A global classroom collaboration

Over the last month or so my students have been participating in a global classroom collaboration. This has been an exciting foray into my first proper collaboration of this sort, and was initiated via a Twitter conversation with a colleague, Jodie, in the USA. 

A screenshot from the Flipgrid web app.

The plan for the initial lesson can be found here. Briefly, we each had our classes do research about our respective local biomes, surroundings, and cultures. The students then developed clues relating to their research. I had my students write the clues out as scripts which would form the basis of video messages they recorded using the Flipgrid app. The students in my colleague's class then viewed the videos, and my students viewed theirs. The students then submitted written questions to each other using Padlet, with which to try & glean more information in order to guess the location of each other's school. The great thing about this approach is that it can be done asynchronously, avoiding any difficulties arising from being in very different time zones. 

I was very impressed with the level of engagement my students showed during the development of their clues, and they put a lot of thought into them. Since they are English language learners I assisted them with the development of their scripts, mainly just to remove words or phrases that would give away our location too easily.

The next lesson I had students download the free Flipgrid app onto their smartphones and enter the hashtag for our collaborative grid. This had been set up previously by Jodie, using her paid Flipgrid account. Once the grid has been set up, anyone can be invited to upload short video recordings to it via the app. These subsequent users do not pay any additional sign up fees. We experienced no problems downloading the app or accessing the class grid. 

I let my students find somewhere quiet to record their videos, and made sure they used areas where there were no distinguishing features that would have given their location away. They rehearsed their scripts briefly, then recorded and uploaded their video messages to Flipgrid. This was a very straightforward process, with no technical difficulties presented by using the app to record the videos. 

My students spent a number of periods working on this project, and were very engaged and actively participating throughout. Overall, their feedback from an evaluation questionnaire they completed following the project was extremely positive, as exemplified by the following comments (verbatim):

• I learned a lot from the Flipgrid project, one of them being to not use the country or places you live as a barrier for your learning
• I learned about biology in other country, such as climate and biomes. I also got to know their culture and lifestyle which is very interesting. 
• I learned both of biodiversity in Thailand and Texas that I've never known before.
• This project should continue. I really enjoyed it and I'm sure other students will enjoy it too.

The one drawback to this project was its timing, in that we began just before the Christmas/New Year break, and one of my students noted in their evaluation feedback following the project that this had had a dampening effect: 'May be not to use during the holidays? It was so exciting at first but then they had their holidays followed by our breaks so we kinda forgot about it'. This was a fair point, but as we all know the reality of school schedules means that we can't always fit things in where we would like. In the future, though, I would try to avoid spreading an activity such as this over an extended break. 

I have seen some educators criticise global classroom collaborations as being undertaken simply because technology now allows this. However, based on my students' own comments, together with my observations, this approach does seem to have positive learning outcomes. I feel that the main content-driven learning occurred during the initial lesson, when students were developing their clues relating to their local environment, such as which biome they are located in. The learning which took place in subsequent lessons related more to language skills, for example my ELLs trying to understand native English speakers talking at normal speed. It also offered students in their different countries cultural insights to see what their differences were and also their similarities - would the US teenagers have guessed that Thai teenagers' favourite foods were pizza and pasta for instance!

Overall, I feel that this was a successful activity, both in terms of the content learned and the level of student engagement. I would be happy to hear others' views on this, or similar undertakings that they have done. 

Hyperdocs: An engaging & interactive way to save time, paper, & headaches

I first heard about Hyperdocs a couple of months ago, but I hadn't got round to trying them out. However, last week's #DitchBook chat on Twitter, and this video, inspired me to give them a go. 

When I first heard about them, I thought Hyperdocs sounded a bit like digital worksheets, and placed the idea to one side. This is something I'm very wary of - simply replacing worksheets with digital, online versions of worksheets. However, Hyperdocs have the potential to do any number of things, and the possibilities they offer are really only limited by your imagination - or, by your students' imagination, since there is no reason for students not to create their own Hyperdocs!

