How a pedagogical lens assist teachers in making choices that relate to effective ICT use in the classroom

A pedagogical lens describes the manner in which teachers view and organise the learning environment. This includes factors such as theories and knowledge of child development, what children are expected to learn in each school year, curriculum content and how to best teach it, as well as the social and emotional developmental theories that affect student learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). A pedagogical lens is crucial then in making decisions relating to effective use of ICT in the classroom.

In order to make effective decisions about ICT use in the classroom a teacher firstly needs to draw on their pedagogical knowledge. Questions that need to be asked of a pedagogical nature include: What do my students need to learn?; What information do I need to give them to learn this?; and, How can I present information so that they learn it effectively? These questions inform the decisions on the type of ICT resources that will be utilised. For example, I have used Edmodo in my lessons, and have made the decision based my pedagogical knowledge that it is at an appropriate level for year four students, that the majority of students of this age are confident and competent users of computers and this software, and that this style of learning reflects the ‘real world’ learning they engage in as digital natives (Prensky, 2001). If a pedagogical lens was not utilised in deciding on ICT resources, content and resource would be incongruous and ineffective.

Explanation of how the resource facilitates quality learning

My resources facilitate quality learning in the following ways:

I have identified key concepts of the Unit of work and addressed them in the lessons (NSW Department of Education and Training (NSW DET), 2003). In lesson one I have re-visited the Elements of Art from previous lessons in order to address prior knowledge and create deep learning and understanding of the content.

The activity promotes Higher-Order Thinking (NSW DET, 2003). Both lessons require students to absorb the information provided and create their own interpretation of the content. There are endless possibilities in responding to these activities, and asking students to demonstrate their knowledge in a physical, tactile way extends their thinking and understanding.   

I have catered to multiple intelligences. Instructions are verbalised, visualised and written to cater for multiple learning styles. Activities also include kinaesthetic, spatial and logical learning styles as they physically create, move about the classroom with their devices, and recognise the processes of finding and exploring information on computers and devices (Gardner, 1993).

The activities are metalanguage rich (NSW DET, 2003). The language of the Elements of the Arts is explained and students are asked to converse in the metalanguage of the content in their assessment activities.

The activities have utilised authentic application of technology (Reeves, Herrington & Oliver, 2002). The digital resources use social media (Edmodo), QR codes, Internet browsing and computers and devices in ways that reflect their real-world use, providing exposure to and experience of authentic skills and activities.

These lessons include qualities of ‘rich tasks’ in their positioning of students as constructors of their own knowledge as they seek information and interpret from their own understanding; providing students with the opportunities to work in pairs and then on their own; and allowing students to recognise the multiple viewpoints of different artists and students (Thomas, 2000).

Justification of the intellectual rigour and engagement behind the design of the resource

Intellectual rigour is established in these lessons in their focus on a core subject in each lesson. The first lesson re-visits the Elements of Art from previous lessons in the Unit of work, building on previous knowledge and asks that this knowledge be re-interpreted and transformed into an artwork (NSW DET, 2003). Each lesson in the Unit of work is building upon skills that lead to the creation and exhibition of a major work of art. Key concepts and skills are addressed and repeated from lesson to lesson. Deep understanding is sought through the assessment activities in these lessons. The building of skills across lessons and combination of a written and visual expression of their knowledge and understandings of the content allows for a Deep understanding to be illustrated (NSW DET, 2003).

Students are required to utilise Higher-order thinking skills as they navigate their way through the lessons and the Unit of work. Activities ask students to organise and synthesise knowledge and ideas to demonstrate their understandings. Problem solving is required to fuse new combinations of Elements and new ways of viewing objects (from a Cubist perspective) (NSW DET, 2003).

Both lessons are high in metalanguage (NSW DET, 2003) and ask student to engage in the languages of Visual Arts in their assessments.

Intellectual rigour is attained through the deep knowledge and the sustained focus on content within lessons and within the Unit of work, the deep understanding required by assessment tasks, the Higher-order thinking required to illustrate their knowledge and the rich metalanguage used in the lessons.

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

A key learning moment came with the decision to include QR codes to allow students to scan images and information with their own devices. This also meant making the decision to have students use their own devices and the altering of lesson planning, learning to make QR codes, accessing images and information to link via QR codes and uploading the App onto my iPhone. The motivation for this was student engagement. As I used ICT as only part of the lesson, I felt that I needed a reason for students to want to be engaged with the technology. Using QR codes to scan data at their desks on their own device is novel as well as a real-world skill, which I was using as motivational tools to engage with them.

Decisions needed to be made about the images and kind of information to be included – it needed to be interesting and inspirational, but also pertinent to the activity.

Description of the design process involved in the creation of a digital artefact

The first steps in designing and creating the Elements of Arts digital artefact was identifying the subject and Stage that I was aiming to teach, the activity that I wanted them to complete, and the technology that would allow both of these factors and be engaging to students. Once Creative Arts was chosen, this narrowed my choices of activity and technology available to me that could be taught in my absence as per the instructions of this assessment activity. I recognise this step as “learning technology by design” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p 1034). Constructing this artefact involved recognising the constraints of available technologies and of the physical learning environment in my absence and finding solutions within the parameters of these constraints. As the culminating lesson activity was not digital, I designed my digital artefact to be an interaction between student and ICT rather than a complete ICT-based lesson. As I did not want the distraction of ‘playing’ on the computer to become the focus of the lesson, I aimed to maintain student engagement through interactivity, by using the computers and devices as tools rather than the focus of the lesson.

