Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

AMORES: An Approach to Motivating learners to Read in European Schools - digital literacy in action - Geoff Walton & Mark Childs

257 views

Published on

Presented at LILAC 2016

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AMORES: An Approach to Motivating learners to Read in European Schools - digital literacy in action - Geoff Walton & Mark Childs

  1. 1. AMORES: An Approach to Motivating learners to Read in European Schools - Digital Literacy in Action Dr Geoff Walton, Senior Lecturer, Northumbria University Dr Mark Childs, Senior Research Fellow, Coventry University (now at Oxford Brookes) LILAC March 2016
  2. 2. Plan • Background • Our schools • Overview of project • Data gathering • Baseline data from UK and Denmark • Our response – creativity, creativity, constructionist • Results from Sweden • Feedback from UK • Findings • A information literacy of fiction?
  3. 3. Background • AMORES- An Approach to MOtivating learners to Read in European Schools • Strap line - Discovering a love for literature through digital collaboration and creativity • EU Comenius multi-lateral strand, €299,500 • Two year project from 1/12/13 – 30/11/15 • Partner universities: Coventry, Staffordshire Northumbria • Partner schools in Croatia, Denmark, Poland, Sweden and UK • Management partners: CARNet (Croatia), Cyberall Access (Greece) and 36,6 (Poland)
  4. 4. Five schools • Skaegkaerschool in Silkeborg, Denmark • Horvati Primary school in Zagreb, Croatia • Primary School ABiS - School4Child in Lodz, Poland • Karlbergsskolan in Köping, Sweden • St. Mary’s Catholic Primary, in Newcastle- under-Lyme, Staffordshire • Total of 400 school students (grades 1-9)
  5. 5. Overview • Aim - Motivating learners to read through the creation of digital artefacts Why? • Baseline data indicates a need How do we address the need? Our response • Focus on creativity • Focus on teachers via face-to-face and online workshops to enhance their digital literacy What were the outcomes? • Examples of children’s work (before and after) • Findings • An information literacy of fiction?
  6. 6. Data gathering • Qualitative approach (main approach) – Looking for any patterns, relationships and themes in the responses – Exploratory and not looking to find statistical significance or ‘proof’ – even one instance of a comment may be significant • Quantitative approach – Specifically ‘sentiment analysis’ – the degree of emotion (positive or negative) shown in responses – Scale 1 to 5 (where 1 is neutral & 5 is highly positive ) & -1 to -5 (where -1 is neutral & -5 is highly negative) – Looking for numerical differences – Demonstrable differences may be statistically significant
  7. 7. UK data: qualitative • Year 5 (9 year olds) in 2 classes (n=50) • All responses transcribed from hard copy • 4 themes identified: – Theme 1 is related to feelings about reading – Theme 2 appears to centre on the notion of boredom – Theme 3 is around the pragmatic/enriching benefits/value of reading – Theme 4 is around location
  8. 8. Relationship between themes - snapshot • Identified 5 highest frequency and 5 lowest frequency readers by using responses from question 3
  9. 9. High frequency readers tend to… • Express very positive feelings (T1) about reading, ‘I enjoy it’, ‘I love it’, I like reading a lot’, ‘the books I have read have inspired me’ • See the value of reading (T3), ‘Reading does not just help you read, it helps you with your work, ‘you will learn new words’ • Be qualified in there feelings of boredom (T2), ‘some books are boring’, • Read at home (T4) (especially in bed) and at school
  10. 10. Low frequency readers tend to… • Have mixed feelings (T1) about reading, sometimes I think reading is a little bit fun, ‘you can be doing some more important stuff’, ‘reading books you don’t enjoy’. • Express strong feeling of general boredom (T2), ‘’books are very, very boring, ‘it’s boring’, ‘boredom and tiring’. • Mention value (T3), ‘you can learn’, ‘if you read it’s better to learn’, ‘learning facts and new words’ • Read EITHER at home or school, not both (Location, T4)
  11. 11. UK data: quantitative • Used sentiment analysis tool Sentistrength to measure level of emotion in responses from ‘snapshot group’ • All questions scored and aggregated A1 A5 A14 A25 B8 A9 A23 B12 B15 B18 High High High High High Low Low Low Low Low Summary score 2 4 5 2 5 -1 0 -2 0 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Aggregatedscore Sentiment: summary scores, high v low frequency readers • Appears to be a relationship between sentiment and reading frequency
  12. 12. Denmark data: qualitative • Total of 61 responses (4th and 6th grade) • Began by using same themes as per UK
