16. ICT in Education and Training
Poster
Systematic Literature Review of Definitions of Blended Learning (2000 – 2022)
Tomisin Fadamoro1, Rachel Shanks1, John Mynott1, Martin Barker2
1School of Education, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom; 2School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Fadamoro, Tomisin
1.0 Introduction
Blended Learning (BL) has been defined by several authors in different ways. The most frequently used definitions are those that refer to the blend of online and offline learning. Several authors describe BL as a combination or integration of the strengths of traditional face-to-face instruction (e.g., live instruction and classroom interaction) and computer-mediated instruction or online teaching (e.g., technologically mediated interactions between students, teachers and learning resources). The traditional structure is a teacher-centred approach, where the teacher is actively involved in teaching, while students listen and follow the teacher's instruction (Sankar et al., 2022), while online learning is learning related to the internet using computer devices, gadgets. Garrison and Kanuka, (2004); Graham, (2006); Osguthorpe and Graham, (2003); Watson, (2008); Voci and Young, (2001), were among the first set of people to use the word BL defined it as the type of learning that combines more traditional methods of teaching (such as instructor-led classes held in a physical classroom) with Internet-delivered content that is learner-driven and self-paced. Some researchers have also noted that blended learning is used to describe other blends, such as combining different instructional methods, pedagogical approaches, and technologies, although these blends are not aligned with influential blended learning definitions (Hrastinski, 2019; Graham, 2013).
BL is becoming increasingly popular as a means of accommodating an increasingly varied student population while also adding value to the learning environment using online teaching materials (Humairah and Asbah, 2019). However, there is still disagreement on the meaning of BL, as a result, diverse understandings of the word have emerged among higher education teachers.
BL has evolved over many years, and different institutions have provided varied descriptions of it. Today, BL is considered the most effective and most popular mode of instruction adopted by educational institutions due to its perceived effectiveness in providing flexible, timely and continuous learning (Bond, (2021), Rasheed et al., (2020). With recent challenges in education, such as the impact of the pandemic and the inclusion of displaced learners from Ukraine in Member States, blended learning has gained more urgency in Europe; As a result, this study will advance researchers' and educators' understanding of how BL can promote a more resilient, responsive, and inclusive education and contribute to knowledge on effective blended learning policy and practise.
Finding efficient and adaptable delivery methods has been strongly supported in higher education to give all students easier access to high-quality learning opportunities than is achievable with just standard on-campus programmes (Hodges et al., 2020). Today, BL is suggested as one option to fulfil both student learning and organisational needs in higher education. The benefits of both traditional and e-learning methods are combined in a BL environment, including the benefits of face-to-face interaction. Face-to-face learning environments offer the social connection necessary for learning, whilst e-learning environments provide the flexibility and efficacy that cannot be obtained in a classroom setting. One major issue that has constrained the acceptance of BL is the adoption of a unified definition by all teachers and researchers. As part of the literature review for a doctoral thesis, the authors seek to analyse the existing definitions of `blended learning to improve our understanding of the concept and the key elements needed to define the concept. Therefore, the aim of this research is to do a literature review of the different definitions several researchers have created for BL over the course of three decades and critic the definitions based on the researchers understanding of BL.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe definitions of BL were collected by searching for peer-reviewed articles from Google scholar and Research gate. The following terms were used to collect the articles:
• Search field: Define BL
• Custom range limited to 2000-2022
• Document type: Journal Article
• Language: English
The search results from this query were then used to retrieve the full text articles in which
definitions of BL were present. The resulting articles were reviewed individually to extract the specific definition used in the article.
To answer this question, I have considered the features of BL, I also considered the application by the authors.
Some important features of BL include but are not limited to.
• It should have elements of traditional learning and online learning (online learning is learning being delivered using the internet for teaching and learning)
• Should use the two learning methods in harmony. i.e., it must be synergistic
• There must be instructor involvement
• There must be student-teacher interaction while doing the online learning as it is in the classroom.
• There must be peer interaction also while doing the online learning.
• Reduce physical contact time.
Blended learning can be broadly defined as the combination of traditional face to face classroom learning and online learning using electronic devices that rely on the internet for teacher-student interaction and the dissemination of class materials.
