Transforming K-12 Classrooms with Digital Technology: A Look at What Works! Robert J. Leneway Western Michigan University, USA ABSTRACT Powerful emerging technologies, data systems and communications have converged to change how we play, work, communicate, learn and even what we think. It is fundamentally changing our institutions and support systems, especially our schools and their classrooms. Thus, the teachers that use these classrooms need to also change. Christensen, Horn & Johnson (2011) claims that online education is a disrupting technology that is dramatically increasing and will soon reach a tipping point when tax payers will ask, do we still need classrooms? That day could be coming soon, as it is projected by Radford (2011) and Chmura (2012) that at the current growth rate, 50 percent of all courses in grades 9-12 will be taken online by 2019. If schools and classroom designed for a 20 th century industrial age are to survive, then how do they need to be transformed to response to the rapidly changing needs of today’s 21 st century students? There is currently much "hype" on what can technology can do for students and their classrooms. This chapter will explore what the research says really works regarding the integration of digital technologies for schools, teachers and most importantly the 21st century students that today’s classrooms are intended to serve. However, with most emerging technologies, the research has not kept pace with the ever increasing advance of digital technologies, so this chapter will also highlight some of the promising new technology devices, programs and educational practices in need of quality evaluative research. By exploring how today's students and their learning needs are being changed by current and emerging promising digital technologies, a personal vision for the reader should begin to emerge on how schools might transform their 20th century teachers and classroom into spaces, including virtual spaces, that better serve today's 21st century students. INTRODUCTION We are living in fascinating times. For education these times can be both exhilarating and challenging. Education and its current structures are being questioned as never before. Our concepts of what it means to be educated and how the educational process will take place in a new world of technology enhanced lifelong learning is radically changing. While it may be argued that there is a need for students to physically be in today’s schools for reasons other than academics including socialization, child care, extracurricular activities and sports; it is difficult to debate that technology is not having a transformative impact on schools and their classrooms and will continue to do so at an accelerated pace. Moje (2012) proclaims that “the classroom as we know it is dead. It is outdated in helping children meet their full educational potential, and needs to be replaced to better meet the needs of today’s students” (p.1). But, what might that transformed classroom look like? Is it more office like with cubicles, open spaces or virtual with teachers and students at home? How might teachers need to change their teaching practices? Will they need to learn to work online, or from a flipped classroom, and/or in collaborative groups? While some research exists to provide guidance on what currently works, in general, educational research has not kept pace with rapidly emerging instructional 1
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Transforming K-12 Classrooms with Digital Technology:
A Look at What Works! Robert J. Leneway Western Michigan University, USA ABSTRACT Powerful emerging technologies, data systems and communications have converged to change how we play, work, communicate, learn and even what we think. It is fundamentally changing our institutions and support systems, especially our schools and their classrooms. Thus, the teachers that use these classrooms need to also change. Christensen, Horn & Johnson (2011) claims that online education is a disrupting technology that is dramatically increasing and will soon reach a tipping point when tax payers will ask, do we still need classrooms? That day could be coming soon, as it is projected by Radford (2011) and Chmura (2012) that at the current growth rate, 50 percent of all courses in grades 9-12 will be taken online by 2019. If schools and classroom designed for a 20th century industrial age are to survive, then how do they need to be transformed to response to the rapidly changing needs of today’s 21st century students? There is currently much "hype" on what can technology can do for students and their classrooms. This chapter will explore what the research says really works regarding the integration of digital technologies for schools, teachers and most importantly the 21st century students that today’s classrooms are intended to serve. However, with most emerging technologies, the research has not kept pace with the ever increasing advance of digital technologies, so this chapter will also highlight some of the promising new technology devices, programs and educational practices in need of quality evaluative research. By exploring how today's students and their learning needs are being changed by current and emerging promising digital technologies, a personal vision for the reader should begin to emerge on how schools might transform their 20th century teachers and classroom into spaces, including virtual spaces, that better serve today's 21st century students. INTRODUCTION We are living in fascinating times. For education these times can be both exhilarating and challenging. Education and its current structures are being questioned as never before. Our concepts of what it means to be educated and how the educational process will take place in a new world of technology enhanced lifelong learning is radically changing. While it may be argued that there is a need for students to physically be in today’s schools for reasons other than academics including socialization, child care, extracurricular activities and sports; it is difficult to debate that technology is not having a transformative impact on schools and their classrooms and will continue to do so at an accelerated pace. Moje (2012) proclaims that “the classroom as we know it is dead. It is outdated in helping children meet their full educational potential, and needs to be replaced to better meet the needs of today’s students” (p.1). But, what might that transformed classroom look like? Is it more office like with cubicles, open spaces or virtual with teachers and students at home? How might teachers need to change their teaching practices? Will they need to learn to work online, or from a flipped classroom, and/or in collaborative groups? While some research exists to provide guidance on what currently works, in general, educational research has not kept pace with rapidly emerging instructional
! 1
technologies and practices. Let’s start with a look at how the student who will be using these spaces, virtual or otherwise has changed. We will also explore the use of digital technologies that the research claims does make differences, or at least provides the same results at less cost. In the process several common methodological problems with educational technology research related studies will be acknowledged. Finally, this chapter will explore some of the more promising emerging digital technologies for their potential impacts on classrooms to meet the needs of 21st century students. BACKGROUND –THE DIGITAL STUDENT To adapt to overwhelming amounts of information, and continual interaction with visual media and game playing, researchers, Carter (2009), Feinstein (2004), Kandel (2006), and Small and Vorgon (2008), tells us that the newest generation of K-12 students have neurologically changed their brains to try to keep pace and literately see and learn differently than their parents and grandparents, in that they see and remember visual images in place of text. The television is being replaced by computer screens, mobile devices and game consoles as primary sources of information and entertainment (Prensky, 2006). Today’s paper textbooks are about to be replaced by intelligent, colorful, multimedia response programs that fit on mobile devices such as iPads, Kindles, smart phones and other digital devices that students are now starting to bring to school (Leneway,2012). According to electronic game designer, Aponte, Levieux and Natkin (2009), “the new interactive games require a decision every 1-2 seconds and rewards every 7- 12 seconds” (p.8). Meanwhile, our schools, our classrooms and our curriculum have remained relatively the same in their assessment practices. In Brain Rules, Medina (2009) said “as a society, we ignore how the brain works and the only scandal is why we’re not fixing it. In fact, if you were to envision a large group of students sitting passively in a classroom listening or writing for long periods of time, you would be picturing an almost perfect anti-brain learning environment.” At the same time, recent media attention toward the state of education has multiple hands trying to gain control of our educational systems and the content they teach. Recently, legislation like No Child Left Behind and governmental threats of public sector takeovers has taken much of the power and funding from programs that needed it. It is clear from this media attention that public education is being attacked by powerful enemies. Thus, public education and its classrooms have to change or die (Leneway, 2011). Perhaps the greatest hope for responsive change to both changing student learning needs and external threads comes in the form of educators’ attempts to transform K-12 classrooms with digital technology. In a recent interview, (Leneway, 2011) a fifth grade teacher said:
As I look at my class today compared to my classes ten years ago, I can really see a difference in interests and the way students spend their spare time outside of school. As students are evolving with the times, their interests that we, as teachers, have become accustomed to are changing. My avid readers in class are now downloading books onto their “Nooks” instead of bringing their books to class. Students are texting and/or messaging via Facebook on their free time at home; and the majority of my students can play and “master” more and more video games that I have never heard of and am clueless about….More and more of my students are “antsy” and more apt to “play” with technology than use the traditional ways of learning without utilizing technology. I have found myself adjusting and changing my lessons/projects that I teach over the years to keep them engaged (p.2).
