humanities, such as English language arts, communication, fine, and performing arts, and social studies (history, cultural studies). With few states having connected media literacy to their math and science curricular standards, media literacy education appears to be neglected in the core curriculum of math and science. It is indisputable that math and science are two of the subject areas that are technology-driven and media-dependent. Much of the information about math and science is represented and conveyed via a variety of media. Current teaching and learning of math and science rely heavily on technology tools, such as spreadsheet, database, visual displaying, concept mapping, and 3-D modeling and simulation. It makes much sense that media literacy should be considered a critical element in math and science education and should be seamlessly integrated into the daily teaching activities. Educators could guide students to discover the different messages and potential bias from the same set of data that is represented in different media formats. Students should also be empowered with the ability to choose the appropriate tool or combination of tools and to manipulate the tool functions to share their scientific report in the most effective and appealing way.

Closely related to the aforementioned direction of expansion of media literacy education into the math and science curriculum, the current scope of media literacy skills should be expanded to encompass more competencies and skills that are required in the new media landscape where learning is a matter of inquiry and participation. New media literacy is comprised of a set of technical, thinking, and social skills that are essential for this generation of students to be competent learners in the digital age. Just as each new media brings with it a new form of expression, interaction, and power (McLuhan, 1964), 3-D virtual world learning environments provide a more dynamic platform for social interaction, communication, expression, and approaches to learning, all of which is enabled by a plethora of media and technology. Therefore, one of the major goals of new media literacy education in the digital age is to develop students’ transmedia skills. Students’ technical and literacy skills across multiple media channels and modalities become especially important in this technology-rich and media-saturated learning environment. For educators, transmedia literacy skill should be emphasized in the daily teaching to help students become skillful and thoughtful consumers and creators of messages in the crossmedia format. Equally important to the transmedia literacy skills are the spirit, habit, and skills of inquiry. The second goal of media literacy education should be to help students foster the questing mind and inquiry skills. Being immersed in the information and media rich environment where each and every participant has the tool and freedom to produce messages, some being valuable and some being misinformation, learners need the thinking skills to seek out the most relevant and most reliable messages and set aside the irrelevant and the misinformation. Students should be guided through the inquiry process of active exploration, critical analysis, intentional reflection, and meaningful construction (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003).

265

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

In parallel to the goals of developing transmedia and inquiry skills, the third goal of new media literacy education is to develop students’ participatory spirit and skills in an immersive technology-rich learning environment. 3-D virtual learning environments come with both benefits and challenges. Children and adolescents tend to become addicted to virtual worlds - “the immersive addiction syndrome.” Students need to understand the true meaning of “participation” and the extent and levels of participation in virtual learning environments. They should be educated to know how much energy and time they should put into the off-task activities (such as online games, chatting, dressing up their avatars, etc.). Similarly, children need to be aware of issues that come with virtual reality technology, such as “virtual identity” and “virtual conduct.” They should be educated to become competent participants and good citizens as well by following the appropriate virtual conduct as they would in the real world.

conclusIon Despite the increasing interest in and fast growth of 3-D virtual worlds in education, little research has been conducted to investigate the needed media literacy skills in this technology-rich and media-saturated learning environment. This chapter suggests that the focus of media literacy skills needs to expand to include transmedia, inquiry thinking, and participatory skills, all of which are required not only in this new learning environment but are also an essential life skill for the 21st century. If we are committed to educating and producing competent learners and citizens for the new global age, it is imperative to integrate the new media literacy education into all K-12 curriculums, including not only language arts and social studies but also math and science. Media literacy educators need to encourage not only critical analysis skills, but also sophisticated and

266

creative use of available technologies, persistent and strategic inquiry, and active and responsible participation in a collective intelligence online community. Working closely with educators, researchers need to conduct more formal research to better understand the effects of media literacy education on students’ motivation and course work, and investigate their impact on other realms of cognitive development, emotional intelligence, and life-long learning competence.

