16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
Examining the Viability of Immersive Learning Environments (ILEs) for Fostering Early Years Education in an Era of Uncertainty
Devon Rossetti
University of Northampton, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Rossetti, Devon
As a PhD student, this presentation seeks to elucidate the results from the data obtained from phases 1 and 2 of the research project. The central focus of the research project is the utilisation of Immersive Learning Environments (ILEs) and their impact on promoting learning in early childhood. The motivation for this study stems from my first-hand experiences as a Primary Teacher and Senior Lecturer in Education, observing the evolution of digital resources within the everchanging educational landscape. Notably, my recent role spearheading the development of the Early Years Virtual Learning Environment (EYVE) aimed to create an immersive games-based learning experience for trainee professionals, offering insights into how ILEs can effectively promote learning among higher education learners. This experience prompted a critical examination of whether the lessons learned in higher education contexts could be applied to early childhood education.
The international landscape of early years education is evolving with the integration of digital technology, notably through ILEs. These virtual platforms enhance traditional teaching methods, fostering critical thinking and offering personalised learning experiences for young minds (Vidal-Hall et al., 2020). The shift extends beyond classrooms as a plethora of research has shown that digital technology has become a major part of children’s lives with digital fluency being shown across family households (Edwards et al., 2017; Palaiologou, 2016; Plowman, 2015). However, challenges such as concerns over screen time, privacy, and ensuring equitable access to technology have emerged (Rose et al., 2019; Yuen et al., 2020). Perez (2016) contends that such immersion merely entertains, impeding the potential establishment of vital connections between the digital and real worlds crucial for supporting learning and development. Striking a balance between the benefits and challenges is crucial, emphasising the need for thoughtful integration to harness the full potential of digital tools in early childhood education.
In England, a child from birth to five years is recognised within the statutory guidance known as the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (DfE, 2021). More recently, the EYFS has undergone changes to remove technology as a specific aspect within the framework. Within the EYFS reforms (DfE, 2020: p9-14) it was noted that there ‘was a concern that technology is missing’ and ‘the removal of technology … would be a negative step’; despite this consultation the technology strand was later removed in September 2021. It could be suggested that this created conflicting views of the value technology has within early years and arguably question how children can gain skills or knowledge of how to use technology effectively and safely without focus placed within the EYFS (Faulder, 2021). In an age of uncertainty, Karabon (2021) agrees that the design of the curriculum should focus on the child at the centre, suggesting that the curriculum and learning space should be led by the child and for the child, recognising the importance of supporting practitioners to integrate technology within everyday practice. Ethridge et al. (2022) echo this, highlighting the pivotal role of technology in fostering play-based learning, particularly evident during virtual teaching experiences prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the OECD (2022) examines the possible trends affecting the future of education from early childhood to lifelong learning, emphasising the indispensability of digital skills and competencies in navigating the challenges of the 21st century.
Navigating the uncertainties of education, this study delves into the relationship between digital learning and societal changes, drawing on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory (1992). By unravelling these intricacies, the research contributes to the development of robust educational environments within settings and within the home that encapsulate memory and foster a sense of optimism for the future.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe presentation will focus on an instrumental case study methodology. The research study in question was an area which I had recognised that required a range of evidence to identify whether learning could be potentially promoted using ILEs, therefore according to Gillham (2000; p.1), this would align to ‘the here and now’ which aimed to ‘seek a range of different kinds of evidence’ to support in answering the research questions. Yin (2018, p.17) supports this by stating that a case study ‘can cover multiple cases and then draw a single set of “cross-case” conclusions’. Simons (2009, p.4) discusses that ‘the case could be a person, a classroom, an institution, a programme, a policy or a system’, given that this research project was focused on the setting and home environment as well as observing children this meant that the case was varied throughout the project.
This study aims to investigate the feasibility of Immersive Learning Environments (ILEs) in the promotion of learning within Early Years.
The objectives of the study are:
1. To identify parents’/carers’ and practitioners’ perspectives on defining features of an ILE in the field of early childhood in England.
2. To establish whether ILEs have an impact on the promotion of learning for children within the home and the setting context.
3. To synthesise definitions to design ILEs that promote learning in early childhood education.
The current intention of the project is to conduct a three-phase approach when applying the methods. For the purpose of this presentation, the results from phase 1 and 2 will be discussed.
1. Phase 1 will use semi-structured interviews to gather both educators and parents’ perspectives of ILEs and learning within early childhood.
