Volume 6, Number 1 Spring 2010 Edited by: Mark van â€t Hooft A

www.rcetj.org

ISSN 1948-075X

Volume 6, Number 1 Spring 2010

Edited by:

Mark van ‘t Hooft A. Quinn Denzer

Editor Managing Editor

Special Issue:

Handheld Learning 2009 Research Strand Papers

Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET) Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 2010

http://www.rcetj.org/

Editor Managing Editor Mark van ‘t Hooft, PhD A. Quinn Denzer

Advisory Board

Joseph Bowman, Ph.D.

State University at Albany

Cheryl Lemke Metiri Group

Rosemary Du Mont

Kent State University

Robert Muffoletto, Ph.D. Appalachian State University

Ricki Goldman, Ph.D. NYU

Elliot Soloway, Ph.D. University of Michigan

Aliya Holmes St. John's University

Review Board

Kadee Anstadt, Perrysburg City Schools Mary MacKay, Wake County Public School SystemSavilla Banister, Bowling Green State University Theresa Minick, Kent State University William Bauer, Case Western Reserve University Jason Schenker, Kent State University Albert Ingram, Kent State University Elizabeth Shevock, Kent State University John Jewell, College of Wooster Chris Simonavice, Florida State University Jan Kelly, Mogadore Local Schools Karen Swan, University of Illinois, Springfield Cindy Kovalik, Kent State University Leonard Trujillo, East Carolina University Annette Kratcoski, Kent State University Mark van ‘t Hooft, Kent State University Mary Lang, Coleman Foundation Maggie Veres, Wright State University Yin Zhang, Kent State University

The Journal for the Research Center for Educational Technology is published twice a year by RCET (http://www.rcet.org). It provides a multimedia forum for the advancement of scholarly work on the effects of technology on teaching and learning. This online journal (http://www.rcetj.org) seeks to provide unique avenues for the dissemination of knowledge within the field of educational technology consistent with new and emergent pedagogical possibilities. In particular, journal articles are encouraged to include video and sound files as reference or evidence, links to data, illustrative animations, photographs, etc. The journal publishes the original, refereed work of researchers and practitioners twice a year in multimedia electronic format. It is distributed free of charge over the World Wide Web under the Creative Commons License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States) to promote dialogue, research, and grounded practice.


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/�

http://www.rcet.org/

http://www.rcetj.org/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/

Volume 6, Number 1 Spring 2010

Introduction to the Special Issue Graham Brown-Martin 1

Long Papers Will Student Devices Deliver Innovation, Inclusion, and Transformation? John Traxler 3 A Classification of M-Learning Applications from a Usability Perspective Robin Deegan and Paul Rothwell 16 Mobile Devices as ‘Boundary Objects’ on Field Trips Nicola Beddall-Hill and Jonathan Raper 28 Mobile Learning at Abilene Christian University: Successes, Challenges, and Results from Year One Scott Perkins and George Saltsman 47 Using Handheld Technologies for Student Support: A Model Jane Lunsford 55

Short Papers Further Development of the Context Categories of a Mobile Learning Framework Phil Marston and Sarah Cornelius 70 Combining Analogue Realities and Digital Truths: Teaching Kids How to Hold Productive Learning Conversations Using Pictochat on the Nintendo DS Karl Royle, Clair Jenkins, and Julie Nickless 76 Mobile Learning for All Marco Arrigo and Giovanni Ciprì 94



Mobilizing The Open University: Case Studies in Strategic Mobile Development Rhodri Thomas 103 Mobile Technology as a Mechanism for Delivering Improved Quality of Life Andy Pulman 111 A Novel, Image-Based, Voting Tool Based on Handheld Devices Peter van Ooijen and André Broekema 122 Implications of 4G connectivity related to m-learning contexts Arturo Serrano Santoyo and Javier Organista-Sandoval 129 Fun, Fizzy and Formative Approaches to Assessment: Using Rapid Digital Feedback to Aid Learners' Progression Rowena Blair and Susan McLaren 136 Collaborative Mobile Knowledge Sharing for Language Learners Lyn Pemberton, Marcus Winter, and Sanaz Fallahkhair 144 The Open University Library in Your Pocket Keren Mills and Hassan Sheikh 149 MoLeaP, The Mobile Learning Project Database: A Pool for Projects and Tool for Systematic Description and Analysis of Mobile Learning Practice Judith Seipold and Norbert Pachler 157 Can Nintendo DS Consoles Be Used for Collaboration and Enquiry-Based Learning in Schools? Steve Bunce 172 Towards An Intelligent Learning System for the Natural Born Cyborg Deb Polson and Colleen Morgan 185

RCETJ 6 (1), 76-93

Using PictoChat on the Nintendo DS to Develop Children’s Exploratory Talk through Productive Learning Conversations during Collaborative Group Work

Karl Royle Claire Jenkins

University of Wolverhampton, School of Education, Centre for Development and Research in Education, United Kingdom

Julie Nickless Windmill School, Telford, United Kingdom

Abstract

This paper examines the results of a small-scale research project that combined the online wireless chat facility of the Nintendo DS console with classroom activities in a project designed to enhance the exploratory talk of learners by modeling effective dialogues for collaborative enquiry within problem solving activities and group work in a British Primary School. Using an action research approach, the research presented here details a range of factors relating to the use of technology to develop learner talk by using the DS console for wireless chat to support learning in the classroom. It presents learner voice extracts, results of a background survey, and excerpts from a research lesson study program. Finally, this paper gives insights into the learning status of the technology itself (Hadfield, Jopling, Royle, & Southern, 2009), its potential impact in promoting teacher agency in curriculum change, and children’s perspectives on its use.