  13. 13. Similar themes emerged • Theme 1 – feelings – ‘I think is exciting and cosy to reading if I have a good book’ – ‘ ‘I never read for fun. I just read for fulfilling my reading contract’ • Theme 2 - boredom – ‘The bad things about reading are that it is boring’ • Theme 3 – value – ‘The good thing about reading is that you learn from it and that you can use it in the future’ • Theme 4 – location – I don’t always have time to read but if I have time I sometimes read before bed and in the weekends’
  14. 14. Our response • Creativity • Collaboration • Constructivist and constructionist
  15. 15. Why creation? (2008) Enabling the student to create a new product or point of view?
  16. 16. Evaluating Analysing Applying Understanding Remembering Creating Bloom’s revised taxonomy
  17. 17. Online collaboration for design Learning through design has two essential features: • learners construct meaning through the act of design – constructivism • collaborative learning - meaning is constructed jointly by a community – social constructivism • Combined in constructionism – Papert – blends cognitivist and situative strategies
  18. 18. So online social tools key too • Edmodo for asynchronous sharing • Skype or Connect for synchronous link • DK use Facebook, PL use videoconference • Limitations – “In England in particular where we have legislation (sic) about social networking and things like that. I know it’s a secure server but I still think that’s a big concern, even though it’s in an educational setting. It’s something we need to look into before we can say for definitely. “
  19. 19. Teachers f2f workshops • Participatory • Aim – Create a collaborative team across the 5 schools • Achieved through 3 day workshop – Confidence building – Identify digital skills gaps – Opportunities for collaboration – Identify focus for online follow-up workshop
  20. 20. Technological focus • Technologies for creation – Videos (PowerPoint, Prezi, Slidemaker, keynote) (iMovie, Moviemaker) (Animoto, Tiki-Toki, Photobooth) – Comic Strip generators (Lego Storyteller, various online eg Makebeliefs, ToonDoo, Witty Comics) – Statistics-based card game “Top Trumps”
  21. 21. Online workshop • From the workshop emerged an outline syllabus for the online workshop: – Creating movies, Cartoons, Games, secure social media (Edmodo), Videoconferencing • Two week pre-workshop lead-in (from 5th May) • Six week online course • Evaluation via questionnaire and focus group • Constructivist, learning by doing approach
  22. 22. Some results from Sweden… Sweden – Mio my son https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2s-YCNG1jc#t=97 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDTlUXMx9CY#t=152 http://mojojojodesuyo.edu.glogster.com/untitled-glog/
  23. 23. UK children’s feedback • We read the book, then we had to make up our own Mischevions. • Mine was called Grease Grocer, I remember one of yours [to H] Pooey Pooey [they all giggle] • It was hilarious[…] because it was really quite, mmm…. I think it was, there were quite a few words for it, adults would probably say it was immature [giggles] we say funny. • We did like the news reports [ video e-artefact] on the Mischevions breaking out • Going round the school, we went into the kitchen and things, where we had never been before. We didn’t go in the classrooms. • Doing the action and making up our own Mischevions has helped some of them [original characters] stick into my mind but not every single one. There was one called the ‘End Roller’ and the ‘Yawn Mower’.
  24. 24. Findings • Evidence form the UK (and Croatia and Poland) shows that students engaged with the characters and narrative in more depth than normal (finding and evaluating) • Students enjoyed creating e-artefacts (communication) • More findings
  25. 25. Further information Website http://www.amores-project.eu/ Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/amoresproject Email geoff.walton@northumbria.ac.uk
  26. 26. References • Bloom’s digital taxonomy: Andrew Churches, (2008) Bloom's Taxonomy Blooms Digitally, Tech & Learning, 4th Jan, 2008 http://www.techlearning.com/studies-in-ed- tech/0020/blooms-taxonomy-blooms-digitally/44988 Additional background reading • Experiential learning cycle: Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. P. 24 • Trust cycles: Soetanto, R., Childs, M., Poh, P., Austin, S and Hao, J. (2014) Virtual collaborative learning for building design, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law 167 February 2014 Issue MP1, Pages 25–34 • Storytelling model: Sheherezade Consortium (2011) Sheherazade, 1001 stories for adult learning Theoretical background for methodology: summary, http://www.sheherazade.eu/sites/default/files/deliverable/d3/deliverable3_EN.pdf • Virtual Teams: Lin, C., Standing, C. & Liu, Y. 2008, "A model to develop effective virtual teams", Decision Support Systems, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1031-1045.

×