Você está na página 1de 72

ESC516 Web

Pedagogies
Assessment 2 Web Pedagogy
Activities Report
Student: Brad Murphy
Number: 11513914

Page 1 of 72

Table of Contents.
Contents
ESC516 Web Pedagogies................................................................................1
Table of Contents................................................................................................... 2
Part A: Web 2.0 Tool and Online Resource..............................................................4
Introduction........................................................................................................ 4
PhET Build an Atom (Online Resource)................................................................5
Google Apps For Education -GAFE (Web 2.0 tool)..................................................6
Brief Lesson Outlines............................................................................................. 8
Online Activity.............................................................................................. 8
Web 2.0 Activity......................................................................................... 10
Part B: Critical discussion of a web based activities............................................14
Learning theories and implications for Edtech integration..................................14
Design & Implementation of Online & Web 2.0 activities through TIP; TPACK;
SAMR/RAT frameworks......................................................................................... 18
Practical challenges of integrating web based pedagogies into the classroom. . .26
Ethical issues include access, plagiarism, cyber-safety, digital literacy...............28
Conclusion........................................................................................................... 29
Part C: Peer and Self-Assessment........................................................................30
Reference List...................................................................................................... 31
Appendix.............................................................................................................. 34
Appendix 1.................................................................................................... 34
Syllabus outcomes............................................................................................... 34
General Capability:........................................................................................... 35
Intellectual Quality....................................................................................... 35
Quality Learning Environment....................................................................35
Significance.................................................................................................... 35
1.1 Deep knowledge...................................................................................... 36
2.2 Engagement............................................................................................ 36
3.1 Background knowledge...........................................................................36
Appendix 2.................................................................................................... 37
Syllabus outcomes............................................................................................... 37
Intellectual Quality....................................................................................... 38
Quality Learning Environment....................................................................38
Page 2 of 72

Significance.................................................................................................... 38
1.6 Substantive communication....................................................................39
2.2 Engagement............................................................................................ 39
2.5 Students self regulation.........................................................................39
3.5 Connectedness........................................................................................ 39
Lesson outlines:......................................................................................... 40
Appendix 3 :Screenshots............................................................................... 44
Appendix 4: Google Search Strategies..........................................................45
Appendix 5: Group work Survey....................................................................49
Appendix 6: Peer and Self-Assessment..........................................................60
Peer Evaluation of Web2.0 Tool Resource/Activity (Part A. #1)............................60
Peer Evaluation and Self- Assessment of Online Learning Resource/Activity (Part A
#2.)..................................................................................................................... 62

Page 3 of 72

Part A: Web 2.0 Tool and Online Resource


Introduction
Web 2.0 tools provide the opportunities for learners to network
socially, to be publishers of their own creations, to share their learning
experiences with experts and fellow Learners
Margaret J Cox 2012, p. 5
The web 2.0 tools/online resources addressed outcomes for the Year 9 topic
Periodic Table and Atoms.
The web 2.0 tool chosen was Google Apps for Education (GAFE). Google Docs in
conjunction with the Doctopus script within a google sheet class roster, for
management and distribution, was used. Google Docs was used for synchronous
and asynchronous collaboration before the information was placed onto a page
within a Google Site. The final aim of the task was for the class to build a
webpage that addressed the outcomes from the Australian Curriculum where a
product was made for an audience, their own peers, who can visit the site at any
time for review and revision. Embedded within the Google site was a forum set
up in the Schools Moodle page, for students to ask questions and make
comments on each others pages. Students evaluated their own and group
members contribution to their work and the use of these tools through a Google
form questionnaire. A benefit of using this mode of communication is hearing
from quiet students and enhancing their written output (Hunter 2015).

The online resource chosen was Build an Atom simulation allowing for active
learning to occur through java applet animations (Sadik and Reisman 2004). This
is useful for the abstract concept of an atom where they manipulate and build
their own. A Google doc was shared with students, using Google Classroom for
management and distribution, where a copy was made for each student.
Considering Google Docs was used in these activities this will be discussed in
most detail. Hyperlinks throughout this report direct the reader to supporting
documentation, more detailed lesson plans and worksheets.
Page 4 of 72

PhET Build an Atom (Online Resource)


https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/build-an-atom/latest/build-an-atom_en.html

Student_directions_
Build_atom_ANSWERS.docx

Student worksheet: PhET, Build an Atom

Worksheet Answers:
Page 5 of 72

Google Apps For Education -GAFE (Web 2.0 tool)


Google Site Page screenshot made by year 9
Access the whole site here: https://sites.google.com/site/atoms9bluecopy/

A groups google docs screenshot used collaboratively, click here for google sheet with links to ALL google docs
Page 6 of 72

Page 7 of 72

Brief Lesson Outlines

Online Activity
This discussion is based upon the above outcomes and the detailed Lesson plan

lesson plan
PhET_QTF.BOSTES2.rtf

here

and in appendix 1.

The online activity was conducted with a year 9 class over three 50 minute
periods. Considering atomic theory is an abstract concept an online activity
combining text and graphics together was chosen minimising split-attention,
significantly reducing cognitive load on students (Kurt, 2012) since close
integration of pictures and words allows students to hold both in their working
memory. The build an atom activity is interactive since users can modify the
contained form and content in real time (Steuer, 1992). Interactivity improves
learning because it reduces cognitive load and students learning is improved in
science when graphics and animations are included alongside verbal description
(Mayer, 2002) shown below.

Page 8 of 72

(Mayer,
2002)
Though this simulation didnt have sound, images and words are integrated with
students prior knowledge in their working memory to construct meaning.
Students were shown learning goals and provided with guiding questions and
scaffolds, such as tables, in the Google doc.

Before doing the task students were verbally quizzed on their prior knowledge of
the structure and composition of an atom. Assessment of students
understanding was informal and formative while being mobile ensuring students
remained on task (Denton 2012). Students asked clarifying questions, however
due to the corrective guidance built into the activity many students discovered
answers themselves. A major affordance of this online simulation was to address
the General Capability of Information and Communication Technology where
simulations allow investigation for things that cannot physically be.

The Quality Teaching (QT) framework is helpful enhancing purposeful teaching


and Learning (Hunter 2015) and was used in planning. The teaching elements
focused upon were deep knowledge, where interrelationships between atomic
Page 9 of 72

concepts were investigated, engagement, with active learning, and background


knowledge, extending prior knowledge in preparation of understanding the
periodic table.

Web 2.0 Activity


This discussion is based upon the above outcomes and the detailed Lesson plan

lesson plan
GAFE_Atoms_QTF.BOSTES2.rtf

here

and in appendix 2.

This activity took place over 7 lessons where students worked collaboratively to
access, create, and communicate concepts addressing curriculum General
Capability skills. Students were investigating outcomes CW1 a and b, amongst
others, being abstract in nature, a cloud based technology was chosen
facilitating group dialogue where students viewed insights of peers while typing,
promoting efficient open communication characteristic of constructivist teaching
(Denton 2012). Students were using prior knowledge from the online activity to
integrate with unfamiliar information in creating new learning (Denton 2012).

