Parramatta Learning Centre: iPad Research


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Who are we?
    1. experienced team of research experts, all with teaching experience - based in a Faculty of Education
    2. mixture of expertise and past track record (e.g. Kevin Burden and mobile research)
  • Contextual details about pilot schools: (no two schools alike - all started at different points)
    1, names and locations - 8 schools (see above), spread over 6 LAs (Edinburgh, Aberdeen, North Lanarkshire, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire, West Lothian)
    2, Local authorities
    3. duration of pilot (March - July 2012)
  • 1. Most devices were iPad 2 but some were iPad 1 (no camera)
    2. Most schools had one pilot class - some had more (e.g. Sciennes) and some had full year group (Bellshill) - estimated there were 365 devices used across all of the pilots (substantial evaluation therefore)
  • Variety of deployment patterns
    1. Main pattern - personal ownership at home and in school
    2. second pattern - personal ownership in school
    3. third pattern - class sets or subject sets (creates difficulties)
  • Contextual background – setting the scene
    •Shift from fixed(monolithic) to mobile (flexible and personalised) technologies
    •What is unique about handheld (3 affordances)?
    •Growing interesting in UK and world about personal ownership
    •This workshop/presentation is focused primarily on one key question: ‘How does the shift to 1:1 personal ownership of technology change pedagogy?’
    •Set specific context for workshop – a case study to examine one school and one teacher and to draw conclusions to the question above
  • Findings: four themes
  • Patterns of ownership and deployment
    260 returns from students
    Most had a personal device they used all the time at school and home (220)
  • Daily use of technology at school
    Enormous increase in the use of technology on a daily basis in school (10% of pupils used technology daily before the initiative - 81% used it daily with the iPads_
    Accounts for the changing nature of teaching and learning in many pilot school
  • Use of technology during the day in school
    1. the iPad (Blue columns) is not yet used in every lesson (8.4%) but it is used in most lesson, most of the time.
    2. Previously the most popular use of technology on a daily basis was ‘occasional’!
  • Main uses of the iPad in lessons
    Research and writing most dominant in secondary schools
    Creative apps more common in primary
  • Daily use of technology at home
  • Uses of iPad at home %
    Completing homework, showing it to parents and doing work without it being requested appear significant
  • Completion of homework with iPad reported by parents
  • What are the implications of these findings for teachers, students, headteachers and parents?
  • 1. The teachers role changes fundamentally when the technology is used effectively:
    a.Teachers spend longer thinking about lessons and less time teaching them (they move from front of class to guide on the side)
    b.They have to learn new management skills to manage the learning:
    c.Learning can be more personalised – learners get mor a.
    There is less need to ‘teach’ or disseminate information – students have it at their fingertips
    b.This creates the potential for more space or different activities – the Flipped Classroom
    c.Learners get more choice (agency) in terms of a). how they demonstrate understanding b). how they undertake the task c) where they situate the learning
  • But this is part of an ecology - the iPad has not replaced other approaches to learning. It supplements them.