2. Phase 2 will then comprise an observation and implementation stage which will apply a range of ILEs using Extended Reality (XR) within both home and setting contexts.
3. Phase 3 will develop a framework to establish whether ILEs can promote learning across the setting and home context.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBy implementing a three-phase approach in this research, the aim is to contemplate the varied perspectives of parents, practitioners, and children regarding ILEs. This presentation will delve into phases 1 and 2, highlighting key findings obtained from data collection, encompassing insights into both perceptions and interactions within ILEs. Konca (2021, p1097) highlights that children live ‘in digitally rich home environments… with parents playing a key role in children’s interaction with digital technologies’. This echoes the need for this research to identify the importance of home and setting contexts to understand how ILEs can potentially be used to promote both the learning and development of young children.
In the realm of research, the exploration of digital play in early education is still in its early stages leaving uncertainty in its limited exploration. Practitioners remain sceptical about its incorporation, highlighting a disconnect between the utilization of digital technology and teacher proficiency as a significant obstacle (Vidal-Hall et al., 2020; Mertala, 2019; Hatzigianni and Kalaizidis 2018; Moss, 2015). The data gathered from phases 1 and 2 complements the literature, indicating a deficiency in teacher knowledge. This lack of understanding hinders their ability to effectively integrate new technology into the learning environment, the observations also suggest that ILEs enable learners to apply knowledge interactively. Parents have also highlighted the disparity between what is utilized in educational settings and what is familiar in the home context, with incomplete knowledge transfer. As the researcher, I recognize the importance of addressing this challenge in my research journey, to aid both educators and parents in comprehending the potential of Interactive Learning Environments (ILEs) as tools for facilitating learning. As I move into phase 3 of the research project, this data becomes crucial for developing a research framework that supports the implementation of ILEs by both practitioners and parents/carers.
ReferencesBronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187–249). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Department for Education (2020). Early Years Foundation Stage Reforms Government consultation response. [online]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/896872/EYFS_reforms_consultation_-_government_response.pdf [9 January 2024].
Department for Education (2021). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. London: DfE
Ethridge, P., Gray, C., McPherson, A. and Janus, M. (2022) ‘Fostering play through virtual teaching: challenges, barriers, and strategies’, Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(1), pp. 1-10.
Faulder, M. (2021) Curriculum- In focus… Technology. [online] Available from: https://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/features/article/curriculum-in-focus-technology [29 January 2024]
Gillham, B. (2000) Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum.
Hatzigianni, M. Kalaitzidis, I. (2018) Early childhood educators’ attitudes and beliefs around the use of touchscreen technologies by children under three years of age. British Journal of Educational Technology. 49 (5), pp.883-895.
Karabon, A. (2021) Examining how early childhood preservice teacher funds of knowledge shapes pedagogical decision making. Teaching and teacher education. 106 (1), pp.1-10.
Konca, A. (2021) Digital Technology Usage of Young Children: Screen Time and Families. Early Childhood Education Journal. 50 (0), pp.1097-1108.
Mertala, P. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs about technology integration in early childhood education: A meta-ethnographical synthesis of qualitative research. Computers in Human Behavior. 101, pp.334-349.
Moss, P. (2015) There are alternatives! Contestation and hope in early childhood education. Global Studies of Childhood. 5 (3), pp.226-238.
OECD (2022) OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. Paris: OECD Publishing
Perez, S (2016). Hands-on with Play-Doh Touch, the app that brings kids’ creations to life. [online] TechCrunch. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/18/hands-on-with-play-doh-touch-the-app-that-brings-kids-creations-to-life/ [9 January 2024]
Simons, H. (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. London: SAGE.
Vidal-Hall, C. Flewitt, R. Wyse, D. (2020) Early Childhood practitioner beliefs about digital media: integrating technology into a child-centred classroom environment. Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 28 (2), pp. 167-181.
Yin, R. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications- Designs and Methods. London: SAGE.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
Investigating the Impact of Blended Learning on the Learning Environment of Elementary School Students
Vaso Anastasiou, Yiota H.Diakou, Charoula Angeli
University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Presenting Author: Anastasiou, Vaso;
H.Diakou, Yiota
Rapid social changes have shaped the demands and challenges that education is called upon to address in recent years. With digital transformation being one of the priorities of the EU, the integration of technology in education in its various forms, such as Blended Learning (BL), is more necessary than ever. BL is the learning approach that combines face-to-face teaching in the classroom in the presence of educators and online teaching in a space outside the school. This research studies the learning environment during the implementation of BL in elementary education for fourth-grade students (aged 9-10) in a public school in an urban area of Cyprus and examines how the learning environment evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research question was: How did blended learning affect the learning environment of fourth-grade students in elementary schools during the Covid-19 pandemic?