Meanwhile a high school teacher said, “Education can adapt and embrace the 21st century preparing students better for a world that has technology at its core of almost everything we do these days” (Leneway, p.3). In Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, Christensen, Horn and Johnson (2011) claim that we need to rethink our understanding of intelligence, re-evaluate our educational system, and reinvigorate our commitment to learning. In other words we need “disruptive innovation” (p.162). The challenge to school leaders is how to provide a coherent and relevant curriculum experience in the classroom during a time of “disruptive innovation.”
! 2
TRANSFORMING THE CLASSROOM The Partnership for 21st Century Skills is a partnership in the United States that includes the National Education Association, the U.S. Department of Education and many major U.S. corporations, including Adobe, Microsoft, CISCO, Apple, Time Warner, and Dell Computers. Much time and effort was taken by representatives of the public and private sector partnership organizations to identify skills needed for success in 21st century careers. Thus, these identified skills can serve as a lens and criterion for evaluating what instructional technologies and practices will help the classroom transform into an instructional environment that will help students survive and succeed in 21st century life (Honey, et al, 2005). In considering the larger question of how best to transform the classroom, first there is the question, what are students going to need to survive and succeed in 21st century life? In trying to answer this basic question an employer survey by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2006), which was refined by Hart (2006) informs us that:
1. Students need the ability to solve complex problems in real-time. 2. Students need to be able to think divergently and creatively in both digital and non-digital
environments to create novel and useful solutions. 3. Students need the ability to think analytically by comparing, contrasting, evaluating,
synthesizing, and applying without instruction or supervision—in other words, being able to use the higher end of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
4. Students must have the ability to collaborate seamlessly in both physical and virtual spaces, and with both real and virtual partners.
5. Finally, students must be able to communicate not just with text or speech, but in multiple multimedia formats.
We will use these nationally surveyed employer identified skills for career success in the 21st century as criteria in evaluating the relevancy of both current and emerging digital technologies for their potential for transforming the classroom. At the same time, the question will not be forgotten as to how do schools and the classroom teacher address the short-term requirements of standardized testing as well as the long-term goals of preparing student for relevant jobs of the future? The starting point according to The 21st Century Project (Baumann, 2008) is to acknowledge that since the world has changed, our students and how they learn in and out of the classroom has to change to something that parallels the real world. A real world like that identify by the 21st Century Project. But, first the question that Christiansen, et al, (2008, 2011) have asked needs to be addressed: are physical classrooms actually needed? In a 2012 quasi-experimental study (Clayton, Rule & Boody, 2013) forty six students switched between online laptop learning in a supervised classroom with electronic communication only and traditional face-to-face learning for ten different mathematics topics. They were all taught by the same instructor with the same/similar practice problems, exercises, assignments, and manipulatives adapted for the environment. Gain scores (except for perimeter) and posttest scores showed no statistically significant differences. With no significant differences (NSD) between online and classroom instruction, one might conclude that the expense of the classroom and all that comes with it were in this case not needed, at least for academic reasons. However, perhaps a long view is needed when examining such NSD results. This can be illustrated by the results of a study sponsored by the Bertelsmann Foundation (Reeves, 1998) on two groups of grade 8 Social Studies students in Michigan in 1998. The first group was taught in the current traditional manner; teacher talks, students listen utilizing traditional testing. The second group learned the material through a process-based approach, including collaboration and group activities, the use of technology, and a blend of teacher and peer assessment. At the end of year one, both groups were each given the same traditional state exam. The test scores were initially the same from both groups. But, the reinforcement about the need for a change in how we currently teach—came exactly one year later. The groups were given the test
! 3
again, and this time the traditional learners were able to recall only 15 percent of the lesson content. The group that learned through collaboration and project and process learning, however, recalled seventy percent of the content. And they not only were able to remember the content, but also understood its significance and context. Reeves (1998) claimed that it is this type of teaching and this crucial approach to technology supported process-based learning that moves students from literacy to fluency for 21st century learning. Small scale local research projects on the impact of technology such as these however can be problematic. Clark (1983, 1994) claims that such comparisons of technology-based strategies with non-technology-based ones were confounded by variables such as instructional design and teacher effects. The “media impact” on teaching has been further refined by Robinson and Nathan (2001); Kozma (1991, 1994); and Koumi (1994). Davis, & Roblyer (2005) proclaim that “educational research should focus “on technology-enhanced instructional designs, rather than the technologies themselves”, (Roblyer, p.193). However, such quality large scale research has almost been non- existent. But, as the costs of personal computing devices have come down while high speed Internet access in schools has become almost universal, and the U.S. government is encouraging larger scale studies, this is beginning to change. One large recent research project that has taken a multidimensional research approach was Project RED (2010). In a survey of nearly 1,000 schools involved with 1:1 computing projects, those employing what they refer to as “proper implementation factors,” significantly outperformed all others. The Project RED analysis also showed that having a principal who models and leads technology usage is a critically important element of an effective 1:1 program that leads to overall improvement to student achievement levels. According to this study, principal leadership is the second most significant factor in reducing dropout rates and the single most important variable across several of the other education success measures. This finding suggests that a change in management training first for school principals involved in large-scale technology implementations is of paramount importance in transforming the classroom. While the study also confirmed that technology tools in the hands of poor teachers still resulted in poor academic results, the “appropriate use” of technology by a properly trained, talented teacher had a multiplier impact on student achievement. This is a multiplier impact that is yet to be tested with online teachers. So what Works? Given trained, talented teachers and appropriate school leadership, what are the technology-enhanced instructional practices that might make a difference in transforming the classroom? Let’s look at some established as well as promising practices for the five identified skills needed for career success in the 21st century. While it is acknowledged that most technology supported practices work in the acquisition of more than one of these identified skills, it may be more practical for visualizing the future classroom by viewing some of these practices with a primary identified 21st century skill area. Solving Complex Problems One proven approach to helping students learn to solve complex problems in real-time are technology supported project based inquiry projects. According to the Buck Institute for Education web site (2012), “project based learning (PBL), students goes through an extended process of inquiry in response to a complex question, problem, or challenge. Rigorous projects help students learn key academic content and practice 21st Century Skills (such as critical thinking)”, (p.2). In a meta-analysis of 35 research studies, Vernon and Blake (1993) found that the results generally support the superiority of the PBL approach over more traditional methods. Many of these projects are enabled though the use of technology including: GPS, video conferencing with experts, web site creations and Internet searching. The Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis and University of Tennessee at Knoxville (Becker, Wong, & Ravitz, 1999) found that students using the Co-nect program, which emphasizes project-based learning and technology, improved test scores by 26% in all subject areas over a two-year period on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System over as compared to control schools in the study. ! 4
In a five-year study, the Center for Learning in Technology, Penuel et al (2000) found that technology-using students in Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project classrooms outperformed non-technology-using students in communication skills, teamwork, and problem solving. They also found increased student engagement, greater responsibility for learning, increased peer collaboration skills, and greater achievement gains by students who had been labeled as low achievers. Students from Multimedia Project classrooms outperformed comparison classrooms in their presentations as related to student content, attention to audience, and design. The Multimedia Project involves completing one to four interdisciplinary multimedia projects a year that integrate real-world issues and practices. The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS) partnered with the Detroit Public Schools to bring about reform in middle-school science. Through this research partnership, Tal, Krajcik, and Blumenfeld (2006) and Geier and et. al, (2008)found that diverse populations of urban-school students learn science through inquiry-oriented projects and the use of various educational learning technologies. But they also found that for technology supported inquiry-based science to succeed in urban schools, teachers must play an important role in enacting the curriculum, supporting the required technology while addressing the unique needs of students. When these conditions are met however, significant and long lasting achievement gains can be expected. During the author’s recent interviews on technology use in the classroom, a high school teacher summed up other non-achievement testing related reasons well when she said:
There are better ways to do things, so we do them in better ways. Why would education be any different? Yes, math is still math: but math is much more efficient, faster, and easier to learn when using electronic programs and smart boards. English is still English: but using a word processor for a 20 page report is much faster, more efficient, and much easier than handwriting a 20 page report, and multimedia, Internet published reports are more engaging (Leneway,et al, 2011, p4).