The Google doc the nine groups had access to was scaffolded by including:
guiding questions; web-links, and textbook references. Each group had their own
questions but group 1 will be the focus of the discussion. As shown in the
detailed lesson outline students were shown how to use many features of Google
docs including using the chat and comment feature to decide who is doing what,
to the research feature for citations and referencing.

Page 10 of 72

see appendix 3 for chat within Google doc


This falls into substantive communication in QT as outlined in the detailed
lesson plan.

The QT element of Explicit quality criteria was considered however in the


feedback it was stated that this could be clearer. Although students were given
some scaffolds and questions related to the outcomes more context provided
was needed. High expectations was another element utilized addressed through
explicit instructing on conducting a proper Google search:
Type desired search term into google
1. To better target your search put inverted commas around your search
term
2. Open advanced search: enter words in none of these words to take out
sites; choose words in any of these words that you want included
3. Specify site domain such as .edu
4. Refine search based on reading level: basic, intermediate, advanced.
5. Images: select Large to avoid bad quality images
For more detail see appendix 4.
Correct citation is lacking in student work and this activity allowed for
improvement.

Page 11 of 72

Below are results from the survey following the activity, 49% found citing easy
compared to 14% finding it difficult.

The research tool in Google docs transformed the literacy content goal with the
students. (Hughes, Thomas, and Scharber 2006); discussed later in the
RATmodel.

Page 12 of 72

Students completed the task by using their research to build a web page in
Google Sites. They were shown how to do this and viewed a video for help on the
sites home page. Once completed students were shown how to participate in an
online forum in lesson four, (appendix 2). Students completed a Google forms
survey which had feedback that will be used for future activities. The summary,
including graphical results is below:

Group Work Survey


- Google Forms.pdf

Students respond favourably to using Google docs in a constructivist


environment (Denton 2012) consistent with survey results below.

Page 13 of 72

Page 14 of 72

Part B: Critical discussion of a web based activities.


Learning theories and implications for Edtech
integration
Choosing web based activities needs to be based on structures underpinned by
good educational theory. An educational theory I identify strongly with is
constructivism however many others have merit and an effective teacher
selects the theory that best suits the learning objectives, content, students,
context and facilities (Howell 2013, p34), summarised below

(Howell 2013, p21)


A learning theory is a product of the era in which it arose (Harasim 2012) hence
theories will be replaced as they themselves have been. Though behaviourism
and cognitivism arent the centre of my teaching practice theres still a place for
drill and practice software (Finger 2007) in preparation for exams and testing
Page 15 of 72

recall. However a purely behaviourist teacher centered passive learning regime


(Jaffer 2010) isnt acceptable in modern classrooms. The underpinning theory in
using the web 2.0 tool used was of Distributed and Social constructionism
(Howell 2013). Constructionism is constructivism involving the use of ICT to
explore, exchange, and express ideas (Finger 2007). Furthermore
constructionism holds that learning is most effective when tangible artefacts are
produced where the teacher takes a mediational rather than instructionist role
(Howell 2013). Students were grouped and given a scaffolded google doc
containing questions. Applying Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development
students know basic word processing using Word so using Google Docs is ideal as
it operates similarly. I demonstrated to students unfamiliar features being the
more knowledgeable other (Howell 2013) providing overlap between what
students can do to what they cant.

(Howell 2013)
Initially, a supportive active role was taken decreasing to a facilitative role (Smith
and Reed 2012). Students were shown how to use Google docs and how it
differed from Word. Arguably this approach is Instructivist in nature, where
knowledge is considered external to the knower and can be transmitted from
teacher to learner. Prior knowledge was referred to so this pedagogy could be
described as being constructivist in nature. Foundational knowledge must be
taught before discovery learning as according to Jaffer (2010) the process of
acquiring knowledge is contradictory for pedagogic constructivists where a
student has to learn a concept and construct it without defining it. However this
contradiction, according to Clara and Barbera (2013) is merely apparent where
Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development allows the learner to learn new

Page 16 of 72

concepts in a social discovery learning context where the knowledge resides in


interaction between the learner and the more knowing other.

Groups were chosen by avoiding problem combinations and varying ability


levels. Groups of students with mixed ICT confidence levels and clearly defined
roles assists group work management ensuring some students dont dominate
others causing off task behaviour (Lim, Pek, & Chai, 2005). A competence, rather
than performance, pedagogy was chosen emphasizing individual student
differences with teacher as manager rather than authority and students
construct meaning for themselves (Jaffer 2010). A Social constructivist/coconstructive theory, where groups of learners complete tasks producing artifacts,
(Hew and Cheung 2013) influenced the design of the online activity and web 2.0
tool. Andersons online learning theory, depicted below, was used.

Page 17 of 72

(Jaffer 2010, p278)


The aim was for learner and knowledge centered pedagogy with students
building their own knowledge, with guidance (Jaffer 2010). Google docs included
textbook page references and weblinks so students could get background
knowledge reliably. They were instructed not to just copy & paste information
but to reproduce in their own words. To further promote the building of
knowledge students constructed a Google sites page using the information
constructed in their Google doc. The webpage construction meant that students
had to change the layout of their work causing them to review content further.
The act of building a webpage through social interaction means students are
meaningfully constructing their own learning (Sadik and Reisman 2004).
Formative assessment is important, a forum was constructed where students
discussed one anothers web pages articulating their personal understanding,
Page 18 of 72

(Koh 2013) contributing to community and collaborative learning. The teacher


modelled commenting on a webpage with the students as demonstrating good
practice means its more likely students will mimic such behaviour (Smith and
Reed 2012). This demonstrates an emphasis on active learning, where students
manipulate objects and information (Koh 2013) with greater student autonomy
leading to a reduction of the distinction between teacher and learner where
group knowledge is more important than individual knowledge. This is a
connectivist concept where learning resides outside of the individual (Finger
2007) in computer networks. The forum was constructed in the Schools Moodle
page however its important to design an online structure allowing students to
easily migrate from one delivery mode to another without compromising learning
(Smith & Reed 2012) by embedding into the Google site. Students didnt have to
change web pages comment.

Many forum comments were at an elementary level showing the importance of


not only a more able partner to assist in using this technology in an educational
setting but that this needs developing gradually (Luckin et al 2009).

Page 19 of 72

Design & Implementation of Online & Web 2.0 activities


through TIP; TPACK; SAMR/RAT frameworks
Using GAFE made it easy to begin with an active support role early in the process
with students learning how to use the technology, to less active facilitative role
later (Smith and Reed, 2012).
Students learning was made manageable by chunking information (Smith and
Reed 2012) into thematic units for each group with the Google site including a
homepage with information and video outlining how to edit a Google site.
Students learning with rather than from technology (Koh 2013) through the
SAMR and RAT models was important pedagogy.

Both models use similar concepts but RAT is preferred because of its simplicity.
Most teachers dont get beyond the Replacement stage where technology is
replaced by digitizing the paper version (Richardson 2010) such as using Google
docs to do the same as a Word document. Google docs allowed for functional
improvement, increased efficiency of administration, monitoring through Google
sheets and Doctopus and increased student collaborative efficiency;
Amplification. Furthermore learning that was previously inconceivable is reached
Page 20 of 72

at the Transformation level. Students worked together and chatted


synchronously even when in different locations, creating a webpage viewing
each others work commenting on them in the forum.