The existence of a research gap in investigating the impact of BL within learning environments in Cypriot primary education makes this research significant and necessary. The findings of the research have both practical and theoretical importance, offering guidelines for the successful implementation of BL in primary schools and contributing to clarifying research gaps and understanding the application of BL.
The literature review examined theoretical approaches that recognize the social dimension of learning, such as theories on learning environments, social practices within Communities of Practice, and the climate and culture of the classroom. In these approaches, the unique learning environment of each class significantly affects the quality of students' learning and the achievement of their learning goals. The classroom community functions as a learning community where the participation and interaction of its members are crucial for learning. Similarly, the degree of engagement in classroom practices corresponds to the different social positions a student constructs, along with the associated influences and privileges. Thus, these approaches identify common perceptions about the learning environment of the class. Specifically, the learning environment is influenced: (a) firstly, by the opportunities for interaction among its members, (b) secondly, by the opportunities for personal improvement and development given to students, and (c) thirdly, by the opportunities that create a climate of collectivity within the classroom community.
In the present research, qualitative methods were applied for the collection and analysis of data following an emergent research design. Data were collected from observations and analysis units from posts in the digital tools used, in order to achieve a deeper understanding and interpretation of how BL influenced the children's learning environment. Through the thematic analysis approach, themes were identified and analyzed from the data. The emerging themes were connected with existing theories, advancing the construction of an interpretive and theoretical framework that provides answers to the research question.
The results of the research reflect specific temporal circumstances and may not apply to different conditions, even for students with similar characteristics to the sample, although they align with the findings of other studies on the educational impacts of the pandemic. However, they do provide a representative picture of the response to the crisis brought about by the spread of the virus, which disrupted many aspects of the daily lives of educators and students.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAn action research was conducted in three cycles, with each cycle being revised based on the previous one. The starting point was the existing problematic situation, which concerned the forced adoption of BL as a teaching method due to the pandemic. The researcher was a female educator with experience in integrating technology into teaching but not in remote online education. A total of 63 students from three fourth-grade classes of an elementary school participated in the study. These were three different classes for which the educator was responsible over three consecutive years.
For the collection of data analyzed using qualitative techniques, material was gathered from the "educator's diary," in which the educator recorded observations, reflective comments, and significant events. Additionally, material was collected from the digital tools used.
Regarding the digital tools, the ClassDojo application was used for communication between educator and parents. In the first cycle, students used the school's computers and touch screens in small groups mainly for practice. During the online phase of the first cycle, students used personal devices and digital exercise tools (e.g., Forms, Kahoot, and Learning Apps). In the second cycle, face-to-face teaching included the use of Android touch screens in 1:1 conditions and even more exercise tools (e.g., wordwall, Quizizz, Liveworksheets, Pixton). During the online phase, the Microsoft Teams was used. In the third cycle, Google Classroom was used for face-to-face teaching as a learning management system, along with tools such as Google Docs, Jamboard, and Scratch. Online teaching for individual students was facilitated through Padlet, with instructions and material corresponding to classroom activities.
As for the research processes, the study included three research cycles, starting with face-to-face teaching but following different paths thereafter. During the first cycle, the school year began without an emergency plan, and with the pandemic, teaching continued online through asynchronous remote education. Enriched Virtual and Self-Blend models were used. In the second cycle, the year began with face-to-face teaching and continued online using Teams and Enriched Virtual model. There was preparation to meet the learning demands of online learning. In the third cycle, online learning was individualized. Self-blend model was applied.
For the analysis of the data, qualitative techniques were applied, focusing on how BL influenced the learning environment, as well as on the analysis of the educator's teaching practice based on the recorded data in the educator's diary and the posts on the digital platforms used.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDuring the three cycles, different learning environments were observed, influenced by the health protocols due to the pandemic. These environments offered varied opportunities for interaction, personal development, and a sense of collectivity.
In the first phase of the first cycle before the pandemic, there was a positive learning environment during face-to-face teaching (e.g., using various teaching techniques and student-centered approaches), where students had the opportunity for interaction, a sense of collectivity, and personal development. However, the unpreparedness for the transition to online teaching from face-to-face teaching caused disorganization, and the learning environment did not offer suitable opportunities for all students.
In the online teaching of the second cycle, proper preparation and training led to effective online learning. The transition from traditional to online teaching was smooth, following criteria of quality implementation and effectiveness.