reFerences Abdul-Alim, J. (2006). Tech-savvy students find lifeline in virtual science: Bayside class acquires vital skills through Web-based ‘epidemic.’ Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.jsonline. com/story/index.aspx?id=429182 Alvermann, D.E., Moon, J.S., & Hagood, M.C. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Arreguin, C. (2007). Reports from the field: Second Life community convention 2007 education track summary. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http:// www.holymeatballs.org/pdfs/VirtualWorldsforLearningRoadmap_012008.pdf Aufderheide P., & Firestone, C. (1993) Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Queenstown, MD: Aspen Institute. Barab, S.A., Arici, A., & Jackson, C. (2005). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A designbased investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 65(1), 15-21. Barab, S., Dodge, T., Tuzun, H., Job-Sluder, K., Jackson, C., Arici, A., et al,(2007). The Quest Atlantis Project: A socially-responsive play space for learning. In B. E. Shelton & D. Wiley (Eds.), The educational design and use of simulation

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

computer games. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Barab, S.A., Sadler, T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., Zuiker, S. (2006). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: A framework for socio-scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59-82. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: QuestAtlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107. BusinessWeek. (2006, November 27). Second Life lessons. Business Week. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/ content/06_48/b4011413.htm Clarke, J. (2007). Trajectories of participation: A pilot study of students’ behaviors in a multiuser, virtual environment. Poster presented at the 2007 American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL. Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2005, April). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using multi-user environment (MUVs) in middle school science. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Considine, D.M., & Haley, G.E. (1999). Visual messages: Integrating imagery into instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press. Craver, C.W. (1994). School library media centers in the 21st century: Changes and challenges. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Cross, J., O’Driscoll, T., & Trondsen, E. (2006). Another life: Virtual worlds as tools for learning. E-Learn Magazine. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articl es&article=44-1 Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dede, C. (1995). Artificial realities, virtual communities, and intelligent artifacts: Implications for engineering education. In J.R. Bourne, A. Broderson, & M. Dawant (Eds.), The influence of technology on engineering education (pp. 36-65). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Education Week (2007, November 30). Projects probe new media’s role in changing the face of learning. Education Week. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.edweek. org/ew/articles/2007/12/05/14macarthur.h27. html?print=1 Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Global Kids Digital Media Initiative (2007). Engaging youth with a new medium: The potentials of virtual worlds. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http:// www.holymeatballs.org/2007/05/media_engaging_youth_with_a_ne.html Heins, M., & Cho, C. (2003). Media literacy: An alternative to censorship. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/medialiteracy2d.html Hobbs, R. (2004). A review of school-based initiatives in media literacy education. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(42). 42-57. Hobbs, R. (2005). Media literacy and the K-12 content areas. In G. Schwarz & P. Brown (Eds.) Media literacy: Transforming curriculum and teaching (pp. 74-99). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Columbus, OH: Upper Saddle River. Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dede, C., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Inquiry teaching for depth and coverage via multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

267

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

Ketelhut, D.J., Nelson, B., Dede, C., & Clarke, J. (2006). Inquiry learning in multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco, CA.

Squire, K.D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5-29.

Kubey, R., & Baker, F. (1999, October 27). Has media literacy found a curricular foothold? Education Week, 19(9), 38-56. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory. cfm?slug=09ubey2.h19&keywords=kubey

Starker, S. (1989). Evil influences: Crusades against the mass media. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Massachusetts Department of Education (June 2001). Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0601.pdf McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill. Media Literacy Clearinghouse. (n.d.). State Standards Which Include Elements of Media Literacy. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www. frankwbaker.com/state_lit.htm National Science Teachers Association (2004). NSTA position statement: scientific inquiry. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.nsta.org/ main/forum/showthread.php? t=1175 Nelson, B. (2005). Investigating the impact of individualized, reflective guidance on student learning in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University, MA. Pantelidis, V.S. (1993). Virtual reality in the classroom. Educational Technology, 33(4), 23-27. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Second Life. (2007). Education. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://secondlife.com/whatis/ Selwood, I., Mikropoulos, T., & Whitelock, D. (2000). Guest editorial. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 233-236.