In returning to the question proposed in the introduction of this chapter, as to what should a transformed classroom look like? It appear from this list of research studies that a transformed classroom should first be a designed environment, virtual or otherwise that will promote inquire based study and project based learning for teaching analytic skills. Divergent and Creative Thinking Although, Torrance and Goff (1989) has identified no fewer than 255 creative measurement instruments and there is no shortage of tests, many researchers have questioned their usefulness, usually on the grounds of technical shortcomings, although they do not dismiss them out of hand (Hocevar, 1980; Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989; ). Thus, it is difficult to find appropriate research on what works to train students to think divergently and creatively. Most creativity tests define creativity in a multifaceted way (products, processes and personal factors), according to Cropley and Kaufman, (2012). Ferlazzo (2012) says:
At its core, creativity is about having a new idea put into action. Another way to think of creativity is that it means solving problems in a unique way. Thus, teaching creativity can be thought of as teaching children to problem-solve (outside the box). Not according to a set formula, but by applying knowledge they have in a new way (p.2).
In a recent study of 1,000 working professionals, Berland (2012) found that 85% percent of respondents agree that creative thinking is critical for problem solving in their career, and 68% of respondents believe that creativity is a skill that can be learned. Nearly three-quarters (71%) say creative thinking should be “taught as a class – like math or science. In response to Berland’s study, Jon Perera (2012) former Vice President for Education, Adobe Inc. said:
Around the world, educators are already fostering creative thinking with their students. What this study (Berland, 2012) is telling us is that we need to empower and accelerate this shift. Creativity is a
! 5
critical competency that should be taught within all disciplines. This will drive the global economy and the career success of the next generation (p.1).
While in a 11-month ethnographic study, Parker (2009) found that the greatest benefits of incorporating digital media into the school curriculum were the expanding notion of literacy that these multimedia projects generated, and the” third space” created when teachers acknowledged, appreciated, and engaged in the discourses of students and youth culture in general and thus better engage students that may be difficult to otherwise reach. Meanwhile, Aprill (2001) in a study of 30 Chicago public schools found it is the student acquisition of authentic intellectual work involving original application of knowledge can impact student achievement. The kind of original application that is made easier with student guided access to digital media. Heath claims that “it is not test preparation, but authentic intellectual work requiring students to engage a wide range of representations and express themselves in a wide range”’ of ways that makes a difference. In a state wide controlled Florida study, Grunwald (2012) found that students who completed at least one technology course and took at least one industrial certification exam had higher attendance rates and thus higher achievement scores than comparable students. Many of these students were also pursuing a career education track which allowed for more opportunities to express their creative and diverse thinking outside of the standard classroom. Adobe Youth Voice is a program that over 150,000 youth have participated in that is intended to empower youth and educators through media making experiences that promote social change. Bloomberg Radio EDU program featured an interview with Najaya Royal, a student in the Adobe Youth Voices program. Najaya said that as a result of participating in Adobe Youth Voices she “now has options for the future to creatively express herself (March 23, 2012).” In a 2012 Keynote at the International Society for Technology in Education conference, Yong Zhao, presidential chair and associate dean for global education at the University of Oregon claimed that:
We are all born with the capacity to create and to enterprise. I don’t think American schools have been able to teach creativity better than other schools. Creativity cannot be taught, but it can be killed. American schools don’t teach creativity but they kill it less successfully (June 26, 2012, San Diego, CA.).
Thus, the transformed classroom of the future also needs to be a space that will promote creative and divergent thinking that might also resemble a garage, a high tech coffee house, a shopping Mall or any other setting for collaborative learning that would improve upon the current steroid classrooms with their neat rolls of desks. Analytical Thinking For the third listed 21st century skill, analytical thinking related research in general is easier to measure than that for measuring the impact of diverse and creative skills training. For example, a three year study of two British schools, Boaler (1997) found that students at the technology supported project-based school did better than those at the more traditional school on both math problems requiring analytical or conceptual thought and on those considered rote. The impressive results of this study showed that three times as many students at the technology project-based school received the top grade achievable on the national examination in math. However, the small sample size of two schools and lack of controls for teacher effects and instructional strategies brings the results of this study into question. In a larger and more controlled study, a team from SRI International, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and other universities Roschelle et al (2010) conducted a study that examines whether SimCalc Mathworld improves middle school students’ knowledge of the algebra concepts of rate and proportionality. Ninety-five teachers and more than 1,600 of their seventh grade students in eight regions
! 6
of Texas participated in the study. Teachers were randomly assigned to use either the SimCalc Mathworld curriculum or the conventional unit on rate and proportionality. According to the Institute of Educational Science (IES) (2008) this is a good example of a well implemented randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an “acceptable sample attrition rate” (p.103). In this study, students who used SimCalc Mathworld showed a significantly better understanding of rate and proportionality than similar students who used the standard curriculum, particularly on knowledge of complex concepts. IES reports that “the estimated effect size was 0.84, equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 80th percentile” (p.104). In a study of 6,227 fourth graders and 7,146 eighth graders, Wenglinsky (1998) found that if computers were used for drill or practice, they typically had a negative effect on student achievement. Meanwhile, it they were used with real-world applications, such as spreadsheets, or to simulate relationships or changing variables, student achievement increased. In a large study of the use of interactive white boards with clickers across multiple grade levels and content areas Marzano and Haystead (2010) examined whether Promethean’s ActivClassroom had an impact in schools around the US. This research found that integrating interactive white boards with clickers into lessons can raise student achievement an average of 17 percent. The study determined that student achievement can be further increased if a teacher has ten or more years of teaching experience, and has been using the technology for two or more years. Also for further increases in student achievement, Marzano and Haystead (2010) reported that the teacher needed to have high confidence in his or her ability to use the ActivClassroom suite, and use it 75 to 80 percent of the time in the classroom. Any more time than 80 percent of the time, actually showed a decrease in achievement results. Marzano and Haystead (2010) speculates that this is results of too much focus by the teacher on the technology and not enough on the actual instruction. These studies demonstrate the need to control for instructional strategies and teacher effect that includes the level of the teacher’s education and the amount of professional development. Teacher efficacy with the use of technology also needs to be examined when considering what might really work in a transformed classroom. While many factors may affect teachers’ use of technology, a significant amount of research supports the idea that teacher technology confidence is directly related to computer use in the classroom for learning purposes. Zhao, Tan, and Mishra (2001) found a strong relationship between teacher confidence and use of technology in the classroom. Teo, Lee & Chai, (2008), studied pre-service teaching students and their attitudes towards computer use. In that study, positive teacher attitude was associated with high confidence levels. Teacher technology confidence (attitude) was measured in terms of “affective, perceived usefulness, perceived control and behavioral intention.” The results showed that overall positive attitudes toward computers appear related to years of computer use and amount of professional development with the technology This also supports previous research (Shashaani, 1997) that using computers more frequently and developing a variety of computer related skills increases one’s knowledge about computers and computer technology in general. In turn, they argue that “learning by doing” likewise promotes positive feelings. In a study of the relationship between teacher competency and confidence in the use of technology and various demographic and school administrative factors, de-identified data collected from 593 teachers by a U.S. Department of Education GEAR UP project at Western Michigan University serving three urban and one rural school district during a 4 year period was examined by this author (Leneway, et al., 2012). The analysis of this data showed moderate to strong relationships between teacher confidence and teacher competency regarding instructional use of technology. In general, teacher demographics, subject area taught, and/or class size appears to have little or no relationship to their perceived or actual technology readiness. One of the most significant finding was that teachers in this large study did not generally perceive professional development as currently offered by the schools to be of help regarding their “readiness” to use technology in the classroom. There is also significant evidence from this study (Leneway et al., 2012) that a teacher who is both confident and competent in their use of technology can make significant improvements to the individual and group outcomes especially in the area of analytical skills for the students that they serve. ! 7
Seamless Collaboration in Real and Virtual Spaces Researchers Williams (2009) and Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1991), studying collaboration found benefits of students working together including increased achievement, engagement, and pro-school attitudes. There are several reasons that collaborative learning benefits achievement. For example, students working in groups can be introduced to new ideas that conflict with their own understanding. This can lead them to seek new information to clarify the conflict or to attempt to explain and justify their own position. Both of these outcomes can lead to improved learning. In addition according to a Metiri Group study (2009):
Students working together can generate new approaches to solving problems that none of them knew prior to working together. Individuals then adopt these approaches to use in future problem solving. Students also benefit by giving and receiving help. Giving help requires the giver to clarify and reorganize their own understanding, helping him or her to understand the material better. Receiving help may fill in gaps in the receiver’s understanding or help them to clarify misconceptions. Receiving help from peers increases the quality of the feedback available to students (p.18).
