t3 - ebook (english)
DESCRIPTION
ROLE-GAMES, COMPUTER SIMULATIONS, ROBOTS AND AUGMENTED REALITY AS NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES: A GUIDE FOR TEACHER EDUCATORS AND TRAINERSTRANSCRIPT
1
Orazio Miglino, Maria Luisa Nigrelli, Luigia Simona Sica
(Editors)
ROLE-GAMES, COMPUTER SIMULATIONS,
ROBOTS AND AUGMENTED REALITY AS
NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES: A GUIDE
FOR TEACHER EDUCATORS AND TRAINERS.
2011
2
ISBN: 978-84-8021-848-1
3
INDEX
Preface .............................................................................................................. 7
PART ONE
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL BASES OF LEARNING WITH NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Chapter I. Social, cultural and cognitive processes and new technologies
in education ...................................................................................................... 13
John Jessel
I.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 13
I. 2 Technology Enhanced Learning .................................................... 14
I. 3 Perspectives on learning ............................................................... 14
I. 4 The psychological dimension ........................................................ 15
I. 5 The social dimension: Sociocultural theory .................................. 19
I. 6 Dialogism ...................................................................................... 23
I. 7 Situated learning ........................................................................... 25
I. 8 A community of practice ................................................................ 26
I. 9 Theoretical perspectives: a summary ............................................ 30
I. 10 Using new digital technologies to support learning ................... 32
I. 11 Virtual Game-Based Learning .................................................... 37
I. 12 Role of the teacher ....................................................................... 40
I. 13 Role of the learner ....................................................................... 41
I. 14 Conclusion ................................................................................... 42
Chapter II. A classification scheme for using new technologies in educational
practices: how to choose those most suitable ................................................... 49
Angelo Rega, Orazio Miglino
II. 1 Introduction …………………………………………………… 49
II. 2 Experiment ................................................................................... 51
II. 3 Conduct relational experiences ................................................... 55
II. 4 Explore Worlds ............................................................................ 57
II. 5 Conclusion ................................................................................... 62
4
PART TWO
HOW TO USE NEW TECHNOLOGIES: A TRAINING MODEL
Chapter III. A model for training in the use of new technology ...................... 67
Luigia Simona Sica, Maria Luisa Nigrelli, Orazio Miglino
III. 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 67
III. 2 The importance of training in the use of new technologies ........ 68
III. 3 Proposal for a training model .................................................... 69
III. 4 Fundamental activities: getting to know the kinds of technology
and choosing the most suitable ones ................................................... 70
III. 5 Where, how and for how long: the six days of training .............. 71
III. 6 Before and after: the importance of assessment ......................... 73
III. 7 Conclusion .................................................................................. 75
Chapter IV. Developing innovation in technology-use and learning in the school
setting ................................................................................................................ 77
John Jessel
IV. 1 The UK context ........................................................................... 77
IV. 2 Entering the school setting .......................................................... 79
IV. 3 Developing a training course ...................................................... 84
IV. 4 Course principles ........................................................................ 85
IV. 5 Summary ..................................................................................... 93
PART THREE
EXAMPLES: THREE PILOT STUDIES IN GREAT BRITAIN, SPAIN AND ITALY
Chapter V. Trial with teachers in Great Britain. Innovative practice
and technology: training as creative synthesis .............................................. 107
John Jessel
V. 1 Introduction ............................................................................... 107
V. 2 Approaching schools ................................................................. 108
V. 3 A radio news programme ........................................................... 112
V. 4 Using the VLE with mathematics teaching ................................ 117
V. 5 A poetry forum ........................................................................... 120
5
V. 6 Reflections on the course ........................................................... 124
V. 7 Summary and conclusion ........................................................... 131
Chapter VI. A training course in new learning technology for university
teachers ........................................................................................................... 137
Juana Bretón-López, Soledad Quero, Cristina Botella, Rocío Herrero, Luis
Farfallini and Rosa Baños
VI. 1 Introduction .............................................................................. 137
VI. 2 Our perspective on teaching ..................................................... 139
VI. 3 Our own experience .................................................................. 140
VI. 4 The trainees and recruitment process ...................................... 145
VI. 5 The workshop ........................................................................... 145
VI. 6 Conclusion and discussion ....................................................... 151
Chapter VII. A training course in new learning technologies for Corporate
Trainers .......................................................................................................... 157
Roberto Vardisio, Michela Fiorese
VII. 1 Introduction ……………………………………………...….. 157
VII. 2 Didactical-training goals and choice of tools within TEL
corporate programs ................................................................ 161
VII. 3 Delivery and management of corporate TEL initiatives ......... 169
VII. 4 Evaluation of a corporate TEL project ................................... 174
VII. 5 Conclusions ............................................................................. 184
Chapter VIII. A methodological framework to evaluate training courses in new
learning technology for teachers, educators and trainers ............................... 189
Soledad Quero, Juana Bretón-López, Rosa Baños, Yolanda Vizcaíno, Cristina
Botella
VIII. 1 Introduction ........................................................................... 189
VIII. 2 A common methodology for e-learning training ................... 190
VIII. 3 Main results of the trials in the three contexts ..................... 195
VIII. 4 Final Reflections ................................................................... 198
Appendix A .................................................................................................... 203
Appendix B .................................................................................................... 207
Editors ............................................................................................................ 209
Chapter Author ............................................................................................... 211
6
7
Preface
The present handbook was created as part of the T3-Teaching to
Teach Technology Project, which began in 2009 and ended in December
2011. The Project’s aim was to explore the use of new technologies
(video games, robots, augmented reality and Web 2.0) in educational
contexts at different levels (schools, universities and companies), and in
three countries (Italy, Spain, and Great Britain). The project was divided
into several elements, including: the creation of a taxonomy for
technology selection; a final report on the results of trials in three
different areas of training; case studies; training workshops for trainers;
interviews with participants; as well as a number of inputs and materials
(which can be found on-line); and, finally, the present book.
More information on the T3-Teaching to Teach Technology Project
is available at this link: http://www.t3.unina.it.
This book is intended for educators interested in using new
technologies in their curricula. It provides information for understanding
the pedagogical benefits of new technologies and for learning how to use
them as a teaching resource and as a means of promoting learning
processes.
The aim of this handbook is to enable trainers to select and use
new technologies in learning environments (schools, universities,
companies) in more competent way.
More specific objectives are: to understand what benefits using
new technologies can provide; to evaluate the effective use in different
contexts, understanding differences between technologies and their
respective advantages for the processes of teaching and learning; to
choose more appropriate technologies; to become more familiar with
them and to understand how to create and plan their educational uses in
schools, universities, and companies.
8
The book is divided into three parts. The first contains: a
description of a theoretical framework, specifying what is meant by the
process of teaching and learning, and clarifying the most recent research
paradigms in this field (Chapter I); a description of the technologies
used in the training (Chapter II). The second part contains the results of
trials performed in the T3 project, and, in more detail, proposes a model
for using new technology in learning contexts: a basic course
programme (Chapter III) and an applicative guide for traditional
learning contexts (Chapter IV).
The third part of the book presents a description of training
courses conducted with secondary schools teachers in the UK (Chapter
V), with university professors in Spain (Chapter VI) and corporate
trainers in Italy (chapter VII). Finally, the book provides practical tools
for the evaluation of educational experiments, illustrating how to obtain
information on the success/failure of new tecnologies use, benefits of
their use compared to traditional teaching methods, and practical
suggestions for their management (Chapter VIII).
In summary, this handbook is a practical guide aimed at spreading
theoretical and practical information and providing a bibliography of
resources such as articles, books and websites where to get further
information.
Additional contents, as well as a practical guide step by step guide
for using new technologies in learning contexts together with examples
can be found at: http://www.t3.unina.it/videototurial
O. Miglino,
M. L. Nigrelli,
L. S. Sica
9
T3- Teaching to teach with technology has been funded with support from the
European Commission.
This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission
cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
10
11
PART ONE
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL BASES OF LEARNING WITH
NEW TECHNOLOGIES
12
13
I.
Social, cultural and cognitive processes and new technologies in education
John Jessel
I.1 Introduction
Digital technologies are becoming increasingly diverse and
increasingly available and their use is providing many new opportunities
for learning. Computers continue to become ever smaller, more powerful
and more economic and there is an array of highly portable devices
available to a variety of users of all ages in the classroom, the workplace,
the home and on the street. More recently, however, a key development
that has occurred alongside digital technologies is connectivity. In
contrast to earlier Web 1 technologies, the connectivity between digital
devices that is afforded by Web 2.0 is two-way and as connectivity
becomes faster, cheaper and more available we are drawn into a society
that is networked in many ways. In particular the widespread use of Web
2.0 technologies can provide an ever-present communicative and
collaborative and interactive dimension to learning. The speed and the
power of digital technology also enables a viable multimedia dimension
so that transactions in different modalities through a range of digital
resources allows learning activity can take place in a variety of settings at
any time and place.
Through digital technologies that are connective, learning is no
longer an entirely solitary relationship between the user and a computer.
Through digital devices learning can now take on a social dimension in a
way that even a few years ago would not have been feasible.
Connectivity has its implications for learning both through networked
14
computers in the classroom as much as through hand held devices on the
street. Regardless of institutional intervention, digital technology is used
by one and all and recognizing and exploiting its potential for learning
presents a creative challenge to teachers and learners alike.
I. 2 Technology Enhanced Learning
Technology is pervasive and, rather than being considered as a
discrete topic or narrowly defined set of activities within a learning
curriculum, ‘Technology Enhanced Learning’ is perceived as a broader
and far-reaching vision regarding the impact on learning and also
teaching (JISC, 2009). In turn, this implies that rather than regarding
learning models specifically as e-learning models the approach adopted
is the e-enhancement of models of learning that already exist (Mayes &
De Fritas, 2004).
However, the mere availability of technology is not a guarantee
that effective learning will happen automatically. From experience we
know that the methods of old technologies are an inheritance that is
difficult to shake off. Connectivity in learning is a social and cultural
process – for it to occur effectively requires a cultural shift where
understanding and practices are shared and reciprocated. Although this
process may evolve naturally, some understanding of it may be helpful in
order to tap into it productively. In an attempt to capture the potential of
new technologies in learning we may for a moment shift the focus from
the technology itself towards ideas we have about learning and what we
may want out of learning, and, the role of the teacher and the learner in
relation to these.
I. 3 Perspectives on learning
What counts as learning can vary. On the one hand we might think
of learning as the uptake and recall of factual content, while, equally, we
15
might regard learning to be about developing our ability to think
critically and to be analytical, to use information effectively, to make
decisions, to think imaginatively, creatively and critically and to be
sensitive to situations when these qualities are applicable. Rather than a
single theory being generated in an attempt to account for such an array
of possibilities, different ideas about learning have emerged. These ideas
have been grouped, for example, by Greeno, Collins & Resnick (1996)
into three broad perspectives; associationist, cognitive and situative, the
latter viewing learning as participation in social practice. While the
associationist perspective is often regarded as ‘traditional’ more recently
interest has shifted towards explorations of the social. dimension. This
interest, as we shall see later, has been reflected in Sfard’s (1998)
metaphor of learning-as-participation and contrasts with what she
describes as an ‘acquisition metaphor’.
In attempting to provide a perspective on different ideas about and
approaches to learning this chapter will begin with a brief account of
associationist assumptions before expanding of some of the ideas derived
from cognitive psychology to include contributions from a sociocultural
perspective before finally introducing the notions of situated learning and
learning as participation. These groupings will also be looked at in terms
of their implications for teaching and the role of technology.
I. 4 The psychological dimension
I. 4 a An associationist perspective
In the mid 20th
century a systematic approach to learning based
upon association and repeated practice developed by behaviourists such
as Skinner gained appeal in that learning could be treated as something
relatively observable. The idea was to break down what was to be taught
into a sequence of elementary tasks or behavioural objectives that were
presented to the learner who was given immediate feedback on their
responses. Patterns of tasks arranged in a ‘bottom-up’ fashion from those
16
more basic components to those of increasing complexity could be
devised so that through repetition and reinforcement the learner’s
behaviour was gradually ‘shaped’ towards that required. Hierarchical
analyses of different learning outcomes that have been linked to this
approach were carried out by those such as Bloom (1956) and Gagné
(1985).
The pedagogy based on associationist principles involves
identifying component learning competences, sequencing these in terms
of complexity, providing clear tasks and immediate feedback and then
adjusting the sequence or ‘pathway’ according to the learner’s
performance. This approach was reflected in the technology of the time:
teaching machines were developed that were based upon learning
principles such as simple repetition, feedback and reinforcement through
external reward. The assumption was that learning was a matter of
building on earlier behaviours; a quantitative increase where existing
knowledge and procedures were merely added to. Although teaching
machines may be historical artefacts, behaviourist principles continue to
underlie methods such as Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) where
rapid feedback is given on the ‘correctness’ of the learner’s response.
Typical examples include drill-and-practice programs for learning
spellings or vocabulary or mathematical routines and, more popularly,
are often presented in the form of a game with extrinsic rewards such as a
point scoring system.
While there may be a role for behaviourist approaches, it also
widely acknowledged that they are limited in many ways and leave little
scope for higher order and more complex thinking and do not explain
mental leaps that can occur in learning when suddenly, we see things
differently (e.g., Nunes & McPherson, 2003). The pedagogy is
essentially didactic with the learner regarded as passive recipient of
knowledge that is transmitted. These sorts of criticisms led to an interest
in mental representations and their manipulation that form the basis of
cognitive psychology.
17
I. 4 b A cognitive perspective
A cognitive perspective is concerned with inner mental functioning
of a higher order such as thinking and reasoning and representation in
memory. In contrast to learning as something than is merely handed on
through the programming of observable behaviours, knowledge
acquisition is seen as the development of schema or symbolic mental
constructions. Such development can arise from active thoughtful
participation whereby learning arises from the interaction of new
experiences with existing schema. Over the last few decades, cognitive
theories and the methods used to investigate them have proliferated and
figures such as Piaget and Vygotsky are well known for their work on
how cognition develops within the individual, and the social effects upon
this.
Those acting within a cognitive perspective are concerned with
how we represent knowledge and develop our concepts and
understandings. To this end cognitive approaches refer to notions such as
perception, concept formation, mental models and our reflections on our
own learning; our metacognitive processes. They also include the notion
of learning styles, most notably developed as a theory of multiple
intelligences by made popular through the work of Gardner (2006).
Importantly, however, central to cognitive approaches is the idea of
learning as the development of understanding through thoughtful
interaction. We learn as a result of the interaction between new
experiences and existing structures representing understandings that have
already been created (McKendry, 2006).
The application of cognitive theory places emphasis on mental
activity such as reasoning and providing tasks that challenge learners,
allowing them to work out their own rules through experience of
interacting with materials in the learning environment. The possibility of
understandings gained through activity rather than being delivered
through instruction led to the development of constructivist approaches
(Brown et al., 1989).
18
I. 4 c Constructivism
The qualities identified within the cognitive perspective provide a
base from which constructivism has been developed. Constructivist
approaches to learning focus on the role of the individual in the process
of the continual building and development of mental structures. Teaching
strategies based on constructivism encourage students to learn by taking
initiative and becoming involved through self-directed activities
including problem solving and experimentation. The idea is to encourage
learners to build their own mental structures through interacting with an
environment. Where possible, authentic contexts are used that are related
to real-life situations which students can relate to with the point of the
activity made evident. Importance is placed on learners finding out for
themselves: they are encouraged to make their own discoveries, raise
questions, test their own hypotheses, make their own inferences, and
draw their own conclusions. The form of encouragement, however, is
critical and in regard to this Wood et al. (1976) have used Vygotsky’s
(1978) notion of ‘scaffolding’ to suggest that an apprentice role is taken
by the learner who, with the assistance of someone more experienced,
can achieve something they would be otherwise be unable to. The role of
the teacher as scaffolder involves guiding students towards activities that
they are likely to find engaging and from which they will learn.
However, rather than playing a didactic role, the teacher may encourage
students to think for themselves and raise issues and questions in relation
to the activity and to identify problems which they can tackle. Effective
scaffolding can occur as a learner’s abilities fall within a ‘zone of
proximal (or potential) development’ (ZPD) and, as noted by McKendry
2006, the teacher’s role is to locate learning within that zone.
In sum, constructivist pedagogy is based on:
• Creating an environment in which learners can become actively
involved
19
• Setting up activities that encourage experimentation and
discovery
• Activities that are interactive and student-centred
• Locating learning within the ZPD
• Scaffolding through encouragement and support for raising
questions and reflecting on principles
I. 4 d Constructivism and digital technology
With regard to new technologies, approaches based on
constructivism have influenced the development of exploratory spaces
such as some of the early educational computer-based simulations and
microworlds within which learners can engage in problem-solving
settings and in learning as experimentation, discovery and reflection
(Crook, 2001). Crook also argues that constructivism has often
reinforced a conception of knowledge as something to be acquired from
autonomous and, often, solitary investigation. Intelligent Tutoring
Systems have also been designed in an attempt to use technology to
interact ‘intelligently’ with the learner in order to promoting explorative
learning activity (Mandl & Lesgold, 1988). However, it may be the mode
of use of the simulations rather than the simulations themselves that give
rise to computer simulations being seen as a solitary activity.
I. 5 The social dimension: Sociocultural theory
While cognitive theory has been largely concerned with the development
of the learner as an individual there has, arising from the work of
Vygotsky (1978; 1934/86), been a distinct shift of emphasis towards
learning arising within a social context through which individuals form
their own understandings (Cole, 1991). Sociocultural theory is concerned
with how society contributes to individual development – it emphasizes
20
the interaction between the learner and the culture in which they are
located. In this sense, those playing a teaching role are also acting as
agents of culture (Trevarthen, 1988). Another concept fundamental to
sociocultural theory is that our relationship with others and with
ourselves, and in turn our thinking, is mediated (Lantolf, 2000).
Mediation occurs through the use of symbolic tools such as language. In
this way language plays a central role – in addition to having a
communicative function it allows us to represent and manipulate our
ideas; it becomes an intellectual tool. More generally, then, language can
be included along with other cultural tools and symbol systems which
can be used in conjunction with new technologies for sharing and jointly
developing knowledge as well as for organizing thoughts, reasoning,
planning, and reviewing our actions (Conole et al., 2004). As language
and other symbol systems are part of our cultural inheritance, Lantolf
(2000) also points out that these along with other physical tools are also
modified as they are used and passed on from one generation to another.
An important implication of this is that what is learned and the tools for
learning are not fixed or static; they change in relation to the needs and
nature of society and that those taking the role of learners as well as
teachers contribute to that change.
I. 5 a Social constructivism
In the constructivist approach outlined earlier, learning was seen as
a process where meaning is created through the interactions of the
individual within the world. Reflecting sociocultural approaches as
opposed to cognitive approaches, social constructivism moves the
emphasis away from the individual towards the group. For example,
while scaffolding can be regarded as a two-way process, it is also about
how one individual benefits from the interaction with another individual.
Although the role of teacher as scaff older is interactive and could also be
seen as collaborative, the emphasis is on a more knowledgeable member
21
of a society interacting with the learner. However, this view of
scaffolding can be challenged, particularly with regard to its asymmetry
and the relatively passive role of the learner that may be implied (Stone,
1998). If the learner is to take a more active role then a shift in the
quality of the interpersonal dimension is needed. Rogoff (1990) has used
the term ‘guided participation’ to suggest a more active role played by
learners where they can collaborate with, as well as be guided by others.
The symmetry implied in guided participation can be applied more
broadly and, by contrast, social constructivism marks a shift from a
relatively monological view of scaffolding to one where understanding
evolves from more than one voice or viewpoint.
There are different views on what counts as social constructivism
(O’Connor, 1998). However, a general feature is that meaningful
knowledge, as opposed to something that already exists and waiting to be
passed on, is socially and culturally constructed on a more symmetrical
basis: meanings are created through human interaction and with the
environment (Kukla, 2000). Although this inevitably involves some form
of communication, here communication is not regarded solely as the
transfer of ready-made thoughts (Linnell, 2003). Knowledge emerges as
it is ‘constructed and reconstructed between participants in specific
situated activities, using the cultural artefacts at their disposal, as they
work towards the collaborative achievement of a goal’ (Wells, 1999:
140). In turn, learning is also viewed as a social process through which
individuals become meaningfully engaged and form shared
understandings (McMahon, 1997).
In sum, while constructivism focuses mainly on the individual,
social constructivism takes a step further towards explaining learning as a
socially collaborative process. Social constructivist pedagogy is typically
based on:
• Creating an environment in which learners can collaborate and
become actively involved
• Activities that encourage joint experimentation and discovery
• Activities that encourage collaboration through sharing of ideas
22
• Use of language to share ideas and jointly develop knowledge
• Use of language as an intellectual tool for thinking, reasoning,
planning, and reviewing our actions
• Encouragment and support for peer reflection, evaluation,
experimentation and discovery
Some of the above qualities are shared with constructive
approaches and the distinction between social constructivism and
constructivism can sometimes become blurred with many so-called
constructivist approaches reflecting those that could be characterized as
social constructivist.
I. 5 b Social constructivism and digital technology
Collaboration and learning interactions can occur, at or around or
in relation to the computer. However, these can also occur through
computers (Crook, 1994). With regard to the connective affordances of
new technologies there is a growing interest in the use of these to provide
opportunities for the social dimension in learning. Asynchronous and
synchronous communication can offer the potential for diverse and richer
forms of dialogue amongst students, tutors and peers, as well as the
access to a range of materials and resources (Conole et al., 2004).
Although verbal text has been the dominant mode through which
interactions take place, the speed and power of new technologies can
provide a reliable infrastructure that allows a variety of other modalities
such as auditory, and visual, including 3D graphics.
Whilst the use of verbal text makes few demands in terms of the
technology, the intellectual demands for the learner and the pedagogical
and managerial demands for the teacher can present a challenge. These
demands will be returned to after some other theoretical accounts
stemming from sociocultural theory, namely, dialogism, situated
learning, distributed cognition and activity theory have been introduced.
23
I. 6 Dialogism
Links can be made between social constructivism and Mikhail
Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism in that, in either case, meaning is
generated through social interaction. Although Vygotsky’s contributions
are frequently cited by many sociocultural theorists, Bakhtin’s work on
dialogism could also provide a foundation for this (Wells, 1999). With
dialogism, however, language is the prime vehicle through which
meaning is negotiated. When introducing Bakhtin’s (2004) notion of
dialogism Vaagan (2006: 168) draws attention to links in literary theory
where ‘dialogue’ signifies ‘the interplay of different voices, minds or
value systems in such a way that none is superior to another’. He
contrasts this with the more classical notion of dialogue that was
regarded by figures such as Socrates and Plato as a means of persuasion:
the aim being for one person or group to accept the ideas of another.
Vaagan also notes that through studying Dostoevsky’s novels, Bakhtin
argued that dialogue is fundamental in literary language and that
language originates in the interaction between two or more people. In
turn the concept of ‘self” is dialogic; in a dialogic text the author’s views
are not authoritative or final, as they would be in a monologic text, but
only one among other voices in the dialogue that is presented.
I. 6 a Dialogism in practice
Bakhtin’s understanding of dialogue stresses mutual testing,
contesting and creation of ideas (Vaagan, 2006). In attempt to provide a
framework that can be applied to learning occurring among groups of
children working with computers Wegerif and Mercer (1997) have drawn
on Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism. Through this, thinking becomes a
social process through which ‘mutual understanding’ or
‘intersubjectivity’ is achieved. Within this process language-use plays a
central role – thinking as a mutual act is expressed through this mode of
24
communication. They also drew on work by Fisher (1997) who identified
three types of educationally significant talk when working with children
at computers: disputational talk, cumulative talk and exploratory talk.
The types of talk cited by Wegerif and Mercer (1997: 53) ‘represent
ways in which learners orient themselves towards each other’ and are
presented in terms of ‘social modes or thinking’. The types of talk
‘represent ways in which pupils or students orient themselves towards
each other’ and are presented in terms of ‘social modes of thinking’. It is
not intended that all talk can be encoded as disputational, cumulative or
exploratory but this offers reference points for analyses that emerged
when learners talk together in collaborative activities.
With regard to talk in the classroom, a further contribution comes
from Alexander (2008) who distinguishes dialogic teaching from routines
such as question-answer or listen-tell. For Alexander, the notion of
dialogue is purposeful; ‘cumulation’ being central in that ideas or
utterances from each individual can be linked into coherent line of
enquiry. This can be contrasted with conversation which does not
necessarily aim to lead anywhere, or debate, where the aim might be to
persuade or posit one point of view over others, or dialectic insofar that
logic or argument is used to resolve disagreement. Dialogic teaching is
reciprocal and extended. In approaching this Alexander (2008: 112/113)
has identified five fundamental principles underlying dialogic teaching:
1. collective: teachers and children address learning tasks
together, as a group or as a class
2. reciprocal: teachers and children listen to each other, share
ideas and consider alternative viewpoints
3. supportive: children articulate their ideas freely, without fear
of embarrassment over ‘wrong’ answers; and they help each other
to reach common understandings
25
4. cumulative: teachers and children build on their own and each
other’s ideas and chain them into coherent lines of thinking and
enquiry
5. purposeful: teachers plan and steer classroom talk with specific
educational goals.
The place of dialogue is consistent with participation in learning
that, again, places the emphasis on social rather than individual activity
of the learner. Participation in learning has been developed in relation to
the notions such as situated learning, learning as participation and a
‘community of practice’. These are now outlined.
I. 7 Situated learning
Situated learning relates to learning through activities directly
relevant to how the learning is applied and that take place within a the
applied setting and culture, or one similar to the context where the
learning will be applied (Brown et al., 1989). Situated learning as taking
place in an ‘authentic’ or real life setting can be contrasted with learning
derived from principles that have been formalized or abstracted from a
context of use. Working in the complexity of an authentic environment
provides the opportunity not only to develop understandings but also to
develop the skills needed to apply our understandings. Knowledge
becomes contextualized; we can determine how and when the concept is
used (Duffy and Jonassen, 1992). Cognitive apprenticeship has been
proposed as an effective constructivist model of learning that attempts to
‘encultrate students into authentic practices through activity and social
interaction in a way similar to that evident, and evidently successful, in
craft apprenticeship’ (Ackerman, 1996: 25).
26
I. 7 aLearning as participation
Situated learning also includes participation as a key concept. In,
contrast to what she describes as an ‘acquisition metaphor’ Sfard (1998)
has developed a model of learning-as-participation. Here, participation is
seen as ‘taking part’ and ‘being a part’ with contextualization in learning
regarded as critical. Importantly, however, Sfard does not argue that one
metaphor should necessarily be adopted at the exclusion of the other; in
fact she argues (p. 10) ‘When a theory is translated into an instructional
prescription, exclusivity becomes the worst enemy of success’.
Teaching strategies based upon participation can encourage
collaboration amongst learners and with practitioners (Lave & Wenger,
1991; McMahon, 1997). Notably, learners can become part of the
community. The mechanisms for this can be illustrated through the
notion of a ‘community of practice’.
I. 8 A community of practice
So far, learning has been characterized in terms of the uptake of
information or the development of mental structures through interaction
in the environment and the development of ideas through interaction with
more knowledgeable others or developing ideas conjointly with others.
More recently the notion of learning has been taken to include
participation in and becoming part of a community. A community of
practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) occurs when people
jointly engage socially in a common enterprise or activity, and through
this learn together. Wenger (1998) describes three components that are
necessary for the development of a community of practice:
1. A domain: an area of shared interest to which members of the
community are committed. This could be a profession such as
teaching or a sport or in area such as music or mathematics.
27
Importantly, however, it has to be more than a passing interest
amongst random people or a group of friends.
2. A community: people need to interact, develop relations over a
period of time, help each other and share information within
shared activities and learn from each other and in this way
become active members.
3. A practice: this moves beyond merely having an interest in
something. Members should be practitioners so that they can
develop a shared repertoire of resources such as helpful tools,
ways of handling typical problems, recounts of experience.
Development of practice may often occur informally through a
variety of methods including solving problems together, using
each other’s experience and through conversation.
At first, participation may be relatively peripheral as far as the
main activities of the community are concerned. Through observation
and practice, those participating become more ‘legitimate’ and take on
the identity of the community as they become more central (Wenger
1998). Apprentices need opportunities to participate legitimately – even
if these are low-risk activities. Through participation learning in effect
can become an apprenticeship in thinking (Rogoff, 1990).
Communities of practice can arise in a variety of ways, including
taking part in everyday life. However, in the above respect ‘community’
is more than working proximity, or an organised group for a given
purpose; its social fabric develops over time around things that matter so
that it is possible to gain a sense of trust and belonging. Through this, a
community of practice develops a ‘shared repertoire’ of resources, such
as vocabulary, routines, understandings and artefacts, over an extended
period. Rather than being an individual pursuit or academic exercise
largely confined to the classroom, learning is ‘situated’ within the
framework provided by the community of practice through which
28
participation can take place. Through this learning can be acquired
incidentally rather than intentionally.
In the above respects many traditional educational settings can be
seen as fundamentally different to the joint enterprise of a community of
people committed to a domain. However, with regard to education, there
may be scope for developing some of these qualities. Two key concepts,
then, may be drawn from the idea of a community of practice: learning as
situated and learning as participation. These concepts entail forms of
cooperation rather than competition and in that sense are non-
individualistic. A division of skills and acknowledgement of the
complementary qualities of individuals replaces a more totalitarian role
of the practitioner.
In sum, situated learning is based on:
• Learners participating in the social practices of a community
• Opportunities to develop enquiry and learning skills
• Dialogue to facilitate learning
Situated learning also involves immersion in a culture populated
not only by human actors but with an array or artefacts and tools.
Encompassing the complexities of this inherent in learning is a challenge
to be faced at a practical as well as a theoretical level. With regard to the
latter, distributed cognition and activity theory are now briefly outlined.
I. 8 a Distributed cognition
Distributed cognition is a theory that embraces social aspects of
cognition as well as artefacts and the environment. It was developed by
Hutchins in the 1980s at a time when cognition and the processing of
information was generally regarded as localized within the individual.
Importantly, then, cognition could be seen as something distributed
among people, sets of representations, tools, technological artefacts and
other objects within the environment. Salomon (1993) regards cognition
occurring, for example, among people to be ‘shared’ through
29
conversation around a common activity. Through this interaction a
continual change in cognition can arise as ideas arising from more than
one person are clarified and ‘tools’ such as note taking or a calculator
allow some of the cognitive demands to be ‘off-loaded’, the notes also
acting as an extension of memory. An insight offered through the idea of
distributed cognition is the interconnectedness of learners, artefacts and
culture. While this can offer some important insights (Halverson, 2002),
in practice analyses of distributed interactions may not be straightforward
(Nardi, 2002).
I. 8 b Activity theory
Activity encompasses a set of principles for understanding how a
wide range factors work together to impact on humanwork or activity. It
was initially developed by the Soviet psychologist A. N. Leontiev (1978)
and also leads on from the work of Vygotsky. Insofar that it relates to the
development of human culture and the individual it can be regarded as
sociocultural.
Bannon & Bødker (1991) give an account of human activity as the
basic unit of analysis which is driven by certain needs in order to achieve
a certain purpose. Crucially, human activity is usually mediated by
instruments or tools. In contrast to animals that are perceived as having
only one world, the world of objects and situations, many of our actions
as humans are informed from prior experience or history brought into the
into the current activity; the World Wide Web greatly expanding the
range of this uniquely human capability (Ryder, 1998). Ryder uses
picking mushrooms for eating as an example of an activity that is ill-
advised without some form of mediation such as a guide book, prior
education, or advice from an experienced mushroom forager. As teachers
our actions would be similarly informed through language, books,
pictures and diagrams. Such artefacts are not only available to us when
introduced to an activity but can also be a product of, and changed
through, the activity: this view of ‘mediation’ being regarded as essential
30
in the ways artefacts can be understood through activity theory (Bannon
& Bødker, 1991).
