1. DESIGNING A BLENDED COURSE CMA E-Learning Day 2015 Workshop Stephen McConnachie

2. THINGS TO CONSIDER  SOLO Taxonomy for depth of thinking  SAMR Model of technology integration  Access to technology  The students  Activity Types taxonomy  Engagement vs. Enhancement

3. SOLO TAXONOMY Applied to e-learning in Maths

4.  “Knowledge has a separate, real existence of its own outside the human mind. Learning happens when this knowledge is transmitted to people and they store it in their minds.” – Roblyer, 2006  Maths as we know it – a defined set of skills that necessarily build on each other in a more-or-less linear progression of knowledge. OBJECTIVISM Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Chapter 2: Foundations of Effective Technology Integration Models: Theory and Practice, Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (4 th ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

5.  “Humans construct all knowledge in their minds by participating in certain experiences. Learning occurs when one constructs both mechanisms for learning and his or her own unique version of the knowledge, colored by background, experiences, and aptitudes.” – Roblyer, 2006  “The good ICT” – students creating, collaborating, constructing. What is perceived to be “21 st Century Learning”. CONSTRUCTIVISM Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Chapter 2: Foundations of Effective Technology Integration Models: Theory and Practice, Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (4 th ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

6. TO PUT THOSE SIDE BY SIDE: “Traditional Maths”“Effective e-Learning” Objectivism:  Requires directed learning  Instructional Design models  Specific skills  Drilling Constructivism:  Requires collaborative learning with students creating together to construct knowledge, tie it into their prior knowledge and experience and represent it in a way that is meaningful to them

7.  Is there more to Maths e-Learning than just flashy animations that drill skills?  Are we “doing e-learning wrong” by using flashy animations that drill skills? HOW DO WE RECONCILE THESE TWO?

8. ENTER SOLO TAXONOMY… Pre-Structural Uni-Structural Multi-Structural Relational Extended Abstract Read more about SOLO Taxonomy

9. ENTER SOLO TAXONOMY… Not Achieved Achieved Merit Excellence

10. ENTER SOLO TAXONOMY… Requires directed teaching Requires scaffolded teaching but benefits from constructivist approaches Requires constructivist approaches

11.  We need both. MY CONCLUSION:

12.  We need both. Surprise MY CONCLUSION:

13. We already knew this for Maths in the classroom  Dan Meyer  Rich tasks  Effective questioning MY CONCLUSION:

14. We already knew this for Maths in the classroom  Dan Meyer  Rich tasks  Effective questioning We now need to apply it to our e-learning programmes. MY CONCLUSION:

15.  Drilling with a flashy animation and a hip blinged-up avatar is not effective pedagogy for developing higher order thinking ALL OBJECTIVIST – BAD

16.  Airy-fairy thinking activities are all well and good but if students don’t have the basic skills they don’t have the basic skills ALL CONSTRUCTIVIST – BAD

17. WE NEED BOTH. Requires directed teaching Requires scaffolded teaching but benefits from constructivist approaches Requires constructivist approaches

18. SOLO TAXONOMY  Need to choose the appropriate tool for the students’ level of understanding throughout the topic Just like you would with “regular” learning activities!

19. http://techtipsedu.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/samr-model-metaphor-mistakes.html

20. ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY

21. THE STUDENTS

22. ACTIVITY TYPES Taxonomy for evaluating e-learning activities (see plenary presentation for details)

23. ENGAGEMENT vs. Enhancement

24. 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.

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

26. 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.”

27. 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.”

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

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

35. THINGS TO CONSIDER  SOLO Taxonomy for depth of thinking  SAMR Model of technology integration  Access to technology  The students  Activity Types taxonomy  Engagement vs. Enhancement

36. PLANNING TEMPLATE Topic Name: Achievement Objective #1: Write the relevant AO here “Regular” Learning Activity E-Learning Activity Learning Objective #1 Break down AO into (roughly) lesson-sized LOs Learning Objective #2 Learning Objective #3 Learning Objective #4 AssessmentPaper assessment taskDigital assessment task Achievement Objective #2: Write the next relevant AO here “Regular” Learning Activity E-Learning Activity Learning Objective #1 … bit.ly/ 1 HPQBmG Digital Version