Search Result
In collecting different definitions spanning from 2000 to 2022, searched google scholar database using the keyword “blended learning” and “definition” because we were interested in obtaining all the different ways in which the concept of blended learning has been defined in peer-reviewed journal articles in the years under review. Only research articles that were in English were considered and a total of 60 articles were reviewed which were narrowed down to include the articles that contained explicit definitions or citations for definitions for blended learning. In all, a total of 25 definitions were obtained. These definitions were divided into three different groups according to the year of publication.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe authors initiated this research to carry out a systematic literature review of the definitions of blended learning. The discovery of the varied definitions and the confusion among scholars and researchers that comes with the realization that there is no generic definition of blended learning was unexpected. It was also discovered that most researchers or authors define blended learning according to the purpose of their research and/or its application which is one of the reasons the filed of blended learning is still grappling with the confusion and the overuse of the term as different researchers keep using it to define other blends that do not involve the traditional learning and online learning such as the blends of different instructional/teaching methods. Also, it was found from the search of literature that the best applications of BL were when it was synergistic and not additive. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the online learning element of the BL must have ‘learning’ taking place and not just only the presence of internet or technology.
ReferencesBond, M., 2021. Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A living rapid systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), pp.191-247.
Garrison, D.R. and Kanuka, H., 2004. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), pp.95-105.
Graham, C.R., 2006. Blended learning systems. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, 1, pp.3-21.
Graham, C.R., 2013. Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In Handbook of distance education (pp. 351-368). Routledge.
Hodges, C.B., Moore, S., Lockee, B.B., Trust, T. and Bond, M.A., 2020. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning.
Hrastinski, S., 2019. What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), pp.564-569.
Humaira, H. and Asbah, A., 2019. Investigating the Effect of Blended Learning Activity in Teaching Reading at Second Grade Senior High School. Linguistics and ELT Journal, 6(1), pp.30-46.
Osguthorpe, R.T. and Graham, C.R., 2003. Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly review of distance education, 4(3), pp.227-33.
Rasheed, R.A., Kamsin, A. and Abdullah, N.A., 2020. Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, p.103701.
Sankar, J.P., Kalaichelvi, R., Elumalai, K.V. and Alqahtani, M.S.M., 2022. Effective blended learning in higher education during COVID-19. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 88(2), pp.214-228.
Voci, E. and Young, K., 2001. Blended learning working in a leadership development programme. Industrial and commercial training.
Watson, J., 2008. Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education. Promising Practices in Online Learning. North American Council for Online Learning.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Poster
"Facts against Fakes: Implementing Phenomenon-based Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools to Counteract Disinformation"
Michael Reicho
University of Graz, Austria
Presenting Author: Reicho, Michael
The increasingly sophisticated production and dissemination of fake news and disinformation in online environments poses an increasing threat to social and democratic structures. Several contemporary developments around the world highlighted the importance of teaching and learning about disinformation already at a young age in school. The popularity of social media, the facilitated access to digital information, the diversification in the use of ICT-supported tools and the ease of spreading and consuming information, requires an urgent strengthening of pupil’s digital competencies (Loveless & Williamson, 2013; Burnett & Merchant, 2011).
The term disinformation (or fake news) is used, when “false information is knowingly shared to cause harm” (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017, 5). Recognising disinformation is particularly difficult for young people, as online information is trusted more than traditional media and disinformation is made increasingly trustworthy by emotionalising it (Buchner, 2023). Studies show that young people are more willing to share content if it aligns with their interests, regardless of its truthfulness. Further, the appearance of newsworthy information ensures that information will be shared with other young people, regardless of the nature of the content (Herrero-Diz et al., 2020). This emphasises the necessity that young people should be able to use the internet confidently, ask questions, find needed information, critically evaluate this information, combine information from different sources and share the gained knowledge with others (Loos et al., 2018).
Therefore, pupils need educational offers that promote both digital competencies and critical awareness of fake news (Buchner, 2023). Since the skills and knowledge required for educational interventions span a range of areas, the term multiliteracy is helpful as an "umbrella term encompassing concepts such as media literacy, visual literacy and advertising literacy" (Kangas & Rasi, 2021, 3). Further, to address meaningful educational activities, pedagogical approaches are needed that allow pupils to develop their multiliteracy competencies in authentic ways.