TPACK is an important pedagogical framework theorising how to enhance


technology in learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Theres a mandate for teachers
to effectively integrate ICT into teaching and learning shown in the General
Capabilities statements in the Australian Curriculum (Hunter 2015).

TPACK is the subject of hundreds of scholarly papers, books and doctoral theses
(Hunter, 2015). TPACK was found to be highly useful in a study of 15
Mathematics and Biology teachers because it gave teachers a language to
action and discuss ICT integrative practices (Hunter, 2015). The TPACK model is
shown below.

Page 21 of 72

(Mishra & Koehler 2006)


TPACK along with the TIP (Technology Integration Planning) and RAT concepts
were used in choosing ICT strategies. Below is a process used to decide what
web 2.0 and online tools to use.

Page 22 of 72

Pedagogical models must be considered in technology integration to ensure that


ICT approaches are not merely add-ons (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Schools
Page 23 of 72

using IT for predominantly office based word processing has led to poor
integration of e-learning into the curriculum and web 2.0 tools provide
opportunities for students to network socially, share learning with peers and
experts, and publish their own creations (Cox, 2012). Web 2.0 puts students in
the centre of activities where the way they use technology is more important
that the technology itself (Sing et al 2011). An area not addressed well was
integrating Blooms Revised Taxonomy into the design of the task. However using
the forum allowed students to evaluate each others pages and comment on
them reaching a transformative level according to the RAT model (Hughes 2009).
Below is an image inspired by Kathy Schrocks diagram of SAMR and Blooms
revised taxonomy (Schrock, 2013) applied to RAT.

Tasks need to be designed to address both higher-order cognitive skills as well


as addressing student outcomes (Hunter 2015) and the use of the TIP and TPACK
process along with RAT and Blooms is a robust way of ensuring this.

Page 24 of 72

dynamic relationships exist between technology, pedagogy, and


content and the interactions between knowledge components that
shape practice in context form teachers Action Knowledge (AK).
Hunter 2015 p. 9
Hunter (2015) argues AK is another layer that defines technology-enhanced
learning building on the original TPACK framework.

(Hunter 2015, p57)


There are five conceptions in Hunters (2015) High Possibility Classrooms (HPC)
model that are referred to as Action Knowledge. This is knowledge for practice, in
practice and of practice. (Hunter, 2015). The conceptions and themes in HPC are
set in Graphic 1 and Table 1 below. Each conception has several underpinning
themes (22 in total).

Page 25 of 72

Page 26 of 72

Activities in the first HPC conception of theory were addressed in teaching


students to learn how to learn (one of seven themes within the theory
conception). This was carried out through teaching students how to use
advanced features in Google searches as outlined earlier. The second HPC
conception of creativity was addressed by requiring students to make a web
page that included thinking about aesthetics such as layout and colours. The
third conception of public learning was adopted through the use of Google sites.
Visible to the rest of the class, school, and parents. The fourth conception of life
preparation involved giving students a sense of ownership in producing a web
page of their own giving opportunity to comment and answer back through the
forum. In addition a Google form questionnaire was provided for students to give
feedback on how they used GAFE and Google sites.

Across a whole term a teacher should integrate all of HPC conceptions and
themes in classroom practice. A number of researchers argue that TPACK is not
enough to enhance ICT integration and that teachers that take leadership roles
are more likely to use ICT creatively (Voogt et al 2011). Considering this changing
RAT to RATL, L for leadership (Hesselbein 2014), along with HPC are useful
pedagogical additions. http://igniteducation.com/2014/01/24/goodbye-samrhello-ratl/

Page 27 of 72

Practical challenges of integrating web based


pedagogies into the classroom
The practical challenges of ICT pedagogy are varied including the need for
teachers and students learning its use, issues with software and hardware not
working, classroom management, internet filtering, limited periods of time, and
quality of connection to networks and the internet (Luckin et al 2009).

GAFE was effective in increasing student collaboration however the change in


student-student and teacher-student dynamics resulted in the need to ensure
students remained on task. Technology challenges the traditional studentteacher relationship allowing students more access and control of information
formerly only available to the teacher (OBannon and Puckett 2007). The
introduction of ICT results in the immediate shift in classroom management
processes and these management issues must be mastered before instructional
innovation is achieved (Morrison and Lowther 2002).
A teachers first priority is maintaining classroom order and introducing elearning strategies can often be seen as a threat to this (Cox, 2012) with it being
more of a distraction than a learning aid (Denton 2012). Through the use of
Google docs with both the online activity and the web 2.0 research task
monitoring affordances assisted with classroom order. Considering An open
laptop to a disinterested student is an invitation for distraction (Denton 2012
p36 ) the use of revision history in google docs allowed for the teacher to see
every keystroke done at any time. This was demonstrated to students and most
responded by keeping on task. Those that did not were identified and refocused
and students on task could be specifically praised.
Often an issue in groupwork is ensuring all students share workload. The use of
the revision history in google docs was an excellent way to ensure this
happened providing a novel solution to a persistent pedagogical problem
(Hughes, Thomas, and Scharber 2006). For students to assume the role of
researchers the teacher must work with the students to create a culture of
student involvement with information and each other (Morrison and Lowther
2002). Introducing a previously unused ICT strategy into the classroom can result
in unanticipated issues resulting in teachers reacting rather than anticipating
Page 28 of 72

(Morrison and Lowther 2002). An example of this was setting up the task with
different roles for research using Google docs and building the Google site. I had
used google sites once before with students but only with each student building
their own page individually rather than in groups. Though I was familiar with the
fact that students could work at the same time in a Google doc it did not register
that this was not the case with Google sites. This will lead to a changed
approach.
Another challenge implementing ICT is with access such as when technology fails
due to network failures which can happen without warning (OBannon and
Puckett 2007). This happened while using google docs so plan B was to do
related work from their textbook for that lesson instead.
Implementation of a live video lesson with an Astronomer from UWS was also
challenging. Web 2.0 Site blocking is a risk management response from schools
(Department of Education, Employment & Workplace relations 2009) and mine
blocked video streaming apps however after working persistently with IT staff
Skype was used successfully.
Resistance can come from students themselves who would rather not change the
way they have always done things and do not want to collaborate. One student
exclaimed sir can we just do textbook work, its easier. Conflicts can arise due
to differing interest levels, goals, and communication styles. Some students
would rather not use social media and web 2.0 tools, such as school based
forums, to communicate, however some students who are shy to communicate
verbally will share valuable insights in a discussion forum (Zdravkova, Ivanovic,
and Putnik 2011).
The use of computers in the classroom has been observed to increase time on
task decreasing disruptive behaviour (Laffey, Espinosa, Moore, & Lodree, 2003,
p. 426) however this does not happen automatically and well planned (Reimann
& Goodyear, 2004, p. 35), scaffolded tasks are needed that include hyperlinks to
minimize down time and maximize on task behavior.
The teacher must also monitor the students ensuring they remain focused on the
task by wandering around the room and locating in a position where screens can
be seen; displaying with-it-ness (Lim, Pek, & Chai, 2005).

