Some school / personal priorities I need to get to by 2010, after I finish my last Masters assignment for the semester and have completed report cards!

- finish construction of Digital Project Planner (integrated unit planner) integrating Digital Pedagogy Pack resources for 2010

- come up with exemplar for teachers’ Semester Overviews for 2010 with consideration for Tomorrow’s Citizens Framework

- enhance our existing TeamSite to become a one-stop information and professional development site, while decomissioning our BlackBoard based staff PD site

- develop a plan for facilitating roll out of ePearl to Early Years in T1 2010

- investigate digital solutions for individualised student data tracking and portfolios aligned to First Steps Continuas

- develop a plan for facilitation of personalised Digital Pedagogy Licence PD for staff in Semester 1 2010

- brainstorm ideas for developing cohesion across and between year levels, including the 21st century skills we’d like to see our students develop

- research and develop a TeamSite-based Performance Dashboard for our school, integrating dynamic updates of key data

- complete assessment task for postgraduate credit for Digital Pedagogy Licence

- research national and global STEM initiatives and develop a framework for offering key opportunities in these areas in 2010, particularly engineering

- begin to develop and foster local, national and international relationships with other schools and partners, ensuring each class offers students an opportunity to collaborate with peers / experts every term

- rethink Parent Connect initiative, particularly unmanagable overhead in creating individualised parent accounts in BlackBoard – perhaps Parents access through their child’s account?

Practical interpretations of the MCEETYA Learning Spaces Framework at Bounty Boulevard State School, Queensland, Australia

Abstract

While the Queensland and Australian Governments have recognised the importance of new spaces for teaching and learning, particularly with the Rudd Government’s Building the Education Revolution, the practical implementation of new spaces is largely left to schools and even individual teachers. This article proposes a theory for the consideration of 21st century learning spaces in relation to the learner, desired knowledge and understanding, digital technology and digital pedagogy. New and emerging learning spaces at Bounty Boulevard State School are analysed and critiqued through an analysis of the guiding principles offered by the Learning in an Online World: Learning Spaces Framework (MCEETYA, 2008) publication – including flexibility, inclusivity, collaboration, creativity and efficiency. The argument put forward in this article is that 21st century learning spaces can be enabled while acknowledging barriers of resourcing and current ICT infrastructure.

Introduction

Traditionally, ‘learning spaces’ has suggested a physical place and space in which learning takes place. However, the increasing prevalence of digital technologies in educational environments has caused a redefinition of the concept of a learning space to include virtual, remote and online communities – along with the physical environments – in which students learn (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009, p.3). The internet and mobile technology has also helped to redefine where, and consequently, when, learning takes place (Brown, 2005). The acknowledgement by educational institutions of the new skills and literacies students will require in the 21st century – including self- direction, collaboration, creativity, risk-taking, prioritisation, presentation, classification and critical analysis and reflection (Metiri Group, 2003) – has also propelled a reconsideration of the most conducive physical and virtual environments for learning.

The importance of 21st century learning spaces has been recognised in Queensland as integral to effective elearning (Queensland Government, 2008; Queensland Government, 2009). The Australian Commonwealth Government has also recognised the importance of enabling 21st century learning spaces in their $AUS16.2 billion dollar Building the Education Revolution enabling “world-class educational infrastructure that will meet the needs of our students to move into and compete in the 21st century” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). The challenge, however, lies in the space of turning policy into practice and the barriers educational institutions face when they interpret key guidelines and frameworks and look to put into practice. However, before this area is explored in depth, a theoretical understanding needs to be established to properly position learning spaces in an effective elearning environment.

Learning spaces theory

Mishra and Koehler (2006) offer their Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework as a way of understanding the relationship between technology, pedagogy and content in an educational setting. While the theoretical grounding of the complex elements of educational technology is sound, this framework ignores two fundamental aspects of a 21st century teaching and learning environment– the learner and the learning spaces.

As an extension to Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPCK framework, an alternative framework is offered (figure 1) which clearly places the individual learner at the centre of the teaching and learning process. In conjunction with the desired new knowledge and ways of working, the learner drives the learning agenda where the digital technology, digital pedagogy and 21st century learning spaces are dependent elements meeting the needs of the individual. This theoretical framework, presented as a Venn diagram, also offers some notable ‘intersections’ for consideration, particularly between spaces- technology and spaces-pedagogy.