268

The New Media Consortium. (2007). The 2007 Horizon Report. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from http://www.nmc.org/horizon/2007/report Thomas, E. (1986, Spring). Blueprint for responseability. Media & Values, 35. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article185.html Washington Post. (2008, February 6). Spies’ battleground turns virtual. Washington Post. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/ AR2008020503144_pf.html Watson, D. (2000). Editorial. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 231-232.

Key terMs And deFInItIons 3-D Online Learning Environments: Also known as 3-D virtual worlds. Represented by avatars, learners meet, socialize and interact with each other, computer-based agents, digital artifacts, and the environments in real time, just as they might in the real world. Inquiry Skills: Inquiry Refers to the desire of “I want to know” and the ability to question, analyze, and explore the many levels of meaning in the media-enriched and information-rich world. Media Literacy Education: The focus of traditional media literacy education has centered on an individual’s critical analysis and creative expression of media messages in a variety of media formats.

New Media Literacy in 3-D Virtual Learning Environments

Media Literacy Skills: Rooted in the printbased media and the one-way transmission mode, media literacy skills have been defined generally as the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages in a wide variety of forms. New Media Literacy Skills: The scope of media literacy skills required in the emerging 3-D virtual learning environment needs to expand to include technical (transmedia), thinking (inquiry), and social (participatory) skills.

Participatory Skills: Refers to the skills for working within social networks, for pooling knowledge within a collective intelligence, for negotiating differences and divergences within and across online communities, and making sense of a coherent picture from conflicting bits of data around them. Transmedia Literacy Skills: Refers to the ability of sense-making, communication, and articulation across multiple media channels and modalities that requires a high degree of information processing.

269

270

Chapter XVII

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry Margus Pedaste University of Tartu, Estonia Tago Sarapuu University of Tartu, Estonia

AbstrAct The general aim of the present chapter is to focus on the factors influencing simulation-based computersupported inquiry learning in small groups. The authors will give an overview of research that describes different factors influencing inquiry learning and problem solving and will add a dimension of collaborative web-based inquiry from their studies. The evidence from relevant scientific literature as well as the empirical results collected by the authors form the basis for discussion about designing an effective learning environment through a viewpoint of different end-users of our results – especially teachers and software designers. As a result, three additional main factors have been found that should be taken into account in designing support systems for problem solving: i) the level of difficulty of problems, ii) the appropriate sequence of problems, and iii) the characteristics of learners’ groups.

IntroductIon Recent research papers discuss the validity and limits of numerous experiments carried out in psychology lab settings. It has become common knowledge that authentic context is needed for making conclusions that are applicable in science classrooms (Harskamp et al., 2007; Rieber, 2005). Therefore, we carried out a series of studies in the

context of science in authentic classroom learning settings in order to detect the factors that affect students’ outcomes when learning in small groups in a web-based inquiry environment. Our general aim was to give an overview how to integrate three different approaches effectively: simulation-based learning, computer-supported inquiry learning, and collaborative learning. Since simulation-based learning is regarded as a tool for collaborative and

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

computer-supported inquiry learning, we deal with it only briefly. Our main interest is inquiry learning in small groups. Firstly, this chapter summarizes literature from four domains: i) computer-based simulations and ii) solving problems through inquiry, iii) applying computer-based environments for problem solving and inquiry learning, and iv) the importance of collaboration in learning. Next, we refer to our previous studies that form the basis for developing the design principles of effective web-based simulations for collaborative inquiry learning. Finally, the design principles are presented in a list of implications for both teachers and software-designers.

coMputer-bAsed sIMulAtIons Simulations have been regarded as one of the most effective types of computer-based learning environments for more than twenty years as they give students an opportunity to clarify their understanding and misconceptions (Alessi & Trollip, 1991). Learners can manipulate different scientific models in constructing a new system of knowledge based on the old one (Brooks, 1990). Drawing direct connections between tasks in a learning environment and the real world help them to manage in solving everyday problems (Needels & Knapp, 1994). In a situational simulation, a participant is an integral part of the program and because of this, he or she can transfer more knowledge and understanding to practice in the real world. We have designed a situational learning simulation ‘Hiking across Estonia’ (http://bio.edu.ee/tour/), which provides students with an opportunity to virtually explore processes and phenomena of nature, manipulate variables, observe the effects of their operations, and make experiments to discover relations between variables. It enables students to discover the basic principles in ecology and environmental education.