The concept of Hyperdocs was originated by three teachers, Lisa Highfill, Kelly Amick Hilton, and Sarah Landis. Here, Lisa and Kelly summarise what Hyperdocs can do:

A1:#HyperDocs are simple- Digital lesson plans that shift how you teach and Ss learn #ditchbook

— Lisa Highfill (@lhighfill) November 6, 2015

A1: A #HyperDoc is an interactive GoogleDoc with digital resources for Ss & Ts to explore, explain, apply, create, & reflect. #Ditchbook

— Kelly Amick Hilton (@kellyihilton) November 6, 2015

But they are also much more than that, and they are not limited to Docs - they could be created in Slides, Forms, Maps, and so on. You can also embed videos, and include links to many other types of media or tools. 

A1 A HyperDoc is more than an interactive worksheet; it's more like a quest or adventure! You can add ANY type of media/activity #ditchbook

— Chantell Manahan (@leadlaughlearn) November 6, 2015

As Matt Miller, author of Ditch That Textbook says, edtech is often limited to the substitution end of the SAMR model. However, Hyperdocs offer scope for augmentation, modification, and redefinition of traditional pedagogical approaches. Again, the possibilities here really depend on the desired learning outcomes, after all, the SAMR model is not a ladder, with redefinition as the ultimate goal for all lessons. 

A2: Way different -- so much #edtech is stuck in substitution of SAMR. This kicks it up a notch! #ditchbook

— Matt Miller (@jmattmiller) November 6, 2015

Hyperdocs have the potential to be used with any grade level, and in any subject area. They can make learning purposeful and engaging, and learners can work at their own speed, which also offers a lot of scope for differentiation. 

I know that as a concept 21st Century Skills and the 'four Cs' - communication, critical thinking, collaboration, and creation - are taking a beating in some circles. However, whatever the philosophy / terminology is preferred, these are undeniably important skills, and they are skills that are well served by Hyperdocs:

A3 #Hyperdocs allow students to create and collaborate all in one doc! We use the template created by @SARAHLANDIS! It's awesome! #Ditchbook

— Karly Moura (@KarlyMoura) November 6, 2015

I've started creating some very basic Hyperdocs, which I don't feel currently do justice to the overall potential of this approach. However, here is a link to a range of Hyperdocs shared by participants in the DitchBook chat:

Various Hyperdocs shared by the #DitchBook crew

Bangkok Google in Education Summit 2015

I guess education conferences are like buses - you wait ages for one, and then two come along at once, hence my second blog post in a row that is a conference report!

Delegates settling in before my presentation.

Last weekend saw the 4th annual Bangkok Google in Education Summit, organised by the team at Apps Events. It was held at the Thai Chinese International School in Bangkok. The main meeting takes place over two days, although there is a pre-summit course for people who are taking one of the various educator certifications offered by Google. There was an additional session, towards the of the event, by my colleague James Sayer, and Davis Apas, which explored these various certifications, including Google Certified Educator, Innovator, and Trainer. 

It was my second time at this event, but my first as a presenter. My talk - 'Becoming a connected educator' - was by coincidence very timely, since when I submitted the topic I was unaware that October is Connected Educator month! My presentation began with an overview of what constitutes a connected educator, followed by a look at how blogging and Twitter can be useful tools for getting connected as an educator, and finished with reflections on my own journey towards becoming a connected educator and how this has been beneficial for my practice. 

In my experience these events are generally less formal than more traditional academic conferences, and there was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. Each day kicked off with a keynote speech, which on the first day was a brief overview of some emerging trends in education, such as Genius Hour and Solve X in Ed. The following day the keynote looked at the increasing importance of cloud-based computing, and noted that the top ten strategic technology trends in 2015 are related to cloud technology.

Lee Webster's Solve X in Ed 'Moonshot' - Get rid of final exams.

Following the keynote speech each day there were various parallel sessions lasting an hour each, differentiated by skill and experience levels, about various aspects of educational technology. Although the focus was on Google apps and tools, it was not exclusively so, and lots of different tricks and tips could be picked up over the course of the weekend. For example I heard about a few different apps that I am going to try out, including Plickers, a tool for collecting real-time formative assessment, and Zaption, a tool that can be used to turn videos into self-study lessons. 