In the face-to-face teaching with restrictive health protocols and social distancing, limited interaction was observed, and teacher-centered methods limited opportunities for personal development and collectivity. In the face-to-face teaching of the third cycle, the use of a learning management system and the integration of technology based on learning theories improved interaction among students through digital collaborative activities, "overcoming" social distances. This learning environment was shaped through the experiences and training of the previous school years.
In conclusion, the success of Blended Learning depends on both effective face-to-face teaching and online learning, as they are interconnected. Therefore, to maximize the positive aspects of each phase of BL, it is necessary:
- Face-to-face teaching in a learning environment that provides opportunities for interactions, personal development, and enhancement of creating a sense of collectivity.
- Online teaching using learning management systems and reliable standards.
- Integration of technology in all phases based on learning theories.
ReferencesCasimir, O. A., Blake, S. C., Klosky, J. V., & Gazmararian, J. A. (2023). Adaptations to the Learning Environment for Elementary School Children in Georgia during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1-14.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2013). Is K-12 Blended Learning Disruptive? An Introduction to the Theory of Hybrids. Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation.
Li, S., & Wang, W. (2022). Effect of blended learning on student performance in K-12 settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(5), 1254–1272.
Moos, R. H. (1973). Conceptualizations of human environments. American Psychologist, 28(8), 652–665.
Pittman, J., Severino, L., DeCarlo-Tecce, M. J., & Kiosoglous, C. (2021). An action research case study: Digital equity and educational inclusion during an emergent COVID-19 divide. Journal for Multicultural Education, 15(1), 68-84.
Quality Matters. (n.d.). Course Design Rubric Standards. Retrieved from:
https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheK-12RubricFifthEdition.pdf
Rachmadtullah, R., Marianus Subandowo, R., Humaira, M. A., Aliyyah, R. R., Samsudin, A., & Nurtanto, M. (2020). Use of blended learning with moodle: Study effectiveness in elementary school teacher education students during the COVID-19 pandemic. International journal of advanced science and technology, 29(7), 3272-3277.
Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701.
Rusticus, S. A., Pashootan, T., & Mah, A. (2023). What are the key elements of a positive learning environment? Perspectives from students and faculty. Learning Environments Research, 26(1), 161-175.
Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learning approach for COVID-19, post vaccine, & post-pandemic world. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2), 140-171.
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K–12 blended learning. Retrieved from
http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning.pdf
Van Laer, S., & Elen, J. (2017). In search of attributes that support self-regulation in blended learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 1395-1454.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
Digital Education Action Plan: Technology Integration in Greek Primary Schools
Grigorios Arkoumanis1, Ourania Maria Ventista2, Magdalini Kolokitha2, Paraskevi Tsani2
1National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; 2University of Thessaly, Greece
Presenting Author: Arkoumanis, Grigorios;
Tsani, Paraskevi
This century is characterised as an era of rapid technological changes (Judy & D’ Amico, 1997). There are great opportunities offered by the Internet and communication technologies. However, the need for training and education of the citizens to be competent in the use of these technologies also emerged (Mannila et al., 2018). At the European Union, citizens acknowledge the importance of training for digital skills and consider it among the top five digital priorities in their countries (European Commission, 2023a). The European Commission introduced a scheme to support the European citizens and to prepare them for this digital era. The Digital Decade policy programme 2030 aims to transform public services, businesses, skills, and infrastructures in Europe by 2030 in order to achieve the objectives and targets for the Europe’s digital transformation (European Commission, 2023b).
Education will be the main pilar in order to address this need for developing digital skills and to support this transformative process. Digital education is the systematic use of digital technologies in teaching and learning in formal and in non-formal education within a community, and the essential technological equipment required to support this educational process (Lynn et al., 2022). Early in 2018, EU introduced the Digital Education Action Plan (DEAP) 2018 – 2020. In September 2020, the new DEAP 2021 – 2027 was introduced by the European Commission as an initiative for this digital era. DEAP includes a vision of inclusive and accessible digital education and has two strategic priorities: fostering a high performing digital education ecosystem and developing digital skills and competences for the European citizens (European Commission, 2023c). Even though the European Union does not interfere in the national education system of its member states, it can affect their policies through initiatives and collective targets (Staude, 2011).