For this reason, this research proposes using a phenomenon-based learning approach to address counteracting disinformation and to support the development of multiliteracies in secondary schools. Phenomenon-based learning is said to train a diversity of required multiliteracies (Kangas & Rasi, 2021) as well as to build resilience to disinformation. The model focuses on learners investigating and solving problems using their own research questions. Phenomenon-based learning suggests that pupils seek information independently, evaluate and compare sources of information and summarise their findings creatively using digital tools. Pupils learn the basics of digital competencies in interdisciplinary project lessons together with different subject teachers. Teachers are seen as facilitators that encourage their pupils (Lonka, 2018). Phenomenon-based learning has potential to increase the diversity of pedagogical approaches through transdisciplinary subject teaching as well as to support teachers to address specific needs of individual pupils with varying prior knowledge.
According to the results of the previous step of this PhD project, the training of pupils’ multiliteracies should be implemented with a cross-curricular, mandatory and reoccurring approach, so that these skills can be supported in all subjects, starting from the pupils’ age of 10 (Fasching & Schubatzky, 2022). In the current phase of the research, the implementation of phenomenon-based learning is accompanied and evaluated to test the practicality in secondary schools and to incorporate the teachers' feedback into the further development of the concept. In a future step, feedback from pupils will also be considered for a potential implementation in the curriculum of basic digital education in Austria.
The leading research question of this presentation is, how suitable seems 'phenomenon-based learning of multiliteracy against disinformation' for teachers in practical implementation in Austrian’s secondary schools?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research aimed to investigate phenomenon-based learning to counteract disinformation in secondary schools. Results from qualitative semi-structured in-depth interviews will be presented with teachers (n= 6) of pilot classes after the implementation of phenomenon-based learning (Helfferich, 2014; Vaughn et al., 1996). The interviews were examined with a qualitative content analysis to ground this analysis of teaching and learning to counteract disinformation (Mayring, 2004). A differentiation of rural and urban schools helped to better understand local needs in secondary schools.
Limitations may arise from the focus on a small number of pilot classes (including teachers and pupils), the conscious selection of schools, the incomplete coverage of the target group of pupils and teachers and the focus on only one federal district in Austria (Styria). All aspects regarding ethics and GDPR were considered.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsI conclude with a proposal on the educational consequences, pedagogical approaches and requirements of involved stakeholders. The results show that teachers thought that phenomenon-based learning might be a suitable pedagogical approach for teaching multiliteracies in classrooms for 10-14 year old pupils. Teachers highlighted that the implementation of phenomenon-based learning can help pupils to understand the importance of verifying information and to develop required skills to evaluate the credibility of sources. They stress that training of multiliteracies, such as evaluating sources, pupils might be better prepared to respond to disinformation.
The results show that teachers identified the flexibility in implementing phenomenon-based learning of multiliteracy as an advantage. Teachers emphasised that this form of teaching promotes independence and self-organisation among pupils. In addition, synergies in the division of labour among teachers can lead to facilitation. Teachers criticised the lack of best practice examples as assistance for guidance and also the difficulty of convincing colleagues for a joint project. Teachers also asked for a collection of potential digital tools that can be used without risking copyright violations. To improve phenomenon-based learning regarding disinformation, teachers suggested to show examples of fake news during the kick-off in the subject context to sensitise pupils to possible manipulated sources. The teacher suggested that they need detailed information to prepare their pupils adequately on how to deal with disinformation, and that this needs to be prepared at an age appropriate level, so they can successfully apply it in different subject topics. The pedagogical framework was adapted based on those suggestions.
ReferencesBuchner, J. (2023). Effekte eines Augmented Reality Escape Games auf das Lernen über Fake News. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 51, 65-86.
Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2011). Is There a Space for Critical Literacy in the Context of Social Media?. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(1), 41-57.
Fasching, M., & Schubatzky, T. (2022). Beyond truth: Teaching digital competences in secondary school against disinformation: Experts' views on practical teaching frameworks for basic digital education in Austria. Medienimpulse, 60(3), 65-Seiten.