Keywords

Nintendo DS; Exploratory Talk; Wireless Chat; Literacy Development; Curriculum Change; Game-Based Learning; Digital Engagement; Digital Habits; Problem-Based Learning

Background: The School, the Area and Theoretical Framework of the Work

This project builds on work done by Windmill Primary School Telford in using the Nintendo DS to enhance learning within a year 5 (students ages 9 to 10) key stage 2 group. The school is situated in a social housing area and was a new build project in 2006, amalgamating two schools. The school is set in the heart of a large housing estate, originally build by Telford Development Corporation, and many of its pupils live on the estate. Most are from white British backgrounds and the proportion of pupils entitled to receive a free school meal is more than double the national average. The school catchment is in an area of social deprivation where it scores 9.54%, placing it within the 10% most deprived areas in the UK according to the indices of multiple deprivation (Communities and Local Government, 2007).

In spite of this, the school is classified as ‘above average’ and a ‘good school’ by Ofsted (2007). The school is particularly innovative in its approach to the use of technology, and this project resulted from the use of the Nintendo DS ‘brain training’ software by a year 5 teacher. An internal research report into the project highlighted increased motivation, improved attainment in maths, and improved attendance at school. It also pointed to the popularity amongst children of using the PictoChat tool, so much so, that

Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET) 76 Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 2010

their use of it had to be limited so that lessons were not disrupted. PictoChat, in essence, is a simple console-to-console chat program that utilizes a touch screen drawing pad and keyboard with room for up to 16 people in 4 distinct chat rooms that works wirelessly to other DS consoles in its range. It is suited to school use because it operates within a closed environment and is therefore compliant with e- safety concerns.

This enthusiasm for PictoChat gave rise to the current project, which explored the use of the chat facility to develop children’s literacy skills. The main focus of the project was to see if speaking skills could be developed by constructing activities where exploratory talk (see below for definition) could be developed by using the vehicle of digital chat. This would require that children’s digital habits were utilized and that links could be made between digital chat (the notion of chat text as a form of speech) and the more formal language structures required for learning with exploratory talk. The focus on speaking skills was selected due to it being a key target for the school, arising from reports that “in some lessons, speaking skills are developed well, but in others, opportunities are missed for the pupils to develop arguments or express opinions” (Ofsted, 2007, p. 6), and is also a key finding of the Rose Review of Primary Education:

Primary schools should make sure that children’s spoken communication is developed intensively within all subjects … and Embedding ICT throughout the primary curriculum and giving it greater prominence within the core of ‘Essentials for Learning and Life’ will provide children with more opportunities to harness the potential of technology to enhance learning. (Rose, 2009, p. 21)

Action Research Approach

In light of the above, having located the research within a real curriculum development need for the school, we decided to use an overarching action research approach, which allows practitioners to improve practice and understand the change processes involved, (Molenet (mobile learning network), (Attewell, Savill-Smith, & Douch, 2009), and “whenever specific knowledge is required for a specific problem in a specific situation; or when a new approach is to be grafted onto an existing system” (Cohen & Manion, 1995, p. 194). The specific aspect that we decided to focus on was the development of exploratory talk through group work and how this could be augmented by using mobile technology.

Research (e.g. Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004; Mercer & Sams, 2006; Wegerif, Littleton, Davis, Mercer, & Rowe, 2004) shows how effective learning between students in collaborative small groups arises from students having to explain and justify their decisions or points of view to each other. Building on earlier work by Barnes & Todd (1977, 1995), the researchers involved in these studies used the term ‘exploratory talk’ to describe this kind of educationally effective talk. They define exploratory talk in the following terms:

Exploratory talk occurs when group members engage critically, but constructively with each other's ideas. Statements and suggestions are offered for joint consideration. These may be challenged and counter-challenged, but challenges are justified and alternative hypotheses are offered. In exploratory talk, knowledge is made publicly accountable and reasoning is visible in the talk. (Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999, p. 97)

Talking in an exploratory way in a group is associated with benefits such as building a climate of trust and collaboration; developing a dialogic space for pursuing creative solutions to problems; and learning ways of reasoning that individuals can use independently (Mercer & Littleton, 2007, p. 135). The studies distinguish exploratory talk from two other kinds of group talk: cumulative and disputational talk. With cumulative talk, speakers build positively, but uncritically, on what others say. Group members use talk to construct a ‘common knowledge’ by accumulation. Cumulative talk is characterised by repetitions, confirmations, and elaborations, rather than by challenge. Disputational talk is characterised by assertions, disagreement, short exchanges, and individualised decision-making. There are few attempts to pool resources or to offer constructive criticism of suggestions. Talk tends to move in and out of these


three categories, but the research suggests that maximising the opportunities for developing exploratory talk can lead to the benefits outlined above for group members.

Further, talk, according to Kucer (2001), is perishable. By this he means that it isn’t held for very long in memory after an utterance. Therefore, it is arguable that the language forms of exploratory talk are harder to acquire for learners who do not directly experience those forms frequently in speech, aurally, or in their daily life experiences and literacy events. This is where electronic chat has potential. Although much of ‘digital’ chat is for social purposes, (and as such shares many of the characteristics of speech, it being “here and now, person-to-person, and a means of immediate communication” (Kucer 2001, p. 40)), it is less perishable or more persistent as Boyd (2007) notes: “Unlike the ephemeral quality of speech in unmediated publics, networked communications are recorded for posterity. This enables asynchronous communication but it also extends the period of existence of any speech act” (p. 9).