Figure 1 - Framework for considering 21st century learning spaces

Monahan (2002) describes the spaces-pedagogy intersection as the ‘built pedagogy’, where learning spaces can be “read for the pedagogies they facilitate”. Monahan goes further and describes learning spaces as ‘political’ as they engender particular power relations and are infused with the values, philosophy and, therefore, pedagogy of their creator (2002). Further to these assumptions, specific research on learning environments has shown the strong links between 21st century learning spaces and enhanced student learning (Whiteside and Fitzgerald, 2005). Similarly, the spaces-technology intersection is a dynamic space, where digital technologies have enabled online spaces for learning including networked communities, blogs, wikis, discussion boards, RSS, chat, podcasts, virtual worlds and even Twitter, to name a few. Through pervasive wireless access and faster internet bandwidth, informal learning spaces have grown to have equal value with formal learning spaces (Milne, 2009). The fundamental understanding here is the strong relationship between 21st century learning spaces and the digital pedagogy, digital technology, new knowledge and the learner and that effective elearning is only possible when the physical and virtual learning spaces are considered along with the pedagogy and digital technology. From an Australian perspective, one of the key frameworks guiding schools in this area is the Learning in an Online World: Learning Spaces Framework (MCEETYA, 2008).

Learning Spaces Framework in context at Bounty Boulevard State School

Bounty Boulevard State School (BBSS) is a new prep-to-year 7 school for 2009, located north of Brisbane, Queensland. Designed from the outset as a school which embraces elearning, key priorities for BBSS include individual learning pathways for students, personalised learning opportunities, unique offerings in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and strong links between home, school and the global community (Bounty Boulevard State School, 2009). The school community has also clearly positioned Learning Spaces as a core component of their Vision for Learning, alongside Pedagogy, Curriculum and Assessment, Relationships and Values (Bounty Boulevard State School, 2009). Paradoxically, from an architectural point of view, the majority of the physical learning spaces built as part of the project are fundamentally traditional and suggest a ‘cells and bells’ (Nair and Fielding, 2005, p.18) mode of learning. Classrooms for year 1-7 students were constructed side-by-side in sets of four, with a single entry from an external walk-way. Folding partition doors separates each classroom from the other. Each space has a whiteboard which acts as the primary focus-point. While each classroom in the lower school shares a wet area / kitchen, the outdoor learning areas are not inviting or particularly conducive to learning. For the purpose of this article, the context for analysis will be the Middle Years Learning Neighbourhood (9-12 year olds), with fifty students and two teachers, which, at time of writing, was undertaking a four week 1-to-1 laptop trial to gather data to inform a personal laptop program in 2010. These students were to work across three traditional classrooms (figure 2), as extra space had been provisioned in anticipation for future enrolments.

Figure 2 - Original design of Middle Years Learning Neighbourhood

In conjunction with the commencement of the four week personal laptop trial, teachers and students collaboratively redesigned both the physical and virtual learning spaces to better reflect the ways in which they needed to work. For the remainder of this article, this redesigned learning space will be analysed and critiqued against the five guiding principles offered by the Learning Spaces Framework (MCEETYA, 2008) – including flexibility, inclusivity, collaboration, creativity and efficiency – demonstrating some practical interpretations of this framework when considering 21st century learning spaces.

Flexibility

Flexibility is a fundamental driving principle of the Learning Spaces Framework, defined as supporting multiple users and use, blended learning environments and ability to re-allocate and re-configure the space (MCEETYA, 2008, p.6). Heppell (2009), however, would disagree with this term, as his interpretation of a ‘flexible’ learning space includes ‘folding doors’ and adjustable tables, usually only able to be ‘modified by the school janitor’, whereas an ‘agile’ learning space is dependent on learning taking place and configured quickly by the learners. Regardless of the terminology, it is widely accepted that 21st century learning spaces need to be designed to meet the needs of the learner (Milne, 2006; JISC, 2006, p.5; Education.au, 2009). BBSS has interpreted this flexibility for both physical and virtual learning spaces.