Another tool that was demonstrated, and which I've known about for a while but not yet tried, was Flubaroo, which can again be used for rapid formative assessment. It has some additional new features, including an option for grading text-based questions as well as multiple choice questions, and is something I hope to try out next semester. The first day ended with a demo-slam, where delegates were invited to share what they learned that day in two minutes, with prizes available for the winning demo-slams. 

On the second day there was a useful talk around the use of Google forms for student peer to peer feedback. This is something I will definitely use, and is something I see as being a useful way for students to peer assess each others' presentations, for example. The other really great tool, presented by Lee Webster, was Google's My Maps. This is essentially a lightweight GIS package, which is extremely user-friendly and easy to use. I would highly recommend any teachers that incorporate any kind of relatively simple mapping activities to check this tool out. I plan to use it as an addition to the urban biodiversity project I have my students do. 

All in all, these Google in Education events are a great way to hear about new tools, new ways to incorporate them into teaching, and to meet like-minded educators in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. 

Digital citizenship week

This week at my school we are holding our first digital citizenship week. Some colleagues and myself felt this was necessary given the amount of time our students now spend online. The timing was ideal, since we have just produced an acceptable use policy for technology, which was distributed at a recent Parents' Day. Ideally, of course, digital citizenship would be a routine part of all classes where technology is prevalent or widely used. However, we felt that it was important to raise the profile of this topic, so digital citizenship week was born. 

Throughout the week, a number of teachers have volunteered to turn their subject classes over to lessons around digital citizenship. In this way, each grade level will each receive a lesson about a particular aspect of digital citizenship. For example, I will be delivering a lesson around over-sharing online, based in part on materials from a very helpful organisation, Common Sense Media. Other teachers will be discussing issues around digital footprints.

Although it seems self-evident that we should be educating our students in issues around digital citizenship, there are a few other aspects to consider. Digital citizenship means different things to different people. One definition from Teachthought.com is 'the self-monitored habits that sustain and improve the digital communities you enjoy or depend on'. There are also, however, some valid arguments made that digital citizenship is so fundamentally important that we should drop the 'digital' part entirely, and simply include it as part and parcel of citizenship education. Others have suggested that when we talk about digital citizenship, in the main we are referring to digital responsibility, a slightly different set of competencies, and when we talk of digital citizenship we should be encouraging learners to champion debate, justice, and equality via their online interactions. 

However we choose to term it, we have a responsibility to our learners to guide them and help them to negotiate cyberspace safely and responsibly. Although some people may refer to millennials as 'digital natives', can we really assume that they are instinctively equipped to deal with everything the connected world may throw at them? I'm not convinced that we can, and so for now at least I think that we need to continue raising the profile of digital citizenship until it does become part of the everyday classroom conversation. 

Creating virtual field trips

 Field trips are a fantastic way to engage students and enhance learning. Sometimes, however, field trips may not be possible for a variety of reasons, for example financial, geographical, or safety reasons. In these cases a great substitute is a virtual field trip. This is an interesting way to introduce learners to different out-of-classroom environments. 

Virtual field trips can bring learners face to face with wild animals!

A very useful tool for creating virtual field trips is Google Tour Builder. (Note that the 32 bit Tour Builder app will not run on 64 bit browsers, such as Chrome, so you may need to open it in Firefox or Safari).

An example is an aquatic ecosystems virtual field trip that I use as part of my ecology course with grade 10 biology students. The virtual field trip is used to introduce the topic, and includes questions for learners as they progress through the trip. Once they have completed this task, I ask them to work in pairs or small groups to create a virtual field trip of their own based on an aquatic ecosystem of their choosing. 

Learners can experience new or unusual environments.

Where possible I like to use my own photos, which provides an additional talking point for students. Alternatively, a useful place to get photos online is photosforclass.com, where you can search for photos that have been uploaded to Flickr and have been licensed by their owners to be sued for educational purposes. 