Helfferich, C. (2014). Leitfaden- und Experteninterviews. In N. Baur & J.Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (559–574). Springer.
Herrero-Diz, P., Conde-Jiménez, J., & Reyes de Cózar, S. (2020). Teens’ motivations to spread fake news on WhatsApp. Social Media+ Society, 6(3), 2056305120942879.
Kangas, M., & Rasi, P. (2021). Phenomenon-based learning of multiliteracy in a Finnish upper secondary school. Media Practice and Education, 22(4), 342-359.
Lonka, K., Makkonen, J., Berg, M., Talvio, M., Maksniemi, E., Kruskopf, M., ... & Westling, S. K. (2018). Phenomenal learning from Finland. Edita.
Loos, E., Ivan, L., & Leu, D. (2018). “Save The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus”: a hoax revisited. Or: how vulnerable are school children to Fake News?. Information and Learning Science.
Loveless, Avril, and Ben Williamson. Learning identities in a digital age: Rethinking creativity, education and technology. Routledge, 2013.
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. A companion to qualitative research, 1(2), 159-176.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. M. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Sage.
Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Poster
Analysis of Differences in Cognitive Load Using Eye Blink According to Online Education
Dongsim Kim1, Dahyeon Ryoo2
1Hanshin University; 2Ewha Womans University
Presenting Author: Kim, Dongsim
The rapid advancement of technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have led to an increase in the use of online education. However, this has resulted in issues such as decreased attention and academic performance among learners (Chen, Jiao, & Hu, 2021; Munastiwi & Puryono, 2021; Purwanto, 2020). Despite these challenges, online education is now a necessity for personalized learning in the future. Therefore, the aim of this study is to measure and evaluate students' learning progress using objective biometric data, in order to develop an online education feedback system to support students' learning. Especially, the purpose of this study is to confirm whether there is a difference in cognitive load depending on the achievement of online education using eye blink frequency and duration.
Cognitive load refers to the sum of mental activities that affect working memory in processing information (Sweller, 1988). For something to be learned, information must be processed in working memory. The problem between the amount of information that working memory can process and the information is called cognitive load (Kim & Kim, 2004). It can be divided into three types: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Cognitive load theory suggests that if the cognitive load exceeds an individual's processing capacity, it may lead to poor learning outcomes and decreased motivation. Therefore, it is important to consider cognitive load when designing instructional materials and activities, in order to help learners process and retain information more effectively (Lee, 2017).
Self-report questionnaires and interviews were mainly used to measure cognitive load. However, there is a way to objectively measure cognitive load based on physiological responses (Park, Kim, & Jo, 2019). In particular, Abdurrahman et al. (2021) emphasized the importance of physiological monitoring to measure mental workload during learning transfer. Coral (2016) confirmed the increasing relationship between eye-related measurement variables and cognitive load. It was explained that the higher the eye blink duration and blink frequency, the greater the cognitive load. The research question of this study is, can the difference in cognitive load according to the achievement group be known through eye blink frequency and duration in the online learning environment?
We provided 73 university students with educational content on Korean grammar, and eye tracking was conducted. There was no difference in the pre-test results on Korean grammar between the control and experimental groups. Eye blink frequency and duration were measured using gaze points GP3 HD Eye Tracker (150 Hz) and self-reported survey. Based on the post-test average score, the gaze tracking data and self-reported data was analyzed by dividing the group into high-achievement and low-achievement groups. The post-test in the 10-point test had an average score of 5.521. Based on this, 33 students were placed in the high-achievement group and 40 students were placed in the low-achievement group.
As a result, the difference in cognitive load by the self-report questionnaire was not significant. But eye blink frequency was higher in the lower achievement group than in the high- achievement group, but it was not significant. Eye blink duration was longer in the lower- achievement group than in the high- achievement group and had a significant difference.