Specific furniture and equipment has been purchased, and specifically configured, to enable flexibility in the physical environment. This has included laptop tables which are easily moveable by students, dynamic seating including some on wheels and mobile interactive whiteboards. The resulting ‘built pedagogy’ in these spaces emphasises collaboration, cooperation, creativity and student self-direction and reflects constructivist and connectivist practice. Most importantly, however, teachers actively empower students to alter their space to suit the learning task in order to achieve quality outcomes. As an extension to this, with amenities like a bathroom and café integrated into the learning space, students enjoy flexibility in their learning schedule where they are able to access the toilet or eat their lunch without ‘asking’ a teacher. Flexibility is also offered for students in virtual learning spaces.

As part of the 1-to-1 laptop trial, a new web-based elearning platform has been optioned for students, complementing the existing BlackBoard virtual learning space. This dynamic environment, based on Mac OS X Server, allows students to quickly and easily create new wikis and blogs depending on their learning tasks and goals. Using the same platform, students are able to share self-generated content with their peers using an RSS feed. As teacher intervention is removed from these processes, students engage in a self-regulated, empowering and agile learning environment, reflective of their needs and interests.

Inclusivity

Inclusivity is defined by the Learning Spaces Framework (2008, p.6) as accommodating personalised learning, access and participation for all and addressing contextual needs. Nair and Fielding (2006, p. 19-20) identify eighteen learning modalities which schools need to support, including independent study, peer tutoring, collaborative work, project-based learning and student presentations. On reflection of the Middle Years Learning Neighbourhood, twelve of these eighteen modalities are clearly identifiable in the physical learning space, with sixteen of the eighteen modalities somewhat identifiable, allowing students broad scope to work towards their dominant learning styles and multiple intelligences. BBSS also has acknowledged the importance of personalising student learning by designed student-centred online learning spaces (Bounty Boulevard State School, 2009).

Through the web-based Student Portal, which is the default homepage for students and accessible by students at home through our school website, students are presented with a visual interface with quickly-accessible links to learning tools and content. The interface was deliberately designed to support students working at a range of ability levels, and particularly those primarily ‘visual’ learners. The BlackBoard community, meanwhile, provides 24/7 access to specific and personalised learning tools and content. Further, using the Adaptive Release function of BlackBoard each student was allocated a personalised workspace with a learning log, online workbook and assessment / feedback matrix.

Collaboration

Aspects of the physical learning space provides opportunities for student collaboration in line with the Learning Space Framework guiding principles including cooperative learning, teamwork, networking and community engagement (2008, p.6). The Boardroom provides a specific place for conferencing, debating, negotiating, planning and cooperating. Learning Pods provide opportunities for teams of students to collaboratively complete projects. The Comfy Corner (see figure 3) and Outdoor Learning Space (see figure 3) also provide informal spaces for collaboration and sharing. Further to this, Nair and Fielding (2005, p. 16-17) reconsider the traditional corridor between classrooms, where instead of a corridor providing a narrow pathway for learners to move between destinations, a broader, more flexible corridor provides opportunities for learners to meet and collaborate as they move within and between learning spaces. This design was adopted in the Learning Neighbourhood, where the partition doors were retracted allowing a main corridor to run through the learning space with a ‘branching off’ to these other collaborative areas (figure 3). The corridor was designated by placing circular carpet mats through the learning space, maintaining flexibility and an open-plan design. Building on from the physical environment, collaboration also took place in student virtual learning spaces. While student collaboration was facilitated through student online communities, including blogs, wikis, chats, email and sharing of artefacts from students’ digital portfolios, students recently had the opportunity to collaborate in a new online, synchronous learning space.

Using the Department of Education and Training’s (DET) new web conferencing tool (Elluminate), students participated in an online video conference with students from Cherbourg State School as part of their rich project around indigenous issues. Teams of students communicated with Cherbourg students to gather first-hand data about aspects of their culture to inform their project assessment task. This online, synchronous learning space was new for many students but invaluable in developing a knowledge network. This collaboration was followed up with asynchronous discussion in a BlackBoard community, where students could ask follow-up questions of each other and continue the learning partnership.