Engeström (1987) has developed a model of an activity system
which emphasises the social aspect of mediation. An activity is
undertaken by a human agent (subject) who is motivated toward the
solution of a problem or purpose (object), and mediated by tools
(artifacts) in collaboration with others (community). The structure of the
activity is constrained by cultural factors including conventions (rules)
and social strata (division of labor) within the context. Engeström calls
attention to the mediational role of the community and that of social
structures including the division of labor and established procedures.
Engeström’s model attempts to describe how a wide range factors may
work together to impact upon an activity, how that activity is mediated
by artefacts, the organization or community, the rules that affect activity
and how a participant works as part of the community to achieve an
object and any division of labour involved.
I. 9 Theoretical perspectives: a summary
In looking across the range of perspectives on learning offered
above I have moved from different psychological accounts of learning
which range from the acquisition or as uptake of reified information by
the tutored individual through to a more constructive model where the
position of the learner to take initiative and set directions in their own
learning is acknowledged. Moreover, I have also included a social and
cultural dimension where interaction with others is seen as central to the
learning process, and, that a more symmetrical view recognising the
learner’s own contributions in this process are recognised through joint
collaboration and participation. Along this journey I have also
acknowledged the situated nature of learning – learning that is less
abstract and formal and that may be picked up incidentally through
practice. I have also looked at accounts that draw into this forum the
broader role of cultural tools and artefacts. Inevitably the different
31
accounts of learning overlap in many respects and the intention is not to
claim exclusivity or superiority of one over another. Moreover, within
the space of this chapter it is not intended to present a detailed practical
application of each theoretical perspective. Instead, the intention is to
open up a range of perspectives upon activities that could count as
learning and to acknowledge the range of influences on these. This
chapter, then, is intended to present a context from which a discourse on
learning and new technologies can be developed.
A framework that attempts to summarize the main learning
perspectives is shown in Figure 1. It is designed to provide a convenient
reference and basis for conceptualizing, articulating and developing a
discourse amongst those interested in promoting effective learning using
new technologies.
Figure 1 A framework for mapping technology-use according to learning
perspective (Jessel, 2011)
Rather than regarding different technologies as having intrinsic
properties in relation to the kind of learning they may support, the
32
framework places emphasis on how a technology is used. Digital
technologies, like any other resource, can be mapped into the space
delineated by the two axes, but only according to how they are used. In
other words, according to use, a given technology could take up one of
many different positions, or spread over a more inclusive area. Extending
this notion, any one learning episode can take on a range of cognitive and
sociocultural qualities that can be cycled through as learners and teachers
engage within an activity.
Learning paradigms arranged along the horizontal axis begin with
those aligned with an associative perspective. The remainder of the axis,
however, is representative of a cognitive or constructivist perspective and
acknowledges an increasing level of initiative and creativity on behalf of
the learner. Although the kinds of learning are reminiscent to those
identified by Bloom (1956) the perspective can be regarded as primarily
cognitive. The social and cultural dimension is marked out on a vertical
axis. In its most basic form, social involvement in learning is
characterized by a relatively didactic transmission of information at the
lowest point of the axis. Moving up the axis is the kind of interaction
characteristic of scaffolding within a social constructivist approach where
a teacher or more experienced peer engages within an activity so that
learners are helped to develop their own understandings. Further up the
axis social and cultural engagement becomes more symmetrical, dialogic
and participatory in nature. Participatory approaches can entail an
authentic quality (Brown et al., 1989) and, of course, notions of
distributed cognition and activity would include cultural tools and
artefacts. For simplicity, however, these elements has not been
represented explicitly on the axes shown and could be represented along
a third orthogonal axis.
I. 10 Using new digital technologies to support learning
In this second part of the chapter an outline some of the
implications of the above theoretical perspectives for new connective
digital technologies will be presented. This will also include the impact
33
that different uses of these may have on the role of the teacher and the
learner. In particular the emphasis will be on the role of the learner as an
active agent in their own development in a sociocultural setting which
includes the role of new digital technologies which offer connectivity.
I. 10 a Computer-supported collaborative learning
The term ‘computer-supported collaborative learning’ (CSCL) has
been used to describe an emerging area of interest that focuses on how
learning can take place among people with the help of computers. The
interest in CSCL marks a move away from the learner as an isolated
individual with the computer: it aims to bring learners together through
creative activities involving intellectual exploration and social interaction
(Stahl et al., 2006). This is also seen by Stahl et al. to contrast with a
vision e-learning as a means of dissemination of classroom content to
large numbers of students, avoiding logistical costs such as buildings and
transport and with little continuing involvement of teachers. In view of
the learning perspectives implicated it also implies changes in the role of
educational institutions and the role of teachers and learners.
Drawing on sociocultural theory, CSCL can allow learning to be
socially constructed through knowledge-building communities
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994) where interaction can occur with others
with other resources allowing cognition to be distributed. In many
educational institutions participation in learning could occur through
digital networks such as virtual learning environments (VLEs) and the
Internet. Although online learning provides scope for learners to
collaborate at a distance there is also a role for CSCL within the same
institution or classroom. Here, the mode of communication through, for
example, collaborative writing and discussion forums taking place
through a network can enhance the way language is used through peer
interaction.
In terms of the exchange of written text, building a common
ground is considered an essential part of coordinating collaborative
34
activities and knowledge sharing (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Dillenbourg &
Traum, 1999; Koschmann, et al., 2001). Students and teachers need to
develop reciprocal learning relationships through language and other
means (Wolfe et al., 2008). This necessitates creating through networked
learning environments expressions that can act as indicators of reciprocal
interaction and understanding. This is a key challenge which, apart from
requiring further exploration, may have influenced the relatively slow
take-up of CSCL.
The importance for teachers to agree on rules for talk and
establishing a collaborative ethos ‘with a view to discovering new and
better ways of jointly making sense’ has been noted by Mercer (1995).
Weinberger & Fischer (2006) have analysed multiple process dimensions
of knowledge construction in CSCL, namely (1) the participation
dimension, (2) the epistemic dimension, (3) the argument dimension, and
(4) the dimension of social modes of co-construction.
Blogs have become established as interactive spaces which many
learners already use to share and develop ideas and expertise. In this way
the potential for learning offered by the technology is distinct (Lehtinen
et al., 1999). Among the possible benefits for CSCL cited by Lipponen
(2002) are that by removing time and space constraints computer
networks break down physical and temporal barriers of learning.
Asynchronous communication allows time for reflection in interaction
and writing as a visible record can help students reflect on their own and
others’ ideas and share expertise. Shared discursive spaces can offer
multiple perspectives for students with varying knowledge and
competencies, greater opportunities to share and solicit knowledge and
the stored communications can function as a collective memory for a
learning community and allow revisions and future use. CSCL can also
be extended to include the shared exploration of a virtual world or
environment within which problems may be encountered and solved
collaboratively. As noted below, some elements of this connect with the
idea of virtual game based learning.
35
I. 10 b The VLE as a space for dialogic interactions (using electronic
text):
With regard to new technologies, Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism
can be applied to language and other forms of communication occurring
in a variety of modes conveyed through a range of technologies. Internet,
e-mail, SMS and chat groups. VLEs as a CSCL facility are available in
many institutions and also offer access to those participating outside.
Through the VLE a variety of materials such as images, wtitten
documents, video or sound files can be uploaded or tagged with sutable
brief descriptions. The VLE can act as a forum for reciprocal teaching or
peer collaboration; learners can help each other to solve a problem more
effectively than if they had worked alone. The technology can also
support cognitive apprenticeships, problem-based instruction, webquests
or enquiry-oriented activities where most of the information is from the
Web (Shunk, 2000).
Some key attributes offered through VLEs:
• A means of communication
• Peer interaction and peer-teacher interaction
• Learning as knowledge building rather than merely being
‘delivered’
• Electronic chat that can be retained for reflection (talk is more
ephemeral)
• Users can pause and have time to think before replying
• …but replies can also be relatively immediate
• Contributed ideas can accumulate and used or selected according
to need
• Arguments can be rehearsed
• Learning can be connected to own experiences
However, dialogic interactions have to be sustained. This raises a
range of strategic pedagogical issues:
36
• Dialogue can be resourced (e.g., multimodally)
• Teacher seen as committed (e.g., daily logging on to a discussion
forum)
• Teacher can provide questions/activities that give structure to
students’ learning
• Teacher strategy might be to ask questions only
• Use activities that require sharing of information and joint
decision making (Mercer, 1995)
• Teachers agree on rules for talk and establishing a collaborative
ethos ‘with a view to discovering new and better ways of jointly
making sense’ (Mercer, 1995)
• Strategies needed to guide the dynamics of interaction
• Strategies needed to sustain dialogue
With regard to the role of the teacher, some strategies that can be
derived from Alexander’s (2008) work on dialogic teaching can also be
applied within a digitally connected setting such as a VLE can be
summarised as:
• Prompting and challenging thinking and reasoning
• Use questions that are structured to provoke thoughtful answers
• Use leading questions sparingly
• Students ask questions and provide explanations
• Answers are used to provoke further questions to act as building
blocks for further dialogue
• Ideas contributed by individuals are chained into coherent lines of
enquiry
• Maintaining a balance between encouraging participation and
extending understanding
• Establish a shared routines for turn taking that avoids competitive
bidding
37
• Allowing students to have the confidence to make mistakes and
learn from them
• Respect minority viewpoints
• Encourage students toparticipate and share ideas
• Encourage students to build on contributions
• Provide feedbackthrough using praise discriminatingly and
appropriately
I. 11 Virtual Game-Based Learning
Another possible forum for learning that has gained interest is the
game. The idea of learning through play has remained an attractive one
within education. The notion of play is often associated with pleasure;
play is invariably self-chosen and enjoyable rather than imposed (Lindon,
2001). In turn games have evolved as a means of formalizing many of the
qualities of play, often through setting goals to be achieved within a set
of constraints or rule systems (Dempsey et al., 1996). Games can also
have a competitive element and can take place in a variety of settings
which can motivate through challenge, fantasy and curiosity (Randel et
al., 1992).
In many respects digital technology acts as yet another medium
through which games can be expressed. As Buckingham (2007) has
noted, play invites experimentation, learning by doing and can involve
cognitive activities such as remembering, hypothesis testing, predicting
and strategic planning. At a more basic level games allow the possibility
of repetition: in addition to an associationist reinforcing of behaviours
that allow a particular goal to be achieved, when these are not successful
then a game can be repeated and different strategies adopted.
The qualities that games bring to learning appear in Prensky’s
(2001) characterisation of computer games as six structural elements,
namely, rules, goals and objectives, outcomes and feedback,
conflict/competition/challenge/opposition, interaction, representation or
38
story. These elements act together to motivate and engage. Prensky used
the term ‘digital game-based-learning’ and, similarly, the term ‘virtual
game-based learning’ (VGBL) has become synonomous and this can
include ‘serious games’ or computer games for educational rather than
entertainment purposes. The array of digital games can include drill-and-
practice and knowledge games, training simulations or modelling, games
which can invoke role play such as adventure games, management and
strategy games (Kaptelinin & Cole, 2001). ‘Edutainment’ refers to those
games that link educational objectives with entertainment elements and
the range of commercial computer games, sometimes referred to as
‘video games’, that put the player in a virtual environment where they
have to act against some form of opposition (Griffiths, 1996).
An important feature of VGBL is that it can create a learner-
centred, learner-guided environment insofar that learners can have
control over where they go and what they do within a game. The virtual
game setting can also provide a context for problem solving; it can also
allow the freedom to explore and experiment. As the learner plays the
game, he or she may adapt to the environment, infer the rules and pick up
relevant vocabulary. Through those games that are connected by
narrative learners may undertake tasks, accept rewards and progress to
more complex levels.
Many digital games can be thought of as simulations in that they
can be said to model some aspect of the real world. Through this,
learners can study phenomena that otherwise would be less accessible
because of such factors as expense or time scale. Additionally,
simulations can allow exploration within a safe environment. Through
inviting role-play and participation VGBL may also offer an element of
experiential learning through a setting within which learners can engage.
VGBL can also be regarded as a form of situated learning in that it
actively engages learners with an environment which they can explore
and make decisions. As learners interact with the game environment,
they appropriate information and adapt new knowledge to fit what they
already know, which are also key elements of situated learning
environments (Kirshner & Whitson, 1998). Playing a game also requires
39
constant readjustment arising from the causes and consequences of each
interaction (Gee, 2003) that in turn could act as a model for proactive
self-reflective critical learning (Begg, Dewhurst & Ellaway, 2003).
Through digital devices that are connected VGBL can easily take
place among a number of players. In this way VGBL also provides a
social area where shared methods and resources for constructing and
communicating meaning are developed and, in turn, a literacy needed to
operate in terms of the meanings accepted within that domainis acquired
(Gee, 2004). Within this social arena ideas have to be articulated and
decision making needed to agree goals. With game-based learning
around the computer, or through digital connectivity, the social
dimension can also become manifest through working as a team when
playing against others.
Williamson (2009) has identified some of the major ideas
underlying games and learning. With regard to the construction of
knowledge he argues that games encourage exploration, trying out ideas,
communicating and decision making. Through this, players become
‘active in the construction of knowledge’. With some games the social
and participative dimensions can be expressed through players working
as a team, as in ‘SimCity’, ‘Urban Science’ and ‘Civilisation’ to create a
complex economic system and to review and revise these in the light of
testing them out. Williamson also acknowledges the capacity of games to
offer situated or authentic practices. However, Buckingham (2007) has
warned of the dangers where computer games enthusiasts can over-claim
the value of games and typically set these in contrast to a caricature of
classroom practice as abstract and divorced from reality. The role of the
teacher is important here and strategies for management this may need to
be carefully planned.
The list of potential benefits may appear to be a long one, however,
VGBL is not without its critics. As McFarlane (2002) has noted, games
demand substantial investments of time, both by teachers when preparing
to introduce them in an educational setting and by learners when using
them. This applies particularly to more complex games which require a
sustained period of apprenticeship (Gee, 2004). McFarlane et al. (2002)
40
also questions whether in view of the relatively large time investment,
any generic thinking and collaborative skills acquired are enough to
justify their use. Although engagement and immersion have an appeal,
debriefing is important and likely to be difficult unless time is carefully
set aside. Additionally, gender issues are also a consideration.
In relation to the virtues of a meaningful situated learning context,
Buckingham (2007) reminds us of the necessity of the practice of
abstract decontextualized skills such as playing scales on a musical
instrument or techniques in a sport such as football. Also, with regard to
collaboration, problem solving skills, risk taking and decision making
that may characterize some aspects of VGBL, transfer may not be
automatic: the learning being situated or embodied and specific to
particular social practices. In other words, as Buckingham suggests, there
is a place for a structured curriculum with specialist teachers who have
the necessary theoretical and conceptual knowledge to act as guides as to
what is important to learn.
I. 12 Role of the teacher
Innovation arising from new technologies makes a variety of
demands upon the role of the teacher. At one level, teachers may need to
become acquainted with the technology themselves in order to be able to
support and relate to learners in the many ways required within and
without the classroom setting. While familiarity with today’s
technologies may be acquired by tomorrow’s teachers, technologies
continue to evolve and, in turn, new technical demands will continue to
arise. At another level, the introduction of innovation makes major
demands upon teachers’ pedagogical, professional and managerial skills.
Insofar that teachers can also play a managerial role outside the
classroom and operate at policy level within an institution a further set of
demands can be made. Returning to the classroom, a shift towards the
role of teacher as facilitator and maintaining engagement of the students
by prompting discussion while students are carrying out activities
41
(DeVries et al., 2002) has implications for online learning as well as
traditional face-to-face contexts (Bailey & Card, 2009). The possibilities
that new technologies allow for learning through participation make
demands on the actions of teachers as social managers as well as
managers of resources for learning. Although students may be able to
work together and generate their own knowledge and understandings,
this may not happen automatically. If a community of practice model is
adopted then this will entail a new role for the teachers: a different set of
pedagogical skills is required that focus on helping students collaborate
with each other in order to develop personal understanding of course
content, linking to learning resources and encouraging initiative
(Knowlton, 2000; Knowles et al., 2008).
I. 13 Role of the learner
A consideration within the context of innovation that should not be
forgotten is the role of the learner. Learners, whether they are young or
old, will have to some extent become encultrated into the practices of the
classroom, formed expectations about what is required of them as
learners and, in turn, formed expectations of what they require from
teachers. Changes in approaches to learning through the introduction of
new methods arising from new technologies carry implications for the
learner’s role such as the student as a collaborator in learning in view of
the interaction modalities afforded CSCL. Learners have to organize their
skills in complex ways, suitably to differing contexts and changing
needs. For example, to what extent do new technologies allow learners to
be self-directed, to be a resource for their own learning, to learn from
peer feedback and apply their learning to real-world problems? These so
called ‘andragogic principles’ (Knowles, 1980) have hitherto been
primarily associated with adult learners. Knowles also refers to learners
as being transformed from simple ‘containers’, passive in learning, to
protagonists of education. Learners need to operate in many different
modes; sometimes they may feel part of a community while at other
42
times they may want autonomy. Sometimes learners may want to be told,
at others they may want to find out things themselves or with others.
This, perhaps, returns us to the role of the teacher who may also need to
recognize the flux of different modes and understand when to intervene
and when to let go.
I. 14 Conclusion
In this chapter an outline of the many ways that learning can be
accomplished and the thinking behind these have been presented.
Accounting for the mechanisms of learning has been a challenge that has
been addressed by many theorists. The views on learning that have been
presented range from those located within the learner to those where
learning is distributed across society, culture and a potentially huge array
of tools and artefacts – all which can be seen to be an integral part of the
learning process. It is not surprising, then, that new technologies can also
play a part. The part that they play could depend upon the technologies
themselves. However, by virtue of human ingenuity the part that new
technologies can play can vary according to the context in which they are
used. This presents an interesting challenge both to teachers and to
learners – one that will be addressed in the remainder of this book.
43
References
Ackerman, E. (1996). Perspective Taking and Object Construction: Two Keys
to Learning. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in
Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World (pp. 25-
35). New Jersey: Lawrence Earbaum Associates.
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk
(4th Edition) Cambridge: Faculty of Education (Dialogic Teaching),
Shaftesbury Road.
Bailey, C., Card, K. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching:
Perception of experienced instructors. Internet and Higher Education, 12,
152-155.
Bakhtin, M. M. (2004) Dialogic Origin and Dialogic Pedagogy of Grammar:
Stylistics in Teaching Russian Language in Secondary School, Journal of
Russian and East European Psychology, 42.6: 12-49.
Bannon, L.J. and Bødker, S. (1991) Beyond the Interface: Encountering
Artifacts in Use, in J. Carroll (ed.) Designing Interaction: Psychology at
the human-computer interface. New York: Cambridge U.P.
Begg, M. Dewhurst, D., and Ellaway, R. (2003). Process, Truth and
Consequences; informal reflections on games, game communities and
their use within higher education: College of Medicine and Veterinary
Medicine, University of Edinburgh.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The
Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the
culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41.
Buckingham, D. (2007) Beyond Technology: Children’s Learning in the Age of
Digital Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B.
Resnick, J. M. Levine and S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially
shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cole, M. (1991). On socially shared cognitions. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S.
Behrend (Eds.), Socially shared cognitions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M. and Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and
tools for effective learning design, Computers & Education 43 (2004)
17–33.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning.
London: Routledge.
44
Crook, C. (2001) The Social Character of Knowing and Learning: implications
of cultural psychology for educational technology, Journal of
Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 10, Nos 1&2, 2001
Dempsey, J.V., Lucassen, B.A., Haynes, L.L. and Casey, M.S. (1996)
Instructional applications of computer games. New York: Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 500).
DeVries, R., Zan, B., Hildebrandt, C., Edmiaston, R. and Sales, C. (2002).
Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: Practical
principles and activities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dillenbourg, P., and Traum, D. (1999). Does a shared screen make a shared
solution. In C. Hoadley (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL '99: The Third
International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative
Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duffy, T.M. and Jonassen, D.H. (1992) Constructivism and the Technology of
Instruction: A Conversation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach
to developmental research (Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit).
Fisher, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2006). Teachers Learning with Digital
Technologies: A review of research and projects. Bristol: Futurelab.
Fisher, E. (1997). Educationally Important Types of Children's Talk. In R.
Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and Talk in the Primary
Classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Gagné, R. M. 1985.The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. 4th
edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York:
BasicBooks.
Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional
Schooling. London: Routledge.
Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In
D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology. New York: MacMillan.
Griffiths, M.D. (1996). Computer game playing in children and adolescents: a
review of the literature. In T. Gill (ed) Electronic children: how children
are responding to the information revolution. London: National
Children’s Bureau.
45
Halverson, C. A., (2002), Activity theory and distributed cognition: Or what
does CSCW need to DO with theories? Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, 11:243-267.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jessel, J. (2011). The virtual learning environment: directions for development
in secondary education. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on
e-Learning (Brighton, November, 2011). Reading: Academic Publishing
Ltd.
JISC (2009) Effective Practice in a Digital Age: A guide to technology-
enhanced learning and teaching. JISC (Joint Information Systems
Committee) Innovation Group, Bristol: University of Bristol.
Kaptelinin, V. and Cole, M. (2001). Individual and collective activities in
educational computer game playing. In T. Koschmann and R, Hall (eds.)
CSCL2 Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Kirshner, D., and Whitson, J. A. (1998). Obstacles to understanding cognition
as situated.Educational Researcher, 27(8), 22-28.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy
to androgogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books.
Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F. and Swanson, R.A. (2008). The adult learner (6th
ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Knowlton, D. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A
defence and delineation of a student-centred pedagogy. New directions
for teaching and learning, 84, 5-14.
Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C., and Feltovich, P. (2001). Dissecting
common ground: Examining an instance of reference repair. A paper to
be presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society, Edinburgh.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. New
York: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.)
Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning,
and Identity: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46
Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., & Muukkonen,
H. (1999). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A review of
research and development (The J.H.G.I Giesbers Reports on Education,
10). Netherlands: University of Nijmegen, Department of Educational
Sciences.
Leont'ev, A. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. English translation,
Moscow: Progress Press (Russian original 1947).
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, Personality. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, Prentice Hall.
Lindon, J. (2001). Understanding Children’s Play. Cheltenham: Nelson
Thornes.
Linnell (2003). Evaluation of Capacity Building: Lessons from the Field.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Nonprofit Management
Lipponen, L. (2002) Exploring foundations for computer-supported
collaborative learning. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer
Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL
Community, International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Mandl, H., and Lesgold, A. (1988). Preface. In H. Mandl and A. Lesgold (Eds.),
Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems, (pp. v-xiii). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Mayes, T. & De Fritas, S. (2004). JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study.
Available http://tinyurl.com/3xqeq3 Date of access: 5:6:11.
McFarlane, Angela, Sparrowhawk, Anne & Heald, Ysanne (2002). Report on
the educational use of games. Teachers Evaluating Educational
Multimedia.
http://www.teem.org.uk/howtouse/resources/teem_gamesined_full.pdf,
Date of access: 5:6:11.
McKendry, E. (2006). Immersion Education: An Introductory Guide for
Teachers, Belfast: School of Education, Queen’s University.
McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social Constructivism and the World Wide
Web - A Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE
conference. Perth, Australia.
McManus, M., & Aiken, R. (1995). Monitoring computer-based problem
solving. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 307-336.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst
teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
47
Nardi, B. A., (2002) Coda and response to Christine Halverson, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, 11:269-275.
Nunes, M.B. and McPherson, M. (2003) Constructivism vs. Objectivism:
Where is difference for Designers of e-Learning Environments?
Proceedings of the The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced
Learning Technologies (ICALT’03).
O’Connor, M.C. (1998). Can we trace the ‘efficacy’ of social constructivism?
Review of Research in Education, 22, 1-47.
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital game-based learning, New York: McGraw-Hill
Randel, J.M., Morris, B.A., Wetzel, C.D. and Whitehill, B.V. (1992) The
effectiveness of games for educational purposes: a review of recent
research. Simulation and Gaming, 23(3) 261-76.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social
context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ryder, M. (1998). Spinning Webs of Significance: Considering anonymous
communities in activity systems. Paper presented to the Fourth Congress
of the International Society for Cultural Research and Activity Theory.
Aarhus, Denmark, June 7-11.
Salomon, G. (1993) No distribution without individuals’ cognition: a dynamic
interactional view 111-138 in Salomon, G. (ed.) (1993). Distributed
Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-
building communities, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 3: 265-
83.
Schunk, D. H. (2000). Coming to terms with motivation constructs.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (116-119).
Sfard, A. (1998) On two mwtaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing
just one, Educational Researcher, 27, 2, 4-13.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported
collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.),
Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, A. (1998) The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its Utility for the Field of
LearningDisabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol 3, No 4 pp
344-364
48
Trevarthen, C. (1988), Universal cooperative motives: How infants begin to
know languageand skills and culture. In: Acquiring Culture: Cross-
Cultural Studies in Child Development, ed. G. Jahoda & I. M. Lewis.
London: Croom Helm, pp. 37–90.
Vaagan, Robert W. (2006). Open Access and Bakhtinian Dialogism,
Proceedings ELPUB2006 Conference on Electronic Publishing, Bansko,
Bulgaria, June 2006.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/1986).Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Wegerif, R. and Mercer, N. (1997). A Dialogical Framework for Investigating
Talk. In Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom, edited by
Wegerif, R. and Scrimshaw, P. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Weinberger, A., and Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative
knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning.
Computers & Education, 46, 71-95.
Wells, G. (1999). Language and education: Reconceptualising education as
dialogue, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 135-155.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, B. (2009) Computer games, schools, and young people. Bristol:
Futurelab
Wolfe, S. with Alexander, R.J. (2008) Argumentation and dialogic teaching:
alternative pedagogies for a changing world.
www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk Date of access: 5:6:11.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
49
II
A classification scheme for using new technologies in
educational practices: how to choose those most suitable.
Angelo Rega, Orazio Miglino
II.1. Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to enable teachers, university professors
and corporate trainers to use, implement and integrate new learning
technologies in their teaching curricula. So the technological solutions
that may actually be proposed must be easy to understand, low cost and
widespread. Fortunately there is a wide range of valid technological
systems that can be easily retrieved and used for relatively low costs. In
addition, a substantial scientific literaturehas shown that technologies
developed for other purposes (commercial, recreational and research) can
be effectively used in educational and training courses. However, most of
the technologies used for the objectives of the Project belong to one of
the following families:
a) Open systems (high-level programming languages, authoring
systems, hybrid construction kits of equipment hardware and
software);
b) Closed systems (commercial games, serious games, robots,
etc.).
50
The first are development environments to create educational
materials, training (TEL Serious Games or systems) that can be used
even by non-experts in computer science (a particular example of this
category is the programming language LOGO1); the second areself-
containedapplicationsthat proposeactivities in a particulardomainand
precisespecification, for example, the video game SimCity 2 has been
frequently used as a laboratory for the exercise of managerial skills. In
January 2008, the company that developed SimCity decided to distribute,
free of charge, its own games for educational use based on the product
which had been used in many learning contexts.
It should be emphasised that, as we will describe later, open
systems have an increasingly high level of interactivity and ease of use.
In this way teachers can use them both to develop their own teaching
materials, and for supervising a group of learners to whom is entrusted
the task of creating a particular application (computer simulation of a
given phenomenon, realisation of a particular role-playing game,
development a three-dimensional digital world, etc.).
The classification method we propose can be considered as a
useful frame of reference for understanding the macroscopic properties
of each technology and, especially, the pedagogical uses. Table 1
summarises a way of classifying and identifying learning technologies
and indicates some particularly representative and prototypical systems.
The following pages explain the contents of the table in more detail.
1 Logo: a programming language with a strong focus on graphics. The basic geometry
has been developed with the aim of being clear and simple, so that it can be easily
learnt. 2 SimCity: a video game that allows the player to take the role of the mayor of a virtual
city and have to deal with all kinds of problems arising in that situation. The player is
put in a position where they need to carefully plan every move so that they can meet the
needs of citizens without sending the municipality into bankruptcy.
51
Type of teaching
Verify/construct
hypotheses
Experiencinginterp
ersonal dynamics
Explore worlds
Type of
technology
Closed
System
Avida
Dread-Ed 3
Age of Empires 4
Open System
NetLogo 5
Eutopia 6
E-adventure 7
Table 1: Classification and identification of appropriate learning technologies to support
the processes of teaching and learning centered on the direct experience of the learner.
II.2. Experiment
The heart of teaching in many disciplines is primarily to conduct
experiments. In fact, the design of an experimental session takes place in
parallel to the assimilation of a general body of theory that explains the
generative mechanisms of a given phenomenon. An understanding of the
theory can lead to the prediction of empirically observable behaviors.
The experimental verification of research hypotheses is therefore based
3 Dread-Ed: is a piece of software developed as part of a European project of the same
name. It consists of a virtual environment through which students and educators work
together online and learn to understand, communicate and decide quickly in the face of
stressful or emergency situations (earthquakes, fires, etc.). Web Site: www.dread-ed.eu 4 Age of Empires: is a real-time strategy game (RTS) in a historical setting. In this game
you control a civilisation that will progress from the Stone Age, through the Classical
Age, to the Iron Age, trying to become strong economically and militarily. Web Site:
http://www.microsoft.com/games/empires/ 5 NetLogo: is a modeling language designed for teaching simulation in many fields.
You can download a version of the software at: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/ 6 Eutopia: is a software platform for creating and organising role playing (EMORPG)
according to a psycho-pedagogical methodology. This approach allows a small group of
people to organise sessions for a role-playing game online, or for psychological or
educational purposes, through the use of immersive three dimensional graphics. Web
Site: http://www.nac.unina.it/eutopia/ 7 E-Adventure: is a research project that aims to facilitate the integration of educational
games and simulations in educational processes in general and in virtual learning
environments (VLEs) in particular. Web Site: http://e-adventure.e-ucm.es/
52
on the controlled and repeated manipulation of one or more independent
variables that go to influence the observable behavior of one or more
dependent variables. In recent decades, thanks to the enormous increase
in computing power, many scientific theories relating to different fields
of knowledge have been transformed into computer programs or reified
in the form of physical machines. The scientist of our time often
performs experiments in these"simulations"of reality.
This methodology can be applied with relative ease to the teaching
and learning context. In fact, you can find professional software offering
"virtual" laboratories for a variety of disciplines. This kind of software
falls into the category of closed systems (see Table 1) as a focusin the
reproduction of a very specific"piece of reality”. Robofarm8 is a good
example of this approach; it is an integrated software/hardware system
where a player or trainer raises robots to achieve, as quickly as possible,
a goal. The robot, once trained, can challenge others robots in a web-
tournament. The winner is the player who has trained their robots to
move through the space in an optimal manner. The users or players,
playing with Robofarm, learn some of the methods of artificial
intelligence and robotics, and this may reflect on the mingling between
engineering, biology and psychology. Generally, because robots are
programmed by humans using appropriate programming languages they
decide the robot's behaviour in detail. In contrast, with Robofarm the
behaviour is shaped indirectly by two techniques: the selection of
behaviours and artificial evolution. With the first technique, the player
can select the robot that appears best, make duplicates and apply small
random changes to their systems of control in an attempt to improve their
behaviour. With the second technique this process is automatic for
several generations of robots. Having finished this ‘training’ process,
each player’sthe robots can challenge those of the other players in a
tournament online, (Figure 1).
8 Web Site: http://eutopia.unina.it/robofarm
53
Figure 1: Screenshot of the first version of Robofarm during the challenge of a robot
opponent
With Robofarm, in addition to using a virtual lab, teachers and
learners have the ability to independently explore artificial models of
different types of phenomena. In fact, programming and development
environments are available that enable the development of computer
simulations and physical machines (like robots), even for those without
highly technical-computing skills. Teachers and students through these
platforms (similar to the type of open systems, see Table 1) can choose
freely, natural events orpsychological and social factors to be played on a
small scale in an artificial way. In short, they assume the role of the
scientist-modeller. Once created, the artificial model must still be
evaluated in terms of its adherence to empirical data and it is therefore
necessary to carry out a true experimental design. The artificial models
built directly by teachers and students become a virtual lab where
experiments can be performed.