Technology can add the flexibility of time and space as students collaborate with anyone, at any time and any place. Although learners often state that they miss face-to-face interaction during online learning, to date, research (Owens & Price 2010); (Angiello, 2010) and (Peterson & Leneway, 2012) indicates that there is no significant difference in achievement between online learning and traditional learning. In addition to convenience, there is emerging evidence according to the Metiri Group (2009) that computer supported collaborative learning benefits students in the development of higher order thinking skills, student satisfaction, and increased productivity. Web 2.0 tools that the author has found to work well for collaboration with students includes: Google Docs, Wikispaces, Edmodo, Ning and Moodle. Another tool with the ability to link classrooms around the world is e-Pals. This Internet learning site promotes and organizes community of teachers, students and parents from over 200 countries and has classroom-ready collaborative projects and activities. It also has build in collaborative learning tools such as blogs, language translators, wikis, and media galleries. High speed internet connection, emerging telecommunication technologies and need to provide students with global collaborative educational experiences are also disrupting the traditional classroom and thus will also be required components of the transformed classroom, is it real or virtual. Will Richardson (2006) proclaims, “Many of our students are already building networks far beyond our classroom walls, forming communities around their passions and their talents. Isn’t it time that schools try to accommodate these students (p36)?” Communication in Multiple Formats It is commonly accepted that to succeed in the academics and especially the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) occupations, students must be proficient in both reading and writing. That is, they must be literate. But to navigate the real world, they must also be visually literate to decode, comprehend, and analyze the elements messages and values communicated by images. The fields of science and engineering for the most part study what is at some level visible or what will be visibly communicated through images. Today’s Xbox HD generation should be flocking to STEM occupational choices, but it is well known that U.S students continue to be drawn elsewhere. To be truly fluent in a foreign language, a speaker must articulate a complex idea or tell an engaging story by speaking in a visually enhanced language. Analogously, being digitally fluent involves not only knowing how to use technological tools, but also knowing how to construct things of significance with those tools.
! 8
Visually enhanced design activities offer the greatest new learning opportunities with computers. Many of our best learning experiences come when we are engaged in designing and creating and communicating in multiple formats, especially in creating and communicating about things that are meaningful either to us or others around us. When faculties ask students to embed a 3D flash illustration in a PDF, student learning is taken to a deeper dimension. Papert (1993) and Allen (1956) argue that 21st century critical thinkers need to be opened to visual communication as a significant aspect of academic and educational work. In contrast to the society in which they operate, K-12 schools continue to be very text-focused places. In almost all content areas, students are consumers and producers of text-based products. Granted, the presence of multimedia technology has caused some shifts from text-based to visually based learning within the classroom, but this has spawned a new set of instructional challenges for teachers. Many K-12 teachers are currently more comfortable with text-based instruction and communication and may feel ill-equipped to harness the learning potential of visually based learning. Although advocating for "visual literacy," state standards may offer little guidance in terms of instructional specifics. Yet, text-based proficiency-reading and writing is still the standard by which academic success is measured. The result is that schools and colleges often do not help students make meaning of and critically reflect upon the powerful images that so influence their lives. Examples of how digital visual literacy is used in occupations include: Graphical interfaces make easy computing possible Photorealistic CGI (computer generated images) for movies and simulations Large data sets can be visualized (weather, etc.) Visualization allows x-ray technicians to look inside your body Industrial design depends on CAD (computer-aided design) Simulations affect most areas of science, from nanotechnology to biology and beyond “If students aren’t taught the language of images, shouldn’t they be considered as illiterate if they leave college without being able to read or write?” claims George Lucas in a 1984 interview (Daley, 1984). A NSF Cyberlearning Report (2008) supports this statement:
Web technologies enable people to share, access, publish—and learn from—online and software, across the globe. Content is no longer limited to the books, filmstrips, and videos associated with classroom instruction; networked content today provides a rich immersive learning environment incorporating accessible data using colorful visualizations, animated graphics, and interactive applications (p.7).
Thus, a transformed classroom also needs to be a space in which visual literacy can be taught within the context of providing students with continual opportunities to create ideas and communicate them in multiple formats. In transforming the classroom to accommodate all of these dimensions for 21st century learning, and changes to the way in which students learn, it can be seen that there are a myriad of tested and untested tools and practices to consider when constructing a mental model for the classroom of the future.
500 x 310 300 dpi Tiff image here Permission VFC Digital Design, Triple Threat, July 13, 2011 via Flickr, Creative Commons 2.0 Generic Attribution
! 9
Solutions and Recommendations The combined factors of widespread access to technology, increasingly sophisticated tools, and advances in understanding of how individuals learn using technology, provide a stunning opportunity to transform classrooms and education worldwide. How can teachers help students develop digital fluency skills that complement and deepen scientific discovery and phonetic literacy? In what ways can teachers help students to develop critical thinking skills so they can analyze, reflect, evaluate, and make inferences from the images they see and not be the passive recipients of visual information that McLuhan critiques (Davis, 2005)? How can they teach students to analytically think about visual designs and concepts for problems around them and then communicate their ideas, concepts and designs in multi formats to a global audience? The answers are in part to help instructors develop these conceptual, instructional, and technical skills so that they also feel comfortable incorporating visual learning into both traditional and cyberlearning. But, the other part is in the redesign of classroom spaces to better accommodated visual learning. The NSF Cyberlearning Report (2008) further states that:
Private companies (such as Adobe, Inc.) are investing in projects to make pervasive learning technologies more affordable and accessible. New models of remote data and application storage combined with broadband network access allow wireless, mobile computing, not just with laptop computers but also with cellular phones. Internet-telephony, videoconferencing, screen sharing, remote collaboration technologies, and immersive graphical environments make distributive collaboration and interaction much richer and more realistic. Even though schools have not yet fully joined this vibrant, digital world, information and communication technologies are deeply entwined in the lives of young learners (pgs. 5-6).