The basic premise of this project is encapsulated here in that, if the communicative purpose of electronic chat could be used for learning purposes and directed towards exploratory talk, the target language could be captured, refined, modelled, shared, and developed. Chee and Chen (2007), although referring to higher education level students, note that

Online discussion can facilitate collaborative learning, when learners are actively engaged in sharing information and perspectives through interaction with other learners (Harasim, 1989). Additionally, online discussion provides a permanent record of one's thoughts for later students' reflection and debate, by automatically saving the messages posted in the discussions. Online discussion technology can also track the frequency and times of each student logging onto the class (Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 1998). Research findings show that online discussion allows students to see different perspectives, which can help to foster new meaning construction (Ruberg et al., 1996) and encourages participants to put their thoughts into writing in a way that others can understand, promoting self reflective dialogue and dialogue with others (Valacich, Dennis, & Comolly, 1994); and it has the potential to expose students to a broader range of views than face to face talk, and hence enable them to develop more complex perspectives on a topic (Prain & Lyons, 2000).

By using electronic chat alongside talk generated by group work as a way of modelling and inputting the language forms of exploratory talk into learner schemata for recall and output later, spoken language can be captured and linked directly through chat to reading and writing activities for more effective literacy skills development.

Literacy and language development is important to this study, but it is not sufficient to address such associated skills separately by isolating them from the communicative purposes, social acts, and learning activities that they are part of. The focus of the study on exploratory talk is about equipping learners with a key facet of enquiry through communication for a specific purpose. Looked at in more depth, it is predominantly about learners learning how to learn for themselves and with others (Claxton, 2005). Acquiring these skills will also enable them to become learners by joining a community of practice (of learners) (Wenger, 1998) or ‘semiotic domain’ of learning (Gee, 2003), so in this study the ‘target’ of exploratory talk should be seen in a wider context of not only acquiring those particular language forms, but also in terms of fostering learning skills within the group and the school as a whole. At the more granular level of personal skill acquisition, however, the learner needs to acquire not only the language functions of the particular learning domain of practice but also the forms. For example, learners need the meta-language that enables them to interject, give praise, and also get their voice heard and listened to. Below is an example (the language function is in brackets and the form used in open text):

What do you think about this? I wrote down [gives information about penguins].

That’s pretty good. [Encouragement of another pupil’s efforts].

What are you going to write down? [Challenge to group member].


Therefore, children who predominantly use talk strategies that do not utilize exploratory talk need to learn these language forms to progress as a learner and access the life chances that being a successful learner can lead to, which is particularly pertinent for the context of the learners at Windmill School. This supposition leads inevitably into arguments about language and power (after Bordieu, 1991) and articulates that there is a preferred standard way of communicating that is preferable to others. However, if we make the value judgment that it is important for children from lower socio-economic groupings to be able to use standard forms of language, effectively for learning purposes, then this study is in and of itself a valid pursuit. The study is designed to develop children’s use of ‘powerful’ literacies and to be as articulate within them as they can be. This is doubly relevant because in this study we appropriate for learning purposes a social practice which predominantly uses chat speak and enables children to communicate with standard forms, using a technology that is predominantly used in a social context. This should emphasise the importance of written factual communication in counterpoint to the more context-laden, written, social communication used in text/chat speak.

Learning to use exploratory talk for the majority of learners in this study could also be likened to second language acquisition. The use of the PictoChat facility as the ‘”driver of problem-based learning” (Boud and Feletti, 1991, p. 14) to develop exploratory talk around a realistic communicative purpose can therefore be further aligned with the work of Krashen (1983) around second language acquisition. Krashen noted that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in ‘second’ language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. The act of structuring activity around communicative purposes should lead to natural acquisition of the target language according to Krashen, who states:

The best methods are those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the “second language”, but allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production. (p. 5)

It was envisaged that the DS lesson study, if carefully constructed, would allow learners to build confidence in using the target language using a communicative digital medium that they knew well, that allowed them to produce when they were ready, and that supplied prompt phrases that could reinforce their acquisition of important underdeveloped spoken language forms. The parallel with second language acquisition is pertinent in that the forms of exploratory talk are forms that belong to the language of learning and education, which is a community of practice that young learners have to engage with in order to become proficient within that particular context.

Methods

The methods of implementing this study have been fourfold. First an online survey of both learners’ digital habits and of their listening and speaking preferences was conducted to establish a contextual baseline in which to place the study. It was important to establish learners’ dispositions towards talking at school and at home and in terms of their willingness to engage in group work, particularly their confidence levels or willingness to engage in practices that could lead to the development of exploratory talk as outlined by Mercer et al. (1999) above.

The survey, gave us an idea of the degree to which learners had the confidence to engage with other group members and their propensity for the use of digital technology for chat purposes. This survey was conducted with the whole of the year 5 and 6 year groups and yielded 173 responses. The key findings of the survey are in Appendix A. The survey also allowed us to track individual responses and this was used to identify the class group that took part in the study. This group was a year 5 group of 18 learners with a 50% gender balance with 90% of white British origin. Twelve members of the group were identified as having a learning support need, 9 of whom also had a behavioral statement of need.


http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v06n1_2010/Royle/Royle_AppendixA.pdf

Secondly, this was followed up by observations of learners’ utterances when working in groups against a phrase checklist (See Appendix B). This was carried out by a researcher and the class teacher. The purpose here was to establish what types of talk were predominant within the class in group work situations. The third phase of the project used research lesson study (RLS) within the previously mentioned paradigm of action research to observe the results of the lesson interventions that integrated the use of the DS console into problem-based, group learning activities with scaffolding activities (Hogarth, Bennett, Campbell, Lubben, & Robinson, 2005). RLS is usually undertaken by small groups of teachers. In this case, it was constituted by the class teacher and a researcher from the University who was also an experienced primary practitioner. In RLS, the research group identifies a development need, accesses the public research knowledge base and formulates a research question. In this project the research questions formulated were: What are the current speaking and listening dispositions of learners? What are their current digital habits? What is the current predominant mode of learner talk in specific sessions? Does learner talk change as a result of intervention with DS strategy and does this affect their dispositions towards speaking in class groups?