Clearly, there are many possible applications for virtual field trips: a trip to a museum, a gallery, a zoo, different terrestrial ecosystems, and so on. If a real field trip isn't an option, a virtual field trip may be the next best thing.

Citizen science in the classroom

Citizen science is science that involves amateur or non-professional scientists. It can take various forms, e.g. it may involve online tagging of photos taken by field scientists,  drones or camera traps, for example Zooniverse's PenguinWatch: http://www.penguinwatch.org. Other citizen science may be game-based, for example the protein-folding game Foldit (http://fold.it/portal/), which led gamers to solve the structure of a retrovirus enzyme in a matter of weeks - professional scientists had been trying to solve the puzzle of its structure for over a decade! (http://bit.ly/1tqDCLL).

I'm interested in using citizen science in the classroom. Roth and Lee (http://bit.ly/1O1q1Ig) have long advocated incorporating citizen science into the school curriculum as a way to increase science literacy, leverage lifelong learning, and foster participation in community issues. I recently had some of my Grade 10 students participate in Project Noah (http://www.projectnoah.org/), an online tool for documenting biodiversity around the world. It is specifically aimed at citizen scientists, with an active community of enthusiasts and experts ready to offer suggestions and advice for identifying species.

I had the students go out into the school grounds to take photos of the different organisms they found, then they returned to the classroom and uploaded their spottings to the Project Noah website. 

Student feedback was positive following the activity, with one student remarking that it was their favourite biology activity all year. If I were to plan it differently next year, I think I would introduce the project earlier in the school year, and encourage students to download the Project Noah app to their phones. They would then be able to hopefully spot a larger variety of organisms than we might expect to see around our campus in the centre of Bangkok! 

Encouraging learner voice and choice

Offering learners more voice and choice is increasingly being advocated as a way to improve engagement and personalise learning. Edna Sackson, from Inquire Within, also mentioned this to me following an earlier post. One of the ways in which I have attempted to achieve this is to give learners the choice of what finished product to submit at the end of the assignment. As ever with this particular assignment, student groups could choose any topic within the broader scope of genetic engineering (e.g. GMOs, cloning, forensic biology etc). However, instead of specifying a finished product that involved a report, or a PowerPoint presentation to the class, I gave them the option of what kind of final product to submit.

Upon completion of the assignment final products submitted included infographics produced in easel.ly, presentation-style reports in Prezi, and PDFs created via Google Slides. Many of the students were unfamiliar with some of these applications, and so were finding their feet with them to some extent. One interesting observation was a student who was explaining to her group members how to find their way around Adobe Illustrator. This was a good example of the teacher stepping back and ceding peer teaching opportunities to the students – I’ve never used Adobe Illustrator in my life! Other spontaneous peer teaching included students showing each other tips and tricks in Photoshop.

Student feedback following an evaluation at the end of the assignment was generally positive, with some neutral responses. Encouragingly, there were no negative responses, although Thai students are often reluctant to criticize even via anonymous evaluation forms!  

Reasons learners gave for enjoying the assignment included the freedom it offered them, that it was fun, it enabled them to use their creativity, and it offered them the chance to learn new skills, such as how to use Prezi or make infographics.

I also asked learners what aspects they would change or improve. Suggestions ranged from having groups present their work to the rest of the class (even if the final product was not a traditional presentation format) to requesting that I assign (!) topics to groups because some groups were deemed to have chosen “easy” topics. Obviously, this latter suggestion would somewhat defeat the purpose of this exercise.

I’ll finish up with a couple of direct quotes from the students regarding this assignment. The first quote supports the idea that learners appreciate the chance to be creative, the second one – well, what can I say!

“I really love this project because we have to use lots of skills not only understanding and writing but we also have to be creative to make an easy-reading infographic”.

“Its kind of fun using technology with the subject which seems to be boring like biology”.

What do online discussion forums offer second-language learners?

In my last post I outlined how online asynchronous discussion forums (ADFs) fit into the SAMR model. This week I’m going to outline some of the additional benefits that ADFs can provide to English language learners (ELLs) specifically, and for learners more generally. This is something quite close to home for me as a teacher, since the learners I work with are Thai high school students. Their first language is obviously Thai, but at my school they receive the majority of their lessons in English.