The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) provides a clearinghouse on educational practices that work based upon expertise with the findings of rigorous research when available. In the IES Educator’s Practice Guide on Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers, a number of related research studies were rated (IES, 2012), and the strongest level of causal and generalized evidence from these research studies was the practice of teaching students to use the writing process with technology support for a variety of purposes. Technology support includes teaching students to type and use a word processor, use of the Internet to collect information, navigate computer and web based testing tools, and to understand how different writing conventions apply to different media so that they might communicate in multi format. “Students should learn that writing is used for a variety of purposes, such as conveying information, making an argument, providing a means for self-reflection, sharing an experience, enhancing understanding of reading, or providing entertainment” (IES, 2012, p.12). Some examples of technology enhanced practices for teaching writing for a variety of purposes, include using exemplary online texts form the American Library Associations of Newbery Medal award winners database of award winning children’s literature (http://dawcl.com/introduction.html) and the various state departments of education websites (e.g., http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/ll). Also, the use of social media, such as wikis, blogs, Google Docs and Ning are being used by teachers to allow students to share and publish their writing. Elyse Eidman-Aadah (Heitin, 2011) on the National Writing Project web site says, “Digital writing assignments “match the real world” and give students experience composing “in a form people will actually read,” According to Alyahya and Gall (2012), “the Apple iPad has been one of the most quickly adopted digital technologies in recent history. More than 1.5 million iPads are used specifically for education and more than 20,000 educational applications have been created” (p.1266). Along with other tablets on the market, the iPad has the potential of transforming the classroom to a one to one learning environment in which students have quick and easy access to information and creative apps for producing and sharing their work in a variety of written and visual formats with a worldwide audience. These mobile devices have been described by Faas (2012) as a transformative game changer for the K-12 classroom. Faas (2012) further says that “the iPad engages students in ways that no piece of school or classroom technology has ever done before (p.1).” Since the first iPad was released in April, 2010, it has become the fastest adapted
! 10
technology ever with more than 90 million projected to be sold in 2013 according to DeWitt (2012). According to Daccord (2013) “In a growing sea of iPad classrooms, we must recognize that these devices are not merely gadgets for consumption, but rather portable learning and creation devices….in which (innovative) learning can take place anywhere” (p.3). However, the rapid adoption of the tablet device with such a short history means that figuring out the best educational use can involve a lot of trial and error says Quillen (2012). There are currently no less than 18 major trials on the use of the iPad in the classroom. For example:
The Virginia Department of Education is phasing in the second wave of a pilot program that uses Apples’ iPad tablet computers as the centerpiece of a social studies curriculum that blends online and face-to-face learning. The Chicago school system is expanding a pilot program that in the fall of 2012 awarded a classroom set of 32 of the devices to 23 schools in the 409,000 student district. And Irving, Texas, school officials are exploring weaving the iPad or another tablet-computing device into their district’s 1-to-1 high school computing program (p.38).
In the meantime, several smaller studies have been reported positive results, including a study at the University of California Irvine medical school in which Comstock (2013) reports that medical students who were equipped with iPads scored 23 percent higher on national examinations. Dalrymple (2012) reports that in the Auburn Maine school district the half of the kindergarten classes, 129 students that used iPads for nine weeks in the classroom significantly outperformed the other half of the district’s kindergarten students (137) without iPad access in every literacy test. Riconscente (2013) found in a controlled study of 122 fifth graders in a California school that students who used Motion Math, a fractions game for the iPad for 20 minutes a day for five days improved an average of 15 percent on fraction tests over their peers without iPads. Until there is further large scale research, there is the question of whether tablets are a passing fad or a game changer? Well known educational author and educational consultant, Jamie McKinney (2011) claims:
I have never placed much confidence in the promise of many tools and gimmicks that have arrived upon the educational scene during the past two decades, arguing that “toolishness is follishness.” I think this case is different. Tablets like the iPad are likely to be game changers for schools and their students. Personally, I have found tablets to be great for searching and consuming information but difficult to use when creating information. However, I believe that will change as they continue to be developed. There are however some exceptions (p.2).
Should the transformed classroom of the future be an iPad classroom? As Daccord (2013) says, “he real force behind the “why iPads” question is not really about the tool, but rather about our methodology, vision, and objectives as educators. It provides us the opportunity to really examine what type of students we want to mold. The iPad is only one type of many of the mobile devices that students are now bring to schools or using once they get there, thus requiring classroom and schools to become B.Y.O.D. (Bring Your Own Devices) wireless supported ubiquitous computing environments. However, it is the educational apps that used with these devices that actually make a different for their viability as curriculum tools. Several exceptional apps for creating information for a transformed iPad classroom include: Haiku Deck, a free and easy to use presentation app, VoiceThread, an app that allows teachers and students to place collections of media like images, videos, documents, and presentations at the center of an asynchronous discussion. Also, available as an either an iPad app or on the Internet is Glogster that allows students to create and collaborate on interactive posters and collages that combine text, audio, video, animation, data, and other multimedia elements. For elementary students, there is also Puppet Pals, an Internet or iPad app that allows users to create and record their own animated story, choose characters with a setting and a title while narrating the story into the microphone as they move the cartoon “puppets” manually. These are just a couple of examples of apps that allow students to enhance their creativity. With access to a larger desktop PC, there is much more that teachers can do to enhance student creativity and learning 21st century skills. Unfortunately, many of these applications with their devices have been the subject of little to no research. However with the phenomenal growth of tables and other devices as well as millions
! 11
of apps being developed for these devices in the classroom, further research on their transformational impact should be coming soon. These are some examples of apps that allow students to enhance their creativity. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS In projecting what digitally transformed classroom might look like, and how it might operate, it is important to not only review current research but also promising emerging instructional technology trends in need of research. Here are some examples of some of the promising digitally technology enhanced practices. Flipping the Classroom Teachers are currently showing a great deal of interest and some experimentation with either using prepared material such as that offered by the Kahn Academy, (https://www.khanacademy.org) or by preparing their own lecture presentations. These presentations are being done with video creating and editing tools such as Adobe’s Captivate, or Tech Smith’s Camtasia or Jing for the students to view outside of the classroom. They then are using their classroom to help students with homework, or advanced studies. There is currently a lot of “hype” about flipping the classroom as well as questions in the power of this practice to transform the classroom. It is based on the assumption that all students have access to computers at home and homework actually has value. Kohn argues that “homework represents a “second shift” for students, and there’s little research to suggest they get much out of it –whether there’re watching videos or filling out worksheets after school” (Kohn, 2006, p.71). Some teachers are now beginning to question transformative potential of flipping the classroom. In a blog posting entitled The Flip: The End of a Love Affair, Shelley Wright (2012) says that flipping the classroom “simply didn’t produce the transformative learning experience I knew I wanted for my students… It’s about ownership (p.1). She continues to explain her own transformation:
I’ve learned that inquiry & PBL (Problem Based Learning) learning can be incredibly powerful in the hands of students. I would never teach any other way again. When students own their learning, then deep, authentic, transformative things happen in a classroom. It has nothing to do with videos, or homework, or the latest fad in education. It has everything to do with who owns the learning. For me, the question really is: who owns the learning in your classroom? (Watters, 2012).
