Collaborative Reflection using Voting Technology Presentation of current thinking about PhD Nicholas Bowskill Faculty of Education University of Glasgow Email: nicholasbowskill@gmail.com

Background 4yr Interdisciplinary PhD Project Education, Psychology and Computing Science Kelvin Smith Scholarship Technology and Discussion Project Original Proposal Student-generated questions and peer learning using voting technology Personal background of networked learning communities

4yr Interdisciplinary PhD Project

Education, Psychology and Computing Science

Kelvin Smith Scholarship

Technology and Discussion Project

Original Proposal

Student-generated questions and peer learning using voting technology

Personal background of networked learning communities

PDP and Reflection PDP, CPD and reflection = a task allocated to individuals Outside the social world it seeks to explore Can be boring, performative or difficult PDP, CPD and reflection = individuals writing Misses the student voice and dialogue Participation needs an awareness & understanding of the community and the concerns within Socialisation needs interaction and conversations

PDP, CPD and reflection = a task allocated to individuals

Outside the social world it seeks to explore

Can be boring, performative or difficult

PDP, CPD and reflection = individuals writing

Misses the student voice and dialogue

Participation needs an awareness & understanding of the community and the concerns within

Socialisation needs interaction and conversations

Early Prototype System: 3-Session Structure Peer - Learning Peer-Mentoring 2. Year 1 Session No EVS Voting by Show of Hands 1. Year 2 Session 2hrs with EVS Recruited 6 Volunteer Mentors 3. Combined Session With EVS and 4 Common Topics from Sessions 1 & 2 Peer - Learning

Learning-Design Discussion Protocol To structure reflective conversations Past, present and future reflection To generate a view of collective concerns Voting technology To visualize the co-construction To visualize the results of generative dialogue To create artefacts (student-generated materials) that can be re-used, shared or re-purposed

Discussion Protocol

To structure reflective conversations

Past, present and future reflection

To generate a view of collective concerns

Voting technology

To visualize the co-construction

To visualize the results of generative dialogue

To create artefacts (student-generated materials) that can be re-used, shared or re-purposed

Research Design - Case Study 1 University in the North of England, Health Sciences Level 1 and 2 students. Tutors concerned about lack of reflection and failure to recognise peers as a resource for learning Key Variables Session 1: Technology and Protocol Session 1A: Focus Group for mentors Session 2: Protocol Without Voting Technology Session 3: Voting Technology + Different Protocol “ A brilliant, feel good experience, where it seemed both groups got much from each other ” [Yr2 Student in Case Study 1]

University in the North of England, Health Sciences Level 1 and 2 students. Tutors concerned about lack of reflection and failure to recognise peers as a resource for learning

Key Variables

Session 1: Technology and Protocol

Session 1A: Focus Group for mentors

Session 2: Protocol Without Voting Technology

Session 3: Voting Technology + Different Protocol

Research Design - Case Study 2 University in Scotland, Science Level 1 and 2 students. Tutors concerned about lack of interaction in induction Key Variables Session 1: 50+ L2 students texting group choices Session 1A: Focus Group for mentors Session 2: c.400 students from L1 over 2 sessions Session 3: Used 2 different group formats for cross-year interaction: break-out sessions and all in one room Different data-display formats used " The first sign of hope I've seen for the education system so far ." [Level 2 Mentor]

University in Scotland, Science Level 1 and 2 students. Tutors concerned about lack of interaction in induction

Key Variables

Session 1: 50+ L2 students texting group choices

Session 1A: Focus Group for mentors

Session 2: c.400 students from L1 over 2 sessions

Session 3: Used 2 different group formats for cross-year interaction: break-out sessions and all in one room

Different data-display formats used

Data-Display Formats and the Reflective System Educational Applications of voting technology uses histograms or bar charts Displays how many did or didn’t get the correct answer Case Study 1 Session 1 used pie-charts Shows quantified items in relation to each other AND easier to read AND easier to re-purpose and group "The use of the pie chart is quite popular, as the circle provides a visual concept of the whole (100%)" [Statistics Canada] Case Study 2 used Group-Likerts Shows where the opinions of a group reside Quantifies each concern Harder to read at a glance Harder to re-purpose and to group

Educational Applications of voting technology uses histograms or bar charts

Displays how many did or didn’t get the correct answer

Case Study 1 Session 1 used pie-charts

Shows quantified items in relation to each other

AND easier to read

AND easier to re-purpose and group

"The use of the pie chart is quite popular, as the circle provides a visual concept of the whole (100%)"

[Statistics Canada]

Case Study 2 used Group-Likerts

Shows where the opinions of a group reside

Quantifies each concern

Harder to read at a glance

Harder to re-purpose and to group

Artefacts in the Reflective System Session 1 created artefacts as a display of voting results These were grouped in the session Showed change in quantified concerns over a 12 month period There were re-used in session 3 Formed the agenda/structure for interaction These were grouped in session 3 2 rounds of voting before and after discussion To show the impact of the interaction with peers and mentors Artefacts are also created in session 2 These show the building phase (also important) But not 100% participation in voting

Session 1 created artefacts as a display of voting results

These were grouped in the session

Showed change in quantified concerns over a 12 month period

There were re-used in session 3

Formed the agenda/structure for interaction

These were grouped in session 3

2 rounds of voting before and after discussion

To show the impact of the interaction with peers and mentors

Artefacts are also created in session 2

These show the building phase (also important)

But not 100% participation in voting

Grouping Artefacts (Case 1,Session 1 - Votes 1 & 2)

And PDP? Recording Achievement at class or year-group level? Social portfolios? Thinking at a class-level Re-conceptualizing development to reflect and incorporate social world of learning Supports development of discourse Supports socialization Participative approach to development as part of a conversational community Sharing of concerns and solutions From the perspectives of those involved (situated) Feeds into a future networked database of artefacts to support reflection at every level in the system

Recording Achievement at class or year-group level?

Social portfolios?

Thinking at a class-level

Re-conceptualizing development to reflect and incorporate social world of learning

Supports development of discourse

Supports socialization

Participative approach to development as part of a conversational community

Sharing of concerns and solutions

From the perspectives of those involved (situated)

Feeds into a future networked database of artefacts to support reflection at every level in the system

Lastly, Voting Technology This learning design appears to: Merge voting technology with interactive whiteboards into a family of networked classroom technologies Use displays to create co-constructive workspaces for peer-learning Support the voice and interaction of participants through dialogue at different levels Support students to create their own content and understanding of their community

This learning design appears to:

Merge voting technology with interactive whiteboards into a family of networked classroom technologies

Use displays to create co-constructive workspaces for peer-learning

Support the voice and interaction of participants through dialogue at different levels

Support students to create their own content and understanding of their community