BEYOND PRETTY QUIZZES CMA E-Learning Day 2015 Stephen McConnachie

 Multiple representations of the same concept  Related: different media synchronised into multi-modal presentations  Links / hyperlinks – networking the activities  Interaction / interactivity  Ubiquitous* learning – sickness, sports trips, homework  Ubiquitous access to learning communities  Modelling – virtual laboratories / environments WHY E-LEARNING? From Kramer & Schmidt, 2001 “Components and tools for on-line education” (p195) As quoted in Pachler & Daly, 2011 “Key Issues in e-Learning: Research and Practice” (p21)

Student Agency. WHY E-LEARNING?

 Creative  Collaborative  Constructivist  Facilitating effective learning – ICT doesn’t need to be (shouldn’t be!) the focus of the activity  Invisible WHAT DOES “GOOD” E-LEARNING LOOK LIKE?

Li & Ma, 2010:  Using technology in maths education is effective (raises achievement)  It is even more effective when combined with a constructivist approach CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3),

Mathematics has traditionally been taught procedurally; that is, as a list of steps for students to follow in order to reach the correct answer (McLeod et al., 2012) CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY

 Procedural learning: “knowing how to do something or recalling the algorithm to solve a problem”  Conceptual learning: “knowledge of the interrelationships of the basic elements that make up larger structures” - Anderson et al., as cited in McLeod et al., 2012 CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY

Types of knowledge (Anderson; McLeod) SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis) SOLO Taxonomy “major category” (TKI, n.d.) NCEA achievement levels (NZQA, n.d.) Pre-structural Not Achieved Procedural knowledge Uni-structural “Surface” thinkingAchieved Multi-structural Conceptual knowledge Relational “Deep” thinking Merit Extended abstractExcellence McLeod, J., Vasinda, & S., Dondlinger, M. (2012). Conceptual visibility and virtual dynamics in technology-scaffolded learning environments for conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 31(3), New Zealand Qualifications Authority [NZQA]. (n.d.). Level 1 Achievement Standards – Mathematics and Statistics Retrieved from standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/mathematics/clarifications/level-1/level-1-achievement-standards-mathematics-and-statistics/ Te Kete Ipurangi [TKI] (n.d.). Chapter 1: Curriculum. asTTle V4 Manual 1.0. Retrieved from

 We don’t have to rush!  Do it properly  Use the TPACK framework and Activity Types taxonomy to evaluate resources and create new ones HOW DO WE GET THERE?

ACTIVITY TYPES Taxonomy for evaluating e-learning activities

 TPACK: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge ACTIVITY TYPES TAXONOMY T PC TPTC PC TPC

Grandgenett, Harris and Hofer’s Activity Types Taxonomy for Maths: TPACK broken down into a practical taxonomy for teachers ACTIVITY TYPES TAXONOMY

 bit.ly/mathsATtax  Seven levels  Very practical  HUGELY useful ACTIVITY TYPES TAXONOMY

The SAMR Model  Substitution  Augmentation  Modification  Redefinition More: SAMR Model explained on TKI THE JOURNEY

There is nothing wrong with Substitution Start small, but start somewhere E-LEARNING – WHERE DO I START?

ENGAGEMENT vs. Enhancement

This document from the UK summarises research findings from a study on the use of ICT in Primary schools.  Beyond Engagement: The use of ICT to enhance and transform learning at Key Stage 2 in literacy, mathematics and science Beyond Engagement: The use of ICT to enhance and transform learning at Key Stage 2 in literacy, mathematics and science In particular, chapter 5 had some interesting comments.

ENGAGEMENT VS. ENHANCEMENT  “In almost all cases the pupils were clearly motivated and stimulated by the ICT approach they were demonstrating.” p10

ENGAGEMENT VS. ENHANCEMENT  “In some cases the use of ICT achieved high levels of engagement but little beyond that; the learning objectives were achieved but the use of ICT, in itself, did not lead to deeper learning.”

ENGAGEMENT VS. ENHANCEMENT  “The distinction between ‘engagement’ and ‘enhancement’ activities was often partly a consequence of the type of ICT resource being used.  However, what was more important was how the ICT resource was being employed by the teacher. The link with pedagogy was very strong.  So, for example, software which on the face of it had very limited potential for enhancing learning was sometimes used by a teacher to create a very rich learning experience for the pupils.”

ENGAGEMENT Examples (from mathematics) of the types of activities that engaged the pupils but didn’t significantly enhance their learning included:  The use of games, puzzles and activities (either on an interactive whiteboard or with pupils working individually or in pairs at a computer) to practise skills in calculating, estimating and problem solving.  The use of revision websites and revision software to provide strong visual representations and structured activities to practise skills and reinforce knowledge and understanding.  The use of onscreen tools such as protractors, rulers and calculators to provide clear demonstrations.

ENGAGEMENT Examples (from mathematics) of the types of activities that engaged the pupils but didn’t significantly enhance their learning included:  The use of games, puzzles and activities (either on an interactive whiteboard or with pupils working individually or in pairs at a computer) to practise skills in calculating, estimating and problem solving.  The use of revision websites and revision software to provide strong visual representations and structured activities to practise skills and reinforce knowledge and understanding.  The use of onscreen tools such as protractors, rulers and calculators to provide clear demonstrations.

ENGAGEMENT Examples (from mathematics) of the types of activities that engaged the pupils but didn’t significantly enhance their learning included:  The use of games, puzzles and activities (either on an interactive whiteboard or with pupils working individually or in pairs at a computer) to practise skills in calculating, estimating and problem solving.  The use of revision websites and revision software to provide strong visual representations and structured activities to practise skills and reinforce knowledge and understanding.  The use of onscreen tools such as protractors, rulers and calculators to provide clear demonstrations.

ENHANCEMENT Examples (from mathematics) of the types of activities which led to enhanced learning included:  The use of spreadsheets to record data and produce graphs and charts to discuss and interpret.  The use of spreadsheets to investigate a problem given in context, e.g. the cost and amount of card needed to make Christmas gift boxes of different sizes.  The use of simple formulae within spreadsheets to perform calculations.

ENHANCEMENT Examples (from mathematics) of the types of activities which led to enhanced learning included:  The use of National Strategies Interactive Teaching Programs (ITPs) to demonstrate and model mathematical skills and concepts and to promote discussion and pupil talk.  The use of simulations, including adventure games, to introduce investigations, explore patterns and generalisations and solve problems.

ENHANCEMENT Examples (from mathematics) of the types of activities which led to enhanced learning included:  The use of film to focus and address misconceptions and to promote discussion and articulation of methods.  The use of dynamic geometry software to demonstrate and visualise aspects of shape and space, e.g. reflections and translations, nets and 3D shapes.  The use of onscreen turtles to produce shapes and explore their properties.

ENGAGEMENT VS ENHANCEMENT  Engagement is still worthwhile!!!  But enhancing learning is better

BEYOND PRETTY QUIZZES CMA E-Learning Day 2015 Stephen McConnachie