The NetLogo programming language and the Lego-Mindstorms
construction kit are good examples of this particular type of learning
technology. The NetLogo is a programming environment for agent-based
simulations and was developed by the Centre for Connected Learning
and Computer-Based Modelling at Northwestern University. NetLogo
was designed with the aim of the realisation of simulation agents to
explore and experience emerging phenomena that evolve and develop
54
over time. For this purpose, it is equipped with a large library that is
useful when reproducing experiments in economics, biology, physics,
chemistry, psychology and other branches of natural and social sciences.
With this tool you can pass instructions to hundreds of independent
agents that can operate in a concurrent and collaborative way. The
environment available in NetLogo makes this possible, therefore,
exploring the connection between the micro level of individual behaviour
/ agency with the macro patterns that emerge from the interaction of
many individuals / individual agents. NetLogo is available free of charge
and is being used in a wide range of educational settings ranging from
the primary school to the university. Many teachers make use of NetLogo
in their educational programmes with the aim of providing students with
a simulation environment in which to perform experiments with the
support of the simulation. In this way you can experience a phenomenon
or behavior in a variety of conditions (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Screenshot of a simulation of conduction in metals developed with NetLogo
Lego MindStorms9 allows apreviously developed artificial modelto
be experimented with in real environment. The product, sold specifically
for educational purposes, consists of a set of bricks, sonar sensors,
motors and a programmable central unit, thus providing everything
needed to build integrated intelligent systems that can exhibit behaviours
and can interact with the surrounding environment. Thanks to Lego
9 Web Site: http://mindstorms.lego.com/
55
Mindstorms you have the opportunity to build and program robots that
act in the environment and change their behaviour in relation to a
continuous and dynamic interaction with it.
The sensors are the elements that allow the robots to explore and
interact with their surroundings and react accordingly. Engines allow the
movement of the robot, and its central processing unit (brick) contains
the entire program that processes information from sensors and
determines the dynamic behaviour. In the current context, the use of new
educational technologies in robotics education is gradually acquiring a
prominent position because through this discipline learners can
understand a natural phenomenon through a rebuilding process that
passes through its imitation, simulation and emulation in the form of a
machine (in software or hardware form). In short, Lego Mindstorms kits
offer different opportunities to restructure and articulate concepts and to
experiment with different levels of complexity.
II. 3 Conduct relational experiences
In addition to theoretical knowledge and technical education,
training agencies are now required to transfer to students a set of skills
for relating with professional communities and social culture. Examples
of such skills (commonly referred to as soft skills) include the ability to
cope with emergency situations, the ability to conduct a negotiation, the
ability to take part in collective decisions and the willingness to
understand a point of view. In general, the teaching of soft skills is
mainly experiential where a teacher organises, supervises and encourages
small groups (in some cases consisting of dyads) of learners in activities
that take the form of group games and particular types of representations
(sociodrama, role playing, etc.). Most of these techniques for teaching or
training of soft skills are easily transferred to technology platforms.
There are many educational games where the player-learner assumes a
particular role and must pursue the objectives assigned by the teacher or
trainer. Again you can find the games that are dedicated to a particular
segment of the transfer of knowledge or skills (closed systems) and
56
platforms that allow teachers and learners to develop their own
educational scenarios (open systems). An example of the first type of
learning technology is represented by Dread-Ed (Figure 4). Dread-Ed is a
multi-useronlineSerious Game. The game objective is to manage
unexpected situations, making decisions as a group under conditions of
limited communication and knowledge.
Each learner or player takes on the role of an area manager in an
organisation and has to decide, together with colleagues, how to employ
their own staff.
Figure 3: Main software screen of Dread-Ed
Playing with Dread-Ed a small group of learners is guided in the
acquisition of soft skills such as collective decision making, effective
communication, sharing and proper management of common resources
(information, time, personnel to be used, etc.). This activity, carried out
under a project with the same name and funded by the European
Community, has been tested and validated in business contexts
(Ahlstrom-France), non-profit organisations (Civil German Defence and
Civil Protection of Abruzzo-Italy) and in academia (University of Naples
and Duissburg).
The platform Eutopia, however, is an example of a learning
technology defined as an open system. It is an online platform that allows
you to organise simulations or role-playing games with educational
57
goals. The methodology of educational role-playing allows a small group
of actors or students to stage a story and develop it for experiment (and
learn) various soft skills (such as: the ability to conduct a negotiation, the
ability to make collective decisions, the power to mediate between
various requirements, etc.). The actors / learners are represented by 3D
avatars that "act" in a three-dimensional virtualenvironment (scene). A
teacher writes the plot of the story (writer), organises, and in some cases
drives the stage action (act), and finally analyses the play from a psycho-
pedagogical point of view (debriefing10
). Eutopia, was presented at the
Universal Exhibition in Shanghai 2010 and is currently used in
educational contexts of different countries of the European community.
Figure 4: Screenshot of Eutopia.
II. 4 Explore Worlds
Humans share with many other animals an innate propensity to
explore environments within which they are located. Many educational
practices exploit the exploratory instinct of people to transfer knowledge
and skills. Perhaps the best known example of this is represented by the
many versions of the ancient educational treasure hunt. In this game one
10
Il Debriefing: is a structured psychological intervention on a group, led by an expert
psychologist, and aims to analyze the emotional consequences and / or what is
generated by psychological experience.
58
or more players-students are encouraged to explore a space where there
are scattered and hidden items of information which, if collected, will
allow the treasure to bereached. The space can be of arbitrary dimensions
(a room, a garden, a country, etc.), and the retrieval of information can
take different forms (resolution of puzzles, answering questions, passing
a test of physical ability, etc.). This traditional recreational activity is the
basis of a widespread class of games known as Adventure Games11
.
In this context, the pattern of the treasure hunt is used in the design
of games that take place within artificial universes and digital worlds that
can be fantastic and surreal. Paradoxically, in recent years, the
appearance on the market of advanced, low cost technology products is
making the treasure hunt game a tangible reality.
However, it is a reality that is modified and enhanced by
technology. The player or explorer is immersed in an environment where
there are dispersed invisible systems of sensors and actuators that can be
activated and simultaneously produce a variety of responses (lights are
lit, sound propagates, doors open, etc.).Augmented Reality12
, as we
define the experiences described above, is where the player moves in a
world full of technology that provides useful information to enrich their
own feelings and perceptions.
Adventure Games and Augmented Reality platforms with
educational purposes are now numerous. Age of Empiresis a good
example for this type of closed systems.
Age of Empires is a strategy game in a historic setting. The player
controls civilisations (Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians,
Phoenicians, etc.) That will move from the Stone Age, through the
classical age to the Iron Age, trying to become strong economically and
militarily. Many historical matrix games are used in school curricula in
order to convey educational content through these historically rooted
forms of video games. They allow us to study, in a playful context, the
11
Adventure Game: a game where the player assumes the role of protagonist in an
interactive story 12
Augmented reality: (augmented reality in English, abbreviated RA) is the
superposition of levels of information (multimedia and virtual elements, geo data, etc.)
on actual every day experience. The elements that "increase" the reality may be added
through mobile device, such as a cell phone, generation.
59
geographical position and the political, economic, social and religious
culture of situations arising within the game. Such tools also provide a
supplement to the lesson in terms of fun and functionality, allowing you
to use a student-centred approach that gives learners or players the
chance to explore a world of thousands of years ago.
The spread of this type of instrument is demonstrated by the
existence of specific manuals that give clear indications of how to
integrate traditional video games in school curricula. In the case of Age
of Empires a manual was developed entitled"Age of Empires - Age of
Kids: a teacher guide"13
.
There are open systems that allow trainers to create adventure
games in a digital environment (computer software) such as E-
Adventure, and also tools to develop augmented reality games usingthe
Sony PSP console, mobile and smartphones, or I-Phone. Here the player
can use a mobile device andexplore the world through it to get more
information about the surroundingobjects.
The platform E-Adventure, for example, is the result of a research
project aimed to facilitate the integration of educational games and
simulations in educational processes in classical and virtual learning
environments (VLEs). It was developed by e-UCM, a research group on
e-learning from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, with three
main objectives: reducing the cost of game development in education,
integration of features specific to learning in a development tool and
promoting the integration of video games and educational games in e-
learning courses.
E-Adventure (Figure 5) allows the creation of interactive adventure
games "point and click" providing a complete development environment
that follows the teacher / developer throughout the process of creating the
game, from the definition of scenarios, rules and content, until export of
the finished project for integration using e-learning systems such as
SCORM and Docebo. Researchers have developed E-Adventure with the
idea that the use of interactive adventure games makes the process of
13
Download manual at : http://www.brainmeld.org/TeachingGuideLibrary/BrainMeld-
AgeOfEmpires-Newmark.pdf
60
learning not only fun, but can stimulate cooperation and competition,
promote the development of adaptive learning and can even provide an
innovative mechanism for evaluating the learned skills.
Figure 5: Screenshot of the software design of E-Adventure
In the same category of open systems for making games based on
the principle of augmented reality is RoboProf 14
. This is an integrated
system of sensors, actuators and software with which you can build
augmented reality environments that can be used for the purposes
ofrecreation, education and rehabilitation. In essence, RoboProf allows
you to enhance the usual living spaces (games room, classrooms, gyms,
etc.) with objects that, when touched and stimulated by the user-player,
respond in various ways (such as producing sounds, turning on lights,
opening boxes, triggering video clips and making robots move). With
this instrument the educator or trainer can develop a type of "technology"
treasure hunt where players-students are encouraged to actively explore
the environment in which they are immersed, and the same exploratory
behaviour gradually puts them in contact with educational content and
teaching. For example, you can engage learners in acquiring the
14
Web Site: http://www.nac.unina.it/wandbot
61
vocabulary of a foreign language, in logical-mathematical problems and
in solving increasingly complex conceptual relationships between
different types of objects.
Currently, RoboProf is at the prototype stage and is being tested in
different institutions such as Italian schools, laboratories for cognitive
rehabilitation centres, and science centres (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Image showing a game designed with RoboProf for a famous science center
In the same category as RoboProf are various forms of application
of QRCode (Figure 6). A QR Code is a two-dimensional matrix barcode
consisting of black and white modules arranged in a square pattern.
These codes are used to store information that is generally intended to be
read with devices such as a mobile phone, smartphone or handheld
gaming consoles like the Sony PSP. The name is an acronym for QR
quick response, as the code was developed to allow rapid decoding of its
content. This application is already in use within curricula as it allows
easy provision of an immediate link to multimedia content. QRCode
labels can be used in addition to the normal paragraphs of text books so
62
as to provide links to other media formats (often Web sites or video) on
the subject matter. The QR Code can be implementedby using software
that generates the matrix with the link to the media. This can then be
printed on plain or adhesive paper and applied to various objects such as
books, maps, periodic tables and other models.
Although this type of tool is spreading due to its ease of use, more
importantly, this may be due to the fact that the decoding uses devices
now available to everyone such as the modern cell phone.
Figure 7: QR Code image
II.5. Conclusion
We have briefly presented and classified which types of video
games, programming environments and serious games can represent new
experiences in education and training.
We have also tried to define how new learning technologies can be
integrated into a training plan. However, the proposed classification is
not intended to provide a strict definition of categories. In fact, there are
role-playing games that incorporate computer simulations, or "closed"
systems that allow the user a high degree of customisation. It should also
be noted that the proposed technologies may only be a useful for
introductory training, and with familiarity, trainers will consciously and
autonomously find the best solution to their teaching contexts.
63
References
Greitzer F. L., Kuchar A. O. & Huston K. (2007). Cognitive science
implications for enhanc ing training effectiveness in a serious game al of
Educational Resources in Computing, 7(3).
Lund, H. H, Miglino, O., Pagliarini, L., Billard, A., Ijspeert A. (1997).
Evolutionary Robotics. - A Children Games. Proceedings of International
Conference on Evolutionary. Computation 1997, pp. 100-104. IEEE
Computer Society Press.
Miglino O., Di Ferdinando A., Rega A. & Benincasa B. (2007). SISINE:
teaching negotiation through a Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
In D. Remenyi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on e-
Learning, pp. 439-448, Academic Conferences Limited, Reading (UK).
Miglino O., Di Ferdinando A., Rega A. & Ponticorvo M. (2007). Le nuove
macchine per apprendere: simulazioni al computer, robot e videogiochi
multi-utente. Alcuni prototipi. Sistemi Intelligenti 1: 113-136.
Miglino, O., Rega, A., Nigrelli, M. (2010). Quali videogiochi possono essere
usati a sostegno dei processi di insegnamento/apprendimento. Una prima
classificazione. In Ferrari,G. ,Bouquet, P. ,Cruciani, M. ,Giardini, F.
(Ed.) Pratiche della Cognizione (pp. 62-66). ISBN 978-88-8443-349-7
Miglino, O., Walker, R., Venditti, A., Nigrelli, M., Rega, A. (2010). Teaching
to teach with technology – An EACEA project to promote advanced
technology in education. In A. Jimoyiannis (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th
Pan-Hellenic Conference with International Participation «ICT in
Education», vol.I, pp. 171-175 Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996).
Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital
world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Rega, A., Iacono, I., Scoppa,A., (2009) .Magic Glove: An Interactive
Hardware/Software System to Animate Objects. An Exploratory Study in
Rehabilitation Setting. In Proceedings of IDC 2009 – The 8th
International Conference on Interaction Design for Children pp. 313-316
.New York, NY, USA: ACM – ISBN:978-1-60558-395-2
Sica, L. S., Nigrelli, M. L., Rega, A., & Miglino, O. (2011). The “Teaching to
Teach with Technology” Project: Promoting Advanced Games
Technologies in Education. In Editore, S. (editor), ICT for Language
Learning
64
Sitography
Teaching to Tech with Technology (2010). T3 Project Home Page. Retrieved 1
Semtember 2010 from http://www.t3.unina.it
Digital Evolution Laboratory (2008). Avida Software home Page. Retrieved 1
October 2010 from http://devolab.msu.edu/
TILS (2009). The Dread-Ed Project. Retrieved 10 September 2010 from
http://www.dread-ed.eu
Wikipedia (2010).Age of Empites pages. Retrieved 1 October 2010 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires
Uri Wilensky(2010). NetLogo-multi-agent programmable modeling
environment. Retrieved 1 Semtember 2010 from
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
Eutopia-MT (2009). The Eutopia MT Project. Retrieved 10 June 2010 from
http://www.lanas.unina.it/eutopia
<e-Adventure>(2010). Educational game engine. Retrieved 1 Semtember 2010
from http://e-adventure.e-ucm.es/
65
PART TWO
HOW TO USE NEW TECHNOLOGIES: A TRAINING MODEL
66
67
III
A model for training in the use of new technology
Luigia Simona Sica, Maria Luisa Nigrelli, Orazio Miglino
III.1. Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to provide a guide to training in the use
of new technology in learning contexts.
As seen in the previous chapters, the teaching and learning
processes described use technology in ways that have been developed
with the aim of improving results.
However, these days the use of new technology in different
learning contexts seems to follow an improvised, unstructured path based
more on the initiative of teachers interested in technological development
than on an approved programme or previously established results. For
this reason, the T3 Project has tested a training model in different
learning scenarios (universities, schools and businesses) that has led to a
training programme of our own being drawn up.
This chapter briefly describes the results of work carried out in
the T3 project, describing the training procedure that was drawn up after
the European experimentation (Sica, Rega, Nigrelli & Miglino, 2011).
In subsequent chapters in the third part of this volume, the tests
performed during the project in three European contexts are described in
detail. These chapters serve to exemplify how to design, conduct and
complete a training programme.
68
III.2. The importance of training in the use of new technologies
The principles governing education and training programmes, as
seen in Chapter I, take into account not only the teacher’s attributes and
students’ demands, but also the context in which the educational/training
interaction takes place and the means used to foster this interaction.
Furthermore, the purpose of any training process is to achieve optimal
results, which in practice means effective learning by students, whether
this is in terms of understanding or in terms of reproduction and use of
the content learnt.
For this reason it seems appropriate to choose and use suitable
means of fostering learning (Sica, Delli Veneri and Miglino, in press). To
do this, in addition to traditional teaching and training tools, it is possible
to introduce innovative technological tools that can add to traditional
curricula new ways of creating knowledge, stimulating the motivation to
learn not only in “extrinsic” terms but also in “intrinsic” terms such as
enjoyment and “fun” while learning. This does not necessarily mean that
enjoyment and fun cannot be produced, obtained and stimulated through
traditional teaching methods, but we believe that in some specific
contexts - and particularly with young people today - the use of new
kinds of technology may be a means of communication with which they
are more familiar in ordinary, daily life.
We therefore consider that introducing new technology may lead
to new communication tools being used that already exist in other areas
of everyday life, a way of experimenting with new forms of knowledge
production and, not least, the possibility of creatively stimulating new
ideas and ways of teaching.
But to begin using new technology in real contexts it is necessary
to start by taking a step back, in other words not using direct
experimentation in learning contexts, but training the teaching staff and
all those who intend to use new technology in their own classes.
69
This training seems even more urgent, when teaching staff may
not be familiar with the use of technology in the way that, for
generational, cultural and educational reasons, many students are today.
III.3. Proposal for a training model
In putting forward a programme we first focus directly on training
teachers and then, indirectly, on applying new technology in teaching
contexts with students such as in schools, universities and businesses.
Teachers are therefore our first training priority.
The six-day training programme we propose below is based, as noted, on
an experiment carried out in the European context. In view of this, we
regard it as valid in that it leads to tangible results and, above all, that it
can be carried out in a short time, attracting the interest of teaching staff.
III.3.a. Who is it for?
This training programme can be used in any learning context, i.e.,
in all settings aimed at providing not only the theory and content
associated with the learning of a subject, but also acquiring empirical
knowledge through experimentation.
Within the scope of our T3 Project, we have worked
experimentally with school teachers, university lecturers and business
trainers. In all cases, the results have been positive. As seen in the last
chapter of this text, the programme has attracted the interest of teaching
staff and encouraged them to use technology in ‘real’ learning contexts
with students. It has resulted in the creation of specific curricula and
motivated teaching staff to introduce some specific kinds of technology
as part of their own teaching or training methods.
In summary, we have obtained encouraging results that have
reaffirmed our approach to this training programme itself as the basis for
drawing up training curricula that can be changed and adapted according
to real, specific teaching/learning situations.
70
III.3.b. Before starting
At this point, before explaining the training programme, it should
be noted that any learning environment requires flexibility on the part of
teachers and progressive knowledge of the context in which to plan a
training course that takes into account students’ resources and strengths,
but also their limitations and shortcomings.
Any didactic or pedagogical training in practice is based on this
knowledge of the context and the ability to stay flexible and in keeping
with the context of the teacher, lecturer or trainer. Any programme is
therefore intended as a guide, a starting point, a move towards creating
and adapting one’s own specific programme.
However, there are some guidelines in the training programme for
using new kinds of technology that have already been experimented with
and recorded. This provides a starting point and a means of avoiding
getting bogged down in unsuitable or ineffective initiatives. We ask you
to find a balance between individual creativity and drawing up prescribed
guidelines!
It is also important to note that the process of knowledge creation
is never a one-way process in which one simply transfers content to
another, but above all it is a process of joint construction of meaning and
content where all parties are involved and actively participate in
producing knowledge. Thus, teachers and students are involved in the
same way in the teaching and learning process and both are involved in
building a programme to be followed in order to achieve a common goal:
to know more about a particular topic.
III.4. Fundamental activities: getting to know the kinds of technology
and choosing the most suitable ones
In order to suggest using new technology in any learning
environment, it is necessary to know the potential this technology has
and its purposes, as well as to understand what it is for, how it is used,
71
and to assess how it can be used effectively in the particular "classroom"
context.
Therefore, we encourage all teachers firstly to explore new kinds
of technology, trying out some games and using some augmented reality
systems. To do this, you can find useful instructions in Chapter II of this
volume and in the interactive content on the net.
⇒⇒⇒⇒See the online contents at this link: http://www.t3.unina.it/videototurial
Exploring how the chosen kinds of technology work enables one
to understand their advantages and disadvantages, their potential and
limitations, and also the effect their use has on students.
The choice of technology, as explained in detail in Chapter II, is a
very delicate decision because we have to consider the suitability of a
technology’s functions to the purpose for which we intend to use it. Not
all kinds of technology serve the same teaching or training purpose or are
handled in the same way, or enable the same level of teacher/trainer
intervention. It is therefore important to carefully read the functions of
various types of technology before planning how to use them (see
Chapter II) and adapt them to the learning processes one aims to
encourage and facilitate (see Figure 1, Chapter II).
After choosing and experimenting with the most suitable
technology depending on the teaching or training purpose, one can plan
to use and experiment with the technology in the learning contexts
available.
III.5. Where, how and for how long: the six days of training
Table 1 summarises the six steps proposed for training in the use
of new forms of technology.
This lasts for six meetings, of about six hours' duration each,
during which one becomes familiariar with and reflects upon new kinds
of technology and upon experimentation with them in context.
72
Table 1– The training programme.
PHASES ACTIVITIES AIMS TO BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT
Step
one
Selection of
participants
(volunteers)
Use means of
invitation:
E.g.: E-mail invitation
1. Finding participants
actually interested in
using new technologies.
2. Creating a training
group
1. Time and space
links.
2. Outsourcing
options.
3. Number of
people participating
in the course
4. Planning group
or individual
activities
5. Planning
activities:
motivational aspects
PRELIMIN
ARY
PHASE -
ORGANIS
ATION &
PLANNIN
G
Step
two
Needs
analysis
Introduction to the course
Using questionnaires about
new technology:
E.g.: Questionnaires in
Appendix a
1. Discovering the
participants’ different
interests as regards the
technological
applications used in
teaching practice
2 Assessing their prior
knowledge about using
technology
3. Exploring one’s own
experience as regards
technology in general
INTROD
UCTION
[FIRST
DAY)
Step
three
Presenting
each kind of
technology in
detail,
accompanied
by specific
exercises
Drawing up an example of
applying the different kinds
of technology to one’s own
educational subject or
content
Group discussion on what
has been drawn up
Going from theory to
practice, creating
practical examples
DAY 2-3
Step
four
Creating
scenarios
Practical sessions:
Brainstorming on the
content
Choice of technology for
each student
Creating scenarios
Assessment through group
discussion of the
scenarios created
Giving the participants
the opportunity to create
real scenarios that can
be used in their own
learning contexts
1. Feedback (to
involve, motivate or
correct);
2. Instruments and
styles for teaching
(directed,
supportive, or
participative)
DAY 5-6
Step
five
Final
assessment
Assessment questionnaire:
See Appendix b,
"Satisfaction with
technology
questionnaire",
"Course evaluation
questionnaire"
Drawing conclusions
Verifying the effects of
the training
DAY 6
73
The next chapter explains the programme in detail with the school
used as an example of a learning setting. The methodological approach is
regarded as transferable and can be used in any setting that intends to
encourage learning with new kinds of technology. The details that appear
in Chapter IV can be used as a guide and in the third part of this volume
there are specific examples of how to apply the model in school,
university and business settings. Box 1 gives a summarised guide of the
main steps in the training of teaching staff.
III.6. Before and after: the importance of assessment
Any programme carried out for a specific purpose, as when
planning an educational/training programme, needs to compare the
"before" and "after", i.e., to be able to assess and verify if the stated
objectives have been achieved completely, partially or not at all.
Assessment is a very important point that provides useful
indicators for changing the programme, and also for discovering what
students’ needs may be, what skills the programme has effectively
stimulated, and therefore for assessing how to act in future with creativity
and innovation in teaching processes.
For this reason, we suggest that before an educational course
begins, useful materials are used to gather information (see Appendix a),
with the help of specific questionnaires that enable one to describe the
basis the users have as regards the exact content one intends to promote
in the course.
On completion of the training, some of the materials or
questionnaires can be used again to assess gains (either in quantitative or
qualitative terms) in knowledge about the specific content that one
intended to promote using new kinds of technology (see Appendix b).
III.7. Conclusions
This chapter has presented the guidelines for a training model for
teaching staff. This outline is given in greater detail in Chapter IV. The
74
model proposed provides a basis applicable to settings such as schools,
universities and businesses.
Moreover, when planning it is always necessary to consider
features related to the context and users, and to make a final choice
regarding the kinds of technology that can be used to meet the
educational objectives and to motivate students. It is also advisable to
conduct "pre-" and "post-" training assessment in order to provide clues
that may help in subsequent training and suggestions for introducing new
kinds of technology in real contexts and for creating customised
curricula.
It should also be noted that the most important step is to learn to
become familiar with new technology and to be aware that these are the
means, instruments and tools that enable content to be transmitted and to
create new content. Technology is not content in itself, nor does it
substitute the ongoing dialogue between teacher and student. The latter is
in the end a unique system in which knowledge is constructed jointly and
not simply transmitted.
75
References
Sica, L. S., Delli Veneri, A., Miglino, O. (in stampa) “Exploring new
technological tools for education: Some prototypes and their pragmatical
classification”. In Elvis Pontes (eds.),E-learning / Book 1 , Technological
Research Institute of São Paulo (IPT), São Paulo, Brazil. ISBN 979-953-
307-241-7.
Sica, L.S., Nigrelli, M.L., Rega, A., Miglino, O. (2011). The “Teaching to
Teach with Technology” Project: Promoting Advanced Games
Technologies in Education. Proceedings International Conference “The
future of Education”, Firenze, Italy: Simonelli Editore - University Press,
vol. 2, 169-173.
76
77
IV
Developing innovation in technology-use and learning in
the school setting
John Jessel
IV.1. The UK context
The school setting is one that is unique in terms of its breadth of
compass. Unlike other workplaces or other educational settings, schools
in the UK, as well as in many other countries, are entrusted with the
responsibility of enabling students to become conversant with and to
develop understandings in a variety of fields or subject areas and to
develop in their maturity as learners and as expressive and creative
individuals. In addition to this the school curriculum is also one that is
charged with attending to the pastoral needs and moral welfare of
students, as well as to their development in their own right as citizens.
The school has also to cater for students with very differing backgrounds,
interests, abilities, ages and very differing levels of maturation. Over
their years of schooling, students will have developed markedly and in
many different ways. Regardless of any technology, the implications of
this for methods of teaching and learning are huge.
78
In this chapter the challenges of introducing a new technology into
the school setting are examined. At one level there are the issues
connected with finding opportunities for schools and teachers to take up
and develop the use of a new technology. At another level consideration
has to be given to the design of a training programme for teachers so that
the technology can be utilised effectively for student learning.
In view of the range of demands upon schools it would perhaps be
surprising if the introduction of any new technology into the school
setting would be met with predictable and uniform widespread success.
Indeed, despite major investment, the use of innovative technology and
e-learning is relatively patchy (Ofsted, 2009). Moreover, each school is
very different: while a given technology for learning may work
effectively in one setting this does not guarantee it will work well in
another. The need for the effective integration of technology in the UK
school curriculum has been a recurrent concern of different governments
over recent years. In a strategy paper published in 2005 the belief was
stated that future development of ICT in education could ‘transform
teaching and learning and help improve outcomes for children and young
people, through shared ideas, more exciting lessons and online help for
professionals’ (DfES, 2005: 4).
Although there has since been a change of government, with the
current Schools White Paper (DfE, 2010) not directly specifying a role
for technology, the pervasiveness and availability of technology made
available through initiatives following the 2005 Strategy raises key
questions about the part technology can continue to play.
With regard to promoting the use of new digital technology in the
school setting, successful innovation in teaching and learning does not
occur in isolation. It has long been recognised that innovation involving a
new technology brings with it new materials, new practices and new
beliefs and understandings (Fullan & Smith, 1999). This means that
simply knowing how to use a new piece of hardware or software is not
enough to enable teachers to use the technology effectively in the
classroom. In particular, as Oswald (2003) has reported, it is the
pedagogical issues rather than the technological changes that are
79
essential to technology integration into classrooms. With the current
availability of advanced technologies, knowing how to use a piece of
equipment may be acquired through personal use. However, closing the
gap between this and classroom use requires teachers to develop their
knowledge of pedagogical practices across many aspects of their
planning, implementation and evaluation (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010). The notion of innovation within the remit of the T3 Project, then,
is expressed as much by the teaching approaches disseminated as it is by
the technologies themselves.
There is, however, a further element in the successful introduction
of new practices involving technologies that are widely and readily
available in the real world. This relates to the fact that teachers and
students already live in a world that is pervaded by the discourse and
artefacts of innovation. In view of this they will have already developed
knowledge, understandings and perceptions drawn from a variety of
sources. We are therefore operating within a landscape of attitudes and
expectations that have to be acknowledged and managed. A successful
teaching programme then, in addition to taking account of the technology
and the pedagogy, will also need to take account of the social and
cultural dynamics to which all those involved, including partners on the
T3 Project, will inevitably contribute. In sum, developing innovative
practice is a potentially sophisticated and complex process that has to be
negotiated rather than imposed.
IV.2. Entering the school setting
The focus of the T3 Project in the UK is on mainstream secondary
schooling. This represents an important stage before students enter
further or higher education such as university and where, to a greater
extent, they will be expected to work independently. With regard to the
use of technology, it is at this stage where establishing more productive
patterns of technology-use can have lasting benefits. As noted, secondary
schools in the UK typically have an intake of students with a wide
variety of interests and abilities and from a wide variety of backgrounds,
80
and these are reflected in the demands that are made upon teachers.
Students usually fall within the 11 to 18 age-range and for their first five
years up to the age of 16 follow a wide range of subjects across the
curriculum before specialising in a smaller subset of subjects for their
final two years up to the age of 18. Teaching is largely subject-based
with maths, English and science regarded as a core. Some teaching may
be cross curricula, such as in the form of a project, and other work of a
cross-curricula nature may occur in schools that have some form of a
baccalaureate scheme, but these instances are less frequent. For students
up to the age of 16, schools are required to meet the requirements of a
National Curriculum which stipulates the provision of the range of
subjects. Concepts and content are outlined for each subject but schools
may use different teaching approaches and different course materials. In
addition to regular assemblies with larger groups of students, many
schools also have short ‘form’ or ‘tutor’ period on a daily basis where, in
addition to administrative matters such as registration, activities of a
more general or pastoral nature may take place.
The schools that were targeted were either in, or close to London
and could be regarded as fairly typically mainstream. Apart from one
being for girls and another for boys, the remainder of the schools that
participated were non-selective with pupils of mixed sex from a variety
of backgrounds. The main computer facilities in these schools, again
fairly typical, consisted of one or two rooms dedicated as IT suites with
approximately thirty machines, thereby allowing individual student
access for those classes that were booked these facilities. An alternative
provision in these schools, and representative of a current trend, was a set
of laptop computers that could be borrowed and used in the normal class
setting. Apart from the larger clusters of computers, most classrooms had
a single machine with a data projector. All computers were networked.
Access by students to IT equipment outside of lesson time was usually
limited to a handful of machines in locations such as a library.These
might be available during breaks between lessons but not usually after
school hours.
81
IV.2.a. Selecting a technology to be developed by teachers
Rather than imposing the use of a specific technology regardless of
expressed need, initial investigations was carried out in order to find out
what technologies might be regarded as innovative or advanced, but were
also currently available in schools and where there might be benefits
from further development of their use. Staff from the City Learning
Centre for the area were consulted about possible candidate technologies.
The Centre supported the development of the use of digital technologies
across all schools covering the area of London for which it had
responsibility. Staff from the Centre worked closely with teachers on a
frequent and regular basis and were considered to be aware of current
needs and classroom concerns. It was also regarded as important to gauge
directly from teachers what technologies teachers they might be
interested in using and so discussions were also carried out independently
with teachers in prospective schools in order to identify any other
technologies they might suggest.