Page 29 of 72

Page 30 of 72

Ethical Issues
Ethical issues include access, plagiarism, cyber-safety, digital literacy.
Being a 1:1 school access is not a problem reducing issues of the digital divide
(Green, Brown, and Robinson 2008). Access, however includes considering
disabilities and learning needs. In terms of this ICT has affordances that help in
science education where students can get more in-depth understanding of
complex concepts (Voogt et at 2011), hence the use of the build an atom web
activity catering to the visual & spatial learner.

Privacy and protection are very important when designing activities that are
conducted online. With blogs and forums it is important that protocols are
adhered to and students are educated as to why such protocols exist. Even with
filtering software undesirable access can still be made (Green, Brown, and
Robinson 2008) so a forum was set up with only access for students in the class
through embedding a Moodle forum into the Google site.
Copyright and plagiarism are major issues and it is important to educate
students. Students need support in dealing with the depth of information
available online in creatively constructing understanding (Crook 2011). Students
must be taught to respect and protect intellectual property, including citing
sources of images and information (Churches, Crockett, and Jukes 2010);
achieved through the research tool in Google docs as well as how to correctly
perform Google searches. Task design is also important and students had to
answer specific questions and present information in alternative forms making
basic copy and paste less likely; they were also told not to just copy and paste.

Page 31 of 72

Conclusion
In both the online activity and web 2.0 tool students were not only researching
new knowledge but also learning how to learn with the technology. The false
dichotomy of Digital Natives versus Digital Immigrants treats everyday
knowledge and academic knowledge as equivalent assuming the practices
students engage in socially are easily transferred to educational settings (Jaffer
2010). However students need to learn how to learn with technology with
increasing independence supported by the teacher. Web 2.0 is not a silver bullet
as good pedagogy and instructional strategies are needed to achieve increased
student performance (Hew and Cheung 2013). Use of pedagogical tools including
TPACK, TIP, RAT(L), and HPC, underpinned by educational theory is vital to
correctly integrate ICT into teaching and learning.
Pedagogy is known as the science, art, and method of teaching in encouraging
collaboration, reflection and the social construction of meaning and
understanding (Smith & Reed, 2012). It is not surprising that when considering
the practical and pedagogical challenges in implementing ICT in teaching and
learning new teachers, though more confident with technology, use it less than
more experienced teachers with students (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, and York
2006) due to the pedagogical complexities and classroom management practices
needed.

Page 32 of 72

Part C: Peer and Self-Assessment.


See appendix 6.

Page 33 of 72

Reference List
Board of Studies, N. (2012). Science K-10 Syllabus. Science K-10 Syllabus.
Sydney, NSW, Australia: Board of Studies NSW.
Clar, M., & Barber, E. (2013). Three problems with the connectivist
conception of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 197206.
Cox, M.J. (2013), Formal to informal learning with IT: research challenges and
issues for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29: 85105.
Denton, D. (2012). Enhancing Instruction through Constructivism, Cooperative
Learning, and Cloud Computing. TechTrends, 56(4), 34-41.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Web
2.0 site blocking in schools. Education.au limited. Dulwich SA.
apo.org.au/files/Resource/web2.0_site_blocking_in_schools_0.pdf
Finger, G. (2007). ICT Planning issues & ideas: do teachers plan for ICT
integration and for transforminglearning with ICT? In G. Finger,
Transforming Learning with ICT (pp. 108-150). Frenchs Forest, NSW,
Australia: Pearson.
Harasim, L. (2012). Introduction to learning theory and technology. In Learning
theory and
online technology (pp. 1-14). New York, NY : Routledge.
Hesselbein, C. (2014, January 23). Goodbye SAMR, Hello RATL! Retrieved May 3,
2015, from http://igniteducation.com/2014/01/24/goodbye-samr-helloratl/
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and
Higher Education: The search for evidence-based practise. Educational
Research Review, 9, 47-64.
Howell, J. (2013). Teaching with ICT: Digital pedagogies for collaboration &
creativity. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
Hughes, J., Thomas, R. & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing Technology Integration:
The RAT Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation - Framework.
In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp.
1616-1620). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Hughes, J. (2005). The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences in
Forming Technology-Integrated Pedagogy. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.
Hunter, J. (2015). Technology integration and High Possibility Classrooms:
Building from TPACK. New York: Routledge.

Page 34 of 72

Jaffer, S. (2010). Educational technology pedagogy: A looseness of fit between


learning theories and pedagogy. Education as Change, 14(2), 273-287.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Koh, J. H. L. (2013). A rubric for assessing teachers' lesson activities with


respect to TPACK for
meaningful learning with ICT. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
29(6), 887-900.
Kurt, S. (2012). Issues to Consider in Designing QebQuests: A Literature Review.
Computers in the Schools, 29(3), 300-314.
Laffey, J., Espinosa, L., Moore, J., & Lodree, A. (2003). Supporting Learning and
Behaviour of at risk young children: Computers in urban education.
Journal of research on technology in education, 35(4), 423-440.
Lim, C., Pek, M., & Chai, C. (2005). Classroom Management Issues in
Information and communication (ICT)-Mediated Learning environments:
Back to Basics. Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(4), 391-414.
Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Do Web
2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and
profiles of 1116yearold students. Learning, Media and Technology,
34(2), 87-104.
Mayer, R. (2002). Cognitive Theory and the Design of Multimedia Instruction: An
example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 55-71.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:
A
framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College
Record,
108(6), 1017-1054.
Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2002). Managing the classroom. In Integrating
computer
technology into the classroom (2nd ed.) (pp. 131-153). Upper Saddle River, NJ :
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
OBannon, B. W., & Puckett, K. (2007). Preparing to use technology. In Preparing
to use
technology : a practical guide to curriculum integration (pp. 16-30). Boston :
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved
May 19, 2015, from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
Page 35 of 72

Reimann, P., & Goodyear, P. (2004, June 15). ICT and Pedagogy stimulus paper.
ICT and Pedagogy stimulus paper.
Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts. and other powerful web tools for
classrooms. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Corwin.
Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into
Teaching (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Sadik, A., & Reisman, S. (2004). Design and Implementation of a Web-Based
Learning Environment. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(3),
157-171.
Schrock, K. (n.d.). SAMR. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from
http://www.schrockguide.net/samr.html
Sing, C., Wei-Ying, L., Hyo-Jeong, S. & Mun, C. (2011) Advancing Collaborative
Learning with ICT: conception, cases and design. Singapore: Ministry of
Education. Retrieved from
http://ictconnection.moe.edu.sg/ictconnection/slot/u200/mp3/monograph
s/advancing%20collaborative%20learning%20with%20ict.pdf
Smith, B., & Reed, P. (2012). The Pedagogy that Bridges Web 2.0 and e-Learning
2.0. In Mode Neutral chapter 4.10, pp. 803-823. IGI Global.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence.
Journal of Communication, 42, 73-93.
Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & Brummelhuis, A. (2011). Under
which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and
learning? A Call to Action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1),
4-14.
Zdravkova, K., Ivanovi, M., & Putnik, Z. (2011). Experience of integrating web
2.0 technologies. Education Tech Research Dev Educational Technology
Research and Development, 60(2), 361-381.