Teachers identify case pupils (usually three) to represent a range of pupils in the class (for example a high-, low- and middle-ability pupil) and jointly plan the lesson with these case pupils in mind, identifying expected outcomes for each case pupil. One member of the research group teaches the lesson while the others focus on observing the case pupils. Data can also be collected via audio or video recordings, pupil questionnaires, and interviews. In this project, due to its basis in group work, rather than focus specifically on individual pupils throughout the project, the interaction between learners in specific groups was observed. This was achieved by observation and video recording. In addition, PictoChat transcripts were made of chat conversations. In this way, the use of exploratory talk could be observed and noted. Further, the research also took note of any other positive developments that might occur within the group activity by facilitating exploratory talk such as those noted by Mercer and Littleton (2007): building a climate of trust and collaboration; developing a dialogic space for pursuing creative solutions to problems; and learning ways of reasoning that individuals can use independently.

The final project activity involved debriefing interviews with a group of children and with the class teacher involved. This provided insights into the changes brought about in practice, and highlighted any moderating and mediating factors within the intervention.

Results

Survey

In and of itself, the initial survey of digital habits gave insights into learners’ out of school engagement that were of interest to the school as a whole. Much of this digital activity, although part of a ‘networked publics’ domain (Boyd, 2007), is hidden from both parents and teachers. A key, widely accepted, basic premise of education is to know about your learners. The survey, gave insights into activities that could be drawn on in the future by creative teaching strategies that incorporated the children’s digital world into their schooling. In terms of this specific study the survey results clearly supported the use of the chat facility. For example, some 47% of children’s at-home, online time was based on social networking that utilized chat facilities, with a large proportion having both a social networking presence and use of MSN or Yahoo chat. This is in a population of children aged 8 to 10, which illustrates the rapid movement to a ‘pre teen’ type of status and modus operandi for digital social networking. There may of course be an element of over-reporting here with the wish by preteens to look ‘cool’, but it does highlight the incorporation and migration of what were predominantly teen-based habits into the pre-teen environment (Figure 1).

Of the 174 children surveyed over 57% stated that when working in a group felt ‘unable to say why they thought an idea was good or bad’ and also appeared to dislike being ‘in charge’ (Figure 2). Thus, the survey results also pointed towards a need for the development of exploratory talk (ET). Although a refocusing of this particularly aspect of the survey questions to be more directly related to the phrases used in ET would have been helpful, the more general questions used were perhaps more pertinent for this initial investigation.


http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v06n1_2010/Royle/Royle_AppendixB.pdf

Figure 1: Student Use of Online Tools

Figure 2: Student Speaking Dispositions in Group Work


Observations

This was further reinforced by other responses not detailed here but included in Appendix A. The second phase of the research concentrated on observations of students. Students were observed on three separate occasions for a period of an hour’s session. Students were observed whilst working in groups and the predominant style of talk was located, (in this case), within either cumulative or disputational talk by using a phrase checklist (Appendix B). The oral responses were very brief as can be seen from the transcript below (see also Appendix C). However, the nature of the activity was to describe the conditions of life amongst the rural poor in India. It was beyond the experience of many of the children and most utterances were short and descriptive:

Y: They look poor

X: Thay are’nt

Y: Josh

X: They are Josh

Y: They are poor

(Transcription Extract)

The talk remained predominantly in the cumulative mode when the group configuration was changed to a whole class circle with pictures as stimuli:

Why is she bending down?

Probably collecting stuff because she’s got somemat in her hand.

Maybe this is our part of the world and this is all their bit.

Na. That would be further away.

They live in India.

It doesn’t look that far away.

About 5 miles.

You could walk there.

And there’s like a bridge.

Maybe you have to pay to get into that country.

If they are very poor they won’t be able to live in these kind of houses or in any flats.

Look, it’s a really old tent.

There are children as well.


http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v06n1_2010/Royle/Royle_AppendixA.pdf

http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v06n1_2010/Royle/Royle_AppendixB.pdf

http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v06n1_2010/Royle/Royle_AppendixC.pdf

And the oldest boy is looking after the baby probably because they don’t have any Mums.

(Lesson observation extract)

First Lesson Study

In the light of these findings and two other observations that had similar outcomes, we decided to conduct a pilot study with a small group using the DS to augment group work. We were conscious at this stage that the DS may not make that much difference to the engagement with exploratory talk, due to the low levels of engagement with the type of language that the learners exhibited. We therefore realised that exploratory talk development would be highly and predominantly task dependent, that is, tasks would need to be very highly specified in order to develop the desired types of talk. Whether the DS would help or hinder this was also a clear issue to be researched. With this in mind, before constructing an intervention that would particularly target exploratory talk, we constructed a lesson that would give us an intermediary stage of intervention so that we could gauge the difference in performance with and without the DS and the effectiveness of the DS in capturing spoken text as per our observations re persistence and perishability above. The learners were given a simple task that involved receiving and communicating instructions to each other in order to draw a plan of a village. The groups were asked to complete two separate but similar instructional tasks through oral instructions and also via the DS. In the latter case the instructions were given orally but also by DS whereas in the former, instructions were only given orally. Learners were interviewed after the lesson in order to determine which method of communication they preferred and why. This allowed us to see the effect of DS use on the group’s activities and to determine the ability of the DS to capture spoken language.