probleM solvIng through InquIry Inquiry learning or scientific discovery has been studied for about fifty years starting with the research of Bruner et al. (1956). Unfortunately, these ideas started to spread into curricula and instructional programs, both classroom- and computer-based ones, more than thirty years later. The new era started when the ideas were developed in Klahr and Dunbar’s (1988) theory of ‘Scientific Discovery as Dual Search’ (SDDS). This theory states that scientific discovery is a dual search between the hypothesis space and the experiment space. Besides, the modern tools in application of multimedia enable the building of appropriate support for acquiring inquiry skills in computer based environments. During inquiry, students explore new relationships between various factors for themselves and, therefore, they understand natural processes better and are able to apply this knowledge in new situations for a longer time (Zachos et al., 2000). In a general manner, the processes of inquiry learning are divided into transformative and regulative ones (de Jong & Njoo, 1992). Transformative processes lead a learner towards the solution of a problem, step by step, whereas regulative ones are necessary for planning, monitoring, and evaluating transformative processes. It means that in inquiry learning, two parallel sets of actions are carried out and concentrating only on one of these could lead to unsuccessful problem solving. However, according to other authors, the regulative processes are embedded into a list of transformative ones and, therefore, we will describe the steps of inquiry in one sequence. The general sequence of inquiry learning stages is the following: identifying the problem, formulating research questions, formulating hypotheses, planning the study, executing the plan, analyzing and interpreting the results, and representing findings. However, the starting point and the endpoint of inquiry of different theories

271

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

are not always the same. Although the process commonly starts with getting acquainted with the situation (Veermans, 2002; Harlen & Jelly, 1997; Padilla, 1990), Friedler et al. (1990) have begun with defining a scientific problem that is typically the second step in this sequence. In the endpoint, in many cases, analysis and interpretation of results is the last step but in the work of Padilla (1990) or Harlen and Jelly (1997), there is an additional stage of presenting the findings to others in the learning community. It is reasonable to add this stage because it is not sufficient if a learner knows an answer to a problem but cannot make it understandable for others. In order to acquire inquiry skills effectively, we have to understand what skills are related with each stage of inquiry. Therefore, we will give an overview of these skills based on the work of Harlen and Jelly (1997) and Padilla (1990). It is possible to use this list of skills in evaluating the outcome of science learning in school. ‘Identifying the problem’ contains skills for watching carefully, taking notes, identifying similarities and differences, seeing patterns, and understanding the order in which the events have to take place. ‘Formulating research questions’ includes recognizing the questions that are generative, long lasting, and interesting enough to foster a rich investigation, understanding which questions can be answered by experimentation, and turning non-investigable questions into investigable ones. ‘Formulating hypotheses’ provides explanations consistent with available observations, questions, and evidence. Correct hypotheses have to be testable with an experiment. In the step of ‘planning the study’ the learner has to develop ideas for collecting evidence that are needed in recognizing patterns in data from which to extrapolate or interpolate in order to make conclusions. The next stage, ‘executing the plan’, is divided into the steps of planning, conducting experiments, measuring, data gathering, and controlling variables. This is the stage that overlaps with the step on ‘planning the study. ‘Analysis and interpretation of results

272

implies ensuring that the data supports the hypothesized connections, synthesizing, finding patterns, relating findings to initial questions and observations, and drawing conclusions. The final stage of ‘representing findings’, involves demonstrating the results in a clear manner, choosing the appropriate way to translate the outcomes to others, making representations such as charts or diagrams that illustrate data and results, talking to others about the whole study, and also listening to the others’ explanations.