Page 36 of 72

Appendix
Appendix 1

Lesson Plan
Topic area: Atoms

Stage of Learner: 5

Syllabus Pages: 129-130

Date/s: 29th & 30th


April;
1st May 2015

Location: Lab 3

Lesson Number: 3-5

Time: 50 minutes for


each lesson

Total Number of students:Printing/preparation:


29
sharing
google doc in google classroo
copy for each student

Outcomes

Assessment

Students learn about/to:

Page 37 of 72

Syllabus outcomes

Chemical World 1 (CW1)


- identify that all matter is
made of atoms which are
composed of protons,
neutrons and electrons
(ACSSU177)

- describe the structure of


atoms in terms of the
nucleus, protons, neutrons
and electrons

Chemical World 2 (CW2)


- identify the atom as the
smallest unit of an element
and that it can be
represented by a symbol

- distinguish between the


atoms of some common
elements by comparing
information about the
numbers of protons,
neutrons and electrons

Lesson assessment:
informal & formative.

1.
Make atom models that show
stable atoms or ions.

Teacher walking
around room to see
how students were
going with simulation
and answering google
doc worksheet
questions.

2.
Use given information about
subatomic particles to

Teacher to answer
clarifying questions of
students to gauge
understanding and
help construction of
concepts.

3.
Predict how addition or
subtraction of a proton, neutron, or
electron will change the element, the
charge, and the mass of their atom
or ion.

Identify an element.

Draw models of atoms

Determine if the model is for a


neutral atom or an ion.

Online PhET app has


corrective functions
built in which are
good for formative
assessment: allowing
particles to be placed
in only the right
locations; telling
students of the atom
is stable/unstable,
and its charge as an
ion etc.

Cross Curriculum themes & General capabilities

General Capability:
Information and communication technology
capability

Explicit subject specific concepts and


skills

investigate science phenomena;


model and interpret concepts and
relationships;

Digital technologies and aids, such as


animations and simulations, provide
Page 38 of 72

opportunities to view phenomena


and test predictions that cannot be
investigated through practical
experiences in the classroom, and
may enhance students
understanding and engagement with
science and technology.

Quality Teaching Elements (lesson focus) Highlight the appropriate areas


Intellectual Quality
This refers to pedagogy focused on producing deep
understanding of important, substantive concepts, skills
and ideas. Such pedagogy treats knowledge as
something that requires active construction and requires
students to engage in higher-order thinking and to
communicate substantively about what they are
learning.

1.1 Deep knowledge

1.3 Problematic
knowledge

1.6 Substantive
communication

Quality Learning Environment


This refers to pedagogy that creates classrooms where
students and teachers work productively in an
environment clearly focused on learning. Such pedagogy
sets high and explicit expectations and develops positive
relationships between teacher and students and among
students.

2.1 Explicit quality


criteria

2.4 Social Support

2.3 High
Expectations

2.6 Student direction

Significance
This refers to pedagogy that helps make learning more
meaningful and important to students. Such pedagogy
draws clear connections with students prior knowledge
and identities, with contexts outside of the classroom,
and with multiple ways of knowing all cultural
perspective.

3.1 Background
knowledge

3.4 Inclusivity

1.2 Deep
understanding

2.2 Engagement

3.2 Cultural
knowledge

1.4 Higher-order
thinking
1.5 Metalanguage

2.5 Students self


regulation

3.5 Connectedness
3.6 Narrative

3.3 Knowledge
integration

How are the quality teaching elements you have identified achieved
within the lesson?

Page 39 of 72

Teaching
element

Indicators of presence in the lesson

1.1 Deep
knowledge

The concepts of atoms is abstract in nature and one students often


struggle with. The use of the PhET build an atom activity is to have
students use a visual, active and interactive way of learning about an
abstract unseen concept. This will help students better understand the
concepts and their inter-relationships such as: What do protons have to do
with what element an atom is? What makes an atom charged? What
makes an atom stable or not?

2.2
Engageme
nt

3.1
Backgroun
d
knowledge

Students will be increasingly engaged because it is a site that involves


active learning, needing to interact with the website, rather than just
passively reading text. Students focus on the learning is done through the
Google docs activity sheet shared via google classroom. Students do this
task then turn in once finished for teacher to check.
Students have already looked at the basics of atoms in stage 4 and are
building on their prior knowledge before then needing to link the concepts
of the atom to the structure of the periodic table. Using their background
knowledge students are further challenged in this activity to start thinking
about and applying the concept of patterns in atomic structure: what
makes an atom a particular element, what is stable or not & why; what
makes ions? This is foundational to them understanding how the periodic
table works.

Lesson 1:

Verbally quiz students on what they know the structure & composition of an atom to be
Introduce students to build an atom activity by showing it on the projector point out to students
what setting need to be done given in direction no.1 on page 2 of the google doc.

Show PhET, build an atom google on projector and go through learning goals & outcomes.

Show students how to put a screenshot into part 3 C of the Google doc using the snipping tool

Inform students to access Google classroom for instructions and questions to answer. The idea is
for the worksheet to provide a scaffold for discovery learning

Students will work at different paces but most should have the table in part 3C partially complete
by the end of lesson 1
Lesson 2:

Students to continue working through their Google doc from part 3C and should be working
through the table in part 5 by the end of this lesson.

Students will now know how to work the website and do screenshots into the Google doc. Teacher
focus is to ensure students are on task, wandering around the room, and answering questions
students have focus on helping them to discover the answers for themselves.
Lesson 3:

Students will complete the Google doc this period, tell students NOT to turn in the google doc
until they are fully complete as they will lose access.

Once complete students to answer Qs 1, 7, 8, on page 170 & Qs 1-3, 5-9 on page 174.

Page 40 of 72

Appendix 2

Lesson Plan
Topic area: Atoms

Stage of Learner: 5

Syllabus Pages: 129-130

Date/s: 27th April; 4th to


8th and 11th May (7
lessons)
Time: 50 minutes for
each lesson

Location: Lab 3

Lesson Number: 1, 2, 6-10


(see page 3 for lesson outlines

Outcomes

Total Number of students:


Printing/preparation:
29
designing
& sharing 9 google docs using
Google sheets & Doctopus
Script for group access; setting
up google site & embedded
moodle forum with page level
permissions; designing sheet o
how to search in google proper
Assessment

Students learn about/to:


(Based on Group work & varies)
See Table on page 4-5)
in the form of questions

Syllabus outcomes

Based on Group work &


varies - See Table on
page 4-5)

Lesson
assessment:
informal &
formative.

Cross Curriculum themes & General capabilities

General Capability:
Information and communication technology
capability

Explicit subject specific concepts and


skills

Information and communication


technology (ICT) can be used effectively
and appropriately to access, create and
communicate information and ideas,
solve problems and work
collaboratively.

Page 41 of 72

provides students with opportunities to:

- develop ICT capability when they


develop design ideas and solutions,
research science concepts and
applications, investigate science
phenomena, and communicate their
scientific and technological
understandings.
- access information, collect, analyse
and represent data, model and interpret
concepts and relationships, and
communicate scientific and
technological ideas, processes and
information.