In the trial activity on giving instructions to create a plan or drawing, a group using DS’s made the following comparisons about completing the task with and without the DS:

DS (easier) because if you don’t remember something from the last one, you can look at it.

DS as well. Because it is more easier, because if you are talking, you might say something wrong and you might get muddled up. ON the DS you can read the instruction again.

The DS. Because it was easier. Because if you missed one, it’s easier.

The pond was better with the DS because when you can’t actually hear what the person is trying to say, you can read it on the DS.

The DS because you can scroll up and scroll down. I forgot some of the instructions so I could look up and down.

(Lesson observation extract)

Having established that the DS could be a useful tool for capturing and communicating text at a personal level in oral interactions, we moved next to a more complex series of tasks to see if it could be used to capture and develop exploratory talk. (Hogarth et al., 2005 see this as crucial to generating the types of talk required).

The Second Lesson Study

This was a highly structured problem solving activity based on earth, moon, and space – a subject the children had been studying for two weeks with their class teacher. However, the learning focused on problem solving, and children were asked to design a space shuttle (living accommodation) which could fly to the moon, collect data, and then return to Earth. The children worked in four specific teams, flight


crew training, life support, guidance, and surveying and engineering, and could only communicate with each other using the PictoChat on the DS. To make this more realistic, the children were told that they all spoke different languages but the DS would translate into English. This necessary subterfuge was readily accepted by the creative minds of the children and added to the ‘game-like’ feel of the activity. Communication was necessary to allow each team to successfully complete their part of the activity and enable the ‘Engineering Team’ to design the shuttle. Further to this, a character (Descartes) was devised to prompt and refocus children via the DS. This character would also attempt to ‘model’ exploratory talk rather than be instructive. Each team was provided with a pack of information which included written information, leaflets, online video clips, and textbooks. Teams were also given a clear budget and a list of items they could buy and understood that they could ask for more money from other teams or Descartes, but that this would need to be supported by a clear rationale. Information was also traded between teams and questions could be asked.

The activity was well received by the learners who were very quickly on task, appearing to be motivated both by the use of the DS and the activity. During the initial minutes of the activity, teams entered the chat room facility and generally greeted each other. However, teams were very focused on the task rather than the DS – the children seemed to view the DS as a tool (their ‘Communicator’) and, generally, throughout the activity used them purposefully to trade information, etc. What was interesting to note was the talk within groups, which was not facilitated by the DS in particular, but by the activity itself. The activity generated the targeted exploratory talk within each separate team as exemplified in the transcript below:

If you say can we have a hundred pounds...we might be able to buy that.

Yeah, but they [other teams] might say why do you want it?

What about asking the Life Support Team for the money for the food heater?

We don’t always have to ask other groups for money. We can ask Descartes.

If they say why.. [interrupted]

No, we don’t have to ask other people. If Descartes says no we can ask other people then.

OK. I agree. We’ve got this much to spend anyway. We need to know what we need to buy.

[Message received on the DS] The Flight Crew want to know why we want the money. Right, where’s the information? We need to know what we want to buy. We need information from them.

We need to ask the Flight Crew.

How long are we going to be in space for? Who would know that?

There’s a question on the sheet about how many astronauts we need. We need to answer this.

(Lesson transcript)

In contrast, the DS was relegated to a position as a communication tool, and the children were quick to realise its shortcomings in that area. However, due to the constraints of the device (mainly small screen size and limited message length) they also had to learn how to synthesise quite complex information into factual requests that would get the required results from other teams. Thus, the DS added to the activity in that it was used to capture the teams’ ideas and synthesise them into clear communications. The extract below shows some of the DS exchanges:


Engineering: How many are there?

Flight Crew: 4

Descartes: 4 what?

Flight Crew: We have got a shower.

Flight Crew: 4 people.

Engineering: OK.

Guidance: We are landing on 3D [Grid co-ordinates on a map]

Descartes: Why? What are your reasons for landing on 3D?

Engineering: How long is the mission?

Guidance: 14 days.

Flight Crew: We need a shower.

Engineering: How many storage cupboards do we need?

Guidance: Yes, it is a safe place to land because there are no craters.

Flight Crew: Can we have £100?

Descartes: Why do you need the money?

Flight Crew: Because we have no money.

Flight Crew: We need a shower.

Engineering: We have one.

Descartes: The shower has already been bought. No money.

Engineering: We already have one. You can’t have any money.

Descartes: Well done, Engineers. You are really thinking.

Guidance: What do you need a shower for?

Engineering: We already have one!

Flight Crew: Never mind.

Guidance: But why do you need a shower? Leave it to the Engineers. Get on with the job.


Flight Crew: We need more money for health and safety £100.

Life Support: We need 10 food cupboards.

Guidance: We’ve got a space voyager, moon map and a 3D map.

Flight Crew: We need a hundred pounds.

Descartes: Flight crew – just tell the engineers what you want. You really don’t need money. The Engineers can buy things for you.

Flight Crew: Can we have a 3D map?