QR codes were created to allow students to scan images and information onto their devices. As mobile devices are being recognised as powerful educational tools and as allowing student centred learning, I have included these in this lesson (Garcia & Friedman, 2011; The New Media Consortium, 2013). Students will have their own iPod or iPad to scan codes and complete the digital component of the lesson. In order to remain an inclusive lesson however, I have utilised class iPads and assisted technologies for those students who do not have access to appropriate devices. Mobile devices would also allow students to be sitting at their desk and completing the activities, gaining inspiration from the images and information available to download. I also considered that students using their own devices may lead to further exploration of subject matter after school hours (M learning) (O'Malley, Vavoula, Glew, Taylor & Sharples, 2005).

The biggest challenge in creating the artefact was dealing with my absence from classroom, and trying to include all information so that there could be no questions that could be asked about the instructions or material provided. I tried to alleviate this by re-iterating instructions throughout the video, and by providing written, visual and verbal instructions. There was a trade-off between complexity of activity, technology and physical environment. The level of complexity was slightly diminished by using ICT to deliver instruction and information.

Discussion of the relevance of new literacies and how they support your Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

The artefacts that I designed utilise visual and multimodal modes of meaning – I have layered Audio Meanings over Textual/Linguistic and Visual Meanings (The New London Group, 1996). The four components of multiliteracy pedagogy are present. Situated learning occurs as I have located class instruction in the familiar virtual class space on Edmodo, thereby recruiting learners’ previous experiences (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; The New London Group, 1996). Overt instruction is given for the activity, with visual, linguistic and verbal instruction; and instructions on technical aspects such as uploading files to Edmodo were also included using Screen-O-Matic with visual and verbal instruction (Carrington & Robinson, 2009; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; The New London Group, 1996). Critical framing has been considered in terms of accessibility of resources. While students have been encouraged to bring their own devices, I recognise that accessibility may be an issue for some students and have provided class iPads for equity of access to devices and learning. Additional assistance has been ensured through working in pairs to scaffold each others’ learning (Carrington & Robinson, 2009; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; The New London Group, 1996). Transformed practice occurs within this lesson and within the context of the Unit of work. Each lesson moves the student towards the creation and exhibition of a work of art. Multiliteracies pedagogy supports students to be “creative and responsible makers of meaning” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p 36). These artefacts allow for multiple interpretations of knowledge and expression, and allow students to direct their own learning and expression of their learning, directing them towards the goal of creation and exhibition, which is real, purposeful learning (Carrington & Robinson, 2009).

Discussion of the social impact of technology on teachers and students

Research on the use of ICT in the classroom has found there to be numerous benefits to students and teachers. These include supporting face-to-face teaching and learning, increase the range of knowledge of students, reducing amount of direct instruction, and broaden the pool of teaching resources available (Bingimlas, 2009). These speak of the pragmatic benefits of ICT, ICT in the physical learning environment.

The social impact of ICT in the classroom is the result of the learning approach that particular forms of ICT generate. The use of ‘social software tools’ establish networked, collective modes of learning, that have the capacity to put the student at the centre of their learning (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, p 643). Knowledge in this ‘social’ environment is no longer stable but negotiated and open to interpretation and critique. Students can create their own knowledge rather than the traditional teaching method of transmission, where a student consumes what is fed to them. Learning becomes fluid, participatory and constructive (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008). In this environment the roles of the teacher and student becomes transformed, which has the potential for the learner to take the lead in their own learning. In this environment, student and teacher are connected to larger networks of learning, transforming the learning environment and the social context of learning. Connections within this environment are vital as the creation of information becomes collaborative. Simultaneously, this also serves to situate the learner within their own context, illuminating the culturally and socially specific nature of schooling and learning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the Successful Integrationof ICT in Teaching and Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), p 235-245.

Carrington, V. & Robinson, M. (2009). Digital Literacies. Social learning and classroom practices. London: SAGE Publications.

Cope, B & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London: Macmillan.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. London: Fontana.

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2008). Mapping the digital terrain: New media and social software as catalysts of pedagogical change. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved 1 October 2013, from: wwwascilite.org.au/ conferences/melbourne08/procs/mcloughlin.html

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teacher College Record, 6, p 1017-1054.

O'Malley, C., Vavoula, G., Glew, J. P., Taylor, J., & Sharples, M. (2005). Guidelines for Learning/Teaching/Tutoring in a Mobile Environment. Retrieved 2 November 2013, from: http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/ public_deliverables/MOBIlearn_D4.1_Final.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. St Paul: McGraw Hill.

Reeves, T., Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. HERDSA News, 24(3), p 562-567.

The New Media Consortium. (2013). NMC Horizon Report. 2-13 K-12 Edition. Stanford: The New Media Consortium.

The New London Group. (1996). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), p 60-93.