PRECIO DEL PRODUCTO
SUPERMERCADOS MÁS REPRESENTATIVOS DE LA CIUDAD DE QUITO.
The IP Language ePlay MakerSpace created opportunities for teachers to create in a playful and active manner. Teachers created concept maps, G/Slide presentations and Mindmups, as well as G/Forms with accompanying G/Sheets where the results from the G/Forms were recorded and analysed. These tools were included following Reid and Wood’s (2016) suggestion to provide teachers with a space in which to try out, try on and play with practices, beliefs, perceptions and pedagogies in a safe and nurturing environment.
Teachers engaged in active learning to create pedagogic and eAssessment tools that address CAPS requirements. The CAPS focus ensured that the learning had immediate relevance and was practically appropriate within different contexts. Following the reference group’s suggestion, a descriptive writing task (see Module 2 in the manual) was modelled using the writing process of prewriting, drafting, revising, proofreading and publishing (required by CAPS). A folklore/folktale was chosen as required by CAPS across IP home or additional language teaching. The pedagogic steps such an activity would follow in real-world contexts were modelled:
Shared prewriting for viewing and responding: watch the video, Anansi and the Sky Kingdom (link embedded), whole group discussion of the story;127
Paired prewriting: teachers identify a character from the story, list descriptive words for it and create a mind-map of these using mindmup.com.
Peer-feedback: Mind-maps are posted to Edmodo and peers provide feedback.
Shared writing: In the whole group, using a mind-map of Anansi the spider, model shared-writing of a descriptive paragraph in G/Docs.
Individual writing: Teachers chose a mind-map from Edmodo and wrote a descriptive paragraph in G/Docs using the character and descriptive words in the mind-map.
Peer-feedback: Teachers share their G/Docs links with the mind-map author on Edmodo and give each other feedback.
eAssessment: Create a G/Form rubric to assess paragraphs.Two points are noted with regards to the active learning in this session. Due to time- constraints, the introduction of G/Forms at the end of the session was not well scaffolded, and teachers appeared overwhelmed by this inclusion. Secondly, the strikethrough function (strikethrough) to eliminate words in the mind-maps was modelled, and teachers responded to this very positively.
A transactional writing task, concerning the analysis of adverts to prepare learners to create their own adverts, and evaluation of learners’ created adverts, was modelled on Day 2, correlating to Module 4 in the manual. KFC is a well-loved brand across all populations of South Africa, and therefore a KFC Facebook banner add and YouTube video advert were chosen for this activity (both are posted in W2.1 on the website). Permission was received from KFC South Africa to use these adverts. Transactional writing and the creation of adverts is required by CAPS for all IP language teaching across grades and languages (both home and additional language teaching). The pedagogic steps of the activity were modelled:
Shared reading and viewing: teachers watch the YouTube advert and discuss general qualities of adverts.
Paired viewing and evaluation: teachers evaluate YouTube and Facebook banner advert using a G/Form: Evaluating an Advert (link embedded)128
Shared reading and viewing: Analyse the results from G/Form in whole group.
Shared prewriting: Create a mind-map of the characteristics of an advert in whole group.
Individual prewriting: Individuals create a mind-map using Mindmup.com of the characteristics of an advert.
Peer-feedback: Advert mind-maps are shared to Edmodo for peer-feedback.
Individual writing and peer-feedback (Omitted due to time-constraints): Create an advert using characteristics of an advert.
eAssessment: Create a G/Form to assess learners’ adverts.Various points are noted regarding the active learning in this session. The introduction of the G/Form was more scaffolded. Following the unfavourable response on Day 1 to G/Forms, the originally designed G/Form to evaluate adverts was simplified to scaffolded teachers’ exposure to its affordances. The graph-format of the results were projected and teachers could see how their responses impacted the different graphs in real-time. This created some excitement as teachers experienced the affordance of the tool without its use obstructing their experience. The G/Form was intentionally designed to inadequately
evaluate an advert, creating opportunities for teachers to note how the G/Form can be improved. Thereafter teachers created their own forms in a more relaxed, systematic manner to the day before. They were highly engaged in creating the eAssessment G/Forms, used a different question-types and some even including images and videos.
The narrative writing activity (Module 6) designed for the last day, did not take place due to time-constraints.
The inclusion of play-driven active learning was designed to develop teachers’ capacities to use ETs to create and innovate, and from this, inculcate dispositions of creativity and innovation. The goals of active learning align with Reid and Wood’s (2016) goals for play as pedagogy in adult learning, in which teachers experienced in their bodies and incorporated in their habitus: a) basic technological knowledge and capacities, and b) expertise in
129
planning and implementing pedagogies that transformatively integrate ETs. Such embodied knowledge, Reid and Wood (2016) argue, enables the establishment of new routines towards improved and deeper learning. The inculcation into the habitus of new capacities and dispositions, was supported by relational, professional, reflective and transformational learning.