Life Support: We need to know how big a cupboard is.

Descartes: Why, Flight Crew, do you want a 3D map? How will this help you complete your task?

Life Support: Engineering team, we want 10 cupboards. We know how much food we can get in them now.

Engineering: How are we going to keep the astronauts fit?

Guidance: OK?

Life Support: Is that OK engineering?

(DS exchange transcript)

As a whole the second lesson study threw up some interesting questions. These centered on the following key factors. Firstly it was the problem-based pedagogical approach, which was key in producing the target language rather than the use of the DS itself in the activity:

I learnt loads about how to work in a team, how to take turns and to think about what you are going to say. (Learner interview, September 2009)

Secondly, the use and position of the DS as a communicator was an effective way of integrating digital, learner-controlled technology into the lesson. Third, the DS was used by children to synthesize information into key communications in order to progress their objectives. This was partly because of the limitations of the technology. One learner noted that “The DS is ‘really good’ but you can’t use it for long conversations”. This statement was qualified by the learner who said that this was because of the size of the screen. A fourth aspect to note was the similarity of the activity to video-game-based activity. This lesson study did perhaps mirror the organizational form of the computer-based resource management game with information; roles and resources coupled to defined win states or problems to solve. (Royle 2008). The activity itself coupled to the technology choice made learners use standard language forms and place themselves within a quasi professional role. This is supported by Gee (2005), who notes that a good video game (here a good simulation-based lesson also [Author’s note]) inducts the player into a professional domain made up of the “facts, skills and values necessary to perform within a specific identity”. The lesson itself incorporated science, math, and language-based activities around a purposeful simulation which had a very game-like feel. The structure of the lesson in this format did seem to motivate learners:

It was really interesting; I really enjoyed it and wish we could do more lessons like this. (Learner)


They were on task, so much more than they would have been with a pencil and paper activity. (Class teacher)

Groups didn’t tolerate ‘messing about’ (going social) on the DS and declined to use them for just chatting using text speak. They also commented that the best thing to do was type messages rather than handwrite for the sake of clarity in communication. It could be seen from an analysis of the lesson as a whole that the DS as communicator had a role to play in developing communication skills but it was the activity itself that generated the exploratory talk. Whilst it was the activity that built a climate of trust and collaboration and involved learners in ways of reasoning that individuals might use independently, it was the DS that focused the activity by acting as a conduit for communication that learners were familiar with and that was robust and glitch free from a technical standpoint. As an aside, and to reinforce the idea of authentic professionalism, if the DS communications outlined above are examined next to the text below, they do tend to have that air of moon landing speak that was a backdrop to late C20 communications. See for example the NASA (1973) transcript below:

C Don't mention it.

CC 13, Houston. We copy your NOUN 44.

CMP Okay, Joe.

CC Apollo 13, Houston. Your preliminary orbit down here is 102.5 times 100.3, and everything is looking good.

CDR Roger, Houston. And it looks good to be up here again.

CC I'll bet.

CC 13, Houston. I have your Z torquing angles. You ready?

CDR Jack is ready to copy, Joe.

Evaluation

Overall, the project gave insights into the digital habits of learners at the school, which could be utilised for improving the learning opportunities of children in several areas other than exploratory talk development. For example, the survey results on mobile phone use highlight potential areas of use that could be linked to the curriculum (Figure 3). As well as giving insights into the use of popular applications for playing music, the most obvious application for school would be the use of the phone calculator and diary. The lack of use for ‘school work’ reflects the fact that phones are not allowed to be used in the school.

A key highlight of this study is to draw attention to the benefits to schooling that can accrue from profiling learners’ digital engagement outside of formal schooling so that they can be aligned with learning activities. The initial lesson observation pilot also confirmed the Ofsted (2007) inspection findings, by highlighting the lack of disposition towards constructing exploratory talk within group and collaborative situations (within the study group this hardly ever occurred, although as previously mentioned, tasks observed did not necessarily target the production of this kind of talk). This highlighted the need for structured interventions in this area.


Figure 3: Student Mobile Phone Use

It was also somewhat assumed by the researchers engaged in the project that the intervention with the DS would somehow naturally lead to changes in learners’ practice. This belief in the affordances of an item of technology for learning purposes is misplaced. In reality, why the children enjoyed using PictoChat was because it replicated their web-based social engagement and practice with digital chat.

Thus, it was realised that without a shift in the pedagogical framework of the lessons, the use of the technology itself would have little impact on learning in the targeted area. As Fisher (2006) notes, ICT is not a ‘silver bullet’ for educational problems. For the digital enhancement of schooling to occur, the realities of learning within a school context need to be examined so that technology can be integrated effectively. We discovered that there has to be a clearly fore grounded purpose for the use of a particular digital technology within the learning design that adds to, rather than replicates, existing practices. Only then will it enhance rather than hinder, obstruct, or divert the learning process. Evidence from the digital habits survey was instrumental in supporting the integration of the DS in this study.

The survey highlighted the pervasiveness of chat as a medium that could be cultivated for collaborative group work, mainly due to the amount of time that children spent in their non-school activities using such facilities. This was the social technology use that we sought to harness and repurpose through the pilot activity and the structured problem solving activity. The second trial activity highlighted that the DS could be used to support learning through literacy activities that were predominantly based on speaking and listening. This mainly involved learners capturing spoken text in written forms using the DS. This alignment of spoken with written forms has utility for developing literacy, just as texting has recently aligned with improvements in spelling. (BBC, 2010). Although the screen size was a limiting factor on the DS, this also provoked a certain utility when used as a communicator by prompting learners to be concise


and to synthesize information accurately. Use of the DS by learners for literacy development also has the potential to personalize engagement and privatize failure. Each learner can have his/her own set of personal instructions or prompts with which to complete tasks, a sort of facilitator on the side. Because this happens in real time, and because learners can take control through their own agency and familiarity with chatting using the technology, it makes the DS effective as a handheld learning tool in literacy events.