Here are some of the ways that teachers like Shelly Wright are using digital technology to transform the “ownership” of the learning experience from themselves to their students. Digital Storytelling Since man first walked the face of the earth; we have been educating ourselves through the power of storytelling. To an audience, a finished digital story looks something like a short autobiographical, documentary film. Storytellers begin the process by writing and recording a personal narrative script, which becomes a spoken-text “voiceover” for the visual and other auditory elements of the piece. Then, storytellers use software to layer their voiceovers with any images that help tell the story: still photos, video clips, artifacts, text and non-text animation, soundtrack, and video and audio effects. To the storyteller, a digital story is a highly personal and densely packed exploration of a topic through story. But the real power of digital storytelling is something that happens between audience and storyteller. The experience of the digital story can bring people together for conversations about the subjects and topics that a story explores and suggests. With current iPad apps such as Haiku Deck and video editing tools, such as Adobe Premiere and Premiere Elements, students are able to create a professional looking powerful digital storytelling presentation. Infographics Given the amount of information students now get visually, the ability to communicate and understand through visual means, visual literacy is becoming increasingly important. According to Schrock (2013):
! 12
Infographics are traditionally viewed as visual elements such as signs, charts, maps, or diagrams that aid comprehension of a given text-based content. The charts and graphs seen on the front page of USA Today are examples of synthesizing large amounts of statistical data into easy to understand visual images. This process can provide an engaging and effective means to quickly assess student critical thinking and understanding of discovered data and the saliency of the issues supported by that data, much more than possible in any multi response test or essay (p.1).
Often more powerful than words or imagery alone,” infographics utilize visual elements of design and words to convey a message in such a way that context, meaning and understanding are transcended to the observer in a manner not previously experienced.” (Schrock, 2011, p. 2). For students, it is a great way of analytically condensing large amounts of data information and presenting it in visually creative ways. As powerful data-based management systems and infographics find their way to teachers, data can be used not as a tool to punish poor outcome but to allow learning to be more prescriptive with formative assessment. ASSISTment U. S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan (Adams, 2013) urged schools and teachers to use formative assessment information to inform their classroom instruction. The dilemma is that every minute spent testing is a minute taken away from instruction. ASSISTment solves this problem by tutoring students on items they get wrong, thus providing integrated assisting of students while they are being assessed. Teachers are using this detailed assessment data to adjust their classroom instruction and pacing. Several studies, Mendicino, Razzaq, & Heffernan. (2009) and Singh et al (2012) shows that ASSISTments can cause dramatically increased student knowledge when it is used for immediate feedback while student do their homework, compared to a control condition that represents traditional practice where students get feedback the next day in class. Given a changing, plugged in and turned on student who is much more attuned to visual information and accessing digital stored facts quickly, what might a transformed classroom look like for the student? Also, what other emerging technologies trends need to be more fully examined for possible inclusion in a transformed classroom? Future Trends That May Work to Transform the Classroom To look at what new emerging technology trends are in the future, each year the New Media Consortium (NMC), the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), and the International Society for Technology in Education, use a qualitative research process designed and conducted by NMC that engages an international body of experts in education, technology, and business around a set of research questions designed to expose majored-tech trends and challenges to identify emerging technologies with a strong likelihood of adoption in pre-college education. According to the report, mobile devices and apps, as well as tablet computing, “are ripe for adoption now, largely because schools are rethinking their standing policies on BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) programs” (p. 3). Educators have already realized the value of mobile devices and apps, such as the ability to graph complex mathematical equations, or storing and sharing notes and eBook annotations. Other potential uses for mobile devices and apps include their use as embedded sensors, cameras, and GPS devices. Tablet computing allows for one-to-one learning with a touch interface and provides high-resolution screens, as well as the ability to share content, images, and video. The report notes that many educators prefer tablet computing to mobile devices such as smart phones, because they are viewed as less disruptive and provide more feature-rich tools. Game-based learning is on the mid-horizon, explains the report, because games are starting to become even easier to integrate into the curriculum, while also providing engaging content for students and allowing for collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. However, the report notes that “until a way is
! 13
found to marshal resources more effectively in support of game-based learning, it will remain on the mid-term horizon” (p. 4). Another mid-horizon technology are personal learning environments (PLEs), which the report describes as any collection of resources and content that students have chosen to use in directing their own learning, at their own pace. “The conceptual basis for PLEs has shifted significantly in the last year, as smart phones, tablets, and apps have begun to emerge as a compelling alternative to browser-based PLEs and ePortfolios” (p. 4) says the NMC report. The only barriers to adoption, per the report, is that PLEs rely on a system of enabling technologies, such as cloud computing and mobile devices that make the PLE environment portable, networked, and personally relevant—components that schools might not have yet. In three to five years the NMC 2012 reports projects several other technologies that could also further transform classroom.
Augmented reality doesn’t just belong in Star Trek anymore, and ‘this intuitive doorway’ to data can be easily attached to real-world objects, settings, and processes in a way that facilitates a deeper understanding of what is being seen. Already, history and science museums use augmented reality to show visitors the science behind a phenomenon as it happens, or what a building looked like centuries ago.
The NMC 2012 report also claims that “natural user interfaces is another technology on the horizon, which make the technology we use “far simpler and easier to use than ever before.” Smart phones, gaming systems (such as Xbox Kinect and Nintendo Wii), and virtual assistants (such as Siri) use natural user interfaces that will find application in the transformed classroom. Expect this technology to first be used by students with autistic, blind and deaf disabilities before these natural user interfaces find their way into general classroom use. As with current proven instructional technologies what these new potentially transformative technologies have in common is that they promote the change from instructor led to student centric classrooms. CONCLUSION In pursuit of the question what works to transform the classroom with digital technologies, we have looked at the changing learning needs of today’s mobile connected learners. We have used the essential career preparation skills as identified by the Partnership for 21st century Skills to look at what digital technologies research might now be working to teach these 21st century careers skills. Research limitations have also been discussed such as the failure to control for teacher effect by instructional technology related studies. Finally, we have look at some to the emerging technologies for their potential to transform the classroom. In this examination and pursue of a vision for a transformed classroom, one theme has emerged. Regardless of the technology and/or instructional practice employed, student learning improves when they are engaged. Engagement often results from providing opportunities that comes with many form of digital technologies for student to take greater responsibility for their own student centered learning. In their bestselling book, Disrupting Class, Christensen, Horn and Johnson (2011) first called the move to more student controlled learning, “student centric learning.” They claim that this is “learning that will result in tutorial modules that will eventually be put together into courses that are “custom-configured to each different type of learner” (pp. 139-139). This customized modularized approach to learning is already being seen in the increased use of technology support exploration tools such as Google, web 2.0 internet tools, and interactive white boards. Customized modules and courses are be seen in flipped classroom such as those using the Kahn Academy, and online ASSESTment courses, with many other networked learning system to come. When thinking about architectural design for a transformed classroom, it needs to be remembered that students have different “student centric” learning needs and there is no one best answer. But, as Moje (2012) says, “helping to cultivate a child’s interests, passions, and potential through integrated design
! 14
solutions, at the moment, is better,” than the industrial age box classroom that exists in most schools.