4.2.3
1gDP10) Relational learning
Relational learning was included in the ePlay MakerSpace design to provide opportunities for interaction and shared reflection (Meyer, 2010), and to support interpersonal
connectedness and cooperation (Reid and Wood, 2016). The playful, safe space created in the ePlay MakerSpace, created the relational space in which teachers could develop
capacities to see interconnectedness (Meyer, 2010) between organisational goals and their individual efforts. Different forms of online and face-to-face, synchronous and asynchronous interaction between teachers, the facilitator and content were designed to foster various forms of relational learning as structured by the Anderson’s (2004) model. However, within this process, the language Anderson uses in his model, became problematic as teachers fulfil the role of learners and the teacher in his model is the facilitator. Although the words
learner was replaced with teacher, and teacher with facilitator, this model was flagged for revision.
Different forms of interaction were fostered in the Edmodo group: teacherteacher, teacherfacilitator and teachercontent. In the first session on Day 1, teachers were introduced to Edmodo, created accounts and joined the ICT Integration: IP Language Edmodo group. Scaffolding their introduction to the tool, they introduced themselves and their schools (this was omitted from the transcript to protect their anonymity). Thereafter teachers used Edmodo as a reflective and collaborative learning tool. Initially questions were posed to model collaboration and shared knowledge-creation, with teachers
responding to posts (transcripts are available on W2.2), and to each other’s posts to foster different forms of interaction.
130
The initial questions on Edmodo served various purposes. It provided a real-time measure of how many teachers could access the Edmodo group. It also indicated whether, having accessed the group, teachers could post responses in a thread rather than create new posts. The content of these initial posts provided a description of the cultural capital teachers valued and inferring from this, what they wanted to gain by attending the session. This data could later be correlated to the information on the concept maps. Following the initial questions listed above, teachers started using Edmodo as part of the transactional and descriptive writing tasks, for reflection on tools and pedagogical affordances, or to post general comments.
Relational learning was further fostered in online contexts, systematically scaffolding collaboration. Using peer-feedback, teachers responded to each other’s created artifacts shared in Edmodo. They also opened each other’s G/Docs and G/Slides and commented on these using the comment feature, which teachers noted they done before. The descriptive writing task in G/Docs described previously was intended to be a collaborative writing task as preparation to collaboratively develop group lesson plans using G/Slides. However, while some teachers managed to collaborate in G/Docs, the majority found this strange and inaccessible, and were frustrated by the intermittent internet connection.
Relational learning was fostered in face-to-face contexts as well. Different group discussions in the session provided opportunities to question, share and build rapport with fellow teachers. Also, teachers collaborated in face-to-face contexts to create their group lesson plans. Since creativity is fostered when individuals from diverse contexts collaborate and share their varied experiences (Dorst and Cross, 2011), ICT integration manager, Mr D, pre- grouped the teachers in grade-groups that reflected diverse schooling contexts to maximise the diversity in each group, and potential for creativity in terms of originality, flexibility and fluency in lesson plans. The interaction and collaboration between teachers from diverse contexts created the context to support relational learning, new connections and
conversations, which as Meyer (2010) argues, settles more effectively in the collective memory. In the interviews that followed the ePlay MakerSpace, one teacher described her experience of this activity:
131
◊
50:12 IPL15: …I was actually annoyed, I was annoyed when you said, Oh, you going to choose the groups. And I thought, shoot, I do this to my children all the time in class hey, and I get, and I now I’m getting annoyed. (FP04: Exactly) And when I was working with the two other girlies from the uhm, it was myself, IPL24, and then this two other girlies, I learnt so much and we just started speaking, and, it was actually, it was actually nice after a while, I realized ok, this is why you actually do it, you know. But initially I was like, Yesso … if we worked together we would have done so many things.4.2.4
1gDP8) Professional learning
Professional learning provides a knowledge and research-driven foundation to support the awakening of consciousness and move teachers beyond their edge of meaning, where they can start creating new meaning in the liminal zone. The professional included in Iteration 1 emphasized content and pedagogical knowledge (Desimone, 2009; Parsons et al., 2013), as well as their technological knowledge (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Koehler et al., 2011) through the transformative integration of ETs.
Pedagogical knowledge was developed to align with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) emphasizing Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) to aligns with the CAPS requirements for assessment. Also included were the 21st century skills of creativity, collaboration,
communication and critical thinking (Fullan, 2013) and Anderson’s (2004) model of interaction to provide a framework to foster different forms of interaction and deep and meaningful learning. Professional learning took place throughout the three days, supported by active learning and the creation of different artifacts. Teachers for instance identified the 21st century skills they valued on Edmodo, read through each other’s posts and used the
‘like’ to indicate the characteristics listed by others teachers, that they agreed with. An analysis of the most ‘liked’ posts, was correlated to the 21st century skills and teachers
132
Building on 21st century skills, HOTS and Anderson’s model of interaction, professional
learning prepared teachers to design learning that transformatively integrates ETs. As requested by the reference group, a step-by-step process, the ICT integration framework, (available on Slide 15 of the IP Language presentation and in the manual) was designed to guide teachers’ lesson planning. The framework clearly articulated a process to structure lessons that transformatively integrate ETs. The framework was presented to teachers on Day 2, in preparation for their lessons planning. In the previous session, the descriptive writing task modelled transformative ET integration, and using this as example, teachers identified the different processes according to the ICT Integration framework modelled. This activity prepared teachers to plan their own lessons using the ICT integration framework. The professional learning included in the IP Language ePlay MakerSpace addressed content, pedagogical and technological knowledge. This was supported by reflective learning to provide teachers with opportunities to reflect on their existing practice.