Creativity

Innovation, engagement, community harmony and growth of social capital are all desirable elements of a creative learning space as identified in the Learning Spaces Framework (2008, p.6). Learning spaces which encourage creativity need to be bold and dynamic in order to energise, inspire (JISC, 2006, p. 3) and support learner achievement in the higher cognitive domains of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). As Heppell (2009, p.13-14) posits, the need for 21st learning spaces to foster creativity in students comes down to an economic imperative, as learners need to break out of the “egg box” – which emphasises “individual endeavour and single task groups in small dedicated spaces” – in order to best prepare for work in the information age. Two physical learning spaces in the Learning Neighbourhood particularly support creativity – the Learning Studios and the Presentation Space.

Figure 3 – Redesign of Middle Years Learning Neighbourhood

Two Learning Studios are integrated into the learning space with sliding glass doors providing a quieter space compared to the general learning area. These spaces support intensive design and creation of rich content and offer access to a range of mobile digital technologies, including digital cameras, video cameras and microphones and have permanent Ethernet connections, which facilitate high-quality media production and sharing. The Presentation Space, with a mobile interactive whiteboard and open carpet space, also provide an opportunity for individual students or teams to share their work and provide a space encouraging peer critique and feedback.

Efficiency

The final guiding principle in the Learning Space Framework (2008, p.6) centres around the provision of faster, deeper learning, sustainability, cost-effectiveness and effective management of the learning space. This important principle allows discussion to move to some of the barriers preventing a redesign of learning spaces and the challenges BBSS has faced in a practical interpretation of the Learning Spaces Framework, particularly with regard to resources and ICT infrastructure.

Whether or not the ideas offered in this article are ‘practical’ or not will depend on how they are interpreted by other educators and schools in their particular context. Redesigning a learning space for many schools will be an expensive exercise, and the realities of limited resources – both with regard to teacher / administrator time and funds for new furniture / retrofitting – needs to be recognised. With regard to BBSS, the purchase of furniture and equipment to enable a 21st century learning environment was possible through existing school budgets. Through a regional grant, a teacher was able to be released from class for one day per week to facilitate the virtual learning spaces, among other jobs. It is acknowledged, however, that the relatively ‘clean-slate’ offered at BBSS provided an important catalyst – and fertile ground – for a reimagining the learning space, something that other schools will need to consider. ICT infrastructure is another barrier to rethinking learning spaces.

Poor internet bandwidth from school, particularly to our BlackBoard online learning space, is a pertinent issue. This issue has been recognised by our department for which solutions are actively being sought (O’Hagen, 2009). The resulting inefficiencies may mean a move to more locally-hosted solutions for web-based learning spaces in the future which don’t rely on internet bandwidth. The disadvantage, however, is in flexibility, where students would not be able to access the ‘cloud’ enabling 24/7 learning. The issue of school internet bandwidth, however, is a national issue which may not be properly solved until the provision of the Commonwealth Government’s $AUS43 billion National Broadband Network (Commonwealth Government, 2009b). The lack of a high-density wireless solution in the Learning Neighbourhood has also, at times, limited the learning spaces students are able to exploit. Again, this is an issue recognised by DET for which solutions are being sought (Sel Kerans, DET Sunshine Coast Regional Newsletter [email], October 19, 2009).

Conclusion

Learning spaces are a fundamental consideration for the use of digital technologies in education. In this article, practical interpretations have been offered of the guiding principles of the Learning Spaces Framework (2008) in a primary school setting in Queensland. A theory for 21st century learning spaces was argued with reference to digital technologies and digital pedagogy. While many of the physical and virtual elements of the redesigned learning space at Bounty Boulevard State School could be considered successful, poor internet bandwidth and wireless capability has limited the accessibility of virtual learning spaces.

References

Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm

Bounty Boulevard State School. (2009). Vision for Learning. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://bountyboulevardss.eq.edu.au/wcmss/index.php/learning/vision-for-learning.html

Brown, M. (2005). “Learning Spaces”, in Educating the Net Generation, Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger, eds. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces/6072

Commonwealth of Australia. (2009a). Building the Education Revolution. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/BuildingTheEducationRevolution/Pages/default.aspx

Commonwealth of Australia. (2009b). National Broadband Network: 21st century broadband. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/national_broadband_network

Education.au. (2009). 21st century learning spaces. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/papers/Learningspaces09.pdf

Heppell, S. (2009). Physical Learning Space Design [vodcast]. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.ictlic.eq.edu.au/media/heppell/Physicallearningspacedesign.m4v