Language plays a crucial role in learning, both for metacognitive awareness, or learning how to learn, and in the formation of higher mental processes (Murphy, 2008). ADFs afford learners the opportunity to practice their written language skills, and also provide those students who are less confident about speaking English the opportunity to prepare their answers before posting them.

In addition, by participating in an online debate, students have an opportunity to learn more than simply a list of decontextualised knowledge items – they also gain critical thinking, debating, English language, and scientific research skills. In other words, ADFs afford the development of critical literacy, which includes recognising multiple and contradictory patterns of thought, and engaging in moral/philosophical critique (Davies, 2008).

It has been noted that by using authentic situations, such as a debate about a topical area where science impacts society, English language skills and subject area skills can be improved simultaneously. The development and use of specific language functions, such as explaining and hypothesising, are seen as parallel to science learning processes (Stoddart et al., 2002), e.g. when ELLs participate in an online debate they are developing both language and science skills. Recent studies of a professional development intervention with elementary teachers, aimed at simultaneously improving both science and literacy skills of ELLs in multicultural settings, have shown achievement gains in both areas (Lee et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2009).

Finally, subject area literacy can be enhanced by engagement in culturally authentic activity. Debates around controversial topics, such as stem cell research or vaccine use, are an example of this, reflecting as they do real-world debates held both within the scientific community, and between the scientific community and the wider community at large. Learners are seen to be able to move along trajectories that are not discontinuous as they move from school social practices to more general social practices, also an important feature in the development of lifelong learning skills (Roth and Lee, 2008).

I personally feel that ADFs offer a variety of affordances that make them an invaluable tool for 21st Century learning. I would be interested to hear how other teachers use ADFs in their context!

References

Davies, B. (2008). Constructing and deconstructing masculinities through critical literacy, in Hall, K., Murphy, P., and Soler, J. (eds.). Pedagogy and Practice, London, Sage in association with The Open University

Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R.D., LeRoy, K., and Secada, W.G. (2008). Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1, pp.31-52

Lee, O., Mahotiere, M., Salinas, A., Penfield, R.D., and Maerten-Rivera, J. (2009). Science writing achievement among English language learners: Results of a three-year intervention in urban elementary schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 32, pp153-167

Murphy, P. (2008). Defining pedagogy, in Hall, K., Murphy, P., and Soler, J. (eds.). Pedagogy and Practice, London, Sage in association with The Open University

Roth, W.M. and Lee, S. (2008). Science education as/for participation in the community, in Murphy, P. and Hall, K. (eds.). Learning and Practice, London, Sage in association with The Open University

Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M. and Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English Language Learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 8, pp.664-687

Using the SAMR model to conceptualise asynchronous discussion forums

Asynchronous discussion forums (ADFs) are text-based, online forums that individuals can access at a time and place of their choosing. In this post I will discuss how ADFs can be conceptualised for learning at all levels of the SAMR model developed by Dr Reuben Puentedura. The SAMR model offers a way to consider the different levels at which technology may be integrated into teaching and learning: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, or Redefinition.

Substitution
The obvious case to make here is that ADFs can facilitate an online debate that acts as a substitute for a more traditional classroom debate. There are similarities between the two approaches in that the debate would generally involve a topic that generates a certain amount of controversy, for example embryonic stem cell research, and learners would be expected to employ critical thinking skills and evidence-based arguments. The key differences are that in an ADF-mediated debate, learners would be practicing written rather than oral language skills, and they would have more time to gather evidence and make their case. 

Augmentation
Although ADFs could be substituted for a classroom debate, they need not replace it entirely. They could be used as a pre-debate activity, providing learners with an opportunity to gather evidence and refine their arguments. Alternatively, the classroom debate could be used as a lead-in activity to generate interest for the subsequent online debate. In either case, the ADF augments the classroom debate by affording learners a space in which to engage in dialogue over a longer time frame. 