  • Collaborative learning through the Apple TV
  • Students have access to powerful knowledge construction tools which change their relationship with the teacher:
    i.They are capable of being knowledge producers not simply consumers
    ii.The knowledge they construct taps into more authentic, realistic tasks/contexts – leaning is less contrived (it is always contrived to some extent)
    iii.The opportunity exists for students to construct knowledge socially (distributed knowledge) both at a local level and further afield (external experts, etc)
    iv.When the knowledge is constructed it is now possible for students to gain more meaningful and extended (and authentic feedback) - from their peers; from outsiders; etc - A REAL AND AUTHENTIC AUDIENCE
  • i.The net result of these changes is greater motivation, interest and engagement in learning:
    1.Learners are prepared to go the extra mile – they do more hmk; more self-directed learning, etc
    2.They see the relevance of what they are doing more
    3.Learners learn quick/they take more in/
  • Positive dispositions of students towards learning since having the iPads,
    but note students feel they are not allowed to use it as much as they would like (49%)
  • 1.The school requires a robust, ubiquitous wi-fi network to enable these new forms of learning to be realised and maximised – essential resource
  • It only really makes a difference when the device is entirely personal and students manage it themselves. Do not appear to offer much more than traditional laptops if they are used as classroom sets
  • 1.There is likely to be less demand on fixed solutions and IT rooms – this should free space/resources
  • 1.Do traditional spaces and curriculum arrangements maximise or hinder the vision of personal learning? - SUBJECTS ARE ARTIFICAL; TIMINGS OF LESSONS ARE ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS;
    2. But the CfE offers many opportunities to reconceptualise the curriculum and take advantage of the technology’s affordances
  • 1.1.What are students asked to do beyond formal learning (e.g. hmk) – is this any longer appropriate
    1.Is the traditional model of learning appropriate (i.e. front loads delivery) – flipped classrooms would reverse this
  • Models of professional learning:
    1. courses and formal training are unnecessary and counter-productive
    other models resemble experiential learning (Kolb) - learning by doing in the work-place
  • 1.Teachers are generally very capable and fluent in their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) – i.e. they understand how different pedagogical patterns will be more/or less effective in helping students to understand particular bodies of subject knowledge. The difficulties lies in understanding how, when and under what circumstances technology is part of this equation (TPCK- Mishra and Koeller) – the personal ownership of a device like the iPad brings this equation into play in a big way and teachers have probably not been equipped or prepared for this in their training
  • Most homes offer multiple technologies, including Internet
  • Only 10% of parents listed the mobile phone as a learning tool at the start; This had changed substantially by the end
  • The concept and practice of homework needs realigning to take advantage of the affordances of personal devices and the positive dispositions which learners shown towards and through them.
    Parents need help in understanding this new role - training for parents may be appropriate
    Parents and students become co-learners in this ecology
  • Some younger children may need help to regulate their use of the device when games are so attractive
    Parents also need to be made aware and educated as to the potential value of games (e.g. communication skills)
  • 1.Parents may be more inclined and able to pay for mobile devices than we think if they see the learning benefit (drill-bits = $1 million dollar business but people don’t want drill bits they need a hole)
    2. 51% of parents would purchase an iPad if the school did not provide one (not asked about leasing)
  • Learning differently
    •Using technologies to learn (to research, to communicate, create, and present)
    •Active learning – using real life and imaginary situations
    •Cooperative learning - encourage thinking and talking together/ discuss ideas and solve problems
    •Interdisciplinary learning
    •Outdoor learning – make use of the external environment for learning
    •Personalisation and choice – give learners more choice/involve them in the planning/avoid one size fits all
    •Skills (higher order thinking skills: thinking about complex issues; problem solving; analysis and evaluation; creativity;critical thinking skills;making judgements; developing arguments; etc
    Assessment and reporting:
    •Assessment: move towards enabling learners and their peers(and parents) to collect evidence of progress (use of the personal device as a portable e-portfolio)
    •Self-assessment (encourage learners to assess themselves; better understanding of what they have learnerd and still need to do) – use of apps like Screen Chomp or Explain Everything
    •Peer assessment
    •Personal learning planning – is the device as a planner
    •Personal profiles (P7 and S3)
  • learners have greater choice, agency - personalisation
  • Example of how assessment is changed with mobile devices
  • Good example of an app which supports formative feedback - changing the nature of the relationship between teacher and student (teacher becoming more of a facilitator of learning)
  • A model of mobile leanring developed by Kevin Burden and colleagues at University of Technology, Sydney (three features of mobile learning identified)
    Maps well to the early findings from the iPad Scotland pilot
  • Low = exchange of content
    High = creation and sharing of contexts
  • Relates to the task – is it realistic and offering problems encountered by real world practitioners?
    Low = contrived (measuring a field with GPS to do trigonometry)
    High = realistic
  • Where does the learning take place?