JISC. (2006). Designing Spaces for Effective Learning - A Guide To 21st Century Space Design. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/learningspaces.pdf

Metiri Group. (2003). enGauge 21st century skills for 21st century learners. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from http://www.metiri.com/21/Metiri-NCREL21stSkills.pdf

Milne, Andrew J. (2006). “Designing Blended Learning Space to the Student Experience.” Chapter 11 in Oblinger, D. (ed.). Learning Space Design. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://www.educause.edu/learningspacesch11

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/journal_articles/mishra-koehler-tcr2006.pdf

Monahan, T. (2002) “Flexible Space and Built Pedagogy: Emerging IT Embodiments,” Inventio, vol. 4, no. 1. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.torinmonahan.com/papers/Inventio.html

Nair, P. and Fielding, R. (2005). The Language of School Design: Design Patterns for 21st Century schools. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.designshare.com/images/TheLanguageofSchoolDesigneBooksummaryweb.pdf

Oblinger, D. (2006). ‘Space as a change agent’. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7102.pdf

O’Hagen, D. (2009). Smart Classrooms: Learning Productivity [vodcast]. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://mediasite.eq.edu.au/EQ/Viewer/?peid=54b37127-3e66-44f2-a6bf-53ad78201c34

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). 21st Century Learning Environments. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/le_white_paper-1.pdf

Queensland Government. (2008). Smart Classrooms Bytes: eLearning for smart classrooms. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from http://education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/pdf/scbyte- elearning.pdf

Queensland Government. (2009). Technology, Architecture and Furniture. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from http://www.learningplace.com.au/sc/transform

Victorian Government. (2009). Transforming Learning through Innovation: Pedagogy and Space. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/teachlearn/innovation/lpd/pedagogy.pdf

Whiteside, A. and Fitzgerald, S. (2008). Designing Spaces for Active Learning. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.informedesign.umn.edu/_news/jan_v07r-pr.2.pdf

Some of my colleagues and I have begun having a critical look at some of the ‘traditional’ genres we typically require students to demonstrate learning around across P-7. This analysis has been in light of our school’s focus on eLearning, 21^st century skills, connectivist practice and best preparing our students to be ‘global citizens’ in an information age.

As part of this analysis, we asked ourselves: What literary and non-literary genres will students need in the 21^st century?

Will our students really write “Animal information reports” or might they contribute their knowledge and understanding to global knowledge bases like Wikipedia? Will our students really write “Letters to the Editor” or might they contribute instant critical responses using Web 2.0 services or engage in direct journalism using tools like Twitter? Will our students really sit down and write a narrative or might they tell their stories through rich digital media and publish to global media-sharing sites? Will they really write their Project Plans and lists by themselves or will they collaborate with others using tools like Etherpad and Wikis? Will students really open up Microsoft Word and write sustained expositions or will they convey they opinions and ideas and influence others through discussion boards, web conferences, VoiceThreads or personal blogs like this one!?

What genres, in your day-to-day, do you most often write to? How have digital technologies and new understandings of ‘knowledge’ blurred the lines between genres?

I’m not saying that there aren’t benefits in our teaching of these traditional genres. I also fully recognise the external influences which direct our explicit teaching of particular genres (moderation, NAPLAN, etc.).

However, what I am suggesting is that perhaps we need to review our genres and consider the relevance and authenticity of some for today and tomorrow.

I would genuinely appreciate other opinions around this, particularly from those who have engaged with this ‘rethinking’ at their school and your outcomes.

Exploring equipment provided by Apple for each student as part of our school’s 1-to-1 trial.

Mind map of components of digital pedagogy

As part of this Learning Journal epilogue for MDN642: Digital Pedagogies, I will justify the above mind map, reflecting on pertinent readings, by addressing the four key ‘ideas’ a teacher looking to demonstrate effective digital pedagogy should enable: Networked Knowledge, Personalisation, Agility and 21 ^st Century Skills.

Networked Knowledge

Central to the idea of digital pedagogy needs to be a reconceptualisation of what knowledge is and how it is acquired. As identified in connectivist theory, knowledge in the 21 ^st century could be defined as what an individual can access through their personal ‘network’. Further, the development of knowledge, as also identified in connectivism, is that knowledge is generated through identifying patterns and making connections between multiple ‘nodes’ of information. Teachers demonstrating effective digital pedagogy need to enable these knowledge networks for students and encourage an evaluation and authentication of knowledge.