Quality Teaching Elements (lesson focus) Highlight the appropriate areas

Page 42 of 72

Intellectual Quality
This refers to pedagogy focused on producing deep
understanding of important, substantive concepts, skills and
ideas. Such pedagogy treats knowledge as something that
requires active construction and requires students to
engage in higher-order thinking and to communicate
substantively about what they are learning.

1.1 Deep knowledge

1.3 Problematic
knowledge

1.6 Substantive
communication

Quality Learning Environment


This refers to pedagogy that creates classrooms where
students and teachers work productively in an environment
clearly focused on learning. Such pedagogy sets high and
explicit expectations and develops positive relationships
between teacher and students and among students.

2.1 Explicit quality


criteria

2.4 Social Support

2.3 High
Expectations

2.6 Student direction

Significance
This refers to pedagogy that helps make learning more
meaningful and important to students. Such pedagogy
draws clear connections with students prior knowledge and
identities, with contexts outside of the classroom, and with
multiple ways of knowing all cultural perspective.

3.1 Background
knowledge

3.4 Inclusivity

1.2 Deep
understanding

2.2 Engagement

3.2 Cultural
knowledge

1.4 Higher-order
thinking
1.5 Metalanguage

2.5 Students self


regulation

3.5 Connectedness
3.6 Narrative

3.3 Knowledge
integration

How are the quality teaching elements you have identified achieved
within the lesson?
Teaching
element

1.6
Substantive
communicat
ion

2.2
Engagemen
t
2.5

Indicators of presence in the lesson


Students in this task have to work in groups of 3 or 4 and communicate
as to who is doing what and how it is to be done. They also have to be
engaged in communicating information they are gathering based upon
their role in the group. Students need to negotiate so doubling up does
not occur. The affordances of google docs allows this by all group
members being able to see what each other is working on in real time,
synchronously. Also, students are able to communicate within Google
docs via the chat feature and the comment feature. A forum is also
set up in Moodle and embedded into their Google site where students
can also communicate.
Students will be increasingly engaged because it is a site that involves
active learning, needing to interact with the website, rather than just
passively reading text. Students focus on the learning is done through
the Google docs activity sheet shared via doctopus where they
collaboratively research and then use their knowledge to construct a

Page 43 of 72

Students
self
regulation

3.5
Connectedn
ess

web page.

Students are also expected to self-regulate and this is supported in the


knowledge that the teacher can see every keystroke they do (or do not
do) via the revision history function. Students are given positive
feedback for good work they do and negative feedback can be also
given where warranted. Students are also given the opportunity to
reflect upon their own efforts and the efforts of their team members via
a Google forms survey. All this, along with the fact that the research will
end up being public, on their website, helps to encourage students to
self-regulate. This minimised the need for disciplining as students are
more engaged in their learning.
This activity leads to the ability of students to share their work beyond
their own classroom with other classes via the website they build.

Lesson outlines:
The outline below will not outline lesson by lesson as such as students and
groups will be at varying stages by the third lesson. There are a total of 7 lessons
planned with the first 2 lessons involving students acquainting themselves with
unfamiliar collaborative technology and sorting out who is doing what in their
groups. By the 3rd lesson the lesson the classroom functioning should be running
itself with the teacher acting as facilitator. As such the outline for the first 2 to 3
lessons is far more detailed than that of the last 4.

First & Second Lesson (Double period 100 minutes):


Page 44 of 72

Inform Students that they have been put into groups to do research on
different areas of the topic of Atoms & the Periodic Table; put the Google

sheet up on the projector showing the names & group numbers.


Having clicked on the weblinks embedded in the Google sheet by the
Doctopus script, show students what their Google docs look like and the
questions they will be answering. Show them that they have textbook
page numbers for them to refer to first and/or web links to visit in their

Google docs before searching on their own.


Demonstrate to the students how Google docs work (similarities &

differences with MS word)


Show students how to: use the chat & comment feature to communicate
with each other in sorting out who in the group is doing what question/s;
how to use the research feature to do correct citation of images and
websites used. More will be shown next lesson after students get used to

using Google docs.


Make clear to students that the teacher can see everything they write or
have written, hence the amount of work they do, by looking at the review
history (this will be demonstrated live to the class during the second

period once some work has been done.


Direct students to their email with the link for the google doc for their
group (NOTE: having now done this and based on student feedback
a google doc with all the links will be placed into google

classroom for more convenient access)


Students now work on their research for the reminder of the lesson with
teacher providing assistance as they learn how to use the technology as
well as research their area of Science.

Third Lesson:

Before students resume their research they will be shown how to search
Google properly using the Advanced Search tool. Students also shown

the easy bib add on so they can correctly cite their text book.
Students now resume their research as before with guidance by the
teacher as facilitator. In the 4th Lesson they will be shown Google Sites
and assigned roles where they will build their page from their research.

Fourth Lesson:

Page 45 of 72

Students are shown, via the projector, Google sites, some basic
procedures to edit the page and that they have editing access to their
page but only viewing of others pages. They will also be shown the forum
where they will comment on others sites and answer questions and
comments about their own (more will be explained in a later lesson on

this)
Students also shown the home page that has introductory information and
roles for each group member. Students will have the freedom to negotiate
the role they would like. There is also a video on how to build a google

page for students to watch to help them learn.


Students will then be directed to continue their research leading up to
them being able to then construct their web page.

Fifth to Sixth Lesson:

Students continue to research and build their web pages in the fifth and
sixth lesson if required. Those that finish early have other questions and
reading from the textbook to do.

Seventh Lesson:

During this lesson students are directed back to the forum. They must
comment or ask questions on at least 2 pages that are not their own on
what they liked about the page and what helped them to learn or
understand a new concept or a previously known concept better. They
then must answer comments or questions others have left about their own
web page. This will be modelled by the teacher on the projector by the

teacher.
Once this is complete students will be directed to their emails containing a
link to a Google forms survey asking questions about the activity they
have just completed. This survey will be used to evaluate the task and
make changes for next time.

Stud
ent
Grou
p
1

Syllabus Content
outcomes

identify that all matter is


made of atoms which are
composed of protons,

Questions

1. What is matter made of and what are the things


that matter is made of composed of?
Page 46 of 72

neutrons and electrons


(ACSSU177)

describe the structure of


atoms in terms of the
nucleus, protons, neutrons
and electrons
2

investigate the order of


activity of a range of
metals

2. Explain the properties of the things that make up


matter (a table might be useful here)?
3. Give an example of 5 elements and the structure of
what makes them up.
1. Investigate the sorts of things metals react with
chemically.
2. Investigate how different metals react differently to
each other and find out about any order in how
much they react.

research ways that are


used to restore and
prevent corrosion of
submerged objects

3. Explain why different metals react


differently and give examples
1. What is meant by the term corrosion?
2. what sorts of substances do and dont
corrode? Give examples
3. Do different metals corrode differently, if so
how? Give examples
4. In what ways is corrosion of metals under
water minimised? Give examples of them.

5. For metals that have been corroded already


investigate how they restored.
4

research the structure of


small portable
electrochemical cells, eg
mercury cells and
rechargeable batteries

1. Outline the general structure of a basic


battery
2. How is it that a battery makes an electric
current?