The purpose of this study is to track the process of achieving digital education and to offer suggestions for its progress. This study uses technology integration as an indicator to investigate to what extent teachers use technology for their teaching and their students’ learning. Integration of digital technologies in education systems refers to the embedding of technology to enhance teaching and learning (Conrads et al., 2017). On average less than 40% of educators across the EU feel ready to use digital technologies in teaching, with divergences between EU Member States (OECD, 2018, as quoted in European Commission, 2023c).
This study focuses specifically on the case of Greece. However, it offers recommendations for any European country that aims to enact their digital policies in accordance with the DEAP.
Taking into account the great importance of the technological integration for digital education policies and the need of tracking the process of enactment of these policies, this study aims to examine the progress of the technological integration in the Greek state-funded schools. The research questions are:
1) To what extent do primary school teachers in state-funded schools in Greece currently integrate technology in their lessons?
2) Which factors predict technology integration in state-funded primary schools in Greece?
3) When pre-specified key factors are controlled, is technology integration explained by between-group effects or within-group effects?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study uses a policy enactment framework and explores this with empirical data. Previous work on context and factor related policy enactment, such as that of Perryman et al. (2017) and Keddie (2019) have utilized a ‘fourfold heuristic’ (Keddie, 2019, p. 7) constituted by ‘situated, material, professional and external dimensions’ (Braun et al., 2011, p. 585). In Keddie’s (2019, p. 11) work, the factors for policy enactment are presented in a more elaborated mode:
• Material factors (such as staffing, infrastructure, and school budget)
• Situated factors (such as school setting, history, and intake)
• Professional factors (such as teacher values and commitments)
• External factors (such as local and national policy and systemic support, expectations, and pressures)
Survey data of 205 class teachers in 32 state-funded primary schools in Greece are used to explore the policy enactment in relation to these factors. Convenience sampling was used. However, the schools were located across the country. In the sample, there were urban, semi-urban and rural schools. The analysis of the data was multi-level. The model discussed was a fully nested model since all the classroom teachers were located within one school. The analysis was done with the R programming language in the R Studio.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis paper will present the findings for the policy enactment in relation to the four aforementioned factors. One of the key findings is that the Greek educational system is not yet ready to succeed in technology integration. The Greek state-funded schools do not have the necessary technological equipment. Furthermore, not every school has the same access to technological equipment and digital integration and the rural schools lack significant equipment compared to the semi-urban and urban ones. Furthermore, technology integration is mainly explained by teacher-level factors and not school-level factors.
Currently, the policy in Greece adopts a top-down approach. This study suggests a bottom-up policy approach. The policy makers should collaborate with teachers and other stakeholders to ensure sustainable and scalable systemic change to achieve digital education.
To conclude, although the European Commission aims through initiatives and funding to improve the factors, which are statistically significant predictors of technology integration and are linked to capacity building, there should be more support to have the desirable outcome. To achieve digital education and technology integration, it is imperative that more and higher quality professional development courses are offered to teachers.
ReferencesBraun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585-596. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601555
Conrads, J., Rasmussen, M., Winters, N., Geniets, A., & Langer, L. (2017). Digital education policies in Europe and beyond: Key design principles for more effective policies. Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
European Commission. (2023a). 2030 Digital Decade: report on the state of the Digital Decade 2023, Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/318547
European Commission. (2023b). The Digital Decade policy programme 2030 [Infographic]. Retrieved May 27, 2023, from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/policy-programme-path-digital-decade-factsheet?fbclid=IwAR2B_bnZ16SlJ4Sk82nFA79qAaHfh7AmxJHOlSAj6hNKZUhFRDcVGBToj8g
European Commission. (2023c). Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027). Retrieved May 13, 2023, from https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-plan
Judy, R. W., & D' Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and workers in the 21st century. (Report No ISBN-1-55813-061-6). Hudson Institute, Herman Kahn Center, Indianapolis.
Keddie, Α. (2019). Context matters: primary schools and academies reform in England. Journal of Education Policy, 34(1), 6-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1402959
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Conway, E., Curran, D., Fox, G., & O’Gorman, C. (2022). Digital education. In Digital Towns: Accelerating and Measuring the Digital Transformation of Rural Societies and Economies (pp. 133-150). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Mannila, L., Nordén, L. Å., & Pears, A. (2018, August). Digital competence, teacher self-efficacy and training needs. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 78-85).
Perryman, J., Ball, S. J., Braun, A., & Maguire, M. (2017). Translating policy: governmentality and the reflective teacher. Journal of Education Policy, 32(6), 745-756. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1309072
Staude, E. (2011). National Education Systems in the European Union. [Master’s thesis, Washington University]. Washington University Open Scholarship Institutional Repository. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=etd
|