There appeared to be a widespread interest in developing the use of
the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). This technology was also in
line with a need expressed as part of a strategy by the UK Government’s
then Department for Education and Skills (DfES, 2005) for a common
digital infrastructure or ‘learning platform’ to support transformation and
reform within schools. Rather than being a singular product, learning
platforms were taken to include a collection of tools, integrated web-
based applications and interactive online services. Also referred to as
Virtual Learning Environments, or sometimes as Managed Learning
Environments (MLEs) or Managed Virtual Learning Environments
(MVLEs), the intention was that these could provide teachers, learners,
parents and others involved in education with information, tools and
resources to support and enhance teaching and learning as well as its
management and administration (Jewett et al., 2009). VLEs are typically
closed to an institution and in that sense regarded as relatively secure and
different rights can be given to users such as students, teachers and more
remote potential users such as parents or carers. Well-known systems in
82
the UK university sector are Blackboard and Moodle, while systems such
as Frog, Fronter and SIMS Learning Gateway are available in many
schools. Although there are differences between each system, most have
the facilities noted above and for the purposes of this article VLEs will
be treated generically.
In the years following the 2005 Strategy, VLEs have been
introduced into the primary and secondary sectors and the number of
schools equipped in England and Wales has increased steadily.
According to a survey carried out by Becta in 2010, ownership of a VLE
had reached 67 per cent for primary and 93 per cent for secondary
schools, an increase of 14 per cent from the previous year (Becta, 2010).
While the use of VLEs in universities and colleges is relatively
established (UCISA, 2008; 2010), this is not the case in many schools
today (Ofsted, 2009). According to the 2010 Becta survey, while the use
for uploading and storing digital learning resources for lessons and
homework is frequent, communication between learners and discussion
forums are used less frequently. The same survey also reported that
nearly three quarters of secondary school senior leaders regarded the use
of a learning platform as a top priority for the coming three years (Becta,
2010).
There is therefore scope for exploring the potential of VLE
technology to be used in ways that meet the wide range of demands
within schools in terms of curriculum and approaches to teaching and
learning. In terms of innovation, the importance of VLEs arises from
their connectivity; as computer-based systems they offer facilities such as
e-mail, bulletin boards, forums and newsgroups together with ways of
storing and presenting course materials. In many respects, and in contrast
to the internet of the last decade, as a manifestation of Web 2.0
technology they allow exchanges that are many to many or ‘interactive’
rather the than one-to-many characteristic of a ‘broadcast’ (Selwyn,
2008).
83
IV.2.b. Needs analysis
Following the initial discussions about a possible candidate
technology, a needs analysis that included a small-scale survey was given
to a sample of 30 teachers representing a range of curriculum specialisms
and teaching experience in the 5 schools that would be participating in
the T3 Project.
The questionnaire used for the survey was designed to find out
what kind of technology was available, whether it was currently used and
whether the technology itself, or its use, were perceived as innovative.
Further questions addressed those technologies teachers were interested
in becoming more familiar with. With regard to the VLE, it was found
that the technology was available in all of the schools surveyed and that
it had been used by around half (17) of the teachers.All of the teachers
reported their perceptions of the technology as innovative but only three
teachers regarded their own use as innovative. Most teachers (28) stated
that they were interested in finding out more about VLEs.
Use of the VLE was also of interest insofar that it encompasses a
range of other technologies; in particular, the communicative potential of
the VLE was recognised and linked to the read/write capabilities of Web
2.0 technologies. Some teachers, for example, regarded the classroom
use of YouTube as innovative and they saw the use of this kind of facility
as something that could be embedded within the VLE. Similarly, it was
felt that links between the use of hand-held devices such as smartphones
and Play Station Portables could also be made with the VLE.
IV.2.c. VLE as the focus technology
In view of the widespread availability and interest it was decided to
focus on the VLE within the T3 Project. A further quality of the VLE is
that together with its associated technologies its use could be developed
within and across a range of curriculum areas. The Project work would
therefore explores the issues of VLE-use at a time when the technology is
expected to play a major role in learning. In particular, attention would
84
also be given to the communicative function of the VLE at a time when
strategies for realising its potential for learning are relatively unexplored.
IV.3. Developing a training course
Given the choice of the VLE as the focus technology, the main
challenges are two fold. Firstly, strategies for using it effectively in the
school setting have to be identified, developed and imparted. Connected
with this is the need to understand more fully why the technology may or
may not function as anticipated in different teaching contexts and, in the
light of this, to develop methods that might help establish ways or
working that may take advantage of the distinctive contributions that e-
learning technology could make. Secondly, the development of
innovation in technology use has to be done in a way that empowers
teachers. In relation to this, attention would also be given in trying to
understand the issues facing teachers in the classroom. In addition to the
above main aims it was also intended to monitor how the course worked
at teacher and student level and how the work might interlock with senior
management and at policy level.
With regard to the school setting, for any one subject, students
attend lessons spread over many months and which are punctuated by
lessons in other subjects that might not be related. This stands in contrast
to some of the shorter intensive training programmes that may exist in
industry. The value of a given technology may be enhanced if it can be
used over a period of time and adapted in relation to different needs
within a given subject area. In turn, assessment of the effectiveness of the
technology will need to embrace a variety of learning outcomes; some
developing slowly (and not always easily identifiable) over a longer
period of time.
Distributed use, as opposed to intensive use, relates to different
parts of a curriculum area with a wide range of learning outcomes that
could involve different modes of use of a technology. It could take time
for teachers to establish how particular technologies may be applied and
used effectively with a large number of students where the availability of
85
resources may be limited. The limited availability and reliability of
resources may also compromise extended habitual or coherent use of a
given technology. While some of these problems may be offset with
students in further or higher education having access to the technology
outside timetabled sessions, these may be less easy to resolve in the
secondary schools where alternative access to equipment could be very
limited.
IV.4. Course principles
Teachers as experts
Developing the use of a technology in the school setting not only
requires expertise in the technology itself, but also an expertise in the
curriculum to be taught and the school context, including what can be
expected from a widely varying group of students. A training course
must therefore recognise and build on the expertise of teachers. Cuban
(2001) regards teachers’ perspectives as essential to the success of
integrating technology into the classroom. In this case he has noted that
the kinds of questions teachers ask when considering the use of computer
technology in their classrooms range from its reliability to its versatility,
whether the technology can be used in more than one teaching situation,
and whether the use of the technology will weaken classroom authority.
Without attention to these kinds of details the risk of earlier failures in
the uptake of a new technology are liable to be repeated.
In addition to the teacher’s agenda there is, of course, the agenda of
a training program. Rather than being at odds, these agendas can be seen
in terms of a common purpose. Through this common purpose there is
scope for ownership, where training is negotiated according to need
rather than pre-defined. In Chapter 1 the idea that practice could be
improved by people who have a common professional goal engaging in
shared enquiry and learning was considered in relation to a community of
practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; 1998). This idea is also echoed in
Newmann, King & Young’s (2000) contention that innovation in the
86
work setting can be realised through becoming part of such a
professional community. With regard to new technologies, Schlager and
Fusco’s (2004) view of a community of practice as evolving and self-
reproducing and distinct from and extending beyond formal
organisational structures is also pertinent. Members of a community can
come from different organisations drawn together for social and
professional reasons. New practices are brought into the community by
leaders, newcomers and outsiders and adopted by the community through
the discourse of its members and the evolution of practice over time.
From the perspective of a community of practice, work and professional
development are inextricably linked with those with whom one works.
This confluence can also be seen as central to the development of
innovative practice in schools. Teachers will bring experience and
expertise into the group setting and contribute along with those who have
expertise in the technology. In this sense the training course can be seen
as a community of practice where experts work together to further
develop their expertise. However, this process of development is also
ongoing. For example, Mueller et al., (2008) have noted that because the
available technology is always being developed then teachers are
perpetual novices in the process of technology integration. Mueller at
al.’s observation can also apply to the trainer’s role when introducing the
technology. In this sense teachers and technology specialists can be seen
as both experts and novices. This was seen as an important guiding
principle in terms of how the T3 Course was approached.
In situ training and sustainability
Teaching demands can vary considerably according to each school.
Although the requirements of the National Curriculum have to be met,
the way these are achieved will vary and may depend, for example, on
the nature of the students and the materials and resources available. In
view of this, there could be cosiderable benefits in situating the training
as far as possible within the school setting normally used by the teachers
and in relation to the teaching methods and materials used in different
87
curriculum areas. A uniform or common training input delivered off-site
to a group was considered to be less likely to be effective. Although more
labour intensive, it was judged that the costs would be offset through not
having to rely on third party facilities and, importantly, through the level
of commitment and ownership that might occur. Training could be
adjusted in accordance with local conditions and needs with an increased
element of realism. Such an approach is supported by empirical evidence
of the effectiveness of ‘authentic professional learning’ that is situated
within the workplace (Webster-Wright, 2009). Here, genuine problems
can emerge with individuals engaged in addressing these as part of their
professional practice (Burbank & Kauchak, 2003). It was thought that
training situated in this way could engage teachers to the extent that they
would, in turn, further disseminate or cascade their skills to others within
the same institution. This has implications for sustainability and also
attunes with the growing move within schools towards more internal
continuing professional development. Linked in more formally at policy
level, such as through a school’s development plan there is the possibility
of establishing a self-perpetuating model.
Curriculum-led
Of importance to teachers is the curriculum that is taught, and part
of situating training in the school setting is acknowledging that
curriculum. Although the nature and content of a curriculum can vary,
the key point here is that the intention is not to introduce the technology
as an entity that is separated from its use. Many attempts have been made
to teach computers and information technology as a separate subject.
However, the success of such a decontextualized approach relies heavily
on learners being able to transfer of what is taught to other subject areas.
Hammond and Mumtaz (2001), for example have noted that, with this
approach, not only were the purposes of learning about the various IT
applications not likely to be communicated to students but also transfer
of what was learned in IT as a separate subject to other subjects was
often problematic.
88
In view of the importance of subject-based aspects of the secondary
curriculum the strategies adopted within the T3 Project were designed to
accommodate this. As the school curriculum can include elements than
span different subject areas, and also includes PSHE and other activities
outside the subject classroom such as tutorial sessions, it was recognised
that, in turn, a curriculum-led approach could also addess these aspects.
The starting point, then, was that any innovative methods would initially
relate to existing curriculum objectives and their assessment. Through
this the technology-use could be regarded as an essential component that
could play an enhancing role rather that something of interest but
ultimately dispensable when teachers are faced with other pressures.
Curriculum transformation
Strict adherence to an existing curriculum, however, is ultimately
backward-looking in nature and would fail to take account of any new
challenges and practices that arise as a result of the impact of technology
itself. In this sense the scope for curriculum transformation and the
consolidation of this are also regarded as important. A curriculum-led
approach is therefore seen more as a starting point.
The notion of curriculum transformation brings with it questions
regarding what is meant by ‘curriculum’ and views on this vary widely
(e.g., Marsh, 2009; Pinar, 2004). In a formal sense, a curriculum can
specify the learning that is expected to occur during a course or
programme of study. Taken at this level the curriculum would be no
more than a content list, or syllabus, with little guidance to distinguish
between items judged to be more important and those more trivial. If
what is to be learned is seen simply as a body of content then education
becomes a matter of transmission or delivery and how this can be made
most effective (Blenkin et al., 1992).
The idea of curriculum as the achievement of an end product has
emerged from the work of those such as Bobbitt (1918; 1928) and Tyler
(1949). This linked closely with analysing various tasks into component
parts that could be systematically managed. Many training programs of
the day were concerned with systematic management of the uptake of
89
these component elements within the work setting. While this might have
been seen as a recipe for efficiency for particular groups of employees in
certain work settings, it leaves very little scope for the learner to have a
‘voice’ and operate creatively. Taken to extreme there is very little room
for manoeuvre in the role of the teacher who would then become an
administrator.
More recently, elaborated sets of end products or behavioural
objectives developed by those such as Bloom (1956) have continued to
have influence, and learning objectives and competences remain a live
part of educational discourse. While there are attractions in the
preciseness to which learning can be specified and assessed, the
criticisms that are often voiced refer to an undue emphasis on long lists
of trivial competences that are easily measurable while higher levels of
learning involving problem solving and creativity that are more difficult
to express satisfactorily as behavioural objectives can be marginalised
(Kelly, 2009; Marsh, 2009).
An alternative to a product model is a process model (Stenhouse,
1975) whereby students and teachers can play a part in deciding the
nature of the learning activities they engage in and where the emphasis is
more on learning skills as students and teachers work together. Here
there is also scope for raising the level of activity in terms of cognitive
involvement through problem solving and creativity as well as scope for
the teacher to bring their own vision into the learning arena. As
Stenhouse would acknowledge, to be effective this can make greater
demands upon the teacher, and, finding suitable content in some areas to
which activities can be related can have its difficulties (Neary, 2002).
The part played by social context in relation to the curriculum has
been emphasised by Cornbleth (1990: 5) as ‘an ongoing social process
comprised of interactions of students, teachers, knowledge and milieu’.
Similarly, if there is scope for the voice of the student and the teacher
then a variety of attributes such as learning styles, strengths, preferences
and age will influence the way people receive, create and share
knowledge which in turn will impact upon the curriculum (Dede, 2005).
90
The curriculum then, far from being a fixed entity, can be viewed as
something that is negotiable and shaped by context.
With regard to the communicative technologies characteristic of
Web 2.0 the fluidity of the curriculum is further extended. Curriculum
experiences are no longer confined to the school or the classroom. As
Kennedy (2005) has noted, there is an increasing gap between ‘official’
knowledge imparted by the school and ‘real-world’ knowledge available
to students through technology that in turn raises curriculum issues where
individual control is more powerful. A ‘hidden curriculum’ arising from
exposure to a physical or social environment, or the ‘culture and ethos of
an organisation’ such as a school, can bring with it norms, beliefs,
attitudes and values and expectations that may be acquired (Seddon,
1983). Similarly, the impact of technology on the modus operandi of
learning can bring with it a hidden curriculum where attitudes to
knowledge, its arbiters and its availability are taken for granted and in
turn impact upon more formal aspects of a curriculum.
In sum, the curriculum is not a singular agreed entity. There may
be very little consensus on what should be learned and the way that it
should be learned. While some aspects of the curriculum may be subject
to conscious control others may elude this. In turn the impact of
technology may be wide-ranging; sometimes in ways that are predictable
and sometimes less so. The experience of learning can also in turn be
impacted upon by the existence and use of technology. Sometimes the
use of technology may enhance learning by allowing it to take place
more efficiently and reliably. Alternatively, in view of the different forms
that a curriculum can take, the use of technology could also transform
learning.
From whole to part
Technological devices can appear very complex; exploration of the
menus of even the most familiar applications such as wordprocessors and
spreadsheets very quickly reveals an overwhelming range of options and
facilities, many of which are likely to appear meaningless to many users.
The VLE is no exception. When confronted by such a technology it may
91
appear inherently logical to analyse in detail how it can be operated and
then present a sequence of tasks of increasing difficulty and technical
complexity until a complete end goal is reached when the learner is
assumed to be in total control. This thinking underlies a ‘systems
approach’ or instructional design (Gagné, 1985) based on a hierarchical
model of tasks and can be a tempting feature in training programs.
An alternative to approaching technology-use by beginning with an
extensive series of sub-skills is through taking a conceptual approach
where certain procedures are used in relation to a need or intention
arising within a meaningful context of use. The ‘concept’ in this case
would relate to a particular function of the technology rather than
precisely how it might be achieved. This approach can be linked to a
constructivist perspective (e.g., Brooks & Brooks, 1993) with the learner
moving from whole to part by initially seeking larger patterns that have
meaning within which something new can be integrated. A more
meaningful framework for new knowledge is likely to be constructed if
this is driven more directly and interactively by our own ideas
(Johannsen et al., 1999).
Using either a systems approach or a constructivist approach can
be seen as extremes and many approaches to learning and teaching can
fall in between. Grubb (2008) for example refers to evidence of the
positive effects of more ‘balanced’ approaches that are applicable in a
variety of learning contexts and where teachers have more control over
the curriculum. In these cases, though, specific skills and procedures are
acquired in combination with a broader conceptual understanding.
The ideas and thinking and the intentions for their own classrooms
that teachers bring to the implementation of new technology are
important driving forces in its uptake. In view of this an approach that
emphasises the move from whole to part was to be adopted in the T3
course. Although concerns could arise as a result of apparent gaps in
operational knowledge of the technology, within the time available it was
thought more productive to encourage the development of a broader
conceptual frame within which meaningful use of the VLE could be
sited. The parallel that came to mind was that many seasoned users of
92
applications such as wordprocessors and spreadsheets manage very
successfully without needing to know all the operational intricacies.
A theoretical framework
A further design consideration underlying the T3 course concerned
the quality of student engagement and learning. In response to the earlier
suggestion that pedagogical issues rather than technological changes are
essential to effective technology integration (Oswald, 2003) there are
grounds for invoking some of the differing perspectives on learning that
underlie pedagogical practice. These, of course, were introduced in
Chapter 1 and the summary diagram (Figure 1 in that chapter) was
considered a central component of the course. The idea was not to
introduce any of the learning perspectives in detail but to use the diagram
as a means of activating the key concepts and a means of articulating
these. The main idea was to draw attention to a principal feature of the
framework that different technologies can be used in many different
ways within the learning context. Importantly, the framework made
provision for the capacity of the VLE for connectivity so bringing in a
further social and collaborative dimension into learning. The framework,
then, allows a given technology to be mapped anywhere within a social
and paradigmatic space for learning according to how it is used; there is
no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ place for any one technology. In other words it is
the ‘technology-use’ rather than the technology itself that is mapped into
the space delineated by the summary diagram.
At a more theoretical level, identification of learning goals and
assessment opportunities were also included in the sessions as were
considerations of the role of the student, the teacher and the technology
in relation to these.
Field trials
Field trials prototyping resources and methods with the teachers
and students were planned in conjunction with the workshops. It was
anticipated that these would provide important feedback and allow for
refinement of teaching strategies any materials produced. They would
93
also allow an opportunity for the student’s perspective to feature within
the Project.
IV.5. Summary
Implementation of a successful training programme has to operate
at a number of levels. Consideration has to be given to the capacity of an
institution such as a school to take on board an innovation. The nature of
the innovation itself has also to be carefully considered; in this case a
needs analysis leading to the selection of an appropriate technology.
Developing innovative practice has its costs in terms of a school’s
resources, notably the availability of teachers and, in turn, the effect this
may have on the continuity of maintaining high quality cover for students
by experienced and established staff. Innovation invariably occurs in
context of other initiatives, pressures or changes within an institution
rather than in isolation. In view of this, points of entry and their timing
have to be negotiated. Linked with this is the breadth of demands upon a
school, many of which are not predictable and have to be accommodated
on a day-to-day basis. As a result, some flexibility in scheduling of course
provision may be necessary.
Then there is the design of the training programme itself. At a
fundamental level trainers are not simply passing on an established body
of knowledge: trainers collaborate with teachers; there is a sense in
which both are experts and both can be novices learning from each other
by bringing together curriculum, teaching and technical experience. In
this way the notion of training can be reframed as a jointly creative
enterprise. Through creating something new there is an opportunity for
all participants to gain a sense of ownership of what is produced within
the course. Through this a sense of collective responsibility for the
sessions can emerge. The benefits of in situ training have been put
forward together with their implications for sustainability. The
importance of the context where training takes place is expressed through
a curriculum-led approach, but importantly, this is an approach where
scope for curriculum transformation is recognised. It is also recognised
94
that meaningful involvement in human learning can defy a logic of
learning as a simple accretion of factual detail such as that needed to
operate a technological device. The alternative to this part-to-whole
approach that then presents itself is the move from whole-to-part. The
whole can be seen as a common and meaningful purpose sought within a
community of practice. Finally, with regard to the pedagogical practice
that inevitable accompanies the use of a new technology, it has been
argued that there is a need for a summary theoretical framework on
learning perspectives.
Box 1 shows the outline of a course developed in relation to the
above principles. The course was run with teachers in schools and the
technology trialled with students and carefully monitored. The data from
this are presented and discussed in Chapter 5.
Box 1
Suggested Teaching Programme Structure (UK Schools)
Day 1
Introduction to the Project; its background, aims and goals.
A curriculum-led approach to the use of technology: in other words the
aim is to use the technology to enhance and develop and existing
curriculum or programme of study that the teachers are teaching. Discuss
the implications of this in relation to them thinking about specific course
topics that they might consider relating the use of the technology to.
Learning models and the use of new technology: introduce
diagram showing the framework drawing out both cognitive and social
aspects of learning.
Introduce ways of classifying technology-use in relation to
educational paradigm and social/collaborative learning skills. Explain
that the intention is to map the technologies that will be used into this
two dimensional space in the framework diagram, aiming to exploit the
dimensions as fully as possible.
95
Introduce examples of the technology and the main concepts
underlying its use. This introduction will not address how to use the
technology; precise operational and technical details will be introduced
later on and within the course planning context.
Teachers work as a group to identify through discussion possible
curriculum areas and objectives or learning outcomes to which a selected
technology could be applied. This is an idea-raising session: the
technique is to note down as many ideas as possible without trying to
filter them in terms of their appropriateness, practicality etc. The ideas
are then reviewed in terms of the extent to which they are appropriate
and realisable.
Technology introduced in more detail: this may be by carrying
out a simple activity, or by producing a basic example of a resource
based on the teachers’ initial ideas, or by seeing the use of the technology
with students modelled.
More viable ideas are selected and considered regarding
sequencing and timing in relation to a specific part of the curriculum to
be taught. Learning outcomes considered in terms of their perceived
importance (more trivial outcomes discounted) and the extent to which
students’ progress in these outcomes is likely to be formally assessed.
Plenary: teachers share key issues arising and link these to the
theoretical and pedagogical issues introduced earlier in the day. Teachers
identify any course documents or other materials that they will need in
for further work with the new technology in the next session.
Day 2
The focus of the day’s sessions is on developing specific
curriculum applications of the selected technology. It is workshop-based
and teachers may need to bring the curriculum documents that they are
required to address in their courses.
The session begins with a discussion to clarify learning outcomes
to be addressed and the resources to be prepared. The value in this
discussion is in the sharing or ideas and approaches with a view to
96
teachers developing a broader awareness of the possibilities of a
particular technology.
Teachers devise and prepare resources, ways of working and teaching
plans for use with their students. This will be done in small common-
interest subgroups. In line with the principle of the work with the
technology being curriculum-led, this is likely to involve detailed
reference to course documents and other materials that the teachers
normally work with. The tutor plays a supporting role sharing
information and technical knowledge.
Teachers test the resources and methods of using them on each
other or between subgroups and obtain feedback. Discuss ideas for
further developing and refining the methods and resources and identify
tasks to be carried out in relation to this in the next session. (Further
examples of new technologies or software may need to be considered
here.)
General discussion and debriefing and sharing ideas on the
teaching methods and roles of the technology, the teacher and the student
within the context of the technology use.
Teachers identify and note points regarding the use of the
technology that they would wish to pass on to other teachers who had not
used the technology before. Teachers work with the tutor to begin a
document drawing together the above points.
Day 3
Discussion on the main planned learning outcomes and how they
will be achieved using the technology. Consider how the learning
outcomes map onto the two-dimensional space in the Framework
diagram.
Discussion on the opportunities and methods for assessment of
the learning outcomes and continued work on devising and refining
resources, ways of working and teaching plans.
Teachers test the resources, including methods of assessment, on
each other or and obtain feedback. Discuss ideas for further developing
97
and refining the methods, resources and means of assessment. Identify
further tasks to be carried out in relation to the above issues in the next
session.
General discussion, debriefing and sharing ideas on the teaching
methods and resources with a focus on the methods of assessment. In
particular the extent to which the assessment methods address aspects
such as depth of understanding, problem solving and creativity in
addition to retention of knowledge and development of discrete skills
will be considered in relation to what the teachers have specifically
developed and in relation to the scope for further development or
technology-related activities.
Teachers identify and note further points regarding the use of the
technology and assessment that they would wish to pass on to other
teachers who had not used the technology before.
Day 4
Teachers begin with a brief recap on the main intended learning
outcomes and methods of assessment and how they will be achieved
using the technology.
Discussion on the role of the student as a collaborator in learning,
rather than acting just as an individual. The implications of the social
dimension within learning will be discussed in relation to the framework
for innovation and the learning culture or community that the teachers
may wish to develop amongst their students.
In relation to the idea of a learning culture, there will be a
discussion on the extent to which the andragogic principles identified in
relation to the framework are applicable to the students and the teaching
and learning setting in view of the interaction modalities afforded by new
technologies.
In line with the framework for innovation, wider issues on
assessment including peer involvement will be discussed and
opportunities for using such methods identified.
98
Finalise the materials, resources and methods for initial trials with
students. This will include planned assessments on how students can
demonstrate their learning, the criteria for student assessment, and
methods of record keeping.
Discuss and introduce the data gathering methods to be used by
teachers in the initial trial period.
Teachers identify and note further points regarding the use of the
technology that they would wish to pass on to other teachers who had not
used the technology before.
(INITIAL TRIAL PERIOD – Teachers teach a segment of a course where
the technology is used and gather data)
Day 5
Evaluation of the methods and materials introduced and trialled
with students. This may take account of factors such as resource
demands, ease of use of the technology and its reliability, planning time
needed, the number of students that can be supported concurrently in any
one teaching session, student accomplishment, student feedback, etc.
Discuss, plan or carry out any further development of resources,
ways of working and teaching plans for use with students in the light of
the evaluation. (approx. 1 hour)
Discuss, plan and refine the teaching method and ways of
enabling effective roles of the teacher, the student and the technology
within the context of the technology-use. (approx. 30 mins)
Discuss, plan or refine the assessment process and the criteria for
student assessment. (approx. 1 hour)
Review the coverage of the curriculum area/s or the possible uses
of a given technology across the curriculum. Identify further areas for
development and prepare materials or methods that could be used in a
further trial period.
99
In relation to the initial trial, teachers identify and note further
points regarding the use of the technology that they would wish to pass
on to other teachers who had not used the technology before.
(FURTHER TRIAL PERIOD – Teachers either use materials or methods that have been
further developed or refined, or, with additional segments of the course, trial instances
where innovative technology or methods are used and gather data)
Day 6
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the refined or additional
methods and materials.
Complete a short questionnaire on the design and usability of the
software.
Final session to further develop resources, ways of working or
teaching plans for use with students in the light of the evaluation.
Similarly, refine the teaching methods and roles of the teacher and the
student within the context of the technology-use, and the assessment
process and the criteria for student assessment.
Finalisation of teaching resources and methods, including the
drafting of any explanatory material or user interfaces, so that these can
be used by other teachers.
In relation to the initial trial, teachers identify and note further
points regarding the use of the technology that they would wish to pass
on to other teachers who had not used the technology before. Teachers
continue work with the tutor to finalise the document drawing together
relevant points including those on assessment and social dimensions in
learning.
Discuss methods of teacher dissemination to other teaching
colleagues and collate key points to be appended to the above document.
Evaluate the T3 Teaching Programme. This is based on the goals
and criteria detailed in the T4.1 Methodology document and will utilise
the course evaluation questionnaire in T4.2.
100
References
Becta (2010). Harnessing Technologies School Survey: 2010. Coventry,
BECTA.
Bobbitt, F. (1918). The Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Bobbitt, F. (1928). How to Make a Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Blenkin, G.M., Edwards, G and Kelly, A.V. (1992). Change and the
Curriculum. London: Paul Chapman.
Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: The
Cognitive Domain, New York, David McKay Co. Inc.
Brooks, J.G. and Brooks, M.G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case
for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Burbank, M.D. and Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional
development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 19, 499-514.
Cornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context. Basingstoke: Falmer Press.
Cuban, L. (2001) Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.
Cambridge MA; Harvard University Press.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for “neomillenial” learning styles: Implications for
investments in technology and faculty. In J. Oblinger and D. Oblinger
(eds.) Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE
Publishers.
DfES (2005). Harnessing Technology – Transforming Learning and Children’s
Services, [online], Department for Education and Skills,
www.dscf.gov.uk/publications/e-strategy.
DfE (2010). The Importance of Teaching: Schools White Paper, [online],
Department for Education, www.education.gov.uk/b0068570/the-
importance-of-teaching/.
Ertmer, P.A. and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher Technology
Change: How Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs and Culture Intersect.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol 32, No. 3, pp 255-
284
Fullan and Smith (1999) Technology and the Problem of Change. Available
http://www.michael/fullan.ca/Articles_98-99/12_99.pdf
101
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. 4th
edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Grubb, W.N. (2008). Multiple resources, multiple outcomes: Testing the
‘improved’ school finance with NELS:88. American Educational
Research Journal, 45(1), 104-44.
Hammond, M. and Mumtaz, S, (2001) How trainee teachers of IT approach
teaching their subject, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 166-
76.
Jewitt, C., Hadjithoma-Garstka, C., Clark, W., Banaji, S. and Selwyn, N.
(2010). School use of learning platforms and associated technologies.
Coventry: Becta.
Johannsen, D.H., Peck, K.L. and Wilson, B.G. (1999) Learning with
Technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Merrill Publishing.
Kelly, A.V. (2009). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Kennedy K.J. (2005) Changing Schools for Changing Times: New Directions
for the School Curriculum in Hong Kong. Sha Tin, N.T. Hong Kong: The
Chinese University Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning,
and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, C.J. (2009). Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C. and Specht, J. (2008).
Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate
computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers and
Education, 51, 1523-37.
Neary, M. (2002) Curriculum Studies in Post-Compulsory and Adult Education.
Cheltenham: Nelson-Thornes.
Newmann, F., King, B. and Young, S.P. (2000). Professional development that
addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. Paper
presented to Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, 3rd
April, New Orleans.
102
Ofsted (2009). Virtual Learning Environments: An Evaluation of their
Development in a Sample of Educational Settings, [online], Ofsted,
www.ofsted.gov.uk.
Oswald, D.F.. (2003) A conversation with Michael Molenda. Educational
Technology, 43, 2, 59-63.
Pinar, W.F. (2004) What is Curriculum Theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Schlager, M.S. and Fusco, J. (2004) Teacher professional development,
technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before
the horse? In S.A. Barab, R. Kling and J.H. Gray (eds.) Designing for
virtual communities in the service of learning, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Seddon, T. (1983) The hidden curriculum: An overview. Curriculum
Perspectives, 3(1), 1-6.
Selwyn, N. (2008). Education 2.0? Designing the Web for Teaching and
Learning, Teaching and Learning Research Program, London: Institute of
Education, [online], www.tlrp.org.tel.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
UCISA (2008). 2008 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher
Education in the UK, [online], Universities and Colleges Information
Systems Association, www.ucisa.ac.uk/publications/tel_survey.aspx.
UCISA, (2010). 2010 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher
Education in the UK, [online], Universities and Colleges Information
Systems Association, www.ucisa.ac.uk/groups/ssg/surveys.aspx.
Wang, F. and Reeves, T.C. (2003). Why do teachers need to use technology in
their classrools? Issues, problems and solutions. Computers in Schools
20, 4, 49-65.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009) Reframing professional development through
understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational
Research, 79, 2, 702-39.
103
Acknowledgements
My thanks go to the staff and students in the schools involved in the T3
Project in the UK, and to Zali Collymore-Hussein and Grahame Smart
for their extensive and valuable contributions to this work.
104
105
PART THREE
EXAMPLES: THREE PILOT STUDIES IN GREAT BRITAIN, SPAIN
AND ITALY
106
107
V
Trials with teachers in Great Britain
Innovative practice and technology: training as creative
synthesis
John Jessel
V. 1 Introduction
This chapter continues the story begun in Chapter 4 wherein a
rationale was provided for an outline course designed to encourage the
take-up and development of innovative technology-use for learning in the
context of the mainstream school classroom in the UK. We now move
into the school settings and examine how some of the initial ideas and
strategies for developing innovative uses of advanced digital
technologies worked out in practice. I report on how the perceptions
those teachers had of the technology changed as they worked with it and
some of the ways that the technology was trialled with students. I look at
some of the ideas that emerged and consider the impact of the technology
on the school curriculum and report some of the views of the students on
their classroom experiences. For those who might find themselves in a
situation where there is a wish to bring new technological developments
(of any kind) into practice I also attempt to draw together some of the
principles that appeared to be successful when developing new uses for a
technology and outline some of the obstacles to innovation and how they
might be navigated.