Permission Clive Darra, University of Brighton, Huxley Building, Classroom of the Future, September 11, 2010, via Flickr, Creative Commons 2.0 Generic Attribution . However, as we progress past the first decade of the 21st century, it past time to re-imagine what a 21st century classroom could look like? Like any business trying to re-invent itself, education needs first to take an honest look at the learning and social needs of today’s students and then imagine what kind of space, virtual or physical is needed to best meet those needs. In reviewing the learning needs of today’s student and the nation needs for innovative analytical thinkers as well as what educational research shows works and what may likely work, a vision for a digitally transformed classroom begins to emerge. It appears that it needs to be a space where students can use individual tablets such as iPads or other mobile devices to easily research and consume information for using a problem based approach to learning? It should also be a space where students can quickly collaborate, test and communicate their creative ideas in a B.Y.O.D. ubiquitous computing environment in solving problems requiring analytical thinking. Students in these digitally transformed classrooms also need to easily consultant with external “experts” to create elegantly presented solutions to authentic learning assignments? But, most of all, the transformed classroom of the future, needs to be an environment that will provide real time analytical feedback and use this real time feedback to promote student centric learning. This digitally transformed classroom of the future will take many different shapes and forms in many different places. It may be physical or virtual, or some combination of “bricks or clicks”, but it will be student centric, in which each student can both collaborate and learn according to their individual needs. Can educational technology really transform a classroom? No computer can replace a teacher's empathy, enthusiasm, or ability to understand and respond to students' interests and needs. Yet, research in reading and math suggests that technology has enormous potential to add interest, visual images, organization, and assessment to teachers' lessons and to promote cooperative interactions among students such that the classroom can becomes a student centric learning environment. The task is then to figure out how teachers, peers, and technology can all work together to transform classrooms into these creative learning environments. But, it also needs to be remembered that in reality, teachers make a classroom great - not the technology placed in the classroom. However, when good teachers have the right tools, training and attitude, the engagement and excitement in the classroom can be transformative - for both the students and the teacher. As Prensky (2005) says, “I’m the tuned-out kid in the back row with the headphones. Are you going to engage me today, or enrage me? The choice is yours” (p. 61). REFERENCES Adams, J.M. (2013). Ducan admits flaws in current standardized testing, Ed Source: Highlighting Strategies for Student Success. Retrieved from: http://www.edsource.org/today/2013/duncan-admits-flaws-in-current-standardized-testing/31379#.UfwhNG0TU1I Allen, W. H. (1956). Audio-Visual Communication Research. The Journal of Educational Research, 49 (5), 321-330.
(500 x 351 300 dpi size)
(21St CENTURY CLASSROOM Tiff photo here)
! 15
Alyahya, S., & Gall, J. E. (2012). iPads in Education: A Qualitative Study of Students’ Attitudes and Experiences. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2012 (1266-1271). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieve from http://www.editlib.org/p/40913 Angiello, R. (2010). Study Looks at Online Learning vs. Traditional Instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: Prakken Publications. Aponte, M.-V., Levieux, G., & Natkin, S.(2011). Measuring the level of difficulty in single player video games, Entertainment Computing, 2(4), 205-213. Aprill, A. (2001). Toward a Finer Description of the Connection between Arts Education and Student Achievement. Arts Education Policy Review, 102(5), 25-26. Baumann, J. (2008). The 21st Century Project. Retrieved from http://www.21stcenturyproject.com/ Becker, H. J., Wong. Y. T., & Ravitz, J. L. (1999). Computer use and pedagogy in Co-NECT schools, A comparative study. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey Special Report. Irvine, CA : University of California. Berland, E. (2012). Creativity and Education, Why it Matters, Adobe Education, Retrieved from http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pdfs/Adobe_Creativity_and_Education_Why_It_Matters_study.pdf Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing School Mathematics: Teaching Styles, Sex and Settings. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Buck Institute for Education (2013). Project Based Learning for the 21st Century, What is PBL? Retrieved from: http://www.bie.org. Carter, R. (2009). The human brain book: An illustrated guide to its structure, function and disorders. London: Dorling Kindersley. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182. Chmura, M. (2012). New Study, Six Million High School Students Online. Babson Survey Research Group, Retrieved from http://www.babson.edu/news-events/babson-news/pages/111109onlinelearningstudy.aspx Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, L. (2011), (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw Hill. Clark, R. E. (Winter 1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Clayton E. M., Rule, A.C., Boody, R. M. (2011). Comparison of Face-to-Face and Online Mathematics Learning of Sixth Graders Grundy Center Community School District, USA; University of Northern Iowa, USA. Retrieved from: http://www.editlib.org/p/39231 ! 16
Comstock, J. (2013), iPad-equipped medical school class scores 23 percent higher on exams, mobihealth news, California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA. Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Measuring Functional Creativity: Empirical Validation of the Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale (CSDS), Journal of Creative Behavior. 46(2), 119-137. Daccord, T. (2013). Why iPads? It is a Question of Innovation. eSchool News, April 24, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2013/04/24/why-ipads-its-a-question-of-innovation/3/ Daley, J. (1984). Life on the Screen, An interview with filmmaker, George Lucas in Edutopia. Originally published on 9/14/2004. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/lucas-visual-literacy Dalrymple, J. (2012). iPads Improve Kindergarten Literacy Scores as reported in TUAW (Schramm, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.tuaw.com/2012/02/20/study-ipads-improve-kindrgarten-literacy-scorces/ Davis, N.E. & Roblyer, M.D. (2005) Preparing Teachers for the "Schools That Technology Built": Evaluation of a Program to Train Teachers for Virtual Schooling. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp. 399 – 409. Davis, R. (2005). At the speed of light there is only illumination: a reappraisal of Marshall McLuhan. Choice, March, 2005;42:1221. Elmer-DeWitt, P. How many iPads did Apple sell. CNN Money, Retrieved from: Faas, B. (2012), How the iPad is transforming the classroom back to school, Cult of Mac blog, Aug. 16, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cultofmac.com/185048/how-the-ipad-is-transforming-the-classroom-back-to-school/#Q7zqp2dPtHIWsJFd.99 Feinstein, S. (2004). Secrets of the teenage brain: Research-based strategies for reaching and teaching today's adolescents. San Diego, CA: The Brain Store. Ferlazzo L. (2012). Helping Students Motivate Themselves: Practical Answers to Classroom Challenges, Eye on Education, Lacomont, N.Y. Retrieved from http://larryferlazzo.edublogs.org/2012/12/21/effective-ways-to-use-tech-in-the-classroom-part-three/ Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939. Grunwald Associates in Zimmern, J. (2012), Featured Blog. Improved Student Performance in Career and Professional Education. Retrieved from http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/tag/career-and-technical-education Hart, P. (2006). Are They Really Ready To Work? - Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf Heffernan, N., Heffernan, C., Dietz, K., Soffer, D., Pellegrino, J. W., Goldman, S. R. & Dailey, M. (2012). Improving Mathematical Learning Outcomes Through Automatic Reassessment and Relearning. AERA 2012 Heitin, L. (2011). Writing Re-Launched: Teaching with Digital Tools, Educational Week, April 04, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2011/04/04/02digital.h04.html ! 17
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4, 2540. Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-75). New York: Plenum Press. Honey, M., Fasca, C., Gersick, A., Mandinach, E., & Sinha, S. (2005). Assessment of 21st Century Skills: The Current Landscape. Retrieved from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/images/stories/otherdocs/Assessment_Landscape.pdf Institute of Education Sciences. (2010). Teaching elementary students to be effective writers. Retrieved from http://www.helios.org/pdf/Teaching-Elementary-Students-to-Be-Effective-Writers-web.pdf Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, George Washington University. Retrieved from http://www.oid.ucla.edu/units/tatp/old/lounge/pedagogy/downloads/cooperative-eric.pdf Kandel, E. (2006). In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. London: W.W. Norton. Kohn, A. (2006). The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211. Kozma, R. (1994). A Reply: Media and Methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 11-14. Koumi, J. (1994). Media Comparison and Deployment: A Practitioner’s View. British Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 41-57. Leneway, R. (2011). There is an App for That: Orderly School Operation for 21st Century Principals. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011,1400-1406. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/38913. Leneway R. (2011). The Digital Student and Coherent Curricular Programs, Retrieved from http://eddigitaltribe.blogspot.com/2011/11/digital-student-and-coherent-curricular.html Leneway, R., Lacefield, W., Lazala de la Rosa, D., & Carr, S. (2012). Administrative and Demographic Factors Related to Teacher’s Confidence and Competency in Using Technology. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (PP. 1944-1951). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/39875. Leneway, R. (2012). The Digital Student in a Transformed Classroom in the Educating the Digital Tribe blog. Retrieved from http://eddigitaltribe.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-digital-student-in-transforming.html Marzono, R.J., & Haystead, M.W. (2010). Final report: A second year evaluation study of Promethean ActiveClassroom. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory. Mendicino, M., Razzaq, L. & Heffernan, N. T. (2009). Comparison of Traditional Homework with Computer Supported Homework. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 331-359.