FActors AFFectIng InquIry In coMputer-bAsed envIronMents The latest research on computer-based problem solving has demonstrated that while in a classroom environment a teacher guides students towards experience then in multimedia-based environment, the role of the teacher is minimized and, therefore, the absence of such a facilitator is one of the most important factors that can cause the failure in learning with computers (Zhang et al., 2004). In addition, it has been demonstrated that not only the physical but also the social environment plays a very important role in inquiry learning process. Therefore, internal and external factors are interrelated and can affect the outcome bymore than the sum of them. A learner is in social interaction with other students in a collaborative learning group and, also, with a virtual facilitator or adaptive support mechanism of the computer-based learning environment. Moreover, in some studies the support of the environment that enhances students’ situation awareness, either contextual or task and process, has been regarded as one of the most important factors influencing the computer-based learning process (see Veermans et al., 2000; Reid et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2004, Pata et al., 2007). Contextual awareness involves learners’ knowledge of available resources and relations in the learning environment. Task and

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

process awareness can be explained as students’ knowledge of why and how they have to do something in order to achieve their goals (Sonnenwald et al., 2004). Funke and Frensch (1995) have divided internal factors into experience, cognitive variables, and non-cognitive variables. According to Jonassen (2000), the experience indicates familiarity and knowledge, either concerning the domain or the structure of the task. It enables expert problemsolvers to apply problem schemas which can be employed more automatically while novices have to design these schemas and may fail already in this stage (Sweller, 1988). The ‘cognitive variables’ cover initial knowledge and skills concerning the problem task and context. Jonassen (2000) pays more attention to the terms of cognitive styles and controls which represent patterns of thinking and reasoning. We can also generalize that it means learners’ initial ability to solve problems and analyze various types of visual information presented in inquiry situations: graphs, tables, photos, and figures. However, these cognitive variables embrace the skills to organize learning in small groups. ‘Non-cognitive’ factors that influence problem solving are students’ self-confidence, perseverance, motivation, and enjoyment (Funke & Frensch, 1995). Jonassen (2000) describes epistemological beliefs in the same context. It means that problem solving and related inquiry learning requires considering the veracity of ideas and multiple perspectives during evaluation of possible solutions. Therefore, problem solving always remains different for various types of learners, even after intensive instruction with extensive support. In conclusion, both types of factors influencing problem solving – external and internal – are considerably well studied. However, there is a lack of information concerning some aspects of both types: i) the characteristics of learning groups, and ii) the presence and type of support. Therefore, our research focused on these two aspects.

eFFects oF collAborAtIon In probleM-solvIng sItuAtIons The third approach behind simulation-based and computer-supported inquiry learning of our studies has been collaboration. In the last decade, collaborative learning is an emerging topic in applying new technologies in schools and even for outside instructional purposes (see Pata et al., 2005; Pata & Sarapuu, 2006). The importance of this area is indicated by the growing number of international conferences and published papers on computer-supported collaborative learning. However, the collaboration can either facilitate or impede learning and, therefore, the interactions between learners have to be carefully analyzed and the help provided has to be in accordance with learners’ individual characteristics as well as their interactions (Mercier et al., 2007). It has been demonstrated that individuals facilitate or support the progress of a group by performing particular roles (Cohen, 1994) or implementing specific strategies (Barnes & Todd, 1977; Forman & Gazden, 1985; Cazden, 1988; Slavin, 1996). The main roles are those of a i) facilitator, ii) proposer, iii) supporter, iv) critic, and v) recorder. A facilitator invites participation, monitors the work, and promotes a friendly discussion. A proposer generates new ideas that will be evaluated and subsequently supported or criticized by supporters and critics. A recorder is important for summarizing the discussion. However, each learner may have various strategies for assuming one or the other role and these may lead to effective or ineffective problem solving. Based on the number of roles, an effective group should contain up to five learners. Still, it is not always so because each member of the group may adopt various (all) roles in different parts of the discussion (Chiu, 2000). Therefore, we have been also interested in how the size of a group influences the outcome of inquiry learning. The group work is usually more effective than the sum of the individuals’ actions. It has been

