4.5 Experiencia personalizada para el usuario y resultado en el hábito de lectura
4.6 Ambiente participativo y resultado en el hábito de lectura
PHASE DATA COLLECTION STRATEGY OBJECTIVE
P H ASE 1 A d mi n is tr at io
n 1.1 Ethical clearance Permission to conduct research
1.2 Contact participants Establish relationship with schools
South Africa International Conference
on Educational Technologies 2016 126
Proceedings 1.3. Correspondence with participants and
parents
Explain nature and intent of study
P H ASE 2 F a cilit a te P ho to Vo ice
2.1Photo Voice Technique 1. Orientation
2.3
Field
notes
Discussions
Preliminary field notes
2. Exhibition
2.2 Narratives (learners) 3. Wrap-up
P
H
ASE
3 Analysis Gather data
Interpret data
During the photo voice approach participants are given disposable cameras and are prompted to take pictures of anything that is related to the subject at hand. The particular strengths of the photo voice method (also known as “reflexive photography”) are to emphasize personal experiences in particular, as well as to gain maximum commitment in participants’ contribution in the research project (Olivier, Wood & De Lange, 2009). This technique was chosen particularly to insure the young learners’ involvement. With regard to the scepticism of involving young children in this technique, Strack, Magill and McDonagh (2004) noted that similar “to Freire’s (1973) line drawings which served to personalize issues for discussion, the youth’s own photos created a great sense of pride and ownership that contributed to their exchange of views.” As organised by Olivier, Wood and De Lange (2009), the researcher implemented a step-by-step guide to facilitating a photo voice project which consisted of three sessions (Orientation, Exhibition and Wrap-up) as follows:
Session 1: Orientation
Ten Grade 3 learners were purposively selected in a homogenous sample and requested to participate in the project. The participants were issued with the following prompt for taking the pictures: How do you learn? The participants were given three days to take photographs, with a free hand, of anything that they identified with the subject at hand. The films were developed and the photographs printed.
Session 2: Exhibition
During the second session the participants displayed their pictures individually in a classroom. Each participant was asked to pick one picture that was most representative of their experience of learning. They were requested to write a narrative of about half a page on the selected picture and to submit these within one week.
Session 3: Wrap-up
The third session involved meeting with the participants where they were given the chance to present their written narratives. This point in data collection was valuable since it was necessary to understand the young learners’ experience through their beginner writing. The pictures and narratives were subsequently analysed and interpreted.
Sample
Participants’ names were not disclosed so as to protect their anonymity and confidentiality. The photographs and narratives offered data that was both interesting and of great value in
South Africa International Conference
on Educational Technologies 2016 127
Proceedings eliciting responses to learners’ experiences of TbL in the Foundation Phase. Finally, significant points that were extracted from the individual narratives were also discoursed.
Results
The data that was collected by means of photographs, narratives and field notes provided insight into the descriptions and understanding of TbL in the Foundation Phase from each participant. The researcher detailed points of view that were extracted from the learners’ responses. Since the research sites were two technology-rich schools, themes overlapped in accordance with the technological trends of the time. Additionally, it was evident that the data produced had strong links to the theory behind this research. It was particularly useful to use the elements from the conceptual framework of this study to code and organise the data. The exposed data was illuminating and provided detailed information that contributed to the themes of this research, namely: technological tools; 21st century skills and TbL itself. A deductive analysis of the data which was based on literature and the conceptual framework with the elements of technology, pedagogy and content were all noteworthy to consolidate theory with empirical data.
Figure 2: Findings according to data analysed Discussion
All Foundation Phase classrooms need to be technologically supported.
This study focussed on two schools that were technology-rich for the reason that the infrastructure and the use of technological tools with the necessary support were established Unfortunately, literature revealed that this is not the case in all South African schools as Meier (2013) cites that the directive for the provision for Early Childhood Development in South Africa, is competent to meet international standards in policy but under closer scrutiny, this picture is thwarted. Furthermore, advancement in TbL is determined by sound infrastructure in the country as a whole (Department of Basic Education, 2015). This cohort of learners rely on visual sources of information, by using the array of technological tools that participants referred to, which is an effective means of information gathering to suit a particular and personal learning style (Weiler, 2004). Both literature and data discovered that infrastructure to take advantage of technology-based learning is advantageous to meeting individual learning styles.