3. Of the following battery types outline their


structure, advantages, disadvantages and
limitations: mercury cells, alkaline, lead
acid, lithium ion, lithium polymer.
5

outline historical
developments of the
atomic theory to
demonstrate how models
and theories have been
contested and refined
over time through a
process of review by the
scientific community

1. Where did the word atom come from and what


does it mean?
2. From the ancient greeks until modern times,
research the different models of the atom
over time. Include: time period, people who
developed the model/theory, description of
the model/theory, a diagram, reasons why
the model/theory replaced the previous one,
why the model/theory was better than the
previous one.
Page 47 of 72

evaluate the benefits and


problems associated with
medical and industrial
uses of nuclear energy

1. What is an isotope? Give examples


2. Explain what is meant by the term half-life

GROUP 6 (INDUSTRIAL)

3. What are alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, their


characteristics such as penetrative abilities and
dangers. (A table could be used here)
4. what is a radioactive isotope and how is it different
to one that is not. Give examples
5. What uses do radioactive isotopes have in
industries such as: aviation, agriculture, trades, etc.
Include: examples of the isotopes used, their properties
such as half life and the radiation type they produce
and the benefits and problems associated with their
use.
7

evaluate the benefits and


problems associated with
medical and industrial
uses of nuclear energy

1. What is an isotope? Give examples


2. Explain what is meant by the term half-life

GROUP 7 (MEDICAL)

3. What are alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, their


characteristics such as penetrative abilities and
dangers. (A table could be used here)
4. what is a radioactive isotope and how is it different
to one that is not. Give examples
5. What uses do radioactive isotopes have in the
medical field. Include at least 3 examples such as
diagnosis and treatment.
6. Include: examples of the isotopes used, their
properties such as half life and the radiation type
they produce and the benefits and problems
associated with their use.
8

identify that natural


radioactivity arises from
the decay of nuclei in
atoms, releasing particles
and energy (ACSSU177)

1. What is radioactivity and the particles/rays it


produces?
2. What processes cause the production of the
different types of radioactive particles and where
do these particles come from?
3. Provide details of the radioactive particles & rays
Page 48 of 72

including: what they are made of; their penetrative


ability; and ionising ability. Present this in a
table.
9

identify the atom as the


smallest unit of an element
and that it can be
represented by a symbol

distinguish between the


atoms of some common
elements by comparing
information about the
numbers of protons,
neutrons and electrons

describe the organisation of


elements in the Periodic
Table using their atomic
number

relate the properties of some


common elements to their
position in the Periodic Table

predict, using the Periodic


Table, the properties of some
common elements

outline some examples


to show how creativity,
logical reasoning and
the scientific evidence
available at the time,
contributed to the
development of the
modern Periodic Table

1. Explain what an atom is including how it is the


smallest unit of an element and that it can be
represented by a symbol. Give examples.
2. What is atomic number and mass number of an
atom? Give examples.
3. distinguish between the atoms of some common
elements by comparing information about the
numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons.
4. What is the Periodic Table and explain its general
use and benefit. Include the concept of periods
and groups
5. describe the organisation of elements in the
Periodic Table using their atomic number.
6. relate the properties of some common elements to
their position in the Periodic Table.
7. outline some examples to show how
creativity, logical reasoning and the
scientific evidence available at the time,
contributed to the development of the
modern Periodic Table

Appendix 3 :Screenshots

Page 49 of 72

Appendix 4: Google Search Strategies

Google Search strategies.


6. Type a desired search term into google

Notice there are 1, 060, 000 results for spiral galaxies. That is because google
has searched for spiral, galaxies, and spiral galaxies.

Page 50 of 72

7. To better target your search put inverted commas around your search
term, to type in spiral galaxies
NOTE: now there are only 452, 000 results, less than half the original results.

The reason why there are less results is putting inverted commas around your
search means that only spiral galaxies is the searched term.

8. We can do much better than this though, so now click on the cog on the
right top corner of the page then click advanced search.

You then end up with the following page and can enter words in none of these
words to take out sites with those words in your search. In this example I have
place the words elliptical, irregular to take out sites that mention other galaxy
types and Wikipedia to take out that site too.
Also you can choose words in any of these words that you want included, in this
case I chose NASA and esa (European space agency)

Page 51 of 72

This has now narrowed my search down to 93, 600.


9. To further narrow the search going back to the advanced search you can
specify the site domain such as .edu which is what I chose below.

This now reduced my result down to 16, 500 sites after starting with over 1
million.
10.Now I will further refine my search again based on reading levels of basic,
intermediate, and advanced.
Back in the advanced search you can:
Select to annotate results with reading level which will show what level
each site is
OR
Select one of show only basic, intermediate, or advanced only showing
those levels.

From this my results show that less than 1% are advanced, 27% basic, and
73% intermediate.
As a year 9 or 10 student you might ignore the sites that say advanced
and start with the sites that say basic. If I click on the word basic to the
left of the 27% below, my search drops down even further!

Page 52 of 72

11.Images: when searching for images, also use advanced search to narrow
down the images in a similar way as above. In addition to that you can
select Large to avoid bad quality pixilated images and you can choose
file format such as jpeg.

Page 53 of 72

This may seem like a lot of work but it will save you a lot of time looking
through irrelevant websites AND give you far better quality sites. More work
at the beginning saves you work at the end and gives you a better result.

Page 54 of 72

Appendix 5: Group work Survey


Group work Survey 9 Blue.

Page 55 of 72

Page 56 of 72

Page 57 of 72

Page 58 of 72

Page 59 of 72

Page 60 of 72

Page 61 of 72

Page 62 of 72

Page 63 of 72

Page 64 of 72

Page 65 of 72

Appendix 6: Peer and Self-Assessment

Peer Evaluation of Web2.0 Tool Resource/Activity (Part


A. #1)
FOR:

Bradley Murphy
Robinson

BY: Austin

Resource Title Google Docs Research Activity


Submit with Assessment 2
Technical, ease of use and screen design e.g. loading, navigation and hyperlinks,
screen directions and exit strategy, text font style and size, colour, suitability of graphics,
suitability of media elements e.g. sound, audio video

Positive

Needs Attention

Google docs is a relatively


easy application to use.

Some teacher assistance


necessary for some
students.

Provides help files.


Not difficult to navigate.

Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions

Agree with the fact that


some assistance is
needed for some students
and this was provided in
lessons via the projector
showing students various
features and embedding
an instructional video into
the Google Sites home
page.

Pedagogical purpose, accuracy, relevance and content e.g. suitability for the
targeted audience, content accuracy, level of difficulty or challenging, grammar and
spelling correct, interactivity/feedback, culturally sensitive/non-sexist/no stereotyping,
addresses the outcomes, acknowledges any sources

Positive
This activity supports a
co-constructivist theory of
learning. Students work in
groups to produce a Wiki
in which they record their
learning about a specific
topic.

Needs Attention

Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions

Google docs assists


students to collaborate in
the construction of their
Page 66 of 72

wiki.
The activity itself is
suitable to the target
audience and directs
students to websites that
contains accurate
information.
Google docs also assists
in the construction of
accurate citations.

Activities and supporting documents e.g. clear and concise, addressing the outcomes
and is relevant, material is engaging/interesting or stimulating, extension activities ...

Positive

Needs Attention

Instructions were clear


and concise.