108
The focus, in particular, is on the uses of the technology in two
different curriculum areas; English and mathematics. These curriculum
areas have been chosen because they are not only seen to be of central
importance, but also can make very different demands in terms of
teaching and learning. Regarding the technology, a rationale leading to
the selection of the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) as an example
of an advanced and communicative technology was presented in Chapter
4. Apart from one school that used SIMS Learning Gateway, all of the
schools used the Fronter VLE system that is widely available across
London. Both systems offer the facilities expected of a VLE such as e-
mail, bulletin boards, forums, chat and newsgroups and also allowed
course materials to be stored and presented. As already noted, although
there are differences between each system, both VLEs will be treated
generically since the current focus is on the pedagogical concepts
underlying their use rather than a detailed account of how each system
might be operated.
V. 2 Approaching schools
Participating schools were recruited in consultation with a City
Learning Centre that was responsible for the development of e-learning
in schools across a large area of south London. The schools also worked
in an initial teacher training partnership with the university department
coordinating the UK part of the Project. Altogether six secondary schools
in or very close to London became involved. All of these schools had
qualities typical of many mainstream inner-city schools, having between
600 and 900 students of 11 to 18 years of age with a very wide range of
backgrounds and ability.
All of the schools that participated exemplified the complexity of
large institutions that have a variety of responsibilities that must be
concurrently accommodated. From initial discussions with senior
personnel as well as with teachers it was evident that all of the schools
were subject to meeting targets in term of performance figures such as
109
those in terms of the percentage of pupils achieving A to C grades in
public examinations such as the General Certificate if Education (GCSE)
or ‘A’ Level.
The trainers were fully qualified and very experienced teachers
who had developed an interest and build up a body of experience and
expertise in the use of the VLE and its associated technologies with their
own teaching. They were also known to the schools where the training
would be carried out. These qualities were perceived to be important, not
only in lending credibility to the work of the T3 Project but also as a
factor when approaching schools who might participate.
V. 2 a Points of entry for innovation
With regard to recruitment of participating schools and teachers,
it was found that introducing innovation in the school setting is a
potentially complex process; the schools had a variety of responsibilities
and demands to be concurrently accommodated. Points of entry for
innovative practice that were voiced by senior personnel and teachers
ranged from those driven by national or local policy, introduction of new
syllabuses, new examination requirements, requirements in terms of
literacy or numeracy, by impending crises, pressing social or pastoral
needs and changes of staff. In other words the programme of
development did not occur in isolation and was timed and attuned in
relation to other demands, circumstances or initiatives; it needed to be
negotiated and flexible. Even with assured financial resources needed for
cover, flexibility was still required in arranging sessions in view of
unforeseen demands that were not unusual in the schools concerned.
V. 2 b Perceptions of the VLE and innovative practice
In all of the schools that participated the VLE was perceived as
innovative, ubiquitous in application, yet largely unexplored. Curriculum
110
objectives were regarded paramount; any innovative methods were to
sub-serve these, if not, then what is done would become an optional
extra. Developments in the use of new technology, as with any other
innovation, rather than in terms of their own merits, were seen initially in
terms of their contribution to the curriculum to be offered and assessed.
V. 2 c Securing teacher time
Student achievement was seen to be dependent on continuity and
stability regarding teachers. Also, as is typical in mainstream schooling
in many urban areas, students coming from a range of backgrounds,
including those from homes that are less supportive of educational needs,
make a range of demands. Effective management of these demands from
experienced teachers who know the students they are teaching is
necessary in that student behaviour could become a major issue. In view
of this it was not easy to release teachers for large blocks of time as
teachers were reluctant to hand their classes over to others. Extended
time for staff development therefore had to be negotiated. Typically this
had to be timed at those points in the year such as towards the end of the
summer term after the examination period when some groups of students
in the later years had left, thereby partly freeing up the timetable. It was
found that agreements in terms of staff availability were subject to
change at short notice due to a range of unanticipated events. In relation
to this, the offer of remuneration for staff cover from the Project
appeared low among the priorities of importance.
As teacher time out of the classroom is a scarce commodity,
finding the equivalent of six days when several teachers can be available
at the same time, even during a less busy period in the school year, was a
challenge. In all of the schools flexibility was needed and the course had
to be run very often in units of half a day and included some twilight
sessions. Some sessions also had to be rearranged at short notice.
In sum, whilst it was recognized that the benefits of achievement
depend on the development of new teaching methods, curricula and
111
learning in relation to formal assessment as societal needs change, there
was a dilemma that had to be negotiated in view of the perception that
new methods incur costs in terms of time, stability, student achievement
and exam results as well as any financial costs.
V. 2 d The participating teachers
Altogether twelve teachers from six schools took part with one
having to withdraw because of an unanticipated restructuring of
departmental staff and another due to illness. The teachers were from
mathematics departments for three of the schools and from English
departments for the remainder. All the teachers who participated were
specialists in their own subject and were either in their early or mid
career. Senior management staff from the participating schools were also
interviewed. In addition to one of the trainers, the coordinator for the UK
part of the Project was present for some of the sessions either to
introduce the initial theoretical framework, or, to act in a data gathering
capacity.
Sessions were held on site with access to the relevant
departmental facilities for each school and with the teachers working
with a trainer from the Project. Similarly, trials with pupils were either on
site or, in two instances at a local sports venue familiar to both the
teachers and students.
V. 2 e A curriculum-led approach to technology-use
Linking the use of a new technology to an existing curriculum
was seen as an important starting point for all of the teachers and broad
areas of interest had been negotiated as part of process of recruiting
participating schools. In particular, applications of VLE technologies in
teaching mathematics and English were explored. The workshop sessions
followed the pattern outlined in Chapter 4 with examples of uses of the
112
VLE technology shown in the first session. The initial challenge was for
the teachers to identify a viable curriculum area and develop the use of
the VLE in relation to it. This formed the principal agenda throughout the
sessions. The proposed use of the VLE was also informed by the
theoretical framework developed to include the social and cognitive
aspects of learning that were outlined in Chapter 1.
The dynamic between the trainers and the teachers that was
central to the training course was reflected in a mutual recognition of
expertise. The teachers were not only regarded as experts in the
curriculum area to be taught but also in the teaching context and what
could be expected from their students. Although the trainers had an
expertise with the technology, their own experience as teachers allowed a
meaningful working dialogue to be generated around the development of
teaching strategies and materials for learning. The six day generic
programme was found to provide a helpful guiding framework within
which ideas could be developed and at the same time had sufficient
flexibility to accommodate the needs arising from the nature of each
curriculum topic and school context. The activities arising in some of the
workshop sessions comprising the T3 course are now discussed in more
detail.
V. 3 A radio news programme
Two schools were involved in developing the use of the VLE in
the English curriculum relating to the Functional Skills Levels 1 and 2
for Writing, Speaking and Listening. The work was planned in relation to
an existing scheme of work based upon a BBC School Report (BBC,
2011) initiative with Year 8 (12-13 year old) students. The aim of the
School Report project is for students to develop the functional skills
through learning to make a news broadcast for a real audience.
However, instead, as is often done, of using television studio
facilities that were external to the school such as a recording studio for
producing the broadcast, and a designated School Report Day in
113
coordination with other schools as the means of dissemination, the
School Report project was planned in relation to a radio news
programme using, the school’s VLE, and other technology available in-
house. This included handheld EasySpeak recording microphones and the
use of Audacity for sound editing. The radio programme would be made
available as a podcast and the initial idea was for the VLE to play a key
role in its dissemination. Additionally, as we shall see, the VLE was also
to play other key learning roles that hitherto would not have been
possible.
V. 3 a Early views of the VLE
As with the majority of London schools, the VLE used was
Fronter. In response to being asked about his initial understanding of
Fronter one teacher replied ‘I think it is a virtual learning environment.
It’s modelled like a virtual school where there are different rooms and
corridors and pupils can go into rooms and teachers will be in certain
rooms. Just like a classroom, there are resources in there.’ At this stage
the perceived potential for learning was in line the more prevalent uses of
VLEs mentioned earlier, for example: ‘I think Fronter is a really good
place to store resources so any child who’s got access to a computer at
home can carry on with their work.’ ‘Children are allowed to upload
work that they’ve done so they can hand in work for the teacher to mark.’
‘You can set work, upload resources and set tasks in Fronter.’ In other
words, the main advantage of the VLE was that students could access
those resources at home rather than waiting to be given to them by a
teacher.
These comments about the VLE were also echoed by teachers
from other schools: ‘I think it’s a way of communicating with the
students when they’re at home, and a way of letting the parents know
what is going on in school as well, homework tasks.’ ‘It supports the
child in terms of resources but in terms of actual learning I don’t think it
does anything at all, I don’t know how to get it to be like interactive
learning.’
114
V. 3 b Radio news
To produce a radio news programme some, initial preparation
would be needed in developing an understanding of the media the
students were to use. Attention would have to be given to what
constitutes a news story, how to go about finding a story and how stories
could be put together to form a final sequence. It was decided to select
and upload audio files and video files into the VLE to trigger discussion
about what was effective and what were the features that made that type
of broadcast different because it is for radio as opposed to one that might
be for TV.
The subject for the radio programme was to be the annual school
sports day; an event held towards the end of the summer term at a local
stadium. Using popular radio programmes such as Newsbeat as
examples, the planning included how to introduce a sports programme,
the kind of language that might be used, what kind of coverage would be
recorded, who might be interviewed and how the students would use
different handheld technologies. The students would then go out on
sports day, some would carry out interviews and some would do pods or
pieces to the microphone. These would then be edited in Audacity and
uploaded to the London Grid for Learning (LgFL; a network specifically
designed for use by schools across London) podcasting channel so that it
could then be published and downloaded. With a view to its wider
availability, some time was also given to checking that the podcast could
then be downloaded onto a smartphone belonging to one of the teachers.
V. 3 c More detailed planning for classroom work
Early on in the planning the discussion focused on ways that an
editorial meeting could be set up in the classroom so that after the
students had gathered some stories they could decide which were their
best stories, which should go into the broadcast and which should not and
what sequence they want to place them in. This might normally have
been done as a live simulation of an editorial discussion. However, it was
also thought that the VLE could be used and discussions could take place
115
through one of the chatrooms or discussion forums in Fronter. The idea
was that a discussion forum could take place between students seated at
their own computers within the same classroom. To allow this to happen
a ‘no talking rule’ was planned, the students not being allowed to speak
to each other directly but to communicate only through the discussion
forum. Although this might have appeared strange, the idea was that it
would be a completely different approach to discussion and
collaboration. Students can chat online and they can immediately respond
to different stimuluses and resources that they see through the VLE. As
one teacher put it: ‘I was quite interested in getting the kids to evaluate
the way that they have discussions and getting kids to think about how do
they respond differently in a discussion when it’s an online forum to the
way that they might discuss face to face. Do they use language in a
different way and do they argue in different ways? Are they more
receptive to people’s ideas? Does it give then more time to reflect on
what they are going to say to each other?’
V. 3 d Setting up a forum
One of the rooms to be created in Fronter was for a second part of
the School Report scheme of work relating to ‘What is a news story?’
and ‘What makes a news story?’ Some time was spent selecting pictures,
videos and sound clips to be used as stimuli so that the students could
discuss which would be relevant to a target audience, which are not and
why. From this the students could go on to have discussions about
whether the topic would be worth making into a news story for teenagers.
For example, there might be images or video clips embedded from
YouTube, each contained within a discussion forum with a suggestion
such as ‘Research, what is the news story relating to this clip?’ This was
to encourage the students to research on the internet and discuss.
V. 3 e A theoretical framework for learning as participation
The idea was that a suitably designed forum could provide the
framework within which students could learn through collaboration.
‘One of the best things that Fronter can do is be a medium through which
116
you can actually share dialogue with each other and work together and
they can collaborate, not so much in the sense that they can work from
home but you can actually have online discussions and debates and they
can upload their own resources and their own ideas and they can discuss
them in groups and we can organize them and define the kind of groups
and the kind of discussions that they have.’ Although the teachers would
have a measure of control by defining the forums and the types of
discussions that might be generated, and the topics that would be
discussed, they were also keen to allow quite a lot of freedom. Students
can generate whatever ideas they come up with rather than teachers
directing the discussion. ‘So you can establish and set up a framework
for the discussion but then you give them a bit of freedom as to what to
discuss and the idea is that with that sense of freedom they might come
up with more interesting ideas, or they might be prepared to take more
risks, or they might feed off each other.’ It was thought that if students
were given that freedom then they would get a greater sense of
ownership and engagement.
The kind of discussions and arguments that students might have
with each other and the way that they learn from each other would not be
mediated by what a teacher thinks is interesting or what a teacher thinks
should be interesting, but mediated much more directly by the students
themselves.
V. 3 f Authenticity for the students
Many of the above qualities link to the model of learning as
participation. Moreover, the notion of a community of practice
introduced in Chapter 1 carried with it the notion of authenticity. This
notion of authenticity through the use of the VLE was aptly recognized
by one of the teachers: ‘Obviously the possibility is that kids can have
discussions about their work beyond the classroom so the School Report
project is the whole teamwork aspect where they work together as teams.
So those teams could continue to work together and discuss beyond the
lesson, you know, at home, and get a real sense of being involved with
117
the project, and they’re kind of like a community that’s working together
towards a common goal.’
V. 3 g Later views of the VLE
Towards the end of the course there was some discussion on how
ideas on the key qualities of the VLE had changed: ‘What we’ve
discovered with Fronter is that it’s capacity for cooperation and
discussion online that makes it much more than a tool just for uploading
resources.’ In addition, then, to the scope for participation in learning, it
was also recognized that the VLE was instrumental in conveying a sense
of real audience: ‘The other thing about the VLE and the publishing and
sharing and the LGfL and the podcasting channels and the video
channels is its very very instant and the kids can use the technology
they’ve got themselves, they can use their phone or they can use their
Playstation or whatever it is, so that there’s a direct instant audience.
They can produce a piece of work, they can upload it onto the internet, it
can be published and be shared and it can be downloaded by their phones
to their family at home to anyone anywhere in the world.’
It was also realized that the VLE was not the only facility
available when it came to disseminating work and using it alongside
other communicative technologies was also necessary: ‘I also thought
Fronter was going to be a place where kids can publish and share their
work, but as we went on we discovered that wasn’t the best use of a
virtual learning environment and you could discover some other areas
where kids can publish and share their work using the LGfL website and
the podcasting channel and their own video files. So we’ve actually been
using lots of different software and lots of different websites for different
purposes.’
V. 4 Using the VLE with mathematics teaching
What had been observed in the more detailed account of the
School Report Project reported above was also reflected in work with the
118
VLE that was developed in other areas. Teachers from three of the
schools working on the T3 Project were interested in developing the use
of the VLE within the mathematics curriculum. Possible uses of the VLE
for topics such as the calculation of percentages and adding fractions
were explored. One approach that was modeled by the trainer as a means
of introducing the technology at the beginning of the course was to
embed animated sequences within the VLE that illustrated mathematical
techniques that could be used by students when working on computers
with access to the VLE in the classroom. For example, illustrations of the
maths connected with working out interest rates and different methods of
interest payment and a series of problem solving tasks were demonstrated
with classes of students in the schools where the teachers worked. This
idea was taken up and adapted by a teacher who recorded illustrations of
two methods of working out percentages using BB FlashBack as a screen
recorder. Similarly, a spreadsheet was constructed that presented a series
of problems using the technique shown and subsequently embedded in
the VLE. Macros were used within the spreadsheet so that immediate
feedback on the students’ responses was also possible. Apart from ease
of dissemination and submission of work, neither of these resources
could be said to necessitate the use of a VLE. However, possibilities of
enhancing students’ learning through collaboration were also discussed.
The first stage of this was to use the VLE to present a voting system so
that the students could indicate which of the methods they liked best. In
the trials with students this was then followed with a request for them to
give a reason for their choice. The students were also asked to show how
confident they feel on what percentages are about, and to evaluating how
they liked doing this kind of work. Getting students to write their own
comments, however, is only one step in encouraging online collaboration
and participation. As important as writing comments is reading them, and
it was thought that in this context, strategies would be needed to get the
students to look back at their own writing or that of their peers. In order
to begin to encourage this within the confines of the lesson a further very
basic request was made: ‘Carefully read all of the contributions on the
119
Forum that you wrote from the lesson. Please tell us whose post (by
name) you thought was best and why.’
V. 4 a Value of immediate feedback to students to teachers
When trialled, comments from the students related to the
immediate feedback offered by the system: ‘You find out if you got it
right or wrong straight away.’ ‘You can change it straight away.’
Comments also arose relating to students working on their own
machines: ‘I did enjoy the lesson because we got to work independently
and I did prefer laptops than books because we don’t need to write.’
Although the students were aware of the communicative potential of the
VLE, there was also a sense of privacy: ‘Much quicker and easier to
understand and don’t worry about getting it wrong because no one’s
going to see it.’ Comments reflecting the communicative potential of the
system included: ‘I preferred it because we could communicate more
with out classmates’ and ‘I think jacks comment is best because he tells u
dat 1 method was breaken down so he found it easier to understand’.
The value of this kind of feedback to teachers was also picked up.
As one maths teacher put it: ‘One of the things that’s developed this year
for me is giving children time to reflect and feed back: “What did you
learn?” “How did you learn it?” “How would you improve what you
did?” “How could other people improve what they did?” Again, it’s
making a bit more time for this top end type of learning, and it’s “Do
they really understand it or can they just do the sum?” It’s something I
always feel passionately about.’ She had planned and trialled the use of
VLE for feedback with her students: ‘I think I’ve got a more concrete
way now of actually getting the feedback from the children through using
the feedback sheet and the hand-in folders. It’s just a different way for
me for getting a real grasp of what they are able to do.’
120
V. 5 A poetry forum
In view of perceived benefits that may arise from the
communicative potential of new technologies, another example of work
developed within T3 is briefly outlined. The aim, as part of the English
curriculum, was to discuss and annotate Wilfred Owen’s poem ‘Dulce et
Decorum Est’. This illustrates more extended peer-to-peer
reflection through the VLE that was evident from a session with six Year
10 students (14-15 years of age) using Elluminate Live! (now Blackboard
Collaborate); a web conferencing tool which allowed a virtual space or
‘Liveroom’ to be created where the students and their teacher could meet.
Although the conferencing tool was capable of operating in a range of
modalities, the use on this occasion was confined to live chat section in
the form of written text alongside a whiteboard facility where the poem
was displayed and where the students could contribute through
highlighting in different colours key phrases and words in the poem as
part of the discussion. Although the peer-to-peer engagement formed a
substantial part of the exchanges, the teacher acted as a ‘moderator’
gently steering the discussion while leaving open the opportunity for the
students to contribute their own ideas within that frame.
In the trial, the students understood how to use Liveroom very
quickly and an extended discussion lasted for half an hour. As none of
the students studied Latin they had to use Google to find out what the
title might mean and from looking at the exchanges in the Liveroom
forum (Box 1) it is evident that they were able to support each other in
picking up the irony conveyed by the title of the poem and its sequel in
the last line.
121
Box 1 Text from the chat section of LiveRoom used to discuss ‘Dulce et
Decorum Est’ by Wilfred Owen.
(Students’ names abbreviated as single letters)
Moderator: Why do you think this poem was written?
Moderator: Are there any words in the poem that give you a clue?
D: I think ‘Gas! Gas! Quick boys’ kinda gives us a clus about this
poem.
Moderator: What clue does it give? – B? J? L? any idea?
Moderator: I am going to highlight some key images to help you…
D: also the poem mentions ‘clumsy helmets…
Moderator: OK… so what do these phrases link to?
D: well I thought they were references to the war, although the
date at the top
disagrees…
Moderator: War is the right topic… which war?
E: The Somme?
Moderator: Which was a battle in the war…
D: I just realised… maybe world war one?
Moderator: Do you think D is right?
S: First Matabele War
L: that’s what I thought
E: yesss
D: whats the Matabele war…?
Moderator: The poem is describing a gas attack in the trenches in France in
the first world war.
E: Is the title in French?
S: There’s two, the first Matabele war (from 1893-1894) of the
second Matabele War from 1896-97…
Moderator: It’s Latin – who can google and find out what it means?
E: yep this is defo the somme then
L: is it Latin?
Moderator: Well doneL!
D: wait wait…google the poem title?
122
Moderator: Can anyone find and highlight a simile that describes the gas
attack?
S: sweet and fitting it is
L: helmets – an early name for gas masks
Moderator: Use the pink to highlight the similes
S: That’s what it says: “Sweet and fitting it is”??
Moderator: Yes – look at the last line – that gives you the rest of the Latin
phrase
B: does it mean it ‘is sweet and right’?
J: ‘Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time’. I think the same as L,
are they talking about the gas masks?
Moderator: I think the helmets definitely represent the masks – well
deduced!
D: I highlighted a simile☺
E: loool D
Moderator: That’s D – well done. Can anyone else find another one in the
2nd
stanza?
L: it is sweet and horrible to die for ones country
B: according to one website, the last line reads ‘it issweet and right
to fight for your country.’
B: and die
D: I think I highlighted the other simile… ;)
L: I did too☺
Moderator: What do you think about the last line – does the poem make
death sound ‘sweet and honourable’?
S: To die for one’s country. IS THE LAST LINE ☺
D: I think it makes death at this time of war seem like the right
‘patriotic’ thing to do.
E: yeaa. The poem portrays that despite the pain of death at war, it
is a good & honourable thing to do
J: The part ‘under a green see, I saw him drowning’, it said on
google that the symptoms of gas was like drowning.
Moderator: Owen makes the gas attck sound horrific – he describes the
men drowning in the gas. Use the blue highlighter to highlight
negative and violent images in the poem.
Moderator: Do you all agree eith E’s point above? Anyone disagree?
123
L: I do agree because of the translation although it does show a lot
of the negative point which could be trying to sat that it’s not a
good thing
Moderator: Look at how many inames you’ve highlighted in blue – does
that change your opinion of the poem’s tone and meaning?
D: I think the poem does seem quite harsh and seious, as well as
quite violent
B: Definitely, looking over the poem in depth shows more of a
negative tone to the poem…
E: I think the writer was trying to create some contrast between
the content of the poem & then the title & last line
S: I think the poems showing that in war, dying shows you’ve
fought for your country BUT war is a nasty, deadly place. The
poem is very negative.
E: context
Moderator: He’s being ironic – do you know what that means?
S: like sarcasm?
E: yess but I don’t know how to describe it
Moderator: It is like sarcasm, you are right, but it is more subtle, not as
rude.
Feedback from the students underlined the collaborative aspect in
learning realized through the technology: ‘I found the liveroom chat very
helpful because when all of us were talking about the poem, we were
helping each other fill in the gaps on things we didn't know and it helps
me understand the poem we’re focusing on more clearly. I think it could
be useful mainly in lessons where the whole class can join in & just get
to learn more.’ ‘The liveroom would also be good for students to help
each other rather than constantly relying on a teacher.’ ‘I also liked the
feature where you were able to chat to others as well as your teachers on
live room, as i found that a good way of learning and having discussions,
where we could all put our personal inputs in.’
124
Additionally, the students also voiced other uses of the VLE: ‘I
think that using the liveroom was a good way of getting discussions
across among the students. I also think it would be a useful way of
getting students to communicate when at home for things like revision.’
‘I thought using live room quite easy to use, and i do think it is quite a
good idea as it's easily accessible and would be useful for revision as
well as to catch up with English work.’
V. 6 Reflections on the course
From the above accounts and through many observations that
were made during the sessions with the teachers, a pattern of training has
emerged that has been in part contributed to by those in the role of the
trainer as expert in a particular technology, and, in part contributed to by
teachers as experts in their own field. Importantly, what has emerged
from the training in terms of resources and teaching strategies, even
though it might have been judged as innovative and beneficial, was not
always predictable; both trainers as well as teachers learnt from the ideas
that were generated. This has important implications; rather than training
being regarded as a simple one-way transfer of knowledge and expertise,
a more symmetrical process emerges where both trainer and trainee were
pooling their expertise and training became a creative synthesis. Through
this model of experts working together, an innovation is itself expressed
in many unforeseen forms.
V. 6 a Whole to part
The decision to take a curriculum area and possible learning
outcomes as the starting point when getting to grips with a potentially
complex technology was presented in Chapter 4 as one of defying the
logic of beginning with smaller parts and from thence building a more
complex holistic structure. The teachers, however, were not working in
isolation; they were working with an accomplished trainer who was in a
position to allow them to keep a balance with the broader curriculum and
125
pedagogical concerns alongside the operational detail of the technology.
Through this form of ‘situated technical support’, rather than introducing
a comprehensive coverage of technical detail, the technical concepts
were picked up in context and learnt through application. This provided a
framework from which other gaps could be filled.
Some insight into the depth of technical knowledge gained can be
judged from one of the teachers working on the School Report project
introduced above:
‘I got really frustrated because I spent about 3 hours trying to create 3
containers in a Fronter room that looked the same size and each
contained a YouTube clip. What I found myself doing was getting really
would up because I could embed the YouTube clips, and that was fine
and the kids would have been able to go on there and access it, but I was
really bothered about what it looked like partly because each of the 3
containers wasn’t exactly the same size or exactly the same kind of
background. Following a one-day training course I wouldn’t have been
bothered at all about that. I think it’s because I knew that I was trying to
create something that I wanted the kids to use therefore I wanted it to
look good; as there was a real audience a real end product then I became
quite bothered about these, to me, quite trivial details. But because it’s a
real audience and I want this to last for years I started getting really
obsessed with how you do that and so I started really exploring how
Fronter could do that and started going into HTML code to look at how
we could centre something within a text box. So I guess I learnt a lot
more detail about how Fronter works and about the glitches with it that I
would normally have even bothered with. I learnt a lot that session and
now I can do it and I don’t think that would have happened if there
hadn’t been that real context at the end of it.’
V. 6 b On site – authenticity in training and ownership
Other insights into the effect of the course being held over a
period of time on site and relating to a particular teaching context also
arose from interviews with the teachers: ‘I’ve found it more interesting
126
doing it in school as opposed to a day away because I think that in school
it just makes it more the scheme of work. You can see how it might pan
out with your students; you are not just constrained to one day and that
was it, but with this I can see angles like creating forums.’ ‘What I’ve
found is that working very intensively just with [others in the
Department] has allowed us really to get to grips very quickly with
something that’s quite complicated in terms of using Fronter. We’ve had
lots of technical issues with the thing working but we’ve actually been
able to get to grips with it practically in a very hands-on way and start
creating and building and designing resources and designing frameworks
that the kids can collaborate with, and one of the best things about it is
that we haven’t been on a training course where we have been learning to
use a piece of software.’
In the same way that authenticity in learning within a community
of practice was seen to be applicable earlier on regarding students, the
same notion of authenticity was found to apply to the teachers: ‘I think
you can only use a tool if you have a job to do with it. You can’t just
learn to use the tool for its own sake. Because we’ve got a real job to do
and we’re really trying to create this scheme of work that’s going to
work, it does force you to concentrate and focus and really look at it and
you have to learn very quickly about how to use Fronter.’ This can be
linked to a principle of ownership: the need for teachers to take
ownership and negotiate and augment aims to serve their interests was
considered essential at many different levels: ‘rather like a lesson plan
innovation is developed within an institution; [Innovation is] something
you develop yourself and have control over rather than have it thrust
upon you’.
V. 6 c A theoretical framework
An element that was considered central to the development of the
course, even though relatively little time was allotted to it, was the
theoretical framework that attempted to give a coherent overview to the
more theoretical perspectives relating to the social and cognitive aspects
of learning. This was introduced early on in the course by way of
127
discussion of the diagram shown in Figure 1 in the first chapter of this
book. Through this, attention was drawn to the largely cognitive modes
of learning along a horizontal axis and the kinds of social engagement
expressed in a vertical axis. It was found that the idea of mapping a
lesson activity such as the use of a technology into a space was instantly
assimilated and discussion typically related to each of the axes and also
to the relationships between the social and cognitive dimensions evoked
by the space delineated by the axes. Taking the horizontal axis first, we
have the comments of an experienced maths teacher who relates it to the
VLE technology: ‘I found the learning models very relevant; I was
focused on Key Stage 3 students, middle ability kids who by the time
they get into Year 8 often think that they can’t do maths and therefore
they get stymied in terms of being creative and in terms of being able to
solve problems, and I think what the new technology has allowed them to
do is to tackle maths in a different way so they don’t feel like they have a
page of sums to do. They feel like they have a problem to solve. It also
allowed then to work in groups, the technology has removed that fear for
getting things wrong, and then you sort of move down the learning
paradigms to where they become more creative mathematicians.’ The
same teacher also brought into the discussion the social aspects
represented on the vertical axis of the model: ‘It has also allowed them to
work in teams and working in groups because maths can be a subject that
you just do yourself.’ Another point counterbalancing the exactness often
associated with mathematics was also made in relation to the way the
opportunity for discussion and feedback arose when the use of the VLE
was modelled by the trainer: ‘…to say “How did you do that bit?” and to
get involved in those discussions without being right or wrong which
maths often can be…’ was regarded as important.
The quality of social involvement represented by the vertical axis
of the model was also commented upon from an English teacher’s point
of view: ‘The model was very relevant and a bit of a revelation in that it
allowed me to see the VLE technology in a different way. […] You start
off looking at the VLE as a way of sharing resources with the kids but
when we looked at those different learning models, like when the kids
128
work interactively or collaborate with each other and their movement
away from more teacher-led to more communities of practice, then it
transformed the way I thought about VLEs. Tools for collaboration, tools
for dialogue, discussion and setting your own kind of agenda in terms of
the projects the kids want to explore it became more relevant: kids set
their own agenda more and broaden out their own learning communities
beyond just the teacher and the classroom.’
As noted in Chapter 1, the idea of a community of practice (Lave
& Wenger, 1998) brings with it an activity that is authentic, situated, and
one where there is a common purpose. The kind of learning that arose
through this was also illustrated through the work carried out in the
School Report Project: ‘Normally what the kids produce is just for the
teacher. The idea of having a real audience and a real product […] lent
itself well to the VLE and to the learning model. But that’s the way the
whole BBC journalism project works: it’s about real context and about
real audiences and transforming the way kids learn because the audience
is not just the teacher. In any schemes of work that I develop I’d like to
give that quite an important role.’ Another connection with the
authenticity and the impact of technology on the school environment was
alluded to by the remark that ‘the model fits very closely to the real
world of business or work or the creative industries.’
All of the teachers stated that discussion of the learning models
was extremely helpful and introduced the idea of ‘learning as
participation’ very effectively. ‘The framework was very relevant and
opens up a variety of learning’ was representative of the general
conclusions voiced. One teacher suggested that she would use the model
for mapping a whole lesson. With regard to sustaining the work of the T3
Project, the model was also widely regarded by the teachers as something
they would use with other teachers: ‘If I was to share this with other staff
then I think I’d take the discussions about learning models as a starting
point as it informs why we are using a VLE to do this.’
When probed during the evaluation to see if anything might be
changed or added, suggestions were very few. One concerned how the
teacher leads the classroom and builds relationships, has confidence or
129
takes risks. The idea of adding a third dimension was discussed but the
issue was whether this was more heavily weighted towards the teacher
rather than the learner.
In sum, the theoretical framework on learning appeared to be
comprehensive, widely applicable to the use of different technologies in
learning and easily understood. Importantly, it was found to have a
‘discourse setting’ effect through opening up or activating some learning
dimensions to be explored and provided a means by which they could be
conceptualized and articulated. The model was also seen to promote an
aspirational element in that all of the teachers strove in their planning to
fill the social and cognitive space.