Topics • Learner responses
Themes • Technological tools • 21st century skills • TbL Categories • Digital vs traditional • 4 C's • Benefits of TbL • Barriers of TbL Technology Pedagogy Content
South Africa International Conference
on Educational Technologies 2016 128
Proceedings
Guidelines for the technological pedagogy need to be developed.
The TPACK framework proves that technology can benefit pedagogy when used correctly. Participants cited subjective strategies and techniques when it comes to technology-based learning. It is accepted that young children differ from previous generations and therefore, so should the way in which they are taught be distinct. Although young children have a specific learning style and therefore a specific child-centric, play-based curriculum is necessary, technology can provide support in a plan that is available and adaptable beyond the classroom. Data highlighted this possibility of ‘anywhere-anytime’ teaching and learning a numerous times in comments such as:
We’ve got our iPads, mini iPads, so if we need to learn outside wherever, if we go on a field trip and we need to take photographs or if they need to answer questions, things like that, they can record it, it’s portable.
You can contact people overseas and your friends easily. We send emails and our projects to children from another school.
New knowledge and skills are needed to meet the demands of living in the 21st century and therefore, novel ways of learning is required from our teachers and learners. In light of the above mentioned, the Action Plan to 2019 (DBE, 2015: 18) stresses the priority for dependably designed interventions from the government to contend with the digital divide in South Africa by taking charge of technology betterment. An important document but not entirely sufficient to the Foundation Phase was the dispensation of the Green Paper on ICTs (Department of Communication, 2014). However, this policy framework does not service the Foundation Phase and moreover, does not explicate the pedagogical aspect of teaching and subsequent learning with technology.
Teachers and learners need support in finding appropriate content.
Participants’ responses highlighted that in one way or another, learners are involved in research. This research ranges from finding out simple information on the internet to looking for suitable content during lessons in responses such as:
I use google mainly to find out stuff, like for school projects…If you don’t use it you don’t know what’s going on.
In line with the TPACK framework of this study, technological knowledge (TK) and content knowledge (CK) are applicable. Nyambane and Nzuki (2014, p. 3) suggest that “the two important elements of teaching and learning which are content and pedagogy must be joined when technology is used.” Therefore, in order to provide the appropriate support to choose the actual technology as well as the associated content for the technology, role players need to distinguish that using a certain technology can modify the way that learners grasp concepts in that particular content area. Using technology for learning establishes an environment that is dynamic while at the same time reconstructing learning (Volman & Van Eck, 2001).
This study focused on learners’ experiences of technology-based learning in the Foundation Phase. Technological, pedagogical and content factors structured the discussion with the aim of endorsing successful TbL in the Foundation Phase.
South Africa International Conference
on Educational Technologies 2016 129
Proceedings
Conclusion
Data proved that participants in this study are mostly digitally literate and besides one learner participant who only uses technology at school, the remaining participants all use technology on a daily basis. The views of most of the participants in terms of their digital pedagogies, the willingness to learn and develop 21st century skills alongside emerging technologies was positive. Learners referred to time with technology as being fun with a strong element of play involved.
External, internal and educational reasons accounted for learners’ experiences of TbL in the Foundation Phase. External reasons in response to why TbL was used, participants and literature (Bush & Codrington, 2012; Nyambane & Nzuki, 2014; Posnick-Goodwin, 2010; Prensky, 2013) cited reasons such as the impetus to use technology from government and principals; learners use technology as a lifestyle; and children’s brains are wired to use technology. Secondly, participants themselves understood the value technology and its influence on their own learning. The internal reasons for the inclusion of TbL in the Foundation Phase were that participants were exploring their own research and development in TbL; recognition that technology improves the performance and capabilities of learners (Kalaš, et al, 2014); and a personal drive to use technology to enhance learning. Lastly, educational reasons were also brought to the fore as Kalaš et al. (2014:28) acknowledges that there is a “range of opportunities being opened up for improving learning with technology.” Data revealed educational reasons such as TbL benefitting the development of 21st century skills; the ability to incorporate appropriate content learned in a technologically-rich, Foundation Phase environment; and the understanding to adapt learning approaches to use technology meaningfully.