273

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

demonstrated that learners who understand little about the immediate problem but work cooperatively may generate multiple perspectives and coordinate them for synthesizing a correct solution (Stodolsky, 1984; Chiu, 2000). Students in a group can interact less or more cooperatively while still working independently, displaying some of their information to others, explaining their ideas, and comparing only their answers or even particular problem solving strategies. However, successful cooperation presumes that all stages of problem solving have to be discussed with each other before going further (Chiu, 2000). According to this idea, learning in groups has a high potential in the field of learning complex problem solving skills. Still, collaborative learning has another advantage compared to cooperative learning. While in the case of collaboration the learners are working together at the same tasks, they can scaffold each others’ work (Littleton & Häkkinen, 2003). The factor of peer scaffolding is especially important when the contribution of a tutor is lower or missing (Pata et al., 2005). Nevertheless, learning in groups embraces many hazards because it is a highly specialized form of communication in which students and the teacher assume specific roles (Vygotsky, 1978). The teacher has to manage the learning environment, provide scaffolding, administrate the instruction, monitor the process, assess and give relevant feedback based on the students’ needs and performance. Students play an active part and assume more responsibility for their own learning and interact actively with their peers to enhance their learning process (Chiu, 2000). When students can cooperate or collaborate in such situations more or less similarly to real cases, the teacher is often absent in computer-based environments. However, there is still the problem that a computer can evaluate and apply in acting only on the electronic representations of students’ minds while the teacher has the possibility to monitor feelings, facial expressions, etc.

274

In studying the effects of gender, Strough and Berg (2000) have demonstrated that preadolescent girls use more high-affiliation strategies than boys in collaborative situations. Boys, on the other hand, often focus on dominance and asserting themselves at the expense of others (Leaper, 1991). Some other studies indicate similarities in different age groups (Gilligan, 1982; Sheldon, 1990; Fultz & Hertzog, 1991; Leaper, 1994; Jarvinen & Nichols, 1996; Rose & Asher, 1999). In addition, more effective collaboration also leads the group of girls to a higher level of performance in solving problems (Strough et al., 2001). It means that females are thought to be more orientated than males toward interpersonal concerns. Therefore, it is easier to apply the advantages of learning in groups that are formed from girls whereas the teams consisting of boys may need more guidance and support from a teacher in the classroom. Based on this idea, the groups of boys may also need more support than girls in computer mediated learning. Nevertheless, a group where there is one dominating boy and the rest are girls, may work perfectly according to the ideas of Strough et al. (2001). Whitelock and Scanlon (1998) have demonstrated that in the context of physics problem solving, female groups have significantly higher performance than male groups, or mixed teams that have almost equal outcomes.

FrAMeWorK oF our studIes on Web-bAsed collAborAtIve InquIry leArnIng In our studies, the groups of learners formed voluntarily and organized their work by themselves. Some of the groups consisted of only boys or girls whereas the others had a mixture of genders, thus the ratio of boys or girls in a group was an important characteristic in our analyses. On the other hand, it was not possible to assess if students’ work in groups was more collaborative or cooperative. Therefore, the effect of collaboration cannot be

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

over-emphasized in the results and discussion. Our key interest was on analyzing the influence of support on the process of learning with the simulation program. We have demonstrated that the development of students’ problem solving and inquiry skills acquired in a complex situational simulation cannot be achieved without a support system in many cases (Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2006a and 2006b). In a particular study, students’ skills of analyzing information in tables, diagrams, photos, and figures was assessed before and after the usage of a learning environment “Hiking across Estonia” (Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2004). In this learning environment, students get acquainted with five ecosystems: heath forest, grove, meadow, waterside meadow, and bog. Each of these has a number of ecological or environmental story problems that have to be solved before moving on to the virtual hike. 25 different problems are presented in a certain sequence according to their type and content. Additional informative pages provide virtual hikers with all the facts needed for solving problems. In the case of simple problems, only the information in this learning environment has to be analyzed whereas in complex problems, a virtual tool has to be applied for collecting data in addition to the available information in the texts and visuals. After solving each problem, students get immediate feedback if their answers are correct or wrong and what the main mistakes are.