Needs to have clearly


articulated the outcomes
that are to be achieved

Questions addressed
relevant outcomes.
Some youtube video used
along with articles.

Needs to more clearly


identify the pedagogical
approach being used
either with instructions or
more contextualisation of
task.

Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions

Good points for attention


are made here. Students
had already completed
this task when this
feedback was received.
However in response to
this I designed a table
that provided a clear link
between each group and
related outcomes and
questions for them to
research.

Click here to see this


table.

This table, hence the


Page 67 of 72

outcomes related to each


groups task, will be
incorporated into the first
page of the Google doc
next time.

Other Positive

Other Needs Attention

Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions

Peer Evaluation and Self- Assessment of Online


Learning Resource/Activity (Part A #2.)
FOR:

Bradley Murphy

BY: Austin

Robinson
Resource Title PHET Build an Atom (HTML Version)
Submit with Assessment 2
Pedagogical purpose, accuracy, relevance and content e.g. suitability for the
targeted audience, content accuracy, level of difficulty or challenging, grammar and
spelling correct, interactivity/feedback, culturally sensitive/non-sexist/no stereotyping,
addresses the outcomes, acknowledges any sources

Positive

Needs Attention

A good tool for


visual/spatial learners.

Some further text built


into the tool may help
clarify the connection
between each of the
screen elements and may
be of some assistance.

Interactive, providing
immediate feedback to
students.
Not difficult to use very
intuitive interface.
Content is accurate and
relevant for learning
activity.

Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions

The problem with this


suggestion is that the web
tool cannot be modified.
However instructions can
be used as part of the
google doc support
document and were
included.

Page 68 of 72

Activities and supporting documents e.g. clear and concise, addressing the outcomes
and is relevant, material is engaging/interesting or stimulating, extension activities, needs
supporting documents ...

Positive

Needs Attention

Supporting
documentation is clear
and concise.

Place a heading that


summarises purpose of
activity.

Covers course content.

Perhaps add the outcome


that the activity is trying
to address.

This task helps students


to meet the outcome of
knowing the structure of
an atom and what makes
an atom stable by asking
students to simulate a
variety of atomic
structures. Very
interesting!
Other Positive

Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions

After this feedback I


added a page to the
front of the Google doc
that included a contextual
outline, learning goals,
and content outcomes.

Click this link to see first


page
Other Needs Attention

Activity requires students


to experiment and explore
in the construction of
understanding and
knowledge.

Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions

SELF-ASSESSMENT -The Self-Assessment only needs to be completed once on this


form
From the processes undertaken using web pedagogies in teaching note your successes and
not so successful outcomes and what you have learnt in the process. If need more space
take another page

The below discussion is based upon personal reflection, peer and student feedback,
and knowledge gained from the readings and assignments completed in Web
Pedagogies.
Overall both the online learning resource and activity as well as the web 2.0 tool
were very successful in engaging students and meeting learning outcomes. Having
said this, based upon personal reflection, peer feedback and student feedback,
there are improvements that can be made.
After reading the student feedback from Google forms there was student criticism
stating it was hard to find the document that groups had to work on for the web 2.0
activity. This document was emailed via the doctopus script in Google sheets.
Page 69 of 72

Upon reflection of this I have come up with a solution for next time. Once web links
are generated for group Google docs I will then tabulate group numbers and
student names as well as the web link in a google doc and place this into google
classroom; making it easy to access! Instead of having to re-email the task or have
students trawl through their emails to find it all the information will be in the same
place where students can easily access it. This was not an issue for the online
Build an Atom activity as the document was shared via Google Classroom.
Feedback on the web 2.0 activity indicated the need for assistance with some
students and this was provided in lessons via the projector showing students
various features and embedding an instructional video into the Google Sites home
page. I am keenly aware if the Vygotskian concept of the Zone of Proximal
Development along with Brunners concept of scaffolding to provide students with
foundational knowledge (Jaffer 2010) before they can be extended beyond what
they already know. However instruction is only good when it is used to provide a
platform for students conceptual development (Hunter 2015) for deeper learning.
This was the reason for me providing students with Google docs for both activities
that had a structure. This included questions, web links, text references,
suggestions. Also the Google docs are able to be monitored both synchronously
and asynchronously allowing me to see how students and groups are progressing.
Feedback for both activities indicated the need to more clearly articulate the
outcomes and context to the students. Because of this I added a page to the front
of the build an atom Google doc that included a contextual outline, learning goals,
and content outcomes. Click this link to see first page.
In response to the feedback to more clearly articulate outcomes for the web 2.0
activity I designed a table that provided a clear link between each group and
related outcomes and questions for them to research. This table, hence the
outcomes related to each groups task, will be incorporated into the first page of
the Google doc next time. Click here to see this table.
Also as the web 2.0 activity was progressing I realised the need for students to be
taught how to research properly using the Google search engine. Because of this I
put together an outline on how to do this and spent 20 minutes discussing it with
them using the projector as well as emailing them a copy to refer to. This, along
with getting students to reference sources, are important aspects of Digital
Citizenship and ethical use of online research Click here to see the outline.

Page 70 of 72

Upon reflection a self-criticism of my activities was that I could have focused more
intentionally on incorporating blooms revised taxonomy into the task structure.
This issue was at the back of my mind from early on in the activities however I also
realised that both student and teacher were learning how to use and implement
the technology placing a cognitive load onto that provided by the content being
researched. However next time around this will be addressed.
One aspect I found very successful was the fact that I could spend much more time
with the students allowing me to help more of them one on one than I normally
can. This really assisted in differentiating the learning giving extra help to those
who were struggling and allowing others to extend themselves. This was certainly
a positive aspect to the change in student-teacher dynamic that such collaborative
web 2.0 tools afford.
Having said this there were certainly mistakes made by me and ways that things
could be done better next time. I set up group roles to build the Google page that
included: editor; researcher; graphic designer. The idea was a good one but
assumed that they could do with Google sites what can be done with Google docs;
multiple users working on it at once. Knowing now that this is not the case these
groups need to be implemented much earlier in the process while research is still
taking place using the Google docs. This is an aspect that therefore did not go well
but with a small modification will improve the activity next time. Click this link to
see the webpage and group role descriptions.
Also, initially (as shown on this webpage) the suggestion to students was to limit
embedded videos to no more than 10 minutes. However this was reduced to no
more than 5 minutes and this was communicated to the students. This will be
changed on the website next time and the reason for this is to keep viewers
attention by not having videos that are too long.
Another thing I have learned from implementing these web pedagogies is that
many students do not like change either! This was presented to me by a student
who stated Sir, can we just do textbook work Its easier. Also a number of
students in the Google forms survey stated that they would rather use Word than
Google docs. I believe this is the case because all of them have used Word
countless times but the vast majority of them had never used Google docs.
In summary, both activities were a great success, but also had their challenges and
areas to improve. However by the end of the process students had a better
Page 71 of 72

understanding of the Atom and how it worked and the online simulation as well as
the research and building of the webpages helped enhance this beyond just
learning it from a text book. The changes that I have made or will make as outlined
above will certainly improve both activities and maximise the students learning of
the atom and periodic table even further next time these activities are done.

Page 72 of 72