In this study, it was confirmed whether this measurement is meaningful to objectively measure learners' cognitive load based on eye blink frequency and duration. It was confirmed that the longer the blinking duration, the greater the cognitive load, and it was verified that the eye-tracking data could be meaningfully used to prepare a support plan for online learning. Through this, it was suggested that a system be developed so that the instructor can immediately recognize the learner's cognitive load status and give feedback even in real-time online education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study targeted 73 university students (male: 28, female: 45) in Korea. For the stable collection of gaze data, those with a history of functional bodily impairment (e.g., eye disease) and those who underwent eye-related surgery (e.g., LASIK surgery) were excluded in advance. This study was approved by the H University Institutional Review Board (IRB) to protect research participants and comply with research ethics (H University 2022-01-006). Written consent to participate in the study was obtained from the research subjects, and permission was obtained for the study again after informing the purpose of the research and information about recording before proceeding with the experiment.
A 10-minute and 42-second online content about the types of sentences in Korean grammar was produced. Although the research participants are fluent in Korean, Korean grammar is not familiar to most Koreans as it is a learning area that must be studied separately as an optional subject for the SAT. To check the Korean level, pre-and post-tests were conducted as homomorphic tests. Korean language teachers in high school reviewed the viability of the test. Based on the average score of the post-test, it was divided into a high-achievement group and a low-achievement group. In addition, a t-test was conducted to confirm the difference between the pre-test and post-test by the group.
In addition, to check the cognitive load, gaze points GP3 HD Eye Tracker (150Hz) was used to measure the eye blink frequency and duration, and a self-report questionnaire was also conducted. The self-report questionnaire used the cognitive load tool measured by Ryu & Lim (2009) with 20 questions divided into self-evaluation, physical effort, mental effort, material design, and task difficulty.
To confirm the significance of the difference in the number and time of blinking according to the group according the grade, a non-parametric test was conducted as it did not follow a normal distribution, and each data was analyzed through SPSS
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis study examined whether there is a difference in cognitive load according to the higher and lower achievement in online education through eye blink frequency and duration. First, through the self-report questionnaire, which has been actively used to measure cognitive load, differences in sub-factors of cognitive load, such as self-evaluation, physical effort, mental effort, material design, and task difficulty, were confirmed by the achievement group. It was confirmed that the cognitive load of the group with higher achievement was lower than the low-achievement group, but the difference between them was not significant.
Next, considering that the eye blink frequency and duration increases as the cognitive load increases in previous studies, the difference between the eye blink frequency and duration, which is biometric data, was confirmed. It was confirmed that the number of eye blink frequency was higher in the lower achievement group than the higher achievement group, but the difference between them was not significant. Instead, it was confirmed that the eye blink duration was longer in the lower achievement group than the higher achievement group, and the difference between them was significant. However, the cognitive load could not be confirmed through self-report questionnaires but verified through eye blink duration.
Therefore, this study confirmed the meaning of eye tracking to check the learner's cognitive load in developing an online support system to enhance the learner's educational performance. Therefore, it was possible to confirm the implications of creating a system that can provide real-time feedback to reduce the cognitive load by immediately checking the learner's reaction.
ReferencesAbdurrahman, U. A., Yeh, S. C., Wong, Y., & Wei, L. (2021). Effects of neuro-cognitive load on learning transfer using a virtual reality-based driving system. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 5(4), 54.
Chen, Z., Jiao, J., & Hu, K. (2021). Formative assessment as an online instruction intervention: Student engagement, outcomes, and perceptions. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 19(1), 50-65.
Coral, M. P. (2016). Analyzing cognitive workload through eye-related measurements: A meta-analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Wright State University.
Kim, K., & Kim, D. (2004). The effects of modality of text and timing of information presentation on cognitive load, effectiveness and efficiency in web based learning. communication books. Journal of Educational Technology, 20(4), 111-145.
Lee, E. (2017). Difference in cognitive load according to learner's prior knowledge level and learning section in video learning environment : Focused on the pupil dilation. Master dissertation, Ewha Womans University.
Munastiwi, E., & Puryono, S. (2021). Unprepared management decreases education performance in kindergartens during Covid-19 pandemic. Heliyon, 7(5), e07138.
Park, H., Kim, D., & Jo, I. (2019). Correlation between the change of cognitive load and learning performance in video-based learning. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 25(4), 797-826.