Additionally, the generation theory was used in order to characterize the cohort of Foundation Phase learners in this study since they are born during a particular period of the same 20 years. Particularly, this theory highlighted that individuals born in a specific era share one of four “peer personalities” (Strauss & Howe, 1991) This generation of learners, Generation Z, has never lived without the Internet and technology which makes the latter an integral component of how they communicate, exchange ideas and acquire knowledge. This study highlighted generation differences which can be attributed to the fact that teachers who are currently teaching generation Z form part of generations Baby Boomers, X and Y. With regard to Generation Z, the Foundation Phase learners in this study, it was evident from empirical data that there is a generation gap between learners and teachers. Participants mentioned that technology is always developing and learning cannot ‘stay behind’ due to age differences since the learners are using technology successfully from a very young age.
Finally, it was evident that there is a generation gap between teachers and learners, as well as a digital divide between the ‘haves and have nots.’ Since this is a South African study, it is crucial to mention that the ‘technological profile’ of the majority of Foundation Phase learners is circumstantial. The Nation’s Action Plan 2019 (Department of Basic Education, 2015) posits that without implementing TbL, education is incomplete since technology has the ability to change the way schooling occurs by improving and diversifying learning. As is the case in this study TbL for just a privileged minority can exacerbate future inequalities in South African society through the so-called digital divide.
South Africa International Conference
on Educational Technologies 2016 130
Proceedings Literature and empirical data highlighted that the technological profile of Foundation Phase learners is influenced by context (Leendertz et al, 2013; Meier, 2013 and Prensky, 2013). In other words, the participants of this study were situated at technology-rich schools and therefore, their technological knowledge and skills were developed whereas the general population of South African Foundation Phase learners do not have such resources and it can be assumed that their ‘technological profiles’ are much less developed.
Recommendations
The recommendations from this study are given from a top-down approach. Starting at the proposal that government will have to provide technological support in the Foundation Phase. Thereafter, it is suggested that Foundation Phase teachers will have to change the way they organize teaching to adapt to favourable implementation of TbL. Lastly, it is proposed that Foundation Phase learners should have access to the most appropriate content that is founded and supported by technology. It is therefore recommended that in order for our young children to take advantage of technological tools for learning, that schools are equipped with the necessary infrastructure to do so. Considering the fact that technology has the benefits of adapting classroom practices and being able to teach and learn in exciting, new ways, the effective implementation of the latter still requires support. It is therefore recommended that a set of guidelines for an emergent curriculum, which is based on this generation of learners’ interests, is developed to assist teachers and learners to successfully integrate TbL in the Foundation Phase. Additionally, the Green paper on ICT’s (DBE, 2014) that will contribute to the body of knowledge on TbL requires further investigation to bridge the gap in the policy surrounding TbL in the Foundation Phase. Lasly, it is important that a collection of appropriate content for various technological tools is developed to meet the demands of TbL in the Foundation Phase.
Closing Remarks
This study has underlined the need for research that will yield practical results to support the effective implementation of technology to enhance learning in the Foundation Phase. It is accepted that young children differ from previous generations and therefore, so should the way in which they are taught be distinct. New knowledge and skills are needed to meet the demands of living in the 21st century and therefore, novel ways of learning are required from our learners. This study was significant in that it provides an educational research perspective of the current generation of Foundation Phase learners’ descriptions and experiences of technology-based learning since children of today are being socialised in a vastly different way. Researching TbL in the Foundation Phase has proven that technology is a plausible tool to raise the quality of content and redefine pedagogy when it is understood by role players how to use it beneficially.