Personalisation

Teacher don’t teach curriculum, they teach students. Embedded in ‘traditional’ pedagogy is the emphasis on the intended curriculum – the Essential Learnings and Ways of Working mandated by the organisation, with little regard for the individual students.

This reconceptualisation was demonstrated in my revised version of the TPACK framework, where the student was the central feature of the teaching / learning design. Effective digital pedagogy requires this understanding and an increased emphasis on the enacted curriculum (which teachers teach) and, particularly, the experienced curriculum (which students learn) (Queensland Government, 2008, P-12 Curriculum Framework ). Fundamentally, this includes a recognition and appreciation of the student, where individual interests, needs, background, prior knowledge and learning styles are build upon and leveraged.

Further, personalisation as a core branch of digital pedagogy includes a negotiation of the what (content), how (mode, method) and when/where (learning spaces) of learning, enabling students to self-direct and take charge of their own learning.

Agility

Borrowing a phrase from Stephen Heppell, teachers need to enable an agility in their work with students to effectively demonstrate digital pedagogy. Fundamentally, this means learning is dynamic, not static, higher-order, not lower-order, responsive, not independent of students, interdisciplinary, not subject-specific, globally-connected, not isolated, and authentic, not from a text-book.

C21 Skills

Skills valued in the 20 ^th century workforce will not be the same skills valued today or in the future. Opportunities for students to practise 21 ^st century skills, including collaboration, communication, creativity and self-management skills, need to be embedded in teaching and learning episodes as an essential branch of digital pedagogy.

Final comments and reflection

Notably, ‘digital technology’ was left out of this mind map. As Loveless et. al. (2001) state, the identification ICT when discussing effective pedagogy is as unreasonable as identifying ‘pencils or any other resource’. Instead, digital technologies are integral, embedded and enable most of this ‘digital pedagogy’ to occur. In other words, when a teacher is demonstrating effective digital pedagogy, the digital technologies become an invisible and ubiquitous part of the learning environment – a move from ‘conscious competence’ to ‘ unconscious competence’ when using ICT for teaching and learning.

A colleague of mine often states that terms like digital pedagogy and eLearning will one day be replaced withpedagogy and learning. The thinking behind this is the realisation that these terms are temporary, and are used by educators to describe this new way of working and learning, and that one day, this will be the norm. However, one of my most significant learnings in this unit came when reading Mishra and Koehler (2006) TPACK framework, where the authors identified that the exponential growth of technology will continue drive new ways of working and learning. Therefore, while terms like digital pedagogy may, at present, define a desirable paradigm, a ‘digital pedagogy’ will always exist (although, perhaps using alternative terms) representing the newest, latest and most desirable way of working as innovation and new technologies continue to redefine teaching and learning.

This post refers to my Poster assignment submission for MDN642 – Digital Pedagogies as part of my QUT Master of Education.

The Poster Assignment for MDB642 – Digital Pedagogies was my first assignment as part of my postgraduate degree and my first formal paper (apart from perhaps my Belief Statement as part of my Digital Pedagogy Licence Advanced portfolio ) since I was an undergrad. With the considerable investment (financially and, particularly, with regard to time) in my studies while continuing to work full time in a challenging environment (establishing a new primary school), and with the prospect of studying a subject in such a dynamic, high-interest area of digital pedagogies, it is safe to say I had high expectations for the learning this first assignment would offer.

I had a very hard time getting my head around a fundamental concept of this assignment being the ’speculative’ application of a digital technology. The Digital Pedagogy Licence Advanced required me to provide evidence (through planning, student work samples etc.) to make convincing links between learning theories and my professional practice with students. The result was a transformative learning experience, requiring me to engage with the read, reflect and enact cycle. However, for this Poster Assignment, I found myself in unfamiliar territory, where the focus was not on the authentic ways in which I was using a digital technology to enhance student learning, but instead, was focused around the way in which I learnt the technology.