Purwanto, A. (2020). University students online learning system during Covid-19 pandemic: Advantages, constraints and solutions. Sys Rev Pharm, 11(7), 570-576.
Ryu, J., & Lim, J. (2009). An exploratory validation for the constructs of cognitive load. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media, 15(2), 1-27.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Poster
A Framework for Including ICT and Collaborative Skills in Teaching
Wenche Mörck Riekki
University of Gävle, Sweden
Presenting Author: Mörck Riekki, Wenche
Future skills or 21st century skills (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009) are discussed both nationally in a Swedish context, and international, and skills such as creativity and innovation, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking become increasingly central when discussing school issues. Both future skills and digital capabilities are highlighted as necessary for citizens in a future society and legitimacy in various policy documents (Davidsen & Vanderlinde, 2016). In Sweden has a revised curriculum with clearly outlined requirements regarding digitization implementation, both in terms of teaching strategy and the infrastructure of artifacts in the classroom. To respond to new policy writings, more and more schools are investing in 1:1, which means that every student and teachers have access to their own computer or tablet. By implementing digital tools in education, however, the student-centered teaching is reinforced (Holmberg, 2018), which also tends to lead to a form of pedagogy where students learn from each other and collaborate through various collaborative and communicative methods. Against the background of the agenda set out in policy the teaching profession is expected to change its teaching based on ICT, that the digital the strategies must enable a form of learning that would not be conceivable without ICT (Holmberg, Fransson & Fors, 2018) and therefore create increased added value in teaching. Overall, this requires greater flexibility in the teaching environment. In addition, the demands on primary school teachers to know themselves are increasing familiar with various digital tools and resources to develop innovative learning environments where both a new teaching role, new strategies and new knowledge may be needed in teaching (Willermark, 2018).
New pedagogical ideas, working methods and student views have a great influence on the school's architecture, as well view of the school's mission, which contributes to working away from a more traditional one teaching (Dovey & Fisher, 2014). Martin (2002, cited in Bøjer, 2019) believes that the classroom layout reflects the pedagogical practice in the room. For example, it came out more teacher-centered the teaching from an arrangement where the students sit in rows or in the shape of a horseshoe, while it learner-centred takes place in more flexible environments. ICT and a more digitized teaching can be seen as a change agent where you go from more teacher-centered teaching to more student-centered (Holmberg, 2018).
The purpose of the study is to investigate how teachers say they
design their teaching to promote students’ collaborative work through digital units in school years 1–6 and through the teachers’ statements see what influencing factors, abilities, subject content, and technology support a design of digital teaching for the benefit of collaboration and student-to-student interaction in digital arenas.
Previous research in the subject has been based on student collaboration and digital learning environments; then have one investigated design and students' collaborative learning with a focus on collaborating face-to-face. This means that the students sit next to each other, around the digital and collaborate on different tasks (Davidsen & Vanderlinde, 2016). In my survey, the questions partly refer to side-by-side cooperation but above all on teachers' design for collaboration where students collaborate and communicate through the tablet or the computer. Considering this reasoning, it becomes appropriate to examine how teachers report using technology to support students' work with future key competencies, such as collaboration and communication, where the digital unit in a 1:1-systems can promote added value and new opportunities. At the same time, one should examine the methods and didactic choices that the teachers say they use in the pedagogical practice.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe purpose of the study is to investigate how teachers say they design their teaching to promote students’ collaborative work through digital units in school years 1–6 and through the teachers’ statements see what influencing factors, abilities, subject content, and technology support a design of digital teaching for the benefit of collaboration and student-to-student interaction in digital arenas.
The method is one interview survey where teachers recount examples of their pedagogical practice and demonstrate their perspectives on the conditions, methods and didactic choices used when they design learning for collaboration. The answers given by the teachers can then, through analysis, provide a picture of digitalization's potential opportunities and challenges for students' collaborative learning.
The survey and its practical examples seek answers to the question of whether teachers change their pedagogical practice when collaborative and communicative opportunities are provided in digital arenas. This is a qualitative interview survey where the author will start from a methodological more individualistic perspective as the informants in this survey answer questions based on their own individual behaviors, perceptions and attitudes and the institutional contexts in which the individual the teacher is (Bryman, 2011; Denscombe, 2018). This means that from the individualistic perspective, the informants are expected through a semi-structured interview be able to state how they, as teachers, say they design their teaching to allow the students work collaboratively through digital devices.