V. 6 d Sustaining technology use
The impact of innovation can sometimes be short lived and could
be as much to do with the nature of the innovation itself as the way it is
introduced into a particular setting. As noted, the decision to focus on the
use of the VLE was based on careful consideration of its availability and
scope for applicability. From working with the schools the VLE appeared
to be acceptable on both of these counts. With regard to availability and
applicability it was remarked that ‘…in particular, the key thing for me is
the connections that can be made using the current technologies that we
have such as the use of smartphone technology.’ The wide availability of
VLEs offering similar facilities across schools in London allowed inter-
institutional comparisons. Because the trainers worked across schools
that were known to each other there was interest in how these other
institutions were approaching particular curriculum areas and solutions to
common problems were shared. There were instances where a teacher
from one school visited the school where the trainer taught to see
particular methods in action. Although this could have been a recipe for
uniformity, it was felt that one institution was never a blueprint of what
happened in another and so this was regarded as a form of enrichment.
The VLE was also seen as opening up a host of opportunities across
schools. A deputy head from one of the schools was keen to ‘explore
Liveroom activities across different schools and different countries; we
130
are a humanities school and have a link with China we would like to
develop.’
More direct forms of sustaining use of the technology within the
course took place through the teachers cascading what they had learnt to
other teachers they work with: ‘I’ve learnt a new skill. I’ve really been
able to develop that skill and I’ve cascaded that to other colleagues in
other departments.’ Cascading was sometimes on a one-to-one basis and
extended along the principles underlying the T3 course. Alternatively,
sustaining use took place through subject department or school staff
meetings. This was inevitably raised awareness, but took place in a
context where the staff concerned were available and could be consulted
at different times. In some cases, such as with the School Report radio
programme the results were tangible in that they were shown both
teachers and students in a whole-school assembly.
At senior management level one deputy head teacher who had
been involved with the T3 Project saw the next step in terms of
sustaining the initiative to ‘…embed in all subjects and schemes of work;
more planned and part of every day work.’ Another deputy head drew
attention to the importance of the school improvement plan ‘…because I
think in most schools now with all the costing and funding the way it is
unless it is part of the school improvement plan it will not happen.’
Within this, there would be scope for developing innovative use of a
technology outside the subject arena: ‘…the other thing we are trying to
do is Period 6 Tutor Time; we try to make it very structured. Again, it’s
trying to take those ideas and trying to work a structure from a school’s
point of view. I think that’s the only way it’s going to become part of
practice.’
The importance of involving a person who has enough influence
across a school was also underlined, especially to avoid the risk of a
project becoming an isolated piece of work. The idea of going after
people who are in senior positions not only within a school but also
working with the local authority was another factor mentioned. However,
it was also emphasized that, as well as getting them together in one room,
it was also about ‘…having enough time to go and work with those
131
schools individually because people want to feel like the work that
they’re doing in their school is important as well.’ The tensions between
so called ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ influences in terms of
organisational hierarchy are, of course, well rehearsed (e.g., Fullan,
2001) and a role for teacher-level influence is also widely acknowledged.
The issue regarding points of entry for innovation raised at the
beginning of this chapter re-emerged during discussions with the deputy
heads: ‘The other thing that I have tried to do this year is to wrap this
project around a number of other things that we’re doing in this school;
around literacy and extended writing, and to look at the London Region
Innovations Grant because there are pockets of money out there to
develop what we’re trying to do.’ ‘The way English and maths is being
taught is now changing considerably, especially maths, more about skills;
I see that opportunity. Also, the way English is now being assessed no
coursework now; I see that as an opportunity.’
V. 7 Summary and conclusion
In drawing the work with teachers in the UK schools together two
main threads are detectable. The first concerns the method of
introduction and take-up of innovative practice linked to a technology.
The second arises from what was learned about the use of the
technology, in this case the VLE, itself.
V. 7 aIntroduction and take-up of innovative practice linked to
technology
Although the there are many new technologies that may have the
potential to enhance learning, effective uptake may not occur
automatically. At one level this may be to do with the choice of the
technology. Schools, like many other institutions, work on limited
budgets and the returns of any investment in a technology will be
reflected in terms of its adaptability – particularly across the school
132
curriculum which is characterized by its breadth. The reliability and
availability of the technology to those using it are, inevitably, other
considerations.
It was noted that innovation within the school setting is
something that does not occur in isolation and has to be considered along
with other initiatives, changes and demands occurring within that
context. In view of this points of entry for innovation have to be carefully
judged and timed. Innovation also has its costs, these are not only
reflected in staff time and any other resources but also in terms of the risk
to student progress, particularly if skilled and experienced teachers have
to be withdrawn from the classroom for significant periods of time for
any training or professional development. In view of this teacher
availability has to be carefully negotiated; often simple financial
remuneration not being the solution.
More fundamentally, perhaps, is that the use of a new technology
not only requires familiarity with the mechanics of its operation but also
makes innovative demands on pedagogy and practice – both by learners
as well as teachers. Time is needed to identify and adapt suitable
resources, to structure content and develop new ways of working. Much
of the work associated with development may appear ‘invisible’ in that it
is done in advance of the use of the technology. Schools are charged with
making a curriculum available to their students and success is judged by
student accomplishment in relation to this. Although the nature of a
curriculum may be changed as a result of innovation, for those at the
forefront of change the starting point will be linked to an existing
curriculum. In addition, rather than knowledge about the technology
being an end in itself, any development rests on more meaningful
technology-use that is curriculum-led. In relation to this, the training
approach adopted within the workshops used curriculum learning
outcomes as a starting point from which operational detail of the
technology followed: a whole to part approach where the trainer played
an important role providing situated technical support so that a balance
between pedagogical and technical issues could be kept. Other qualities
of the training were reflected in its being on site and authentic. It was
133
also found that through this a sense of ownership and commitment was
engendered. It has also been argued that learning is in many ways
multifaceted and a variety of social and cognitive factors may come into
play in its accomplishment. In view of this a theoretical framework was
presented and found to have a discourse-setting effect. Finally, with
regard to the workshop sessions it was recognized that innovation can
take many forms. These may be largely context-dependent and
unpredictable to the trainer as well as the trainee. In this sense rather than
being conceived as the transfer of pre-existing knowledge from trainer to
trainee, a view was put forward of training as a creative synthesis arising
from an interaction of different bodies of expertise.
The continued life of any innovation remains a further issue and
factors linked to sustainability included those relating to the development
of effective practice by teachers acting in harmony with broader issues of
school management.
V. 7 b Learning and the VLE
As a technology that was explored, the VLE was regarded as
innovative, particularly in terms of its potential for connectivity. It was
also seen as available and potentially adaptable in its use across the
school curriculum. Initial views of the VLE were based upon its ability to
store a range of learning resources that can be accessed remotely.
Through working on the course the communicative potential of the VLE
for learning was explored. Although communication between individuals
at a distance is seen as an obvious direction for development of the use of
the VLE, it was also realized that its use in communication between
students in the same classroom could be exploited in terms of its learning
value. Immediate feedback available through the VLE through embedded
applications, or through blogs or forums was regarded as useful to both
students and teachers. The use of communication facilities such as live
chat and forums can lead to learning through peer-to-peer participation
and collaboration. However, it was also found that the teacher plays an
important role in learning through by acting as a moderator and
providing a framework within which participation and collaboration can
134
occur but also within which there is room for freedom of student
expression.
V. 7 d An enhanced or transformed curriculum?
Earlier in this chapter the idea of the development of the use of
the VLE being curriculum-led was proposed as a pragmatic starting
point. In this way the same learning accomplishments could take place
but might be more efficiently and reliably achieved and the learning
could be seen as technology enhanced. Alternatively, through the use of
the VLE, scope was seen for new accomplishments resulting from shifts
in the way learning is approached and encouragement to move beyond
existing practices: a technology transformed curriculum.
The use of the VLE was seen to have implications both for the
role of the teacher and the learner. The project work highlighted the fact
that the teacher was not solely instrumental in passing on an established
body of knowledge. Teachers acted as facilitators bringing together their
experience as scholars in a joint learning enterprise with their students.
Although an existing curriculum will inevitably be a starting point
for the development of the use of the VLE in learning there is scope for
realization of paradigmatic shifts in the way learning is approached.
Insofar that a curriculum can be viewed not only in terms of learning
outcomes but also in terms of their means of accomplishment and
provision within a wider learning context, there are implications
regarding the impact of VLE technologies.
With regard to the two main threads identified above, then, it is
hoped that the work reported in this chapter has illustrated how a method
of introduction and take-up of innovative practice that recognizes
training as a creative synthesis between participants with different bodies
of expertise may lead to technology not only being used to enhance
existing curriculum objectives, but also to technology being used to
transform an existing curriculum and introduce new challenges.
135
References
BBC (2011). BBC News School Report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/school_report Date of access: 5:6:11.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning,
and Identity: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
My thanks go to the staff and students in the schools involved in the T3
Project in the UK, and to Zali Collymore-Hussein and Grahame Smart
for their extensive and valuable contributions to this work.
136
137
VI
A training course in new learning technology for university
teachers
Juana Bretón-López, Soledad Quero, Cristina Botella, Rocío Herrero,
Luis Farfallini and Rosa Baños
VI.1. Introduction
Education is a right for everyone. No one doubts that education can
open doors to many opportunities that would have never been possible if
we would not have received it. Unfortunately, there are problems facing
Spanish education system. These can have negative effects on the quality
of the education students are receiving. As educators our commitment is
to try to improve our work solving these problems as much as we can and
to provide our students with the best possible education.
We can find, at the initial levels of state schooling, complaints such
us: too many students in the classroom, not enough resources or text
books, and, students unable to sit quietly or focus on the teacher. This
happens too in private schools but students are less affected (Boyer, &
Hamil, 2008).These are all very complex problems, and a possible factor
that could explain this is the massive demand, the resources available to
address it and a matter of budget allocation for learning activities.
At a higher level, university education, these problems are
sometimes repeated, albeit on a smaller scale. Usually, in this context
138
student motivation becomes a more evident problem. Motivation is
necessary to succeed in learning, especially when learners are working at
a distance (Keller, & Suzuki, 2004). What does this exactly mean?
Motivation is a very developed and studied concept within Psychology,
but it is also a very complex one to define. There are many theories and
labels that serve as subtitles to the definition of motivation, but summing
up we could define it as the forces that account for the arousal, selection,
direction, and continuation of behaviour (Fernández-Abascal, Martín
Díaz & Domínguez Sánchez, 2001). Current theories distinguish two
main types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is
internal. It occurs when people do something out of pleasure, importance,
or desire. Extrinsic motivation occurs when external factors compel the
person to do something. Motivation is a central concept if we think
about how to promote behaviour in a person, and a possible key to
improve academic performance in university students (Porter, Bigley &
Steers, 2003). Increasing student motivation is one of the most important
tasks a teacher has to face. In the case of university education, one of the
sources of motivation comes from the very student’s choice. When
talking of intrinsic motivation, most students “wish” to know and acquire
knowledge, skills and certain competences that they will need to apply
later on. But often this intrinsic motivation is not enough to continue with
a task and some “external factors”, or extrinsic ones, promoted by the
teacher are needed. One way this can be done is by improving university
professors’ teaching methods, including tools that allow them to be more
efficient and, at the same time students learn more.
When using strategies and tools that promote learning and ease the
acquisition of certain skills and knowledge, it can be very useful to
introduce information and communication technologies (ICTs) within
teaching methods. This is especially relevant to the university population
considering the fact that they are people who have lived a good part of
their lives with them, or in some cases can even be regarded as digital
natives (Prensky, 2009). In addition, ICTs provide certain advantages:
they make available to students a wide range of information; facilitate the
139
updating of information and content, and student autonomy; ICTs can
also facilitate group and collaborative training (Cabero Almenara, 2006).
To carry out this implementation, we first need to know in detail
the opinions of teachers, regardless the subject they teach, about the
usefulness of certain technological tools for their teaching (Davis, 1989;
Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989; Toral, Barrero& Martínez-Torres,
2007). In the following pages we will describe in detail our experience
with a training course in new learning technology for university teachers.
VI.2. Our perspective on teaching
Many studies have shown that the more student-student and
student-teacher interaction that occurs, better results in learning are
achieved (Lytras, & Ordóñez de Pablos 2007, 2009; Phielix, Prins &
Kirschner, 2010; Zhao, & Ordóñez de Pablos, 2010a, 2010b). To
improve and enlarge integration between students and teachers, it is
important to use new and intuitive mechanisms that also allow
improvement in learning.
At the Universitat Jaume I (UJI) we focused our participation in the
T3 Project on the validation of some new ITCs developed for the e-
Learning context (Bretón-López, Botella, Vizcaíno, Quero, Baños&
Molés, 2010; Bretón-López, et al., 2011). New ICTs can be very helpful
and their use in different fields has been developed in the last decade.
This is shown in the fact that, in recent years, a huge range of
methodologies, tools and resources have been generated for the use of
technology in learning and teaching as part of the process of any
discipline. Despite an increase in the use of technology in learning and
teaching, in practice, in terms of quality, its use is quite limited. The
majority of what is currently known as e-learning (learning through new
technologies) is still based on the use of videos, through web pages or
through a virtual classroom in order to facilitate access to the materials
and contact with students. In this sense, ICTs may help boost the
acquisition of determined skills, making learning more interactive,
flexible and appealing plus letting the user spend their time well.
140
In this chapter we present the results of the start of a six-day
workshop (trial) where university teachers of different disciplines were
trained in three useful systems for university teaching (Bretón-López,
Quero, Botella, Baños, Farfallini, & Herrero, 2011). The technologies are
e-Adventure, Palma and Eutopia. We collected relevant data with the aim
of improving university teaching being the first purpose of the project.
From this, the aim was to develop a new programme that would improve
the process of teaching and, therefore, the acquisition of knowledge in
different areas and, more specifically in our case, in the university
context. A second important purpose was to find out how satisfied
teachers were with the technologies used, incorporating the previous data
of interest.
The following trial description is an operational example about
how videogames and 3D environments can be used as a tool in education
or an e-Learning context.
VI.3. Our own experience
Our team, LabPsiTec, is a research team specialised in psychology
and ICTs. This particular interest and our years of experience with
university teaching led us to participate in the T3 Project.
We contacted the Teacher Training Center of the Universitat Jaume
I of Castellón, which showed its interest in the objectives of T3 Project
and invited us to introduce it in the teachers´ training plan. An analysis
about the adequacy of the methodology to teach the technology to
university teachers was carried out. It was concluded that the
implementation of a workshop would be suitable in order to teach the
chosen systems, their main functions and the specific use for the
university teaching.
With support of the University, a workshop titled "The Use of New
Technologies of Information and Communication for Improving
Teaching" was organised. The aim of the workshop was to show a series
of tools designed to highlight the possibilities offered by new
technologies as powerful tools to enhance learning in the university
141
context. The technologies used in the workshop were selected according
to the principles described earlier in this chapter. The classification of the
e-Learning technologies took into account two variables: the type of the
technology (based on instructions, or a more constructivist one and the
type of teaching (experimenting, experiencing soft skills or exploring).
According to this classification and taking into account the
university context, in relation to the relevance to a global intake of
students, especially since Bologna began, we considered that
experiencing “soft skills” and exploring would be relevant topics as the
aim of the workshop. Besides, we thought that a constructive approach
would be best for teaching the content. As we mentioned before, three
technologies were selected as the most adequate to achieve our goals: e-
Adventure, Eutopia, and Palma. A brief description of these systems is
now provided.
VI.3.a. e-ADVENTURE
The e-Adventure platform is the result of a research project aimed
to facilitate the integration of educational games and game-like
simulations in educational processes. It was produced by the e-learning
research group at Universidad Complutense de Madrid (e-UCM) for the
development of classic adventure computer games with educational
purposes. The platform includes both the game and the editor. The main
advantage of the editor platform is that instructors can be directly
involved in the production of the games (Torrente, Moreno-Ger,
Fernández-Manjón, & del Blanco, 2009). The game editor allows having
different scenes to be connected to others. Also it is possible to include
objects, characters and dialogues (Martínez-Ortiz, Moreno-Ger, Sierra&
Fernández-Manjón, 2006).
E-Adventure provides specific features for education such as the
possibility to define different assessment rules that are triggered when a
set of conditions in the games are satisfied. When the game is completed
an assessment report is generated with all this information. The
instructors can access the results via the web, and the information can be
142
displayed to the students as feedback. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of the
e-Adventure editor. For more details about the tool you can visit http://e-
adventure.e-ucm.es/
Figure 1. e-Adventure editor
VI.3.b. EUTOPIA
Eutopia is a platform designed to support distance learning. It is a
useful when creating and organising Educational Multiplayer On-Line
Role Playing Games (EMORPG). This approach allows a small group of
people to give a theatrical performance for educational or psychological
purposes. Each user controls an avatar and interacts with other avatars in
a 3D virtual scenario. The trainers have different functions: they can
define and assign roles, goals, characters and personalities of the
individual avatars that will be represented by online players. Once the
game is in progress, the trainer can observe what is going on, get
involved at any moment, send messages to players, or activate special
events or happenings. When the game session is over, the trainer can lead
143
a debriefing session through group discussion, analyzing the
communication and behavior strategies adopted by the players.
In an educational context Eutopia allows real-time interaction
between students. It also allows the teacher to see the students’
interactions, give feedback and interact with one or all of them. Figure 2
shows a screenshot of the Eutopia editor. For more details about the tool
you can visit http://www.nac.unina.it/eutopia/download.htm
Figure 2 – Eutopia Editor
VI.3.c. PALMA
PalMa is a serious game conceived as a software tool with a
specific learning outcome. PalMa can be used when developing high
level managerial skills such as: leadership, negotiation, effective
communication, speech and persuasiveness, co-worker management,
customer management, personal incisiveness and commercial skills. The
reference unit of PalMa is a scenario; a situation within which the player
is asked to achieve a predefined goal (see Figure 3). The player acts
144
through an avatar. The interlocutor of the player is a ‘bot’, a software
agent conceived to interact with the avatar answering in a certain way. In
each situation, a target to accomplish will be established: to persuade
someone to perform a task, to solve a conflict, to act as intermediary
between people, to encourage a co-worker, etc. At the end of the played
scenario, PalMa will give detailed feedback on the player’s performance.
The interaction and feedback is predefined by trainers according to their
objectives.
Within education, PalMa allows teachers to design exercises with
different levels of difficulty in order to train and test their students on
previously selected specific skills. Figure 3 shows a screenshot of PalMa.
For more details about the tool you can visit
http://www.entropykn.net/edugames/Pagine/Palma.htm
Figure 3 – Palma scene
145
VI.4. The trainees and recruitment process
In the process of selecting the technology to be used in the
workshop, we started to contact the participants who would take part.
Information about the workshop was e-mailed to teachers who
participated in the training courses for university teachers organised by
UJI. The teachers interested in the workshop requested admission to the
course. Initially, 22 people were registered for the seminar. Two
participants failed to start the course because of scheduling difficulties,
and four of them did not meet the minimum required attendance in order
to be considered in the final sample. Finally, the group was composed of
16 participants: 10 women and 6 men.
The participants had a range of academic backgrounds: five were
psychologists, six were engineers, two were chemists, one was a
translator, one was specialised in information science and Publicity and,
finally, one had a computing degree. This was an important point
because our proposal was to include these new technologies as an
experience of e-learning without taking into account the background of
the teachers and the subjects they teach.
All participants were teachers at UJI, but with different types of
contracts: six were predoctoral fellows, four were assistant professors,
three associate professors, two were contracted research staff and one
was a member of the research teaching personnel. In this way members
of the group, who had been teaching between one and eight years,
offered a varied profile in terms of their teaching areas and experience
with technology.
VI.5. The workshop
When the technologies were selected and the participants recruited,
the workshop started. It was organised into six sessions, each one lasting
for around six hours and it was applied with the purpose of teaching the
selected technologies to university teachers participating in the Spanish
trials. The seminar was taught by two teachers and researchers of our
146
team, specialised in the field. Both were psychology graduates, with a
master degree, and PhD students in their teaching phase. Both were
trained in the specific contents of the workshop and had more than three
years’ experience in the use of new technologies in psychology.
The main objectives of the first session were to give a general
presentation about the T3 Project and find out the different interests of
the participants in relation to the application of new technologies in their
own teaching practice, their knowledge about the topic, and their general
experience with the new technologies. Moreover, a pre-evaluation
protocol was applied; specifically a “Technology Profile” questionnaire.
The aim of this first questionnaire was to find out which out of 23
technologies had been used by the trainees in their teaching contexts. The
participants’ answers could range from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). In
addition, the questionnaire included items on socio-demographic data
and academic background. After that, a presentation of all the tools was
made.
The main objectives for the second, third and fourth sessions were
to show each tool in detail with a particular exercise to be completed. A
more precise description of these sessions is now described:
For the second session, a theoretical introduction about “soft skills”
was given at first in order to contextualise the use of the different tools
that the participants would see throughout the workshop. After that,
PalMa tools were explained and their possibilities and limitations
outlined. Once participants knew the programme a practical session was
set up which consisted of designing of a small example showing how it
would be used. Each participant applied what they learned to a schema of
a hypothetical application in their own subject. After that, the
participants’ experience during the practical session was discussed and
conclusions were drawn regarding future uses of the programme with
students.
During the third session, an explanation about the Eutopia editor
was given with attention to its characteristics and its similarities and
147
differences with PalMa. This was followed by a practical session that
focused on the use of Eutopia. Participants were put into different groups
and, using an existing example, interacted with Eutopia. After the
practical finished, the experience of taking part in the exercise and
possible applications of Eutopia were debated.
In the fourth session, we followed the same structure. First, we
gave a theoretical explanation of e-Adventure tools. Once the participants
knew the programme a practical session was carried out using the tool.
During the practical session, each participant had to follow a guideline to
construct a game using e-Adventure. After the practical had been
completed, a debate about the experience and possible applications of the
programme took place.
The fifth and sixth sessions were entirely practical. The main
purpose of these sessions was to give participants opportunities to design
real scenarios for their own teaching. With that objective in mind the
teachers first shared their different ideas and then they selected the right
tools to make these possible. After each participant decided what they
wanted to do, they then started to build their own scenario. At the end of
this sixth session each participant shared their own project and received
feedback from their partners. Then we applied the post-evaluation
protocol and obtained the participants’ opinions of the workshop.
At the end of the workshop two questionnaires were applied: the
“Tool evaluation questionnaire” which aimed to evaluate each
technology used in the workshop in terms of its design and usability
through 13 items; and the “Workshop Evaluation Questionnaire” which
aimed to find out participants’ opinions on how helpful the course was in
understanding new learning concepts, how innovative and useful the
technologies are and the future application of the tools.
The main results obtained from the measures included in the
workshop are presented in the next sections.
148
VI.5.a. Technological profile of the teachers
First, regarding the technology profile, Figure 4 summarises the
information about the main technological tools used by teachers who
participated in the trials. As shown in Figure 4, the most frequently used
technologies on teaching practice were the associated with generic
software tools with an average of 4.88 on the 1 to 5 scale. These tools are
PowerPoint, graphics, audio and video editing, data handling, word
processing and publishing. In second place came the use of conventional
desktop or laptop computers, with an average of 4.75; then all types of
communication tools, like Skype, e-mail and chat averaged 4.69; finally,
the frequency of use of Internet, as a data and information resource came
to an average of 4.5. It is important to mention that the classrooms of
University Jaume I are mainly equipped with these technologies and, in
addition, these technologies are an important resource in teaching across
the subjects. It is also essential to mention that UJI is a very
technological institution; so, independently of each particular profile, all
teachers have access to other different teaching technological tools.
Figure 4 - Technological tools used by teachers
149
In Figure 4 we also observed other technologies falling within the
middle range of frequencies of use on teaching practice (tools with a
mean ranging between 2 and 4), with virtual environments, or virtual
learning environments (VLEs), being the most used in this category
(average = 3.13) followed by Web 2.0 technology (wikis, social
networking software etc.) tools for collaborative learning (average =
3.06). Finally, the tools with lowest frequency of use in teaching (with a
score ranging from 1 to 2) were hand-held technologies with an average
of 1.44 and, lastly, the use of robots or other computer-controlled devices
with average of 1.38. The complexity of the use of these technologies,
their specific use, plus the cost of these kinds of devices could be
influencing these results.
VI.5.b. Technologies and course valoration by the teachers
Results obtained in the post-evaluation protocol are presented in
two parts: First, a general evaluation of each technology as tools for the
teachers’ educational setting and second, the participants´ opinion about
the course of training in these technologies.
With regard to opinions about the tools, the participants considered
the three tools as good tools to implement in their educational setting. As
shown in Figure 5, e-Adventure seems to be the most adequate tool
according participants opinion with an average of 4.05, the second tool is
Eutopia with an average of 3.66 and finally PalMa with and average of
3.33.
150
Figure 5 – Tool Evaluation.
Finally, results regarding opinions about the workshop are
presented in Figure 6. Participants indicated that it was helpful to
understand new concepts of learning supported by new technologies
(‘Understand’ mean: 3.81). They also indicated the technologies they
used were innovative (‘Innovative’ mean: 4), and useful (‘Useful’ mean:
3.72). With regard to the possibility of implementing these technologies
in the future, the teachers stated that they will keep using them and will
encourage others to use them as a learning method (‘Future Application’
mean: 3.54). The consideration by the teachers about using these
technologies in the future is very important in giving continuity to the use
of the learned tools and to apply this to the secondary beneficiaries of the
workshop: university students.
151
Figure 6 – Workshop Evaluation.
VI.6. Conclusion and discussion
Using technology as an educational tool can result in greater
student motivation as well as renewing or updating methods and teaching
techniques (Martínez-Torres, Toral, Barrero, Gallardo, Oliva& Torres,
2008). On this basis, innovative technologies allow new ways of
providing education and, especially, learning through activities, serious
games and educational tools. This can be very attractive to university
students.
The objective of the workshop was to show a series of tools
designed to highlight the possibilities that ICTs can offer as powerful
tools for learning within a university environment. Overall, this means
developing more accessible teaching methodologies, and also bringing
the university closer to the European Higher Education System.
Participants in the workshop evaluated the technologies used as
appropriate and easy to use. All the systems had a score above 50 per
cent of the scale. However, one application stood out above the others
two: e-Adventure. This is probably due to the fact that this tool is more
versatile and easier to adapt to a specific context of teaching across the
152
different of areas of knowledge (psychology, engineering, chemistry,
computing, etc.).
During the implementation of this project it was necessary to train
the teachers in detail about the selected technologies. A significant
feature in the methodology used is the important amount of time we
allowed the teachers to incorporate the knowledge involved in every
system. We put special emphasis on the theory relating to each tool, on
developing practical examples of the systems, and on let teachers become
involved in a personal project with the focus technology. The final
purpose was to facilitate a clearer understanding of the systems. In this
way the teachers could gain adequate knowledge of the technologies in
order to incorporate these when teaching their students.
Concerning the workshop, the teachers’ assessment and opinion
were found to be favorable both for the pedagogy and the teaching
methodology used, which facilitated the understanding of the various
tools shown as well as the innovative nature of the contents of the
seminar. Moreover, in the evaluation, the teachers also highlighted the
vast possibilities of use the tools in the future, highlighting their
usefulness in teaching. In addition, the data obtained in the trial are of
interest because we asked the teachers directly about their satisfaction
with the tools and, specifically, about their teaching.
Without doubt, ICTs have important potential in university
education. However, there are still unsolved problems. Different
professors and different students have different opinions regarding the
use of ICTs as useful tools to improve teaching. We have seen here that
some ICT tools were very popular (such as PowerPoint) among the
teaching staff, whereas others were much less used. We have also seen
that, although all the tools that were used at the workshop were positively
assessed by the participants, the most versatile tool was most widely
accepted. Finally, we have also found it was necessary to dedicate time
and effort for the participants’ training. It is thus possible to extract some
important conclusions that may help to promote the use of ICTs in
teaching. On the one hand, it seems to be necessary, firstly, for those
tools to be easier to use. Making people succeed and use them will make
153
them more involved in using other possible tools in the future. Secondly,
it also appears that designing ICT for broad spectrum of learning, with
versatility, is important. Finally, it is necessary to design entertaining
ways that may be incorporated to make the application introduce and
explain itself. No doubt, we will manage to do this in the near future. We
have already takenthe first step, and in general we can conclude that we
have found a great acceptance among the teachers of the technologies
presented. This suggests that the next step would be to implement these
tools in the university teaching context with students as the final users.
A new reality at the present time is that teachers, students and ICTs
coexist together. In consequence an important purpose is to integrate
them in teaching. However, a first phase should be to let teachers start
using them, identify the existing difficulties and develop solving
strategies. The main objective of the workshop described in this chapter
is to bring near the teachers to the existing ICTs for their teaching. A
benefit of primary importance will be to increase intrinsic motivation,
very relevant in teaching tasks. A second and very relevant benefit will
be to further the accomplishments of graduate students and bring with
this more satisfied teachers.
154
References
Bretón-López, J., Quero, S., Botella, C., Baños, R. M., Vizcaíno, Y., Farfallini,
L., & Herrero, R. (2011).T3 European Project:Advanced New
Technology to Improve the Learning Process.Cybertherapy. Canadá, 19
de Junio.
Bretón-López, J., Quero, S., Botella, C., Baños, R. M., Farfallini, L., & Herrero,
R. (2011).El Proyecto Europeo T3:Resultados preliminares del uso de
nuevas tecnologías para la docencia universitaria.SPDECE-2011.
Almagro, Ciudad Real, 15 de Junio.
Bretón-López, J., Botella, C., Vizcaíno, Y., Quero, S., Baños, R., & Molés, M.
(2010).El proyecto europeo T3 (enseñando a enseñar con nuevas
tecnologías).VII Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Española de
Psicología Clínica y Psicopatología, Benicàssim, 21-23 de
Octubre.ISBN: 978-84-8021-788-0.
Boyer, A., & Hamil, B. (2008).Problems facing american education. Focus on
Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 2, 1-9.
Cabero Almenara, J. (2006).Bases pedagógicas del e-learning. Revista De
Universidad y Sociedad Del Conocimiento, RUSC, 3(1).
Davis, F. D. (1989).Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology.MIS Quarterly 13, 319–339.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989).User acceptance of
computer technology:a comparison of two theoretical
models.Management Science, 35, 982–1002.
Fernández-Abascal, E. G., Martín Díaz, M. D., & Domínguez Sánchez, F. J.
(2001). Procesos Psicológicos. Madrid:Pirámide.
Keller, J.M., & Suzuki, K. (2004).Learner motivation and E-learning design:a
multinationally validated process.Journal of Educational Media, 29, 229-
239.
Lytras, M. D., & Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2007).Red gate corner:A web 2.0
prototype for knowledge and learning concerning china business and
culture. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3(4), 542-
548.
Lytras, M. D., & Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2009). Social web
evolution:Integrating semantic applications and web 2.0
technologies Information Science Reference-Imprint of:IGI Publishing.
155
Martínez-Ortiz, I., Moreno-Ger, P., Sierra, J. L., & Fernández-Manjón, B.
(2006). Production and Maintenance of Content-Intensive Videogames:A
Document-Oriented Approach.In Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Information Technology:New Generations (ITNG 2006),
pages 118-123, Las Vegas, USA, (IEEE Society Press).
Martínez-Torres, M. R., Toral, S. L., Barrero, F., Gallardo, S., Oliva, M., &
Torres, T., (2008).A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in
practical and laboratory teaching, according to the European higher
education area’’.Behavior and Information Technology 27 (6), 495–505.
Prensky, M. (2009).H. sapiens digital:From digital immigrants and digital
natives to digital wisdom. Journal of Online Education, 5(3).
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010).Awareness of group
performance in a CSCL-environment:Effects of peer feedback and
reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 151-161.
Porter, L. W., Bigley, G. A., & Steers, R. M. (2003). Motivation and work
behavior McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Toral, S. L., Barrero, F., & Martínez-Torres, M. R. (2007).Analysis of utility
and use of a web based tool for digital signal processing teaching by
means of a technological acceptance model.Computers & Education 49
(4), 957–975.