    Low = simulated (the classroom is used as a practice field for simulated experiences) (most traditional school tasks are highly simulated in nature)
    High = learners engage in real world communities of practice(technology offers real opportunities to engage in situated communities) - e.g. use of Brushes to emulate work of Hockney or joinig in a Voicethread conversation to assess the work of their peers, or following a Twitter stream of acitivity on a topic of their choice (highly situated)
  • Low = work alone/limited use of device to communicate or converse(meaning is individual)
    High = converse as part of a widespread network/
    Can occur at different levels - in the F2f world and in the virtual networked world (e.g. game playing)
  • Parramatta Learning Centre: iPad Research

    1. 1. iPad Research in Scotland Kevin Burden: The University of Hull
    2. 2. methodology 1. Mixed methods (i.e. qualitative and quantitative) 2. Online baseline and exit surveys for students and parents 3. Interviews of all lead teachers towards end of pilot + senior teacher where this was possible 4. Interviews with each LA and senior leaders in LA 5. Pupils focus groups in each school (6 students) 6. Lesson observation by researchers in most schools 7. Artefacts from students and teachers 3
    3. 3. Kingswell Primary Kilsyth Primary Cryston Primary Gavinburn Primary Sciennes Primary Greenwood Academy St. Kentigerns Academy Bellshill Academy
    4. 4. 365
    5. 5. Entirely personal devices Bellshill Academy Personal in school Cryston Primary Gavinburn Primary Kilsyth Primary Sciennes Primary Greenwood Academy St. Kentigerns Academy Class sets Kingswell Primary
    6. 6. Signhills Scartho Juniors Middlethorpe Waltham Leas East Ravendale
    7. 7. School iPod iPad Where Staff Total 70 3 KS 2 3 76 15 Years 4, 5 & 6 (all) 18 (all staff) 28 Year 5 & 6 iPad for all staff 138 86 Year 3 & 4 (all) 19 195 107 16 Year 5 & 6 484 148 Years 3,4,5,& 6 East Ravendale Middlethorpe Junior Scartho Junior 107 110 Signhills Junior Waltham Leas 90 Technology deployed across the alliance (every child) 6 (leasing available) 46 140 129 678
    8. 8. Contextual 10
    9. 9. Findings: Teaching & Learning Parental engagement and interest Leadership, management and change Professional development & support
    10. 10. Teaching & Learning
    11. 11. Parental Engagement
    12. 12. So what.....?
    13. 13. “ Teaching and learning is fundamentally altered when all students have personal access to a mobile device like the iPad”
    14. 14. “I mean they don’t use it for an hour at a time, they pick it up, put it down, they use it for their spelling, they put it away then go on to their reading work, then pick it up to do something else.  But it is in consistent use during the day, not constantly but it is consistently used on and off during the day” (Class teacher, Bellshill Academy)
    15. 15. Independent Learning 22
    16. 16. Collaboration and new patterns of working I’ve certainly found probably one of the big changed the cla gest things th ssroom dynam at’s ics is Apple TV it as a teachin bec aus e I c a n g tool and they use can use it to s you’re doing p hare their work eer assessme ; so nt, you’re ass because they’v essing them y e got their stu ourself ff up on the s them and make creen, you can sure everyone stop is on the right up that’s really track or put a p good and use it iece as a modelling (Teacher - Gav piece inburn Primar y School) The iPad is a great piece of technology for basically everything. It has made me a lot more confident with showing my work on the Apple TV. (P7 student)
    17. 17. “ The relationship between teachers and students changes as students become knowledge producers rather than just consumers”
    18. 18. “ students are prepared to go the extra mile....”