In the learning simulation “Hiking across Estonia”, students have to analyze information provided and make inferences on the basis of it. In an all-Estonian competition, students formed teams of 3 to 5 persons from the 6th to 12th grade (age 12-18). The teams were divided into five clusters on the basis of their results of inquiry learning, learning strategies, and personal data (see Table 1). Groups’ learning strategies and outcomes were used for naming the clusters: ‘Success-learners’ and ‘Smart-learners’ were effective in acquiring inquiry skills whereas ‘Slow-learners’, ‘Quicklearners’, and ‘Ineffective-learners’ had particular problems. Without any support, only two clusters out of five (35 % of the teams) showed a statistically significant development when comparing the results of the pre- and post-tests about their inquiry skills. In the next study, the hypothetical clusters of learning teams were unraveled using determinant analysis. This enabled us to provide learners with appropriate support. ‘Success-learners’ and ‘Smart-learners’ did not need any specific support. ‘Slow-learners’ had no success in solving complicated problems. Therefore, the sequence of the problems was rearranged – they were provided with simpler ones first. These students spent too much time on solving problems and, as a result, notes for enhancing task and process awareness were added. ‘Quick-learners’ used little time and did not vet their answers before submitting

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the sample of our studies Types of learning groups

Number of groups

Number of students

1. study

2. study

1. study

2. study

Average age 1. study

2. study

Ratio of boys in a group (%) 1. study

2. study

A. ‘Slow-learners’

6

4

23

22

14.5

14.5

48

40

B. ‘Quick-learners’

3

3

11

11

15.3

14.3

82

71

C. ‘Success-learners’

6

3

26

15

14.7

16.3

31

7

D. ‘Smart-learners’

17

13

66

45

14.5

14.5

12

7

E. ‘Ineffective-learners’

33

27

134

102

13.6

14.3

56

52

Total

65

50

260

195

14.1

14.5

43

40

275

The Factors Affecting Multimedia-Based Inquiry

them and, obviously therefore, failed in solving the most difficult problems that were based on analyzing figures and tables. Thus, notes were added more carefully their answers were added. ‘Ineffective-learners’ had major difficulties with complex problems but failed in solving simple ones as well. On the other hand, they solved problems too quickly — the sequence of these was therefore rearranged. Next, this cluster was provided with simpler problems first, and some notes for enhancing their contextual awareness were added. As a result of the adapted support, all clusters of teams developed (statistically) significantly in the skills of analyzing tables, diagrams, figures, and photos. Moreover, the measured skills increased in all teams at a comparable level with the two effective clusters determined in the whole population (see Table 2). The differences in the results of the pre- and post-test as well as in the comparison of the two studies were detected with ANOVA analysis. Thus, we can conclude that all three issues – collaborative learning, simulation-based learning, and instructional (adapted) support for increasing the effectiveness of learning process – are broadly

integrated in learning inquiry and problem solving skills. Finally, two implications can be drawn – some for organizing the learning process and the others for designing instruction.

Implications for the teachers in Applying Inquiry based problem solving We have analyzed a number of factors that have an influence on the success of learning process. Suggestions related to these factors can be regarded as the implications for practice. We have concentrated on initial knowledge and skills, the sequence of learning tasks, learning time, and support as these have been under investigation in the current studies as well. Initial knowledge and skills determine the difficulty level and appropriate sequence of the problems. However, the differences in general problem solving performance in groups of learners were not remarkable in our case and, therefore, we made a deeper analysis of problem solving skills. We evaluated various analytical skills that were needed by students for interpreting the problem

Table 2. Groups’ development in solving complex problems in the first (without support system) and second study (with adapted support) Name of the cluster

First study Pre-test mean

Post-test mean

Second study F

p

Pre-test mean

(max=20)

F

p

F

p

(max=20)

A. ‘Slowlearners’*

13.8

13.5

0.0

n.s.

10.0

14.3

20.2