Modification
This brings us to the modification aspect of ADFs, where learners can engage in a debate for longer, and potentially more deeply, as well as providing direct links to evidence that supports their case. They and their peers have more opportunity to evaluate these evidence bases, and thus they are moving away from what is offered by a traditional classroom debate. 

Redefinition
ADFs can redefine the traditional classroom debate by extending learner agency, for example by providing opportunities for knowledge creation as opposed to knowledge acquisition (McCormick and Scrimshaw, 2008). By posting to an ADF students are able to synthesise what they have learned, express it in their own words, and negotiate meaning with their peers. ADFs thus enable learners to engage “in the dialogues through which knowledge is constantly being constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed” (Wegerif, 2006a). This would not be possible in quite the same way during a classroom debate because of the more fleeting nature of verbal interactions.

An additional agentive feature of ADFs is that they look both forwards and backwards, pedagogically speaking (Lankshear and Knobel, 2008). That is to say, they provide learners with an opportunity to explore new understanding, whilst also demonstrating existing knowledge and skills. Consequently, there are more opportunities for students to learn from their peers, rather than from their teacher.

A further important affordance of ADFs is the increased opportunity for learners to engage in higher-level thinking. When I analysed the forum statistics following an ADF debate I assigned to my Grade 10 students, the number of views far exceeded the number of posts, supporting the notion that many students were reading the existing discussion before posting, i.e. engaging in higher-level thinking before participating, rather than simply posting for the sake of it. This is consistent with Saade and Huang’s (2009) findings from their university-based study of learners using an ADF, and is arguably an advantage ADFs have over traditional classroom debates, where learners don’t necessarily have the time for higher-level thinking before making a contribution. ADFs also clearly demonstrate how technology can facilitate social learning, i.e. computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) (Stahl et al., 2006; Wegerif, 2006b).  They are computer-mediated communication environments that “turn communication into substance” (Dillenbourg, 2005, in Stahl et al, 2006, p.12). Or, put another way, ADFs reify learners’ participation in a discussion, leading to the negotiation of meaning (Wenger, 2008). 

ADFs can record learner activity as well as being a product of their thinking. These records of interaction and collaboration have been identified as potentially important resources for improving intersubjective learning (Stahl et al, 2006). Intersubjective learning considers that individual meaning making comes about through social interactions with others, and is partly constituted by those interactions (Suthers, 2006). It could be argued that traditional classroom debates afford this as well, but again the asynchronous nature of ADFs allows more time over which these interactions may occur. 

A final point about ADFs is that they provide a great opportunity for metacognition, or making learners’ thinking more visible. For example, the forum software I use has a peer-grading facility. As learners grade the contributions from their peers, it helps them to focus on what they could do to improve their own contributions, and thus they are thinking about how to improve their own learning. I feel that ADFs can be conceptualised at each level of the SAMR criteria, including the key levels of modification and redefinition, for the reasons outlined above. In a future post I will return to ADFs and discuss how they may be used to enhance both general and subject literacy.

References

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2008). New ways of knowing: Learning at the margins, in Hall, K., Murphy, P., and Soler, J. (eds.). Pedagogy and Practice, London, Sage in association with The Open University

McCormick, R. and Scrimshaw, P. (2008). Information and communications technology, knowledge and pedagogy, in Murphy, P. and McCormick, R. (eds.). Knowledge and Practice, London, Sage in association with The Open University

Saade, R.G. and Huang, Q. (2009). Meaningful learning in discussion forums: Towards discourse analysis. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6, pp.87-99

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., and 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. Available at http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf last accessed 01/02/2015

Suthers, D.D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 3. Available at http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/papers/2006/Suthers-ijCSCL-2006.pdf; last accessed 01/02/2015

Wegerif, R. (2006a). Dialogic education: what is it and why do we need it? Education Review, 19, 2, pp.58-66

Wegerif, R. (2006b). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, pp.143-157

Wenger, E. (2008). Meaning, in Murphy, P. and Hall, K. (eds.). Learning and Practice, London, Sage in association with The Open University