Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
Student_directions_
Build_atom_ANSWERS.docx
Worksheet Answers:
Page 5 of 72
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
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.
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
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:
Page 13 of 72
Page 14 of 72
(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
Page 17 of 72
Page 19 of 72
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
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
Page 22 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.
Page 24 of 72
Page 25 of 72
Page 26 of 72
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
(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
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
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
Location: Lab 3
Outcomes
Assessment
Page 37 of 72
Syllabus outcomes
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.
General Capability:
Information and communication technology
capability
1.3 Problematic
knowledge
1.6 Substantive
communication
2.3 High
Expectations
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
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
1.1 Deep
knowledge
2.2
Engageme
nt
3.1
Backgroun
d
knowledge
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
Location: Lab 3
Outcomes
Syllabus outcomes
Lesson
assessment:
informal &
formative.
General Capability:
Information and communication technology
capability
Page 41 of 72
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.
1.3 Problematic
knowledge
1.6 Substantive
communication
2.3 High
Expectations
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
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
Page 43 of 72
Students
self
regulation
3.5
Connectedn
ess
web page.
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.
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
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
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
Questions
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
GROUP 6 (INDUSTRIAL)
GROUP 7 (MEDICAL)
Appendix 3 :Screenshots
Page 49 of 72
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 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
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
Bradley Murphy
Robinson
BY: Austin
Positive
Needs Attention
Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions
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
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
Questions addressed
relevant outcomes.
Some youtube video used
along with articles.
Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions
Other Positive
Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions
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
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
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.
Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions
Changes made or
Justify why you
disagree with
suggestions
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