References
Agyei, D.D. & Keengwe, J. (2014). Using technology pedagogical content knowledge
development to enhance learning outcomes. Education and Information Technologies, 19: 155 – 171.
Bush, N. & Codrington, G. (2012). Parenting the wired generation: Future proof your child. Johannesburg: Penguin Books.
Codrington, G. & Grant-Marshall, S. (2011). Mind the gap: own your past, know your generation, choose your future. Johannesburg: Penguin Books.
South Africa International Conference
on Educational Technologies 2016 131
Proceedings Department of Education (DoE). (2001). Education White Paper 5 on Early Childhood Education: Meeting the challenge of Early Childhood Development in South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printers
Department of Basic Education. (2015). Action Plan to 2019 Towards the realisation of Schooling 2030: Taking forward South Africa’s National Development Plan 2030. Pretoria: Department of Education
Department of Communications. (2014). National Integrated ICT Policy Green Paper. Government Gazette. 24 January, 2014.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.
Kalaš, I., Laval, E., Laurillard, D, Lim, C.P., Mayar, F., Musgrave, S., Sentini, A., Tokareva, N. & Turcsányi-Szabó, M. (2014). ICT in Primary Education Analytical Survey. Volume 2 Policies, practices and recommendations. Russian Federation: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.
Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131 – 152.
Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60 - 70.
Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P. & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13 – 19.
Livesey, C. (2006). The relationship between positivism, interpretivism and sociological research methods. AS Sociology for AQA. p. 1-5.
Meier, C. (2013). Windows of opportunity, use it or lose it: Early Childhood Development prospects in South Africa. In Department of Early Childhood Education
Inaugural lecture. Pretoria, 17 July 2013. 1-21
Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. & Henrikson, D. (2011). The 7 trans-disciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK framework towards 21st century learning. Educational
Technology. 51(2), 22 – 28.
Nieuwenhuis, J. (2007). Qualitative research designs and data gathering techniques. In First Steps in Research (69 – 97). Edited by K. Maree. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Nyambane, C.O. & Nzuki, D. (2014). Factors influencing ICT integration in teaching – a literature review. International Journal of Education Research, 2(3): 1 – 18.
Olivier, T, Wood, L & De Lange, N. (2009). Picturing Hope: In the Face of Poverty as Seen through the Eyes of Teachers. Cape Town: Juta.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton & Co. Posnick-Goodwin, S. (2010). Meet Generation Z. California Educator, 14(5), 8 – 18. Pound, L. 2011. Influencing early childhood education. Key figures, philosophies and
ideas. Berkshire: McGraw Hill.
Prensky, M. (2013). Our brains extended. Technology-Rich Learning, 70(6): 22 – 27.
Pritchard, A. 2008. Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom (2nd Ed). New York: Routledge
Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In Handbook of research on teaching (3 – 36). Edited by M. C. Wittrock. New York: MacMillan.
South Africa International Conference
on Educational Technologies 2016 132
Proceedings Shulman L.S. & Quinlan K.M. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D.C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.) The Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 399-422). NY: Macmillan.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Internet: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm Accessed 6 January 2013.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3 – 10.
Strack, R.W., Magill. C. & McDonagh, K. (2004). Engaging Youth through Photo voice. Health Promotion Practice. 5 (1), 49 – 58.
Strauss, W. & Howe, N. (1991).Generations: The history of America’s future: 1584-2069. New York: Harper Perennial.
Strauss, W. & Howe, N. (1997).The fourth turning: An American prophecy. New York: Broadway Books.
Volman, M., & van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of educational research, 71(4), 613 – 634.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1999). In: The collected works of L.S Vygotsky ed. R.W. Rieber. London: Springer.
Weegar, M.A. & Pacis, D. (2012). A Comparison of Two Theories of Learning -
Behaviorism and Constructivism as applied to Face-to-Face and Online Learning. E- leader Manila.
Weiler, A. (2004). Information-seeking behaviour in Generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 31(1), 46 - 53.
South Africa International Conference
on Educational Technologies 2016 133
Proceedings