Torrente, J., Moreno-Ger, P., Fernández-Manjón, B., & del Blanco, A
(2009) Game-like Simulations for Online Adaptive Learning:A Case
Study.In proceedings of the The 4th International Conference on E-
Learning and Games (Edutainment 2009), August 9-11 2009, Banff,
Canada.LNCS 5670, pp. 162-173.
Zhao, J., & Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2010a).Analysis of cooperative mechanism
of industry–academy R&D alliance lab and case study. Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 20(2), 123-134.
Zhao, J., & Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2010b).Chinese firms' outward direct
investment:Technological innovation mechanisms, organizational modes,
and improving strategies. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing & Service Industries, 20(2), 149-160.
156
157
VII
A training course in new learning technologies for
Corporate Trainers
Roberto Vardisio, Michela Fiorese
VII. 1 Introduction
According to the Global Information Technology Report 2010-
2011, recently released by the World Economic Forum (WEF), Italy
ranks 51st in the ranking on the ability to exploit new technologies as a
vehicle for economic and social development. Preceded by countries
such as Tunisia (35th) and Estonia (26th), Italy suffers a marked retreat
from, for example, the 2006 standings in which Italy was positioned
38th.
Going into the detail behind the reasons leading to this kind of
WEF ranking against our country, we discover some interesting
implications. It is not the spread of mobile phones and the Internet per se
that affect the Italian position (indeed, Italy is one of the countries with a
large diffusion of these), but, rather, it is the quality of education and
national policies that promote innovation and development.
The difficulty of our country to understand and exploit the potential
of new technologies as tools for development takes on different forms
depending on the areas they affect. For those who work daily within
Italian companies, a case of particular interest is the use of these
158
technologies with respect to training programs and organisational
learning.
Althoug he-learning has found some success in the recent past,
particularly within large organisations; it is also true that it is notable to
definitively overcome the “threshold of credibility” that has now been
finally passed in other countries (e.g., Germany and Great Britain). An
awareness of the educational potential of so-called ‘Technology
Enhanced Learning’ (using serious games, augmented reality, robotics
education, etc.), already well employed in North European countries, is
currently not even at an embryonic stage.
The difficulty of introducing such tools and their potential into the
educational practices of companies appears to derive in part from
structural factors (lack of technological infrastructures, difficulties in
making investments, problems of dialogue between the research world
and the world of work, etc.) but is also due to a lack of update for those
who work in corporate learning that sometimes turns into distrust, or
even into cultural resistance. Therefore, the WEF's analysis clearly
demonstrates a critical element that those who work daily in the service
of Italian companies live by their own efforts when utilising new
technologies.
Apart from the economic context, with the phantom of a general
recession at this corner of world economy, there is an urgency in terms of
what modern corporate training is asked to do to be competitive and in
turn make companies competitive. The corporate T3 programme seeks
precisely to make a contribution in this direction: the goal is to convince
corporate trainers of the validity and the possibilities inherent in
technology for learning, elaborating meta-models for their use and
providing tools for the acquisition of new mental frames.
Broad reasons why companies and trainers might embrace TEL
initiatives are:
1. Expanding access: TEL can assist in meeting the
demand for training from general businesses, especially
because it offers the possibility of a flexibility to
159
accommodate the many time and space constraints imposed
by personal responsibilities and commitments;
2. Alleviating capacity constraints: being mostly or
entirely conducted off-site, TEL systems reduce the demand
on institutional infrastructure such as buildings;
3. Making money from emerging markets: TEL
fosters an increasing acceptance from the population of the
value of lifelong learning, even in the corporate training
sector, and companies can benefit financially by reducing
training costs. Additionally, the corporate sector for business
executives and HR managers is more lucrative than traditional
markets;
4. Acting as a catalyst for institutional
transformation: the competitive modern marketplace demands
rapid change and innovation, for which TEL programs can
play a part;
5. Acting as a catalyst for a methodological shift: due
to the complexity of modern training issues, the TEL
approach allows one to face and learn how to manage a wide
variety of situations, providing paths especially designed and
tailored.
Thus, TEL initiatives can not only represent a valuable answer to
the economic crisis which poses new demands, but also to the need of a
paradigm shift and a “language” change inspired by new technologies
and driven by a new generation’s training needs. Following this
direction, the technologies and examples provided during the training
path aimed to cover the widest potential of employment in corporate
settings, according to different training aims.
160
Technologies Examples
provided
Training aims
Serious games PalMa
Inside disaster
Game4manager
IBM City One
Get Marketing
Underground
Mining
Soft managerial skills
Problem solving
Managerial skills
(corporate business)
Managerial skills
(complex systems)
Managerial skills
(corporate business)
Safety and prevention
issues
Augmented
Reality
Inglobe
technologies tools
Procedural
knowledge
Multiplayer
Virtual Worlds
Sinapsi
Second Life
Digital spaces
Active Worlds
Blue Mars
Project
Wonderland
Cobalt
Soft skills (training
and assessment)
Soft skills (training,
assessment)
Procedural
knowledge
Soft skills (training)
Soft skills (training)
Soft skills (training)
Soft skills (training)
Web 2.0
Online content
editors
Feed +
aggregators
Mush ups
Social
bookmarking
Crowd sourcing
E-portfolios and
PLEs
Web Operating
Systems
Knowledge and
content building
Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing
Reference sharing and
networking
Professional
networking
Knowledge and
content building
Productivity
enhancement
Multiplayer
Role Games
Dread-Ed Problem solving
Table 1. Technologies and examples provided
A TEL programme must obviously be sustainable even in the short
period in terms of costs, general efficiency and effectiveness. Indeed, the
return of investment (ROI) and a positive downfall on human resource
161
(HR) performances are perceived as pressing indicators of the success of
a TEL training program.
As a consequence, the choice of the best technology to fit training
aims is a fundamental step.
VII.2. Didactical-training goals and choice of tools within TEL
corporate programs
When coping with training issues in the corporate field, the
employment of such new technologies and new media highlights the
need of a double focus for trainers and for HR managers: from one side,
a deep awareness of potentialities and possible ways of use of each of
these technologies and, from the other side, the ability to keep centered
on the human resources’ needs, thus on specific training goals.
The T3 corporate programme highlighted in a very clear manner
the strength of influence of each technological tool on the nature of the
training course itself. This opens for trainers some fundamental questions
about the aims of the programme. Besides, in this more complex
situation there arises a need of an original framework to fully understand
points of strength and weakness, along with opportunities and threats (in
few words, a SWOT analysis) of each tool and, as a consequence, the
need to detect which is the direct link between specific technological
tools and didactical/training objectives.
When moving to the general planning of TEL corporate programs,
the starting point should be the definition of training goals. With
traditional face to face programs, there is a further question: which are
the technological tools that best fit those goals?
What today’s training experts are asked to consider is a rethinking
of the whole training process, implementing it with a new tools-goals
approach. Thus, they are called to go further with a radical paradigm
shift, moving from traditional programs towards a more comprehensive
approach, with results widened and deepened by an effective integration
of new technology tools along with more involving ways of achieving
old and new training objectives.
162
Initially, a useful thing to do is focus on the particular kind of
knowledge the trainer wants to develop through the TEL program. In
more detail, the trainer must question if aim of the programme is to
develop declarative or propositional knowledge (i.e., knowledge that is
by its nature expressed in declarative sentences or indicative
propositions), or procedural knowledge (i.e. knowledge of how, and
especially how best, to perform some task).
A linked question that a corporate trainer must address is
represented by the nature of the fruition of the program itself. In
particular, what best fits learning aims? Is it a self-learning and
individual mode or a program focused on the social dimension of
learning?
Obviously, as mentioned above, the choice of a particular
instrument (or combination of instruments) is influenced by the nature
itself of the technological tools as well as by the underlying learning
paradigm they promote.
The following scheme (Figure 1) is presented as a practical guide
to corporate trainers to help them detect the “family” of tools they should
use for specific learning aims and specific training modes.
Figure 1 – Learning aims and training instruments
163
With declarative knowledge aims and individual content training
activities (Quadrant 1) the tools that best fit the purpose are lessons
(multimedia or simply text-based ones) as well as web browsing through
hypertexts. These tools are defined as CBT (computer based training) or
WBT (web based training), depending on whether an internet connection
is used to deliver learning contents.
In the case of training projects that aim to develop declarative
knowledge adding a social dimension of learning (i.e., the chance to
contribute in building and sharing knowledge, communication and
eventually collaboration among trainees, Quadrant 2), some tools seem
to fit better than others namely: mind mapping software and blogs. The
first are tools to present a graphical display of concepts and relations
among concepts, which can be modified and enriched collaboratively.
The second are personal digital publishing tools on the web and represent
a valuable way to update and share information with a wider audience.
Considering the need to train on procedural knowledge (know-how)
through new technology mediated interactions and a social or
collaborative learning mode (Quadrant 3), the suggested tools are
moblogs (mobile blogs), MOOs (Multi-user Object Oriented domain,
(i.e., a particular kind of multi-player role simulation), collaborative
simulation games and collaborative virtual environments. All the above
mentioned tools share a common focus on active interactions among
participants and are found [c.f.r. Innovative Approaches for Learning and
Knowledge Sharing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006, Volume
4227/2006, 331-346 “Two Technology-Enhanced Courses Aimed at
Developing Interpersonal Attitudes and Soft Skills in Project
Management”]to be very effective in training so called soft-skills
(communicational, team-work and managerial skills).
If our aim is to train on procedural knowledge (know-how) but
without the need to go through mediated interactions, then a self-learning
mode seems to fit all our training purposes (Quadrant 4) and we should
employ one of the following tools (or a combination of them):individual
simulation games, augmented reality or robotics. Individual simulation
games allow participants to experiment with some likely reproduced
164
situations and are particularly suitable for training problem solving skills.
Augmented reality tools allow users to display additional information on
real environment video flows and they are thus suited to training, for
instance, safety and prevention behaviors in given work environments.
Robotics allows real-world applications of mathematics and science
concepts through the use of engineering design, thus it is most suited for
science learning at different levels. The application of robotics could
hopefully arise in a corporate context, especially in training a workforce
for industrial process management.
Another useful framework for trainers interested in planning TEL
programmes is represented by the following scheme (Figure 2), which
can be linked to the same tools-goals approach mentioned above.
Figure 2 – T3 Framework: mapping technology-use into a learning space
In this case, the major focus is on learning paradigms and aims,
gathered into four main categories: memorising and understanding
(declarative knowledge), problem solving and creating (procedural
knowledge). Moreover, focusing as well on specific learning aims, the
trainer is called to question about what best fits the employment of new
technologies: an online program, a face to face programme or a blended
Lea
rnin
g t
ho
ug
h s
oci
al
inte
ract
ion
Learning paradigm
memorising understanding problem solving creating
solo
p
air
s
gro
up
com
mu
nit
y
w
orl
d-w
ide
modellingdrill &
practice
simulationscommercial
video games
wikis
browsing
educational games
MLEs
ind
ivid
ua
l
soci
al
165
(mixed) one? Also, a trainer involved in planning a TEL programme
must be aware of the distinction between synchronous and asynchronous
tools.
Synchronous tools allow the delivery of contents where all
participants are "present" at the same time. It resembles traditional indoor
training methods even though the participants are located remotely. It
requires a timetable to be well organised. Conversely, in the
asynchronous training mode, participants can access course materials or
tools according to their own schedule and so is more flexible. Trainees
are not required to be together at the same time. These two methods can,
of course, be combined in the delivery of a single training program,
depending of our specific aims.
Along with the choice of the best technology (or combination of
technologies) and the best mode of delivery, to achieve the effectiveness
of a TEL program a great role is played by planning and organisation.
As for traditional training courses, the planning phase must focus
primarily on a needs analysis and a background study of constraints. For
instance, what tools can we effectively employ in the program and,
importantly, what is the level of technological proficiency displayed by
our target, thus depending on time and costs of previous training on
technological skills.
The following checklist summarises some key points for trainers
involved in planning TEL courses:
1 Needsanalysis of the target group
2 Identification of major and secondary training objectives
(declarative or procedural knowledge)
3 Background study of possible bonds and constraints
(available tools, technological proficiency, etc.)
4 SWOT analysis and choice of tools, according to specific
training goals
5 Delivery mode:
a. self-learning or social learning mode (or a
combination of them)
166
b. online programme or face to face programme (or
mixed)
c. employment of synchronous or asynchronous
tools(or a combination of them)
Once the training objectives are clear, along with the selection of
tools and the best delivery mode, the trainer is asked to focus on planning
and organisational issues which also play a key role for the whole
effectiveness of a TEL program.
Planning and organisational issues of corporate TEL programs
The selection of tools and of a delivery mode is a fundamental
aspect of TEL initiatives, but this starting focus on technologies should
not detract from the major focus of a corporate training programme
which, even if technology mediated, must accord with trainees’ needs.
So, another question that a trainer has to address concerns how to
plan and organise to best fit these needs. To simplify, planning and
organisational issues mostly come down to time and space constraints.
This last point is particularly relevant if we decide to plan a face to face
or a blended training program.
Time and space constraints are mostly linked to opportunities and
threats highlighted during the background study of our TEL proposal,
and must be carefully taken into account. For instance, if our aim is to
train on specific behavioral or communicational skills (above all, team-
working issues) and we decide that the technology to fit these training
goals is a serious game but we don’t have enough time to build our own
one, then we should consider an outsourcing option, i.e. moving to locate
and use a tool that has already been developed for the same training goals
instead of developing a new one. Space constraints play a key role as
well in the planning and organisational phase of a TEL initiative, deeply
influencing the selection of tools we are going to employ during the
programme.
167
If our aim is to reach a wide target group, with people spread
beyond delimited geographical boundaries, and we need also to reduce
the overall costs of the training program, then the employment of online
(synchronous or asynchronous) technologies will be likely to fit the
purpose better than face to face initiatives with the same goals. An
intermediate solution could also be found in the planning of a blended
program, i.e., the employment of online tools along with face to face
meetings.
Conversely, if our target group is relatively small and
geographically delimited, the trainer will choose traditional face to face
sessions in which the programme is enhanced by the use of other
technological tools (for instance individual or collaborative serious
games, depending of training objectives).
Another organisational issue is the number of people attending a
TEL course, which obviously will influence the choice of the best
delivery mode, as well as the particular kind of activities the participants
are expected to carry out, individual or collaborative.
For a large number of people attending a TEL program, a
collaborative sub-group activity is suggested to maximise effectiveness
in knowledge retention, as well as to train and experiment on specific
soft-skills. For a smaller target population and for declarative knowledge
aims, individual learning modes fit the purpose well.
Besides that, and compared to traditional training programs, plans
to monitor, track and control some TEL activities will require a firm
“training agreement” between trainers and trainees. This agreement
acquires even more significance if the learning path is mostly on-line.
Indeed, full control on trainee’s activities, especially in presence of
massive “technology mediated” attended projects, is hard to achieve.
Trainers and instructional designers are thus asked to provide particular
attention, also in the planning phase, to motivational aspects. For
instance, the inclusion of a competitive element within sub-group
activities (e.g., competition between different teams) should result in
fostering the in-group dimension, thus augmenting participants’ personal
involvement.
168
The following checklistsummarises some points for attention
during the planning and organisational phase:
1 . Time and space constraints
2 . Outsourcing options
3 . Number of people attending the course
4 . Planning of activities: individual or collaborative
5 . Planning of activities: motivational aspects
This next checklist is presented as a guideline for use during the
planning and organisational phase to achieve a general coherence
between training aims and technological tools within the corporate
training path:
1 Training aims
- Hard skills
- Soft skills
- Declarative knowledge
- Values
- Problem solving
- Context information
2 Type of technology selected
- Life- and reality-like
- Metaphoric
- Observation
- Experimentation
- Problem solving (analysis and decision)
3 Scenario
- Individual fruition
- Group or social activities
4 Logic of functioning and use
5 Insertion within the training path
169
VII.3. Delivery and management of corporate TEL initiatives
Generally speaking, as usually happens with traditional training
programs, a TEL initiative should combine and mix together some
introductory theoretical aspects with some practical ones along with
further analysis and debriefing of the activities.
This last point comes down to the concept of feedback, which
becomes more and more a key factor considering that not all the tools we
choose will have built-in feedback options, thus forcing us to find other
equally effective ways to carry on this fundamental training phase.
Regular feedbacks in TEL projects help to promote and animate
participation within the program, involving the participants in individual
or collaborative activities or inviting them to rethink and retain particular
aspects of the course.
Some corrective feedbacks may be needed while introducing and
carrying on a brand new corporate TEL initiative. For instance, in cases
where participants are “tempted” to employ older instruments or methods
they are more used to, that are not mediated by technologies, to carry on
or coordinate their work with others (above all, in face-to-face meetings
instead of using communicational tools). Usually, individuals or groups
preferring older ways to cope with TEL activities exhibit the worst
overall performance during training. Thus trainers are called to prevent
or correct such temptations.
Once again, regarding the effectiveness of a TEL initiative, the
paradigm shift towards new ways of training opened by the new
technologies has to be embraced not only by trainers planning and
organising the course, but also by the trainees that are at the very central
point of each training approach, innovative or traditional. Without this,
the technologies will be perceived more like obstacles than opportunities.
To prevent that, TEL activities and contents must be organised in a
coherent manner, using the same new “language”, allowing the whole
training system to be perceived as functional.
170
The trainer must also be aware of some constraints that may
depend of the particular technology employed, for instance a downfall of
motivation using only online tools without some collaborative and
teamwork instruments, or without a warming e-tutoring support. The
increase or decrease of the level of self-motivation when attending TEL
programs is directly connected to the level of self governing and self
development awareness displayed by participants. In this case, the
particular tool or combination of tools employed in the programme
defines a particular training style, which can be directive, as well as
supporting.
Highly skilled and motivated trainees will not need a directive style
of training, but instead some kind of delegation and autonomy.
Conversely, low skilled and under-motivated trainees must be monitored
and regularly involved in the training activities, with corrective feedback
if needed.
Figure 3 – Training styles and levels of proficiency in the use of new
technologies
A coaching or more directive style get results in the delivery of
tightly scheduled activities (general work packages, with well defined
sub tasks and duties). Probably this depends on a defensive attitude
171
towards innovation and change or a low level of proficiency showed by
participants in the use of some technological tools which might bring, in
some cases, to a bad self organization or an ineffective collaborative
work. To prevent that, peer to peer feedback should be delivered
regularly during the training path, at intermediate check points and used
by the groups to debrief on work contents, as well as on decisional and
communicational aspects.
From this point of view, delegating and supportive styles provide
participants with more open feedback strategies which can be solicited in
case of need, or simply delegated to the inner organisation of activities
by individuals and groups.
The following checklist summarises some points for attention
during the delivery phase:
1 Feedback (involving, motivating, or corrective)
2 Tools and training styles (directive, supporting, or
delegating)
Depending on the tools employed during the programme, further
aspects may need particular attention, especially for those technologies
used at a distance in an individual self-learning mode without any form
of e-tutoring support. The following list summarises some useful tips to
promote the effective use of some distinctive technologies during the
delivery phase.
VII.3.a. Serious games (PalMa – Managerial Gym)
This software application was developed using the same
technology as in the design of video games but with a primary purpose
other than entertaining. This aim coincides with specific learning
objectives. The main unit of the game consists of a scenario, a situation
in which the player is required to achieve a certain goal. The player acts
172
through an avatar while the only tool available to the player is
represented by dialogue choices.
How can It be used?
PalMa can be employed in organisational and corporate contexts
according to:
1. Management and vocational training: strategy,
marketing, soft skills
2. Assessment and evaluation
3. Coaching and development
Main goals
The insertion of PalMa within a corporate training path allows
trainers and HR specialists to:
1. Have an objective measure of the effectiveness of certain
skills
2. “Train” strategic management skills
3. Work on specific development needs
4. Monitor progress over time with respect to the development
of specific skills
5. Contribute indirectly to the spread of internal culture and
values
6. Spread best practices through the formalisation of models of
efficiency recognised by the company
7. Build highly refined and calibrated tools with respect to the
referring corporate culture
Added value:
The main advantage of serious games, in particular, PalMa –
Managerial Gym, is the employment of simulation to understand,
through an experiential way, the inner functioning of a complex
phenomenon or problem. Besides that, an added value to corporate
173
training is the chance to reflect on and build models of effectiveness
which force participants to focus on the work process and coping
strategies they are usually involved in so that new values can spread and
streng then, along with new personal attitudes and behaviors. Besides
that, the tool allows a high level of customisation in terms of scenarios,
dialogues and layouts. Thanks to the “game approach” and the
consequent emotive involvement, participation is facilitated.
Tips for use:
If used for training or development purposes, feedback at the end
of game sessions must be clearly designed to give indications about the
level of understanding related to the phenomenon and about the
effectiveness of the strategy adopted to face opportunities and threats of
the situation.
Otherwise, for assessment purposes, no feedback should be given
to participants as data coming from the game sessions will be used by
trainers for the evaluation.
VII.3.b. Multiplayer Role Games (MRGs, e.g., Dread-Ed)
Like serious games, these software applications are developed
using the technology and the design of video games but they are mostly
delivered online, in a synchronous mode, with simultaneous participation
of multiple users.
How can they be used?
The best way to insert MRGs, in particular Dread-Ed, into TEL
projects is a blended training programme with the aim of improving the
ability to make effective decisions and work in groups within simulated
emergency situations.
Main goals
Dread-Ed allows trainers and HR specialists to train, assess or
develop soft skills along with problem solving abilities. More
particularly, trainees will experiment through the tool, effective
174
communication skills, information sharing strategies, resource
management, management of emotions and stress and decision making.
When involved in a collaborative strategy, to succeed in the game,
participants are forced to put to the test their own communicational and
social skills.
Added value:
The game allows participants to simulate real dynamics in the
safety of a simulated reality, while the debriefing session led by the tutor
allows participants to reflect on choices made by the group.
Tips of use:
The tutor has the chance to choose the “script”, record the sessions
and edit them with comments in order to provide feedbacks. A group
debriefing with the tutor before the game session is highly recommended.
Importantly, the tutor must check that participants are all online and
ready to start, assigning to each of them a particular role within the
simulation.
VII.4. Evaluation of a corporate TEL project
The main temptation in evaluating new TEL corporate initiatives is
employing some of the older instruments or categories from a traditional
method, which do not fit so well with the new training language. Besides
that, it is very difficult and generally not productive to compare
evaluation issues of TEL projects with traditional ones. For this reason it
becomes very important to take into account that a general coherence
between the training path and the evaluation protocol must be pursued.
Elements to be evaluated during TEL initiatives depend primarily
on which kind of technology (or combination of technologies) is used
and its role within the training path according to the general and specific
aims of the project. To elaborate, the evaluation protocol of a corporate
TEL project should take into account three main aspects (see Chapter 8
for a more detailed review):
175
- Previous knowledge and practice of new
technologies (background study)
- Use of the technology within the training path:
- usability
- absorption
- acceptation
- Training goals and provided path
The aim of a background study introducing the use of a new
technology for corporate training should be primarily to find out what
technologies the target group have used in the work environment (e.g.
simulations, serious games, online communicational and team-work
tools, etc.), thus detecting how familiar are participants with this kind of
technology. Data coming from this study should result in the choice of
the tools and of activities to best fit training aims (for more details, see
planning and organisational issues of corporate TEL programmes), along
with the best feedback strategy (see in this case delivery and
management of corporate TEL initiatives).
Another key aspect of the evaluation of TEL programs is found in
the effectiveness of use of each technology within the training path along
the following dimensions: usability, absorption and acceptance. In more
detail, the usability dimension refers to the ease of use and to the level of
accessibility of the tools when needed. The evaluation of this dimension
should focus primarily on detecting if things needed by participants were
clearly visible and easy to find, and if operating instructions were visible
and easily accessible.
To continue, the absorption dimension takes into account the level
of involvement during the use of the technology and, conversely, the
difficulty in being hooked using it for training aims. Furthermore, linked
to both previous dimensions is the perception of usefulness of the tools
employed within the training path, in other words, the acceptance of the
instruments as a training tool. The instruments must be accepted by the
176
target group, i.e., people would recommend to others or would enrol in
future courses that use similar methodologies and technologies.
Overall, the above dimensions play a key role in the evaluation of
each new tool inserted in the programme, compared with traditional ones.
For instance, if the employment of a technology promises some kind of
improvement, but at the end its results are not fully usable or there is a
generally low level of involvement by participants then training aims are
achieved with more difficulty compared to traditional methods.
Another aspect to take into account is that, once the delivery phase
has started, those involved in the initiative usually deepen their ability to
use the different tools and may suggest some improvements to the system
according to their own needs. For this reason, mid-point evaluation and
feedback are suggested, even during the development of a TEL
programme (for further details, see the following corporate case history,
Par. 5).Apart from that, a feedback evaluation strategy should always
keep a regular communicational channel open to participants’ ideas for
improvement and suggestions.
A common mistake is in this sense is to relegate the evaluation
phase to the very end of the training project, thus not allowing trainers
and HR specialists to take needed corrective actions in time. The lack of
regular or intermediate feedback is likely to result, in some cases, in the
unsuccessful development of TEL training possibilities, or even in the
failure of the initiative.
Last but not least, the evaluation of training aims and of the
provided pathshould be planned according to both the general and
specific goals of the Project, with particular attention to the role played
by the tools employed during the programme and to the training activities
carried out to achieve each particular goal.
VII.4.b. A corporate case history: Auriga All Stars project - Rai Way
The chance to test some of the new technologies presented during
the T3 trial, both to direct and indirect beneficiaries, came from an HR
177
development activity planned by Rai Way, the major Italian public
company in the telecommunications sector.
This activity involved around 100 participants across the national
territory over a period of 3 months, starting in April and ending in mid
June. All the participants attended previous projects (with traditional and
experiential training methodologies) from 2005 up to 2010, so that the
“all stars” project can be considered as a follow-up moment to the whole
Auriga training path.
The need for a new opportunity to meet and refresh skills carried
out along previous editions had been addressed several times by
participants in the project, along with the need to create a moment of
global sharing between groups of different years. Starting from these
requirements, the proposal finally set 4 main objectives:
1 Offer a moment for development of personal skills that
invokes the main content covered during the previous edition of
the project;
2 Spread and streng then values, personal ties, and the
positive climate generated by the project through an activity that
involves participants of different editions;
3 Use a challenging and innovative methodology meeting
the technological challenges that Rai Way is actually facing;
4 Deliver an advanced training path whose results will be
made available across the enterprise as a learning tool on
managerial skills.
The general aim of the activity was to develop managerial skills
and support and enhance collaborative teamwork. The technology
selected to fit this purpose was a web 2.0 portal (Moodle 2) in which
trainees used a variety of communication tools (instant messaging, chat,
news forums and project forums) along with collaborative tools for
online content editing (wikis). This collaborative content editing activity
was finalised through storyboarding the dialogues to be implemented in a
178
serious game (PalMa – Managerial Gym), which they also tested at the
very beginning of the training program.
Technologies Aims Delivery mode
Serious games
(PalMa)
Development of soft
managerial skills
In presence
Web 2.0 portal
(Moodle 2)
support/enhance
collaborative teamwork
Online
Web 2.0 tools
(online content
editors)
Knowledge and
content building
Online
Table 2 – Auriga “all stars”: technologies, aims and delivery modes
Participants (divided into 10 groups) were asked to design the
content (dialogues) of a customised educational videogame to be used by
themselves and their colleagues to train their own managerial skills.
The main unit of the game consists of a scenario, a situation in
which the player is required to achieve a specific goal. The player acts
through an avatar, a virtual body of which he/she decides the behavior.
The player's interlocutor consists of a BOT, i.e. a software agent
programmed to answer in a certain way depending by the choices of the
player. In each situation a goal is explained, such as convincing someone
to do a task, solving a conflict, mediating between two parties,
motivating an employee, so that the player will influence the evolution of
the virtual conversation through his or her dialogue choices. At the end
of the game session, PalMa provides detailed feedback on the
performance of the users allowing an assessment which is also in terms
of personal development of ideas.
The training path was thought as a challenge both from the creative
point of view and from that of group work (supported by the project site,
to allow remote working, and by regular asynchronous e-tutoring
179
activity). However the design of the gyms represented not just an
opportunity for discussion and collaborative problem-solving, but also
proved to contain an important element of personal development.
Having to design a dialogue based on a specific managerial
competence, the participants were forced to rethinkin an analytical way
about the kind of competence. This is perhaps one of the major
advantages of the so called simulation method: to simulate and reproduce
the behavior of a certain phenomenon it should be fully 'understood' in
advance.
The project identified four key moments (Start-up, Check, Switch-
off and Showcase) which, except for the switch-off phase, should be
attended face-to-face by all participants. As a consequence, the formula
chosen was a blended training methodology. The first face-to-face
meeting introduced the project, providing also main goals and an
overview of the TEL instruments. The second one aimed to check the
middle work done by participants and define the guiding lines for the
completion of the gyms. The switch-off of the project was aimed to “fine
tune” the artifacts to be finally presented during the showcase event at
the very end of the training path.
Figure 4 – Auriga “all stars”: key moments of the blended strategy
To facilitate remote collaborative work, the project planned a series
of milestones, specific goals and middle outputs. Indeed, this provided
general work packages, with sub-tasks to be completed and output
deliverables tightly scheduled. This organization was consistent with the
180
mid-low level of proficiency in the use of new technologies (and in
particular TEL ones). Indeed an higher grade of autonomy in the
completion of work packages should have caused a leakage in their
effective completion (cfr. training styles and proficiency of use
mentioned in delivery and management of corporate TEL
initiatives).Upon completing the collaborative work, the system also
allowed the contributions of each participant to be tracked so that
“imbalances” amongst those involved in sub-group activity could be
prevented orrectified.
Internal feedback was scheduled at the end of WP1 and WP2, to
meet the needs of peer to peer evaluation of the collaborative work.
During the development of the programme, feedback was given regularly
on the participants’ work through project forums on the Moodle
platform. Some proposals to improve the tools provided came soon after
completion of the first internal peer to peer feedback; one particular
suggestion being to insert open ended questions to give more customised
feedback to colleagues. With respect to training styles and proficiency of
use, the fact that only a small percentage of participants finally used
these questions once they were improved may be taken as an indicator of
a low group maturity. Besides that, an e-tutoring activity covered the
whole training program, providing guidelines both on process and
content issues, and a support on technical instances.
The following scheme summarises the detailed activities carried by
participants and trainers during the project.
181
Work
Packages
Participant’s tasks E-tutoring Feedback
campaigns
WP 1: Start
up
1.1 Detect a skill to train
1.2 Decline the idea
1.3 Define the goal of
the gym
1.4 Storyboard (macro)
- Process
- Content
- Technical
support
Sub-groups work
activity internal
feedback
WP 2: Check
2.1 Storyboard (micro)
2.2 Define the equation
of efficiency
- Process
- Content
- Technical
support
Sub-groups work
activity internal
feedback
WP 3: switch
off
3.1 Fine tuning of the
customised gyms
(dialogues of the Serious
Game)
- Process
- Content
- Technical
Support
None
WP 4:
Showcase
None None Evaluation of the
path
external feedback
from a jury of
training manager
experts
Table 3 – Auriga “all stars”: work packages, tasks, e-tutoring and
feedback campaigns
Overall, the training path was found to bring different advantages:
- was highly innovative in content and methodology
- thanks to the customisation options of the instrument
PalMa, the output was fully pertinent with respect to the
internal corporate language and culture of Rai Way
- was able to generate learning at both individual and group
level, both in theoretical and experiential-practical terms
- allowed to continue and deepen the previous Auriga
training paths, recreating the positive climate of the initiative
- provided tangible feedback about the quality of work and
therefore about the whole effectiveness of groups
- providing to those who have never participated in Auriga a
concrete example of the themes that are covered
182
- conveyed the values of the project, related to personal and
organisational development, even outside the company
Data coming from the feedback and from the evaluation protocol at
the end of the project fully supported the above advantages. Moreover,
the technologies adopted allowed experimentation with new problem
solving strategies. The team work was effectively supported and the
feedback opportunities were useful in supporting the professional growth
of participants. The development of a serious game was perceived as
useful in thinking about group dynamics so that compared overall to
previously attended training paths (with a traditional methodology), the
technologies employed in Auriga “all stars” could be seen to add value to
the corporate training.