Notwithstanding the above, after conducting the second pilot there were several moderating factors that needed to be overcome before progressing to the fully-structured activity. There were two main areas of concern: first, there was the actual practical structuring of the lesson study to ensure that there were suitable problem-based opportunities for the generation of exploratory talk. This concern was due to the perceived and actual constraints on the time that teachers and learners had to spend on such activities within an already crowded curriculum offer that is objective-based and target-driven. This is a reality that should not be underestimated within the English educational system. To overcome this factor required a reconceptualization of learning methods by the class teacher to actually visualize how such an activity could be integrated into the existing system, objectives, and learner targets.

The intervention as a whole, therefore, made an improvement in practice. Prior to this group activity the class teacher was always:

Trying to find an activity that the DSs were useful for”…in this structured activity…the fact that they were separate teams and that they had to communicate with each other gave a real purpose for using the DS where previously it had been difficult to fit it into the curriculum. There are so many limitations in terms of the curriculum…we had 8 sessions to cover a topic with so many learning objectives and we have to keep in sync with other classes for example. (Class teacher interview, 2009)

A second moderating factor was addressing staff awareness of the need to model exploratory talk effectively. Teachers had little awareness or conceptualization at the outset of the project of the need to model exploratory talk, or indeed what some of the language forms required were. To achieve this, a pedagogical realignment by the practitioners involved would be needed in order to develop language in a metacognitive sense. This would require a whole-school development strategy outside of the objectives of the study. However, going forward, it was felt that the study was worthy of further pursuit, due to the possibilities for literacy/language development presented through the digital enhancement of existing pedagogy through wireless chat, and also due to the possible further development of activities that provoked and required the use of exploratory talk to be used by and/or modeled for learners. This digital enhancement (Prensky 2009) of the learning process is a pertinent use of technology that is at the heart of learners’ digital habits and identity construction.

There is more to this, however, than just the focus on language development. Many commentators ascribe to the idea that education today is dealing with a different type of digital learner, Prensky (2001), and Oblinger (2003) to name but a few, and that alongside this are a set of 21st century skills that can be learned or acquired through natural digital interaction. This is part of the ‘digital native rhetoric’ (Bayne & Ross, 2007) that places teachers in a position where, “They have a duty to adapt their methods to this new way of learning- are required in fact to reconstitute themselves according to the terms of the native in order to remain relevant” (Bayne and Ross, 2007, ¶ 1).

This research notes that although learners do spend considerable amounts of their social time in social communication activities and are familiar with technology, they do still need to be able to develop techniques for working collaboratively in a work simulation and need to develop the language skills to do this. The casual ‘yeh course whateva’ of the Facebook conversation does not suffice when synthesizing information into a precise request for information. It needs a lot of thought and a lot of skill to communicate concisely and for a specific purpose as the project highlighted.


Equally, the realities of school-based learning often mean that technology is difficult to integrate for learning purposes or, more accurately, the technology cannot be aligned with the needs of teachers or learners. The class teacher from Windmill School explains:

It’s a big job to integrate technology…sometimes it comes easily but at other times you think…actually how will the technology improve that? Am I using the technology just for the sake of it or does it add something to what I’m doing? (Teacher interview, September 2009)

The final aspect for consideration is the pedagogical development that took place as a result of the research. By modelling and constructing the problem-based activity at the school this development was added to the repertoire of activities for teachers within the school who stated that:

Now that the activity is there I would use it again because I think it was worthwhile and I could use it in other contexts and having seen that model I now think I could go away and do something on the Greeks for example. (Teacher interview, September 2009).

Whilst also acknowledging the amount of planning needed as a barrier this wasn’t seen as insurmountable, due to the beneficial effects for learners that resulted, in particular for learners who normally exhibited behavioural issues (almost 50 % of the group were on a behaviour support program):

I think the DS kept them focused and on task and they had to get on with each other because it was a group and they had to get on with each other because otherwise they would fail…and if their group failed it would make the other groups fail because they wouldn’t get the information they needed. (Teacher interview, September 2009)

Reflection and Conclusions

The main conclusions arising from this research are around the use of technology as a tool for learning, although there are several insights into the relationship between written language, speech, and digital chat that need further exploration, particularly around the need for learners to acquire exploratory talk. This would have been best achieved by producing a personalised plan for each learner around his/her abilities with the production of exploratory talk. Ultimately, the research showed that the initial premise that the DS could be used to develop exploratory talk was a little overambitious for two main reasons: the limitations of the tool itself and the limitations of the research design that relied upon teachers being able to input exploratory forms of talk as models for learner use. In the end, this was achieved in part by the learning design, which generated the needs for such forms, but there was no overt or consistently applied textual modelling. However, the use of the DS was instrumental in developing literacy and summarizing discussions. As such it was part and parcel of the development of exploratory talk that occurred as a result of the activity. It added to the simulation’s sense of realistic tasks and required spoken language to be transcribed into standard forms for communication.