As a result, and upon reflection, I don’t believe this assignment was effective in enhancing my digital pedagogy, and would have been more suited to a subject titled “Digital Andragogy” where the focus is on the methods and strategies for teaching adult learners. Perhaps a better task would have been to document the strategies and methods I used to learn the technology by reflecting on relevant theory including minimalism (andragogy), but then develop a learning strategy (i.e. a lesson) and scaffolding resources for teaching students how to engage with the technology depending on our context (pedagogy). This is a task – i.e. interpreting a new technology in order to identify the best, easiest way to ‘teach’ it to students – which I perform regularly and for which I would have appreciated some theoretical grounding.

Of course, the word ‘teach’ in that previous sentence is in inverted commas because it could take on a wide variety of meanings, depending on your theory of learning. For example, I wouldn’t ‘teach’ a digital technology without an authentic, genuine purpose, and in the flexible, student-centred environment I work in, ‘teach’ would probably involve generating scaffolding resources, offering small ‘workshops’ for students to sign up to, enabling peer coaching and tutoring and be grounded in social constructivism (play, generation of knowledge) and connectivism (constructing a network of knowledge).

However, this is not to say I took nothing away from the assignment. I learnt what minimalism was and how it relates to other, more popular, learning theories including constructivism, constructionism and connectivism. I learnt was Prezi was and generated enough knowledge around it to decide to stick to more familiar presentation tools like PowerPoint until it becomes more user-friendly. I was reminded of the ‘just-in-time’ vs ‘ just-in-case’ theory and read up on the theoretical justifications around this important concept. I also revisited connectivism theory, which gave me an opportunity to reflect upon my current classroom practice and give me some ideas for future professional development in line with this theory.

Ok, here’s what I want…

I want a simple tool where:

• teachers can add new learning tasks / activities to individual student task lists (i.e. learning plans)
• teachers can add new learning tasks / activities to a number of students’ task lists at the same time (for individual and group work)
• students can add new learning tasks / activities to their task list themselves
• teachers can list / attach the scaffolding resources, links, activities, criteria, rubrics and exemplars to support students in completing each task / activitiy
• students can update their progress as they work through each task / activity (i.e. as a percentage complete or as ’started’, ‘in progress’ and ‘complete’)
• teachers can view an overview of each student’s task list, is notified when a student completes a task and can see an overview of student progress when they’re working on the same task.

This tool could be web-based or Mac OS X compatible. It needs to be kid-friendly (in terms of usability).

Am I asking too much?

Well, apparently I am, as I’ve been searching for about 2 days and have failed to come up with any tool which can assist us to effectively manage personalised learning next term.

What’s the point, you may ask? Well, as our class (a year 5/6/7 class with 45 students) moves to a 1-to-1 trial next term and our desire to adopt a genuine ‘personalised learning’ approach, one of the biggest threats to our success is having students ’slip through the cracks’. In ‘traditional’ classrooms, where all students work on the same activity at the same time, and when students always work at the same desk, facing the same way, so the teacher can always see what they’re doing, the job of ‘managing learning’ is probably simpler.

However, the work isn’t targeted at students’ zone of proximal development. Students aren’t using a range of multiple intelligences. Work isn’t targeted at student’s visual, auditory or kinaethetic learning styles. Students aren’t using the learning space to support their learning. Students aren’t working across disciplines. Students aren’t collaborating or communicating. I could go on, but you get the idea? We all understand the need to be personalising learning, but as 45 students work on different projects across a broad learning space, how to you ensure that students who require support are getting it and how do you ensure students are taking responsibility for their learning and are using their time wisely?

This is where I’m at at the minute – what (effective, sophisticated) tool / method can we use to support this process?

In my last post, I mentioned the possibility of teachers emailing students details of learning tasks, and then students add these to their Learning Plan which exists in a wiki on the (school-based) Mac OS X server. This process, though seems very clumsy and time-consuming (and I’m pretty sure it would be), with students doing a lot of copying and pasting etc. Surely there must be a better way than this?

