I believe that using educational technology and web tools is a good way to make an ICT session more interesting. I still teach using whiteboard demonstrations and a lot of handout-based practical exercises, but these can get a bit boring after a while, certainly for me. Bringing in a more colourful and varied way of looking at the same material improves it for me, and I would hope the same is true for the learners. For example, the class today needed to know about some basic health & safety information concerning RSI, eye strain and back problems. Instead of just talking it through or giving them a handout (they are all ESOL students) I created a Quizlet study set which covered the same material as the assessment sheet they would have to complete. Short sentences throughout. They could look at the study cards as often as they needed to absorb the information and do the test to practice choosing answers in multiple choice format. I think it helped them learn it.
But - I got a bit too enthusiastic about Quizlet and got them to join my class, which involved them accessing email, clicking a link, buttons, adding info and all sorts of other processes which really took more time than it needed. I could have simply given them another tinyurl to the quiz set and let them get on with it.
Another thought - H&S involves knowing the words for body parts, e.g. elbow, forearm, wrist. Some people didn't. I could have projected a suitably labelled figure to point out where the relevant bits are! (With an IWB I could have done it as a drag&drop and the learners could have contributed where they knew stuff, but I don't, in that room.) As it was, I just pointed to myself.
Here's an example from my PGCE Blended Learning module of how technology can get in the way of learning:
1.
VLE online Assignment
– laws, licensing and the WEEE Directive
ECDL Syllabus ref. 2.7.1.1, 2.7.1.2, 2.7.1.3, 2.7.1.4, 2.7.2.1,
2.7.2.2, 2.7.2.3
4 of the 6 learners in class
completed this. Learners found it a
useful learning exercise, participated willingly and did not appear to struggle
with the technique of submitting the assignment online.
I planned this as a constructivist
exercise, whereby the learners would be actively involved in finding out the
information to answer a knowledge requirement, and would learn more from it
than if they had simply listened to me. “Constructivist learning emphasizes the
five different attributes of meaningful learning which are (i) intentional
learning, (ii) active learning, (iii) constructive learning, (iv) cooperative
learning, and (v) authentic learning.”
(Jonassen et al, 1999) As the comments below indicate, this did not
quite work for everyone.
I also provided a Chat facility for
learners to consult with each other as they worked on the assignment
(“co-operative learning”). They were so busy individually that there was not
time to use it effectively, but the principle is good.
Learner Comments:
- Having to create
the submission as a Word document, and worry about layout and formatting,
distracted from the attention needed to the actual information.
- Using copy & paste from websites or text
resources provided did save time, but one learner remarked that she did not pay
too much attention to the actual information, once she had identified that it more
or less covered the answer required. (From verbal learner feedback)
This is a drawback of the ease of
internet searching to find relevant text – once a few key words have been
matched, there is much less incentive to read the text actively. There is a risk that information is found
that answers only part of the question.
This happened. I should rethink
the phrasing of the task instructions to avoid this, and encourage learners to
engage more actively with the information they find.
And another example:
Using a VLE with learners
Problems arise with resources – documents produced in
Office 2007 cannot be read by users with Office 2003, so ideally each resource
would need to be uploaded in both formats.
If it is an instructional handout, this is a considerable extra workload
in design to make it appropriate. Similarly, due to time and knowledge
limitations, resources are not usually uploaded in formats suitable for
learners with disabilities, e.g. a narrated version of a text resource. This is
a common problem, as shown by Sarah Dunn’s study, which “reveals a widespread
lack of accessibility in VLE materials. The inaccessible elements are both
within the VLE software itself, and within the content the institutions put
into the VLEs.” (Dunn, 2003)
Each time a document requires
changing, the existing resource has to be deleted and the amended one uploaded.
This is also time-consuming.
In my view the main obstacles to
tutors using the VLE as a teaching aid are knowledge, time and cost. They are
not paid extra to research or develop VLE-suitable material. In addition, many
tutors who also work outside Hounslow Adult Education wish to maintain control
over their resources and not leave them open to unauthorised reproduction.
References:
Dunn,
S “Return
to SENDA? Implementing accessibility for
disabled students in virtual learning environments in UK further and higher
education”
2003 London: City
University
accessed 28/2/11
Jonassen, D.H, Peck, K and Wilson B.G “Learning
with technology: a constructivist perspective” 1999.
Merrill, University of California
In addition, I have an agreement with my curriculum manager that I will provide a periodic input of new ideas and tech suggestions via our LinkedIn team group. Since that has not taken off in a big way yet (and could my input change that?) I am going to try Rebelmouse as the central repository, and see if I can persuade a couple of people to "follow" it and give me a bit of feedback as to whether they have been able to make use of any of the material or tools I post about. I can publish the Rebelmouse page to LinkedIn I believe so I can still meet that task.