A main conclusion from the project, therefore, would be that when combined with suitable pedagogy, technology can be seamlessly integrated as a tool to enhance learning experiences that do build a climate of trust and collaboration (motivation of children with behavioural difficulties to support the endeavours of their group and the collaborative task) and develop a dialogic space for pursuing creative solutions to problems (the DS was certainly used to solve problems and communicate ideas) (Mercer and Littleton, 2007). Further, there is a strong need to engage with the ‘digital truths’ of learners’ social and non-school use of digital technologies and actively seek a match or fit of elements of those habits with the ‘analogue realities’ of face-to-face, classroom-based engagement. In fact, this research points to a subtle change in emphasis being required. Rather than adapting technology to fit the patterns of pedagogy within the classroom, we should consider the ways in which learners engage in digital environments and adapt our pedagogies to exploit this engagement. In addition, it is important to remember that there is no ‘agency’ within technology; 21st century skills need to be developed by teachers and learners in meaningful pedagogical contexts that are designed for that purpose or co constructed. We also need to


consider the position of technology being used to do things it wasn’t designed to do (after Fisher 2006). The DS was probably not the best tool to use for the activity we had planned. Skype would have been better as would laptop computers, as these are the tools that a professional would have used. In addition, the communicator metaphor could have been maintained by using one digital tool per group.

On a final note, the study itself shows a way forward where researchers and practitioners work together to bring about improvements in practice. This provided a legitimate space for experimentation and change. The DS was repurposed from derivative brain training use to use as a tool within a problem-based learning scenario that was integrated with meaningful pedagogy. As Fisher, (2006 p. 301) notes, “Digital technologies provide the tools or mediational means to be used by teachers and learners. The key to this approach is that neither the teachers or the tools may be understood in isolation.”

References

Attewell, J., Savill-Smith, C., & Douch, R. (2009). The impact of mobile learning: Examining what it means for teaching and learning. Retrieved from https://crm.lsnlearning.org.uk/user/order.aspx?code=090068

Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2007, December) The digital native and digital immigrant: A dangerous opposition. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), Liverpool, UK. Retrieved from http://www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff/sian/natives_final.pdf

BBC (2010, January 20) Phone texting 'helps pupils to spell' Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8468351.stm

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds., 1991). The challenge of problem-based learning. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning: Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (pp. 119-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.119

Chen, W., & Looi, C. K. (2007). Incorporating online discussion in face to face classroom learning: A new blended learning approach, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 307-326.

Claxton, G. (2005) Learning to learn: a key goal in a 21st century curriculum. London:QCA. Retrieved from http://www.qcda.gov.uk/6141.aspx

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1995). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Communities and local government UK: Indices of multiple deprivation (2007). Retrieved from http://www.imd.communities.gov.uk/InformationDisplay.aspx


https://crm.lsnlearning.org.uk/user/order.aspx?code=090068

http://www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff/sian/natives_final.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8468351.stm

http://www.qcda.gov.uk/6141.aspx

http://www.imd.communities.gov.uk/InformationDisplay.aspx

Hogarth, S., Bennett, J., Campbell, B., Lubben, F., & Robinson, A., (2005) A systematic review of the use of small-group discussions in science teaching with students aged 11-18 In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=324

Fisher, T. (2006) Educational transformation: Is it, like ‘beauty’, in the eye of the beholder, or will we know it when we see it? Education and Information Technologies, 11, 293–303. doi: 10.1007/s10639-006-9009-1

Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gee, J. P. (2005). What would a state of the art instructional video game look like? Innovate 1(6). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=80

Hadfield, M., Jopling, M., Royle, K., & Southern, L. (2009). Evaluation of the training and development agency for schools’ funding for ICT in ITT projects. London, UK: TDA.

Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.

Harasim, L. (1989). Online education: A new domain. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 50-57). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1983). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Kucer, S. B. (2001). Dimensions of literacy. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational research Journal, 30(3), 359-377.

Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007) Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London, UK: Routledge.

Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education, 20(6), 507-528.

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the Classroom. British Educational Research Journal 25(1), 95-111.

NASA (1970) Transcript of Apollo 13 ground to air transmissions. Washington DC: NASA Retrieved from http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/apollo13.htm .

Oblinger, D. (2003) Boomers, gen-Xers and millennials: Understanding the new students. Educause Review, 38(4), 37-47. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf

Ofsted. (2007). Windmill Primary School inspection report. Manchester, UK: Ofsted, HMI.

Prain, V., & Lyons, L. (2000). Using information and communication technologies in English: An Australian perspective. In A. Goodwyn (Ed.), English in the digital age. London, UK: Cassell Education.


http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=324

http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=80

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/apollo13.htm

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf


Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon 9(6): 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.htm

Prensky, M. 2009. H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705

Rose, J. (2009) Independent review of the primary curriculum: Final report: London, UK: DCSF.

Ruberg, L. F., Moore, D. M., & Taylor, C. D. (1996). Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 243-268.

Royle, K. (2008) Game-based learning: A different perspective, Innovate Online, 4(4). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol4_issue4/Game-Based_Learning-__A_Different_Perspective.pdf

Valacich, J., Dennis, A., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 448-467.

Wegerif, R., Littleton, K., Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Rowe, D. (2004). Widening access to educational opportunities through teaching children how to reason together. Westminster Studies in Education, 27(2), 143-156.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.htm

http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.htm

http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705

http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol4_issue4/Game-Based_Learning-__A_Different_Perspective.pdf

Volume 6, Number 1 Spring 2010 Edited by: Mark van â€t Hooft A

Documents

Transcript of Volume 6, Number 1 Spring 2010 Edited by: Mark van â€t Hooft A