To start off with, I began searching for existing, hosted free web-based tools which fit the bill. I came across a couple of neat applications, particularly Soshiku and HiTask. However, these either cost money for the functionality we wanted (HiTask) or they were for an individual in managing their own tasks (i.e. they didn’t address the last point in my wish-list above). There was also the issue with students using these tools and having their information / data hosted there (I believe our department discourages this, without there actually being a directive or policy implemented… happy to be corrected, though). As mentioned in my previous post, I did come across KnowledgeBox, which is a UK-based tool for teachers to access learning objects and resources and allocate them to individual or groups of students. I believe there is a cost, though, and probably not available for Australian schools…

So then I began looking more at finding an open-source PHP-based solution, and hosting either on our school website or even on our local member server at school (which would improve speed but would only be accessible when students are at school). As I have some PHP knowledge and experience, I thought that even if I didn’t come up with something that was perfect, that I would be able to customise it for our needs (particularly the interface). I spent an hour or two at HotScripts – one of my favourite directories of web-based scripts – but failed to find anything significant. While there were some notable group-management tools, they were either too heavily targeted at the business world (not user friendly enough) or, like Soshiku, didn’t allow easy functionality for administrators to easily see an overview of all individuals’ tasks.

I then took a different approach and began searching Download.com for local applications which might be able to be ’synced’ to a database or repository somewhere (i.e. students could sync their task list at the end of each day so teachers could view where they’re up to). Things for Mac was by far the best task manager, however, was commercial software and also didn’t have an ability to sync or to see an overview of many users’ tasks. While I was at Download.com, however, I did come across Mindnode, however, which is a really simple mind-mapping tool for Mac. Dead simple to use, and can be exported in a range of formats. Love it! But back to the point…

Mac Mail To Do list feature

So then I went back to the drawing board and began looking at some basic tools provided with the Mac OS X platform that we could use. I honed in on the ‘To Do’ feature in the Mac Mail program. It was ugly and clumsy, but perhaps could be leveraged for part of what we want. However, I was already planning that email would be one of the primary teacher-students / student-student communication tools during our trial, and the three RSS feeds we’re planning work very nicely in Mac Mail, so having it all in one program would be great. My strategy was to get students to setup a Rule in the mail program that whenever they received an email from one of their teachers with the words “New learning task” in the subject that this would automatically be added to their To Do list. So when students came into class in the morning and checked their email they would automatically have an updated To Do list with teacher-generated tasks. This wouldn’t solve the problem of teachers having an overview of student progress, but that this point that was something I was willing to sacrifice! The benefit of this was that teachers could easily “push” new tasks out to individual or groups of students via email. But alas!! I couldn’t create a rule which automatically generated a ToDo!! Argh!! I did find a site where I could use a bit of fancy Apple Script to do this, but we’re getting pretty technical now…! Setting this up on each kid’s laptop would be a bit of a drag too (and probably prone to failure).

So I was at the point where I saw some potential in email applications for what I wanted, so I went off in search for other application which could serve a purpose. Mozilla Thunderbird didn’t have a task manager or to-do list (at least that I could see) so I downloaded the trial of Microsoft Office 2008 and gave Entourage (Outlook equivalent) a crack…

My Day toolbar in Entourage

I really like Entourage, and used it for my main email client a few years back when I had a MacBook. It’s very powerful (perhaps a bit too powerful for our purposes) but got closer what I was after. Apart from being able to setup a Rule which automatically created a new Task when an email met a certain criteria, Entourage also came with something called the My Day toolbar. This is a floating bar which updates you on your upcoming meetings / appointments and has a list of the tasks you’re working on. When you double-click the task it opens up in Entourage to give you the details. Students can also set their completion and the due date. All seemed to work quite well (apart from the fact that students would be using Microsoft Trial software… yuk…), until I realised that Entourage doesn’t support RSS feeds !!!!!  Amazing!!

So, I feel as though I’m almost back to square one. Perhaps we’ll just use Mac Mail with a bit of Applescript which can make students’ lives easier. This doesn’t solve the fundamental question though of how can teachers easily track student progress. Of course, this idea relies on whether students can reflect on their work and accurately update their ‘progress’. I’m still stunned that Entourage doesn’t include the ability to bring in RSS feeds – if it wasn’t for that blemish we may have been going down that path.

Of course, we could always adopt a paper-based model if we can’t find something digital to suit our needs. Students could ‘copy down’ the teacher-generated tasks each morning and hand in their paper-based learning plan at the end of each day for the teachers to peruse (and subsequently plan for).

Would definitely appreciate any ideas or suggestions for anything else I hadn’t thought of!