1; 5%
2; 20%
3; 32%
4; 34%
5; 9%
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 5. The technologies adopted allowed experimentation with new problem
solving strategies
183
1; 15%
2; 16%
3; 34%
4; 24%
5; 11%
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 6. The technologies employed to collaborate within the group effectively
supported the team work
1; 15%
2; 22%
3; 34%
4; 21%
5; 8%
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 7. Feedback received during the project was useful to my professional
growth
184
1; 1%
2; 11%
3; 15%
4; 49%
5; 24%
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 8. The development of a serious game was useful when thinking about
group dynamics
A few areas of improvement also emerged from the feedback and
can be summarised as follows:
- need of more face-to-face meetings
- workload and calendar
The total number of face-to-face meetings as well the schedule of
activities carried out, although dictated by cost/effectiveness
considerations during the planning phase along with some organisational
constraints, seemed to fit the purposes of the project. Regarding the first
point, the finding that trainees’ need more face-to-face meetings can be
considered a direct consequence of the defensive attitude towards
innovation and change, as already evidenced by the background study.
Besides that, the generally low level of proficiency showed by
participants in the use of some technological tools, in particular
communication/teamwork tools, underlines a starting difficulty in coping
with this kind of new training methodology.
In addition to the above considerations, rather than being a delivery
or organisational issue, the proposal of less tightly scheduled activities
and a more even workload distribution throughout the duration of the
185
project would seem to highlight the participants’ difficulty in achieving
certain levels of performance and coordination through the use of TEL
tools.
VII.5. Conclusions
TEL initiatives in corporate settings have the potential to foster
change both at individual and organisational levels, but to be fully
effective some key aspects have to be taken into account by trainers and
HR specialists. This chapter has tried to highlight the main possibilities
arising from the employment of TEL, with a particular reference to the
different phases and activities that HR experts are asked to plan and
manage. Possible bonds and constraints of a TEL initiative were also
highlighted, giving the reader some useful tips to direct choice towards
the best tools according to specific training needs.
Once the lack of up to date knowledge and skills generally
displayed by corporate workers, along with a certain cultural resistance
to new training methods, is finally overcome, then TEL projects could
represent a vehicle for true economic and social development.
This corporate training paradigm shift and “language” change will
become more and more evident, the more new technology-driven
projects are developed and carried out. The experience in the field
suggests that innovation in content and methodology of training is not
only possible, but also urgent and necessary. As a matter of fact, new
corporate training initiatives should take into account that so called
“digital natives” are more used to technologies than previous generations,
so that the employment of new TEL methodologies is not an option but,
rather, a need.
Furthermore, the poor ranking of our country on the ability to
exploit new technologies as a lever of innovation in the economic and
social field has to be recovered; otherwise there is a risk of abandoning
the prospective of future growth to the certainty of a general recession.
186
Technologies can be a lever, but they have to be operated, thus
giving a new centrality to HR managers and trainers who now have the
chance to lead corporate training to the next new level.
187
References
AA.VV. (2002), E-learning, il Sole 24 Ore, Milano.
Alberici, A. (2002), Imparare sempre nella società della conoscenza,
Mondadori, Milano.
Al-Sayed, R., Ahmad, K. (2003). Shared languages and shared knowledge, The
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Mangement, in Internet, URL:
http://www.ejkm.com
Argyris, C., Schön, D. A. (1995). Organizational Learning: Theory, Method
and Practice, Addison-Wesley, Palo Alto, CA; trad. it. Apprendimento
organizzativo. Teoria, metodo e pratiche, Guerini e Associati, Milano,
1998.
Attewell, J., Savill-Smith, C. (eds.) (2004). Learning with mobile device:
research and development. Learning and Skills Development Agency
(LSDA) Paper, in Internet, URL: http://www.mobilearn.org
Bonani, G.P. (2003), Formazione digitale, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Brown, J. S., Duguid, P. (1991), Organizational learning and communities of
practice: towards a unified view of working, learning and innovating,
Organization Science, vol. 2, nº 1.
Davenport, T. H., Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge. How Organizations
Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA;
trad. it. Il sapere al lavoro. Come le aziende possono generare, codificare
e trasferire conoscenza, Etas, Milano, 2000.
Dede, C. (2011). Immersive Interfaces for Engagement and Learning, Science,
Vol. 323 no. 5910, 2011
Dutta, S., Mia, I. (eds) (2011), The Global Information Technology Report
2010-2011 - Transformations 2.0, in Internet, URL:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GITR_Report_2011.pdf
Entropy Knowledge Network (2011) , T3 - Italian trial report, in Internet,
URL: http://www.t3.unina.it/index.php
Kuttan, A., Peters, L. (2003). From Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity,
Scarecrow Press, Oxford, UK.
La Noce, F. (2002). E-learning: la nuova frontiera della formazione, Franco
Angeli, Milano.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Micelli, S. (2000). Imprese, reti e comunità virtuali, Etas, Milano.
Orlikowski, W., Gash, G. (1994), Technological frames: making sense of
information technology in organizations, ACM Transactions on
Information Systems, vol. 12, nº 2.
Pedler, M. Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T. (1991). The Learning Company, McGraw-
Hill, London, UK.
188
Senge M. P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Sitography
Serious games
PalMa – Managerial Gym: http://www.entropykn.net/palma/
Inside disaster: http://insidedisaster.com/haiti/
Game4manager: http://www.insidedisaster.com/experience/Main.html
IBM City One:
http://www01.ibm.com/software/solutions/soa/innov8/cityone/index.jsp
Multiplayer Virtual Worlds
Sinapsi: http://www.nac.unina.it/sinapsi/
Second Life: http://www.secondlife.com
Active Worlds: http://www.activeworlds.com
Cobalt: http://www.opencobalt.org/
Project Wonderland: https://lg3d-wonderland.dev.java.net
Digital Spaces: http://www.digitalspaces.net
Blue Mars: http://www.bluemars.com
Augmented Reality
Inglobe technology tools: http://www.inglobetechnologies.com/it/
Web 2.0
Online content editors:
http://ckeditor.com/demo
Social bookmarking:
http://www.netvibes.com/it
http://digg.com/
http://www.pageflakes.com/
http://www.wikio.it/
E-portfolios and PLEs:
http://mahara.org/
http://elgg.org/index.php
http://moodle.org/
Web Operating Systems:
http://www.eyeos.org/
http://www.jolicloud.com/
https://www.oodesk.com/desktop/desktop.php
Multiplayer Role Games
Dread-Ed: http://www.dread-ed.eu/
189
VIII
A methodological framework to evaluate training courses
in new learning technology for teachers, educators and
trainers.
Soledad Quero, Juana Bretón-López, Rosa Baños, Yolanda Vizcaíno and
Cristina Botella
VIII.1. Introduction
E-learning is emerging as a very relevant concept in the field of
education (Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, & Yeh, 2008). The technologies of
information and communication (ICTs) offer very useful tools for
teaching and learning processes. Indeed, some important skills,
knowledge and contents can be taught and improved via technologies.
ICTs include a variety of applications such as the internet, virtual
environments and serious games. In addition, these new tools can be
used in different educational contexts despite the background or the
specific issues to be taught and learned.
The strategic purpose of the T3 project is to develop and validate
an innovative teaching programme to promote the use of advanced e-
learning in different contexts. T3 comprised three trials in different
countries (United Kingdom, UK; Spain, SP; and Italy, IT) using a variety
of technologies (web-based, internet-based training and virtual learning
environments) in diverse educational contexts (secondary schools,
universities and commercial companies). In consequence, the targeted
190
trainees for these trials were also different, corresponding to secondary
school teachers, university teachers and company staff. Overall, these
trials consisted of a training period with theoretical and practical classes.
Before and after completing the trials, participants were asked to
complete an assessment protocol in order to get relevant data for the
purpose of the project; that is, to give their views on the utility of some
technologies for teaching and e-learning. In previous chapters of this
book, the main results obtained in these experiences have been presented.
Although the training methodology and procedure has been adapted to
the characteristics and capabilities of the specific sample from each
country, it was constructed around a common methodological framework
to apply and to evaluate training courses in new learning ICTs.
In general, the T3 objectives have been successfully achieved.
Teachers in high school and university contexts and people who work in
companies (primary beneficiaries) have been directly involved in the
learning of new technologies to use in the future to teach others
(secondary beneficiaries). In this chapter we will firstly analyse the
common methodology that has been followed through the three trials.
The main final purpose is to offer a guide to be used when generating an
e-learning experience with different users (in educational and company
contexts). In addition, we will examine the similarities and differences
of the results obtained in the three contexts focusing, first, on the
samples’ characteristics and, second, on the opinion and satisfaction with
the selected technologies and the training course. This analysis will give
direction to readers about the specific features influencing the results of
an e-learning process. Finally, some reflections are added according to
the obtained data and their implications.
VIII.2. A common methodology for e-learning training
As mentioned, the T3 trials were aimed to validate the use of
technology for e-learning amongst teaching professionals. The major
differences among the trials were the specific technologies selected to be
included in the training and the specific target populations. Nevertheless,
191
the methodology followed a common rationale and structure. Overall,
two key elements were evaluated in all trials: first, the previous
characteristics of the users who were to teach by e-learning and second,
their final opinion about the technologies and training courses. Both
types of variables (users’ characteristics and users’ opinions) can have an
important relation with the final satisfaction of the users and the
probability they will use this technology in their educational activities in
the future. A review of the literature was carried out in order to identify
the main variables linked to the users and to the technologies that could
affect satisfaction with ICTs. The final purpose was to know deeply what
variables are influencing acceptance and final usage of technologies,
specifically, those designed for e-learning.
Regarding user characteristics, some studies emphasise that
previous experience with computers and new technologies (experienced
versus inexperienced users of technological systems) is a key factor
influencing the decision whether or not to use these kinds of systems
(Mahmood, Burn, Gemoets& Jacquez, 2000; Taylor &Todd, 1995a, b;
Thompson, Higgins& Howell, 1994). According to these studies, this
characteristic is an important indicator of an individual predisposition to
utilise a technological tool and it can explain a high percentage of
variance in user satisfaction with these systems (Mahmood et al., 2000).
Other studies have suggested that past experience is related to engaging
in the behaviour of using technology (Ramayah, Ignatius & Aafaqi,
2004). A generated affinity or beliefs towards the technology could
influence the decision whether to use a new technological system
(Thompson, Higgins& Howell, 1994). Because user experience with
ICTs was found to be a key factor and is related to user satisfaction
(Guimaraes et al., 1992), it was included in the assessment protocol in all
trials.
Regarding user opinion about technologies, the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) is one of the most influential information
systems theories. TAM was developed by Fred Davis and Richard
Bagozzi (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992; Davis, 1989) as an extension of
Ajzen and Fishbeins´s Theory of Reasoned Action, TRA (Ajzen &
192
Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein, & Ajzen, 1975).This model suggests that when
people use a new technology, the two most important determinants of
their satisfaction and utilisation are perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use (see Figure 1). Davis (1989) has defined “perceived
usefulness” as “the degree to which a person believes that using a
particular system would enhance his or her job performance".
Furthermore, perceived usefulness is directly influenced by perceived
ease of use. According to Davis (1989) “perceived ease of use” is "the
degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be
free from effort" (Davis, 1989, p. 320).
Figure 1- Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
Source: Davis et al. (1989), Venkatesh et al. (2003).
User experience and the other variables identified in the TAM
model have been interrelated in some studies. For example, Taylor and
Todd (1995a, 1995b) found the TAM model to predict intention and
behaviour for both experienced and inexperienced users. However, in the
case of the experienced users, the relationship between intention and
usage was stronger than for those inexperienced. In a similar way,
Thompson et al. (1994) found that the variable ‘prior experience with
technology’ had a direct effect on beliefs, attitude and intention. Also,
these authors point out that the person's level of experience with a
193
particular technology moderated the strength of the relationships between
beliefs, attitude and intention (Thompson et al., 1994).
In sum, satisfaction with the technology is connected to the
experience of the users and to the characteristics of the technologies, as
perceived ease of use or perceived usefulness are. In addition, these
variables facilitate the acceptance and usage of ICTs, as has been
established in the literature (Goya, Purohit & Bhaga, 2011; Hayden et al.,
2005; Norzaidi et al., 2008a, 2008b; Wixom & Todd, 2005).
In order to analyse the role of user experience, perceived
usefulness and ease of use, we developed three questionnaires to asses
these variables. To develop these questionnaires, we reviewed relevant
literature on the topic and conducted a number of expert meetings on new
technologies and training. The three resulting questionnaires are as
follows:
- Questionnaire 1: Frequency of Use with New Technologies
Questionnaire. This was designed to assess the previous experience of
the users with ICTs in their workplace. This questionnaire is composed
by 23 items with a scale of response ranging from 1 "never" to 5 "very
often”. The items corresponded to different technologies that the trainees
could have used in their educational contexts. In further analysis of the
data, the 23 items were classified into four categories: common tools (1),
advanced tools (2), internet and communication tools (3) and finally
educational tools (3). This questionnaire is an easy tool to use when
assessing the frequency of use of new technologies befores tarting an e-
learning process (users typically taking around 5 minutes to complete it).
The inclusion of this kind of questionnaire helps bring the trainer closer
to the technological profile of trainees who will learn e-learning systems
to teach others.
- Questionnaires 2 and 3: Technologies Satisfaction
Questionnaire and Training Course Evaluation Questionnaire. They
were designed to assess user satisfaction with the ICTs and with the
training course that they received. These questionnaires are composed of
8 items with a response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree). With both questionnaires readers may find instruments
194
that give them feedback about, firstly, satisfaction with the trained
technologies and, secondly, evaluation of training course after the
training process finishes. With these tools it is possible to evaluate the
adequacy of the technologies in which to be trained and the main
characteristics of the course used for training. The questionnaires can be
applied for multiple or varied types of technologies considered. The
administration of the two questionnaires takes around 3 to 4 minutes.
These questionnaires were common to the three trials and applied with
the three different samples. In Appendix 1 the reader can find the
complete evaluation protocol used with our e-learning training which
may be used as a possible guide for other similar training courses.
The common procedure for the three trials is shown in Figure 2.
A pre- and post-course evaluation was carried out in order to assess the
main variables for the purpose of the project. During the 6 training
sessions a cooperative strategy between trainers and trainees was used in
order to facilitate the theoretical and practical knowledge of the
technologies that were included in the trials. The major purpose of the
sessions in this kind of training process was to guarantee an adequate
knowledge of the ICTs by the trainees in order to use the technologies in
their educative contexts. Theoretical information about the technological
devices, and practical exercise linked to the curriculum of the user are
important features to be considered when developing e-learning training.
Other important points to be included in e-learning training are noted
inthe table in Appendix 2.
Figure 2- A common procedure for the three trials.
PRE-EVALUATION
- Frequency of use with
New Technologies
Questionnaire
WORKSHOP TRAINNING 6 SESSION – 8 HOURS
EACH SESSION
POST EVALUATION
-Technologies Satisfaction
Questionnaire
-Training Course Evaluation
Questionnaire
195
Following these, the reader can review the main results found
with an e-learning experience using the defined structure about the
application and evaluation of the training.
VIII.3. Main results of the trials in the three contexts
In order to analyse the participants’ previous experience with
technologies in their job the Frequency of use with New Technologies
Questionnaire was applied. Specifically, we were interested in knowing
if participants were experienced users (with frequent use of the
technologies) and if there were differences among the three different
samples (secondary teachers, university teachers and company staff).
As can be seen in Figure 3, the three samples show a similar
frequency of use. The UK (secondary high school teachers) was the
country with the highest average use of technologies (mean of 2.77,
SD=0.96), followed by Spain (mean of 2.75, SD=1.05) and finally Italy
(mean of 2.40, SD=1.09). The three countries were at a mid point on the
use of technology for their job context. Furthermore, the most used
technologies were common tools (conventional desktop, generic
software, etc.), internet and communication tools (Skype, e-mail, chat,
etc.). The choice of these tools could be motivated by their easy
availability and management. In addition, these technologies have a low
above-line cost and are widespread in the general population. The less
used technologies were advanced tools (immersive technology, managed
learning environments, etc.) and educational tools (e-portfolios, e-
assessment, etc.). The reasons for this could have been higher economic
costs and more specific training needed to use some of them. The
resources and the technologies have been adapted by each professional to
the needs and abilities of their students or trainees.
196
Figure 3- Frequency of use of new technologies in the three countries.
Figure 4 shows results from the Technology Opinion
Questionnaire. Again, similar findings across the three countries were
obtained, with a mean of 3.8 mean (SD= 0.42) for UK, IT with a mean of
3.84 (SD= 0.13) and finally SP, with a mean general satisfaction with the
technologies of 3.76 (SD= 0.14). The data show that the trainees had a
medium-high level of satisfaction with the technologies. It is important to
emphasise that the samples have been trained in different kind of
technologies aimed at e-learning. Specifically, the technologies were
assessed as easy to use and useful, with a clear and organised design and
with an understandable vocabulary.
197
Figure 4- Level of user satisfaction with the technologies.
Finally, Figure 5 shows data from Training Course Evaluation
Questionnaire. A medium-high level of satisfaction was found. The UK
sample obtained a mean of 4.31 (SD= 0.22), followed by IT with a mean
of 4.12 (SD= 0.27) and finally SP with a 3.81 mean (SD= 0.24).
Specifically, the participants emphasised that the course had been
important in improving the acquisition of new concepts of e-learning, in
helping find ways to adapt the technology to the learning context and to
understand the use of technology for supporting their curriculum (in
educational or enterprise areas). In addition, participants also expressed
their satisfaction with the course as representing an innovative field and a
resource to identify and understand the benefits of technology in
education. Finally, most participants expressed an intention to continue
using the learned technologies in their areas of teaching.
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UK IT SP
Easy to
use
Easy to
find
Clear
design
Clear
instructions
Useful
feedback
Understandable
language
Recommendable
to colleagues
Useful
technology
Sa
tisf
act
ion
198
Figure 5- Participants’ opinion of the course.
VIII.4. Final Reflections
At the present time, we have different technological devices that
enable and enhance communication and knowledge transfer. Their
potential and utility in the field of education is notable. Therefore, it is
very important to incorporate these new technological tools in the best
way possible to promote new methods of learning, or, e-learning. E-
learning offers new environments where people have the opportunity of
learn in an interactive, efficient, easy and accessible way. Within the
academic context, students today are surrounded by new technologies
and the majority are “digital natives” (Hansen, 2003; Prensky, 2001).
These characteristics together with the rapid development of technology
over the last years have created a suitable context to facilitate an
important spread of this kind of learning worldwide.
Work is necessary in order to incorporate these tools as visible
elements in different learning contexts, together with an adequate
assessment of the usability of the technologies. The results obtained
during our experience are a contribution to this topic. Firstly, the data
support the use of a methodology that can be used in training courses
with similar characteristics. Secondly, our data summarise the experience
of trainees with these innovative technologies, concluding with a
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Op
inio
n
UK IT SP
Understandable
concepts
Use technologies
in different context
Understand how
technologies
support curriculum
Technologies used
as innovative
Course as
innovative
Explain the
advantage of the
technologies
Continue to use
new technologies
Technologies as
relevant to own
teaching
199
satisfactory opinion about the tools and the course. In general, these
results represent an initial step in spreading knowledge of multiple
innovative tools among people who teach others. An important second
step will be to implement these technologies with secondary
beneficiaries, such as students from university or high school contexts
and those who work in companies, and to analyse satisfaction with these
systems.
An important factor in the design of the T3 project was the
inclusion of three different countries with different education policies,
different technologies for e-learning, and three different teaching
contexts to be analysed. In this heterogeneous sample the evaluation
protocol and course schedule were tested, providing a body of interesting
data relating to the proposal for the project. The data show that previous
user experience and level of satisfaction with technologies and with the
training course were very similar among the three countries. Differences
in need could have been expected in these different contexts but similar
results were found regarding the use of the technologies and the
satisfaction with them. Therefore, these results suggest that it is viable to
include different kinds of technologies in different contexts with the
teaching and learning processes involved.
We would like to emphasise the importance of the methodology
used in T3 project. It was focused on the use of a training programme on
a variety of technologies. Some authors have noted the importance of the
training received by users (Mahmood et al., 2000). So, through the
workshop, in the theoretical classes, the features and benefits of new
technologies and a new way of teaching using them (e-learning) were
discussed. In the practical classes, trainees simulated the learning
sessions and became familiar with the ICT technologies and varied
environments. During this process they had the support of the trainers
involved. By design, the trainees were close to the emerging new
technologies and could provide the necessary help and feedback to
implement those for a particular educational purpose. Support, help and
feedback have to be essential ingredients when training in these areas.
200
E-learning has created new ways of interaction in the educational
system. Future research should continue studying how ICTs can enhance
the teaching and learning process. The final goal is to offer the best
educational environments to the people centrally involved in these
important processes, that is, teachers and students. The
world's technological capacity will contribute to this goal in a strong and
definitive way. Furthermore, the increasing development of ICTs in the
world will offer other different and interesting ways of interaction for
learning in educational contexts in the future.
201
References
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of
computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.
Management Science, 35, 982-1003.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Guimaraes, T., Igbaria, M. & Lu, M. (1992). The determinants of DSS success:
an integrated model. Decision Sciences, 23, 409-429.
Goyal, E., Purohit, S. & Bhaga, M. (2011). Study of satisfaction and usability of
the Internet on student´s performance. International Journal of Education
and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 7,
110-119.
Hansen, D. J. (2003). Book review: E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering
Knowledge in the Digital Age (Author: M. Rosenberg). Educational
Technology & Society, 6, 80-81.
Hayden, H., O´Brien, T., & Rathaille, M. O. (2005). User survey at Waterford
Institute of Technology Libraries: How a traditional approach to surveys
can inform library service delivery. New Library World, 106, 43-57.
Mahmood, M. A., Burn, J. M., Gemoets, L. A. & Jacquez, C. (2000). Variables
affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of
the empirical literature. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 52, 751-771.
Norzaidi, M. D.,& Intan Salwani, M. (2008a). Information Technology
Management (IT). Models: An Introduction, University Publication
Centre, Shah Alam, Selangor.
Norzaidi, M. D. & Intan Salwani, M. (2008b). Internet and Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI) Usage in Malaysia Port Industry, University
Publication Centre, Shah Alam, Selangor.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon,
9, 1-6.
202
Ramayah, T., Ignatius, J. & Aafaqi, B. (2004). PC Usage among Students: The
Case of a Private Institution of Higher Learning, The Proceedings of the
International Conference on Management Education Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Sun, P., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a
successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors
influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50, 1183-1202.
Taylor, S.,& Todd, P. (1995a). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior
experience. MIS Quarterly, 19, 561–570.
Taylor, S. & Todd, P. A. (1995b). Understanding information technology usage:
A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144-176.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., and Howell, J. M. (1994). Influence of
experience on personal computer utilization: Testing a conceptual model.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 167–187.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS
Quarterly, 27, 425-478.Wixom. B. H. & Todd, P. A. (2005). A
Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance.
Information Systems Research, 16, 85-102.
203
Appendix A
Questionnaire 1
Frequency of Use of New Technologies
The aim of this questionnaire is to find out what technologies you have
used with students in the classroom/ in company where you work.
Please complete all the questions. You do not need to spend much time
on any one question. This questionnaire should only take a few minutes
to complete. All of your responses will be treated confidentially.
Please indicate the appropriate number to indicate how often you use the
following:
1. Conventional desktop or laptop computers
2. Generic software tools (e.g., PowerPoint, graphics, audio and
video editing, data handling, wordprocessing and publishing)
3. The internet (Web 1) as a data and information resource
4. Simulations (e.g., biological/physical, inter-social processes)
5. Games for educational purposes
6. Commercial video games
7. Serious games
8. Computer modelling
9. Web 2.0 technology (wikis, social networking software etc.) for
collaborative learning
10. Hand-held technologies
11. Virtual environments / Virtual learning environments (VLEs)
12. Managed learning environments (MLEs, e.g., Fronter)
13. E-portfolios
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often
1 2 3 4 5
204
14. E-assessment
15. Digital cameras, audio recorders and video cameras
16. Digital audio / video editing / production
17. Immersive technology
18. The use of robots or other computer-controlled devices
19. Individual authoring tools (e.g., personal blog, portfolio)
20. Sharing information tools (e.g., glossary, repository, social
tagging)
21. Comunication tools (e.g., Skype, e-mail, chat)
22. Teamwork tools (e.g., Shared calendar, Mental maps)
23. Construction of knowledge tools (e.g., Wiki, Social Networking,
Blog)
205
Questionnaire 2
Technologies Satisfaction Questionnaire
The aim of this questionnaire is to find out if you think the technologies
you have used are well designed and easy to use.
Please complete all the questions. You do not need to spend much time
on any one question. This questionnaire should only take a few minutes
to complete. All of your responses will be treated confidentially.
Your name/code:
Name of the technology used:
Please circle the appropriate number for each statement below:
1. I found the technology easy to use
2. Things I needed were visible or easy to find
3. The design was clear and uncluttered
4. Operating instructions were clearly visible and easily accessible
5. The system provided useful feedback when I needed it
6. Vocabulary and a mode of language were understandable
7. I would recommend the technology that I used to other colleagues
8. I found the technology useful
Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly
Disagree nor disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5
206
207
Appendix B
Questionnaire 3
Course Evaluation Questionnaire
Name:
The aim of this questionnaire is to find out how helpful the different parts
of the course have been for you. Please complete all the questions. You
do not need to spend much time on any one question. This questionnaire
should only take a few minutes to complete. All of your responses will be
treated confidentially. Please circle to indicate how much you agree or
disagree with each statement.
1. Course helped me understand concepts such as Technology Enhanced
Learning
2. Course helped me find ways of using new technology in different
learning contexts
3. Course helped me understand how use of new technologies can
support curriculum
4. I regard the way the technology is used on the course as innovative
5. I regard technology itself used on the course as innovative
6. Course has helped me explain the advantages of the technologies
7. I will continue to use and experiment with new technologies
8. Course has helped me identify and understand technologies that are
relevant to my teaching/training
Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly Disagree nor disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5
208
Table – Training Schedule
- Introduction.
- Overview of the technology: history, past/present
applications, perspectives.
- Introduction of concepts and common vocabulary in e-
learning.
- Special guests/experts presenting best practices in the field.
- Participants experimenting the technology in subgroups with
practical exercise.
- Participants involved in the design of specific exercise related
to their curriculum (teaching/training).
- Analysis and debriefing of activities.
- Round table discussion to share key issues arising about the
experience.
- Summing up and conclusions.
209
Editors
Orazio Miglino
Full Professor of General Psychology at University of Naples “Federico
II”; President of Graduate School in Clinical Psychology at University of
Naples “Federico II”;Associate Researcher at Insitute of Cognitive and
Technologies Sciences, National Research Council, Rome. His research
activity is mainly concentrated with Cognitive Science and Artificial
Life. In particular, his interest is oriented towards the construction of
formal models based on Neural Networks, and mobile robots that
simulate cognitive, adaptive and learning processes of natural beings.
Moreover, his research group tries to extend artificial systems built up in
basic research into the edutainment context (science centres, e-learning
environments, therapeutic tools).
Maria Luisa Nigrelli
Works in ISTC CNR, managing European funded projects and taking
care of technical transfer from the research context to the business
environment. Her background is in foreing languages and educational
psychology; she took her master degree at University of Pavia in new
technologies for teaching and knowledge management strategy. She was
visiting scholar at Indiana University Bloomington, in Education
Psychology Department. Previuosly she worked in KPMG and in
Telecom Italia, with a special focus on international business
development, EU funded programs.
210
Luigia Simona Sica
Psychologist, is post-doctoral researcher at the University of Turin. She
received her Ph.D. in Psychological Sciences from the University of
Naples “Federico II”. Her main research areas are related to
developmental psychology and narrative approach. More specifically:
identity development, creativity, impact of new technologies on the
definition of identity, normative and non normative biographical
transitions during adolescence and emerging adulthood.
211
Chapter Authors
John Jessel. Head of the Mphil/PhD Programme in the Department of
Educational Studies at Goldsmiths, University of London. His research
interests focus on the social, cultural and cognitive processes that underly
learning and development, both inside and outside of institutional
settings, and in relation to the use of digital technologies. He had directed
a series of funded projects examining the influence of new technologies
in the language, literacy and thinking that arise through collaborative
activities among learners.
Rosa M. Baños is Full Professor in Psychopathology at the University of
Valencia, Spain. Her research interests include psychopathology, the
treatment of psychological disorders, and the application of Information
and Communication Technologies to Psychology. Dr. Baños is the
director of the master “Interventions for Eating Disorders and Personality
disorders” at University of Valencia.
Cristina Botella is Full Professor of Clinical Psychology at Jaume I
University (UJI) since 1992. Her main line of research is the design and
testing of clinical applications based on ICTs for the treatment of
emotional disorders. She has been principal investigator in more than 30
research projects, published over 100 papers in national and international
journals, as well as 20 books and over 30 book chapters.
Juana María Bretón-López got her Degree in Psychology at Granada
University (Spain) in 2001, and got her PhD in clinical psychology at the
same university. In 2006 she leaves Granada to join the research group
Labpsitec, run by Professor Cristina Botella. She is currently a Post-
Doctoral Lecturer of Clinical Psychology at Jaume I University (Spain).
212
Rocio Herrero Camarano got her Degree in Psychology at the University
of Buenos Aires (Argentina) and her Master Degree in Psychopathology,
Health and Neuropsychology at the Jaume I University (Spain). She is
currently member of LabPsiTec team, a research group run by Professor
Cristina Botella. She has a pre-doctoral grant since 2009. She is currently
studying her Doctorate.
Soledad Quero is a Lecturer at Universitat Jaume I of Castellón (UJI)
since 2004. Her main research is the adaptation and validation of BCT
programs for different emotional disorders and the application of
Communication an Information Technologies to improve psychological
treatment. She has a PhD in Clinical Psychology from Universitat Jaume
I of Castellón.
Luis Farfallini got his Degree in Psychology at the University of Buenos
Aires (Argentina), and finished his Master Degree in Psychopathology,
Health and Neuropsychology at Jaume I University (Spain). He is currently
member of the research group Labpsitec, run by Professor Cristina Botella,
as Transfer Technician. He has taken part in the usability evaluation and
currently is studying his
Yolanda Vizcaíno Dragón got his Degree in Psychology and her Master
Degree in Psychopathology, Health and Neuropsychology at the Jaume I
University (UJI) in Castellón (Spain). She is currently member of a
research group run by Professor Cristina Botella, Labpsitec. Her research
interest is focused on the psychopathology and treatment of chronic pain.
Michela Fiorese is a labor psychologist with 9 years of experience in
human resource management in major national and international
organizations, including the Italian Posts and Daimler Chrysler. The main
focus of her work has been on the design and management of training for
management and sales staff, staff assessment and organizational research.
Since 2008 is involved as project manager in different innovative learning
project.
213
Angelo Rega has a degree in Clinical Psychology and has a Ph.D in
Health Psychology focused on design and study of some experimental
prototypes in responsive and adaptive environments as cognitive
prostheses. His research activity is concentrated on Advanced Learning
Technologies and Artificial Intelligence, and their applications in several
domains, as e-Learning, Videogames, Educational Robotics and
Educational Software. Other research activities are assistive interactive
technology for cognitive rehabilitation and ambient intelligence in Health
Care.
Roberto Vardisio is a labor psychologist who has worked for the last 12
years in management training, personnel assessment and selection and
organizational research. Vardisio has been a senior consultant for Ernest
& Young, the international consultancy company, and has collaborations
with several important Italian universities including Università la
Sapienza di Roma and Università Federico II di Napoli.
214
215
Acknowledgements
Thanks to John Jessel for the careful revision of the English version of this book.
216