The survey uses a semi-structured interview technique with thematic openings.
To visualize how teachers operationalize collaborative learning in their pedagogical activities, the model of TPACK in situ was used (Willermark, 2018). In the analysis of the examples that the teachers reproduced based on TPACK in situ, the results of the study show many innovative learning processes where students interact with their tablets and how the teachers design their teaching to interact with different kinds of subject content. By using Learning Design Sequences (Selander, 2008;2017) as an analysis tool, further understanding was reached of how, when and in what way technology supports the collaborative processes and in which phases of learning this happens. In this way, institutional patterns became prominent through the influence of the physical learning environment, which increased the understanding of how around or through 1:1 also can be placed in a spatial contex (Dovey& Fisher, 2014).inally, Learning Design Sequences (Selander, 2008;2017) were used to identify opportunities and challenges for teachers in designing for collaborative learning through 1:1.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDifferent perspectives on teachers´ design of the collaborative processes in terms of interaction through the digital device or processes that occurred around the device were found. Based on the answers from the teachers in this survey, a result could be crystallized where it digital competence from a collaborative student-student perspective came to be about physical as well learning environment as the learning tablet's possible added value and affordances in pedagogical practice.
The result shows that for the teachers, digital competence in this research perspective is situated, that it is manifested in how one chooses to use the learning tablet. The digital added value is more related to the teacher's idea of how the device can be used than the possibilities of the digital tool can offer. This affects how teachers relate to integrating and choosing digital tools and resources in teaching to stimulate students' collaborative work processes through digital tools.
Based on the conclusions the author presents a didactic model for teachers to take into consideration when designing their pedagogical activities for practicing collaborative skills in the 1:1 classroom. The model is based on Willermark's (2018) operationalization of educational activities, TPACK in situ. The didactic model can function as a contribution to teachers' work with design of collaborative processes through 1:1. The model can contribute to teaching through 1:1 can be used to a greater extent based on their potential in the physical classroom. The model must relate to certain general conditions and specific points:
subject content, collaborative abilities, collaborative processes, communicative contexts, physical and virtual learning environment as well as common digital arena.
ReferencesAnaniadou, K. & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium
Learners in OECD Countries, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, Paris: OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154
Bryman, A. (2011). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. (2. [rev.] uppl.) Malmö: Liber
Bøjer, B. (2019). Unlocking learning spaces: An examination of the interplay between the designof learning
spaces and pedagogical practices (Industrial PhD Thesis, Rune Fjord Studio & The royal Danish
Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation, Köpenhamn)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338044292_UNLOCKING_LEARNING_SPACES__an_examination_of_the_relationship_between_the_design_of_learning_spaces_and_pedagogical_practices/link/5e3c2597458515072d8411c6/download
Davidsen, J. & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). You should collaborate, children: a study of teachers’
design and facilitation of children’s collaboration around touchscreens. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(5), 573–593
Denscombe, M. (2018). Forskningshandboken: för småskaliga forskningsprojekt inom
samhällsvetenskaperna.(4.uppl.).Studentlitteratur
Dovey, K. & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: the school as socio-spatial assemblage,
The Journal of Architecture,
Holmberg, J. (2019). Designing for added pedagogical value: a design-based research study of teachers’ educational design with ICT. Diss. Stockholm: Stockholm’s Universitet
Holmberg, J., Fransson, G. & Fors, Uno. (2018). Teachers' Pedagogical Reasoning and
Reframing of Practice in Digital Contexts. International Journal of Information and
Learning Technology, 35(2), 130–142
Selander. S. (2008). Designs for learning- a theoretical perspective. Designs for learning, 1(1), 10–24
Selander, S. (2017). Didaktiken efter Vygotskij: design för lärande. Stockholm: Liber.
Willermark, S. (2018). Digital Didaktisk Design: Att utveckla undervisning i och för en
digitaliserad skola. Diss. Trollhättan: Högskolan Väst
|