! 18
McKenzie, J.(2011). Is the iPad a Game Changer? The Educational Technology Journal, 21, (p.2). Retrieved from http://fno.org/nov2011/gamechanger.html Medina, J.J. (2009). Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving at Home and Work. Seattle, WA: Pear Press., p.67. Moje, R.W. (2012) The Classroom Is Dead. Inform, Architecture + Design. Retrieved from: http://readinform.com/design-dialogue/the-classroom-is-dead/ National Science Foundation (NSF). (2008). Fostering Learning in the Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge, report number 08204. Owens, J. D., & Price, L. (2010). Is E-learning Replacing the Traditional Lecture?. Education Training, 52 (2)128–139. Papert, S. (1993). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books. Parker, J. K. (2009). Integrating digital illiteracies into school-based learning: A study of media production, student agency, and school change. University of California, Berkeley). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 251. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/527712160?accountid=15099. (527712160). Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). A Framework. Washington, D.C., Retrieved from: http://www.p21.org/. Penuel, W. R., Means, B., & Simkins, M. B. (2000). The multimedia challenge. Educational Leadership, 58, 34-38. Perera, J. (2012). Creativity Should Be Taught Like Math or Science, Adobe Featured blog Retrieved from: http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/tag/creative-thinking, Peterson, S. and Leneway, R., (2012). Differences in Help Seeking Strategies Used By Online vs. Face-to-Face Instructed Pre-service Teachers, Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE) 2012:1. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/39663/ Prensky, M. (2005, September–October). Engage me or enrage me: What today’s learners demand. Educause Review, 40(5), 60–65. Project RED. (2010). The Greaves Group, One-to-One Institute, Mason, MI. Retrieved from http://www.projectred.org/about/researchoverview/findings.html Quillen, I. (2012).Educators Evaluate Learning Benefits of iPad, Educational Week, June 15, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2011/06/15/03mobile.h04.html?print=1 Radford, A. W. (2011). Learning at a Distance. U.S. Department of Education, Stats in Brief Report, NCES, 2012-154. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012154.pdf Riconscente. (2013). Mobile Learning Game Improves 5th Graders’ Fractions Knowledge and Attitudes. Las Angeles, CA., Game Desk Institute. ! 19
Reeves, T. (1998). The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools, A research report prepared for The Bertelsmann Foundation. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/edit6900/BertelsmannReeves98.pdf Richardson, W. (2006) The New Face of Learning, Edutopia. Stanford, CA, The George Lucas Educational Foundation. Robinson, C., & Nathan, M. (2001). Considerations of Learning and Learning Research: Revisiting the “Media Effects” Debate. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 69-88. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/8458. Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., Knudsen, J., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 833-878. Schrock, K. (2013). Infographics as a Creative Assessment, PD in Action webinar. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/kathyschrock/edweb-infographics-notext513 Singh, R., Saleem, M., Pradhan, P., Heffernan, C., Heffernan, N., Razzaq, L. & Dailey, M. (2011). Improving K-12 Homework with Computers. AIED'11 Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Conference. Springer. 328-336. Small, G., & Vorgon, G. (2008). iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind. New York: Harper Collins. Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Urban schools’ teachers enacting project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 722–745. Teo, T., Lee, C. B. & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers' computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128-143. Torrance, E. P. & Goff, K., (1998). A Quiet Revolution. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 23(2), 136-145. Vernon, D. T., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550-63. Watters, A. (2012). Top Ed-Tech Trends of 2012: The Flipped Classroom, Retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2012/11/28/top-ed-tech-trends-of-2012-flipped-classroom/ Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information Center-Research Division. Williams, S.. (2009). The Impact of Collaborative, Scaffolded Learning in K-12 Schools: A Meta-Analysis. Cisco, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/citizenship/socioeconomic/docs/Metiri_Classroom_Collaboration_Research.pdf Wright, S. (2012). The Flip: End of a Love Affair, Retrieved from: http://plpnetwork.com/2012/10/08/flip-love-affair/
! 20
ADDITIONAL READING SECTION Pacansky-Brock, M., (2013). Best Practices for Teaching with Emerging Technologies. N.Y., N.Y, Routledge. Byerly, G., Holmes,J., Robins, D., Zang, Y., & Salaba, A. (2006). The "Eyes" have It - Eye-tracking and Usability Study of Schoolrooms. SirsiDynix OneSource, 6(2). Kent, OH. Kent State University School of Library and Information Science. Dale, E. (1946, 1954, 1969). Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching. New York: Dryden. Edwards, C.M., Rule, A.C. & Boody, R.M. (2013). Comparison of Face-to-Face and Online Mathematics Learning of Sixth Graders. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32(1), 25-47. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/39231. Goodstein, A. (2007). Totally wired: What teens and tweens are really doing online. New York: St. Martin's Griffin. Ice, P. (2009). Using the Community of Inquiry Framework survey for multi-level institutional evaluation and continuous quality improvement [Sloan-C 2009). Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/ Mergendoller, J.R., Maxwell, N., & Bellisimo,Y. (2006). The Effectiveness of Problem based Instruction: A Comparative Study of Instructional Methods and Student Characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49-69. Peterson, S, Leneway, B. (2012). Differences in Help Seeking Strategies Used By Online vs. Face-to-Face Instructed Pre-service Teachers. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 760-767). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t Bother Me Mom, I’m Learning. Roseville, MN: Paragon House. Slavin, R. (2011). The Unmet Promise of Education Technology, Education Week, September 14, 2011. Retrieved from: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/sputnik/2011/09/the_unmet_promise_of_education_technology.html Stansbury, M. ( 2012). Six technologies that soon could be in your classrooms. May 23, 2012 eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2012/05/23/six-technologies-that-soon-could-be-in-your-classrooms/? Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 37-51 Zhao, Y., Tan, H. S. & Mishra, P. (2001). Teaching and learning: Whose computer is it? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(4), 348-354. Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education, Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836-1884.
! 21
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 21st Century Skills: A set of skills first identified by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills in 2006 that include: (1) Solving Complex Problems, (2) Divergent and Creative Thinking, (3) Analytical Thinking, (4) Seamless collaboration in real and virtual spaces (5) Communication in multiple formats. ASSISTment: An online system for tutoring students on items they get wrong, thus providing integrated assisting of students while they are being assessed. Teachers are using this detailed assessment data to adjust their classroom instruction and pacing. BYOD (Bring Your Own Device): When users bring their own personal device to work, whether laptop, smartphone or tablet, in order to interface to the organization network. Digitally Fluency: Knowing how to use technological tools, and construct things of significance with those tools. Digital Storytelling: A personal narrative stories that mix images, graphics, sound, and music with the author's own storytelling voice. Haiku Deck: An easy to use presentation app that has been described by a Wall Street Journal reviewer, Katerine Boehret as having the potential to shake up the way presentations are made and shared. Infographics: the use of visual elements of design and words to convey a message in such a way that context, meaning and understanding are transcended to the observer in a manner not previously experienced. Flipping the Classroom: the teacher creates (or uses others) videos which students watch at home. Class time is then used to help students with what used to be homework. Project RED: Revolutionizing Education- a 2010 survey of nearly 1,000 schools involved with 1:1 computing projects. This study was sponsored by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Visual Literacy: The ability to construct meaning from visual content.
! 22
Related Documents