    19. 19. Dispositions more fun -- 99.6% towards learning • makes lessons with iPad -- 96.2% more interested in learning • • learned more -- 91.6% • helps to understand difficult ideas --93.9% • prefers to iPad to a computer --93.9% • behaved better in lessons -- 87% • worked more with other people -- 88.8% • allowed to use the iPad as much as they liked -- 44.8%
    20. 20. School leaders “ Robust, ubiquitous wi-fi is essential”
    21. 21. School leaders “ The pattern of ownership is a vital factor in the success of a personal device policy ” “It doesn’t work if it’s shared because all the good things that happen, happen because it’s yours and you’re taking it home and you’re using it and then you’re adapting and you’re taking the different things. And you’re getting so used to using it that you can use them across the different apps and you can have that bit of personal choice” (Teacher, Bellshill Academy) (Teacher - Bellshill School)
    22. 22. • One of the things that I realised this week was just how much easier and less stressful having one to one devices that the children have personal ownership of is, than having a set that stay in school.  Some of the things that used to cause us problems such as charging (which used to be difficult to manage), storing personal work (the i-pads were often borrowed and it was really difficult to manage getting back the same one to finish off work on), expectations of people who wanted to borrow could sometimes become quite disruptive (yet I wanted other teachers and classes to use them to see the benefits) and having to finish things in class time - have gone • (Class teacher, Sciennes Primary)  
    23. 23. School leaders “ Fixed IT solutions and spaces are likely to be less in demand”
    24. 24. School leaders “ Traditional curriculum arrangements are unlikely to maximise the opportunities provided by personalised technologies”
    25. 25. School leaders “ Personal devices transcend traditional boundaries between school learning and home learning, necessitating a reconceptualisation of the two”
    26. 26. School leaders “ There is an urgent need to reconsider traditional approaches to training teachers in the use of IT formal training misses the mark”
    27. 27. Technological, Content Pedagogical pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) Knowledge (PCK) Content Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge Technological Knowledge
    28. 28. Parents “ The home is already a technology rich and connected environment for many students”
    29. 29. Parents “ Parents did not see the mobile device as a learning device at the start of the initiative but they changed their views by the end”
    30. 30. Parents “ Schools and parents need to consider how they can mutually benefit from the use of personal learning devices”
    31. 31. Parents “Game playing may need regulating for younger children and parents need to be educated as to the academic and social benefits of these practices”
    32. 32. Parents “Parents may be more inclined to support the purchase of a personal device if these benefits are articulated more persuasively”
    33. 33. Parental Engagement Allie Majer talking about parents getting excited (video) Allie Majer: headteacher, East Ravendale
    34. 34. Creative skills for life
    35. 35. Final remarks from teachers “[The children] feel more in control of their own learning. I think because they’ve got more choice about how they do things it’s allowing them to see what’s the best way for them to learn.  And it makes them more aware when you actually enter into discussions with them about their learning they seem much more aware of their learning than they did before because it’s more child-led.  They’re making more decisions about their learning.” (Teacher - Gavinburn Primary School)
    36. 36. Changing the nature of assessment and feedback “I can upload a worksheet okay and they can … before I would have maybe sent a worksheet home and they would just complete it and send it back to me.  But if I put the worksheet on ‘Screen Chomp’, then they can do the worksheet on ‘Screen Chomp’ but record themselves while they do it, and explain what they are doing to me, so I can see where their understanding is, and I can see any points that they are not understanding.  And I can also, when I am marking it when I am talking to the children after, I will be able to give them more direct and targeted feedback because I will know exactly where they have gone wrong with things.  I think that has been a big change in being able to do that” Teacher - Chryston Primary School CfE
    37. 37. ta Da sh ng ari Co nv er sat ion Collaboration nte Co se al i x tu Ag en cy A pedagogical framework for mobile learning d Customisation Personalisation Situated Authenticity
    38. 38. LOW MEDIUM Negotiated outcomes External control Personalization ‘One size fits all’: ‘just in case’ HIGH Agency Tailored fit: ‘Just in time’ Customization Realistic Contrived Authenticity Contextualization Embedded: real practice Simulated Situated Networked: rich Solitary: disconnected Collaboration Conversational Context sharing Content building Data sharing
    39. 39. LOW MEDIUM Negotiated outcomes External control Personalization ‘One size fits all’: ‘just in case’ HIGH Agency Tailored fit: ‘Just in time’ Customization Realistic Contrived Authenticity Contextualization Embedded: real practice Simulated Situated Networked: rich Solitary: disconnected Collaboration Conversational Context sharing Content building Data sharing
    40. 40. LOW MEDIUM Negotiated outcomes External control Personalization ‘One size fits all’: ‘just in case’ HIGH Agency Tailored fit: ‘Just in time’ Customization Realistic Contrived Authenticity Contextualization Embedded: real practice Simulated Situated Networked: rich Solitary: disconnected Collaboration Conversational Context sharing Content building Data sharing
    41. 41. LOW MEDIUM Negotiated outcomes External control Personalization ‘One size fits all’: ‘just in case’ HIGH Agency Tailored fit: ‘Just in time’ Customization Realistic Contrived Authenticity Contextualization Embedded: real practice Simulated Situated Networked: rich Solitary: disconnected Collaboration Conversational Context sharing Content building Data sharing
    42. 42. 51