bridge21 bera-2015

15/09/2015

1

“21st Century Learning” in Irish Second Level Classrooms – The Bridge21 Experience

Introduc)on

Slide deck available at slideshare.net/tangney

[email protected] Centre for Research in IT in Educa)on, School of Educa)on and School of Computer Science & Sta)s)cs

15/09/2015

2

Motivation - I

“21st Century Teaching & Learning” “The European framework for key competences sets out the knowledge, skills and attitudes required in the knowledge society that should be placed at the core of competence development in schools”. Improving Competences for the 21st Century, European Commission (2008)

15/09/2015

3

But Supports Needed

•  PRIMAS (2013);

•  MASCIL (2014);

•  Euler & Maaß, (2011);

•  Maaß & Artigue, (2013);

•  Somekh, B. (2008).

Motivation - II

15/09/2015

4

ICT in the Classroom

The SAMR Model for Integrating ICT into the Classroom

Puentedura, R. (2012)

15/09/2015

5

Bridge21 a Pragma)c Model of 21st Century Teaching and Learning at the Transforma)on Layer

www.bridge21.ie

15/09/2015

6

Set-Up

• Divergent Thinking Warm Up

• Define Problem • Research • Convergent Thinking Investigate

• Tasks • Roles • Schedule Planning

• Create • Review • Reflect Create

Present

Reflect

Bridge21 Lesson Template

Bridge21 Ac)vity 2008-‐2011

Between 2008 and 2011 over 7,000 students particiapted in Bridge21 outreach workshops in a purpouse designed learning space in TCD. 1.  Sullivan S., Marshall K., Tangney B., Teaching without teachers; peer teaching with the Bridge21 model for collabora:ve

technology-‐mediated learning, Journal of IT Educa)on: Inova)on in Prac)ce – 2015, (14), 63-‐83.

2.  Lawlor J., Marshall K., Tangney B., Bridge21 – Exploring the poten:al to foster intrinsic student mo:va:on through a team-‐based, technology mediated learning model, Technology, Pedagogy and Educa)on, 2015, p1-‐20.

3.  Lawlor J., Conneely C., Tangney B., Towards a pragma:c model for group-‐based, technology-‐mediated, project-‐oriented learning – an overview of the B2C model, Proceedings of the 2010 TechEduca Conference, Athens, May, 2010, pp 602-‐609.

4.  Tangney, B., Oldham, E., Conneely, C., BarreZ, E., Lawlor, J., Pedagogy and processes for a computer engineering outreach workshop – the B2C model, IEEE Transac)ons in Educa)on, 2010, vol 53 no 1, pp53-‐60.

15/09/2015

7

Motivation - III

The Irish Secondary School Context

14

Year 1 • Age ~13 – Junior Cylce

Year 2 • Age ~14 – Junior Cycle

Year 3 • Age ~ 15 – Junior Cycle • State Examination – Junior Certificate

Year 4 • Age ~16 – Transition Year – flexibilty in curriculum

Year 5 • Age ~17 – Senior Cycle

Year 6

• Age ~ 18 – Senior Cylce • HIGH STAKES STATE EXAMINATION • Grades are sole requirement for entry to 3rd level

15/09/2015

8

Current Reform Process Junior Cycle

19/9/2012 15

Assessment of learning &

achievement

Learning Model School

Development Ac)vi)es

A “21st Century” School

The role of the teacher

Classroom & school design

Teacher & student

development & training needs

Assimila)ng content/curriculum for student-‐led

learning Embedding key skills within subject content

AdapFng the Bridge21 Model for Use in School

15/09/2015

9

Joined Up Solu)ons

Educational system/context

Teacher professional development and pre-service

education

Evidence base

Develop activities & design principles

Train students

Model of 21st T&L

Bridge21 - 21st Century Teaching

& Learning (400 teachers)

Computer Science

Workshops using Bridge21

(600 teachers)

TA21/CFES (1,100 students)

Impact & Evaluation

Trinity Access 21 3 Year Project (2014 – 2017) - Funded by Google

15/09/2015

10

Related Symposia 1. Changing the college going culture in

disadvantaged schools – the TA21 approach, Cliona Hannon et al.

2. Computa:onal Thinking across the Life-‐

course, Nina Bresnihan et al.

Bridge21 2014/15 Numbers •  Schools

–  11 Disadvantaged Schools in collabora)on with Trinity Access Programmes

•  (TA21 Project -‐ hZp://www.tcd.ie/ta21/) –  Bridge21 – 10 Schools (range of socio-‐economic and geography)

•  Teachers –  87 postgraduate cer)ficate in 21st Century Teaching/STEM –  100 non accredited CS workshops –  140 TCD’s teacher training degree

15/09/2015

11

Bridge21 2014/15 Numbers •  Students

–  220 in TY workshops (week long) –  800 in Introduc)on to Bridge21 (1-‐2 days) –  120 CS TY workshops (week long) –  250 Primary School Program (1 day) –  90 Code Plus -‐ girls only secondary schools (10 week programme)

Symposium Content 1) Cultural Heritage Spaces, the Curriculum & Bridge21. Danielle O’Donovan

2)  Contextualised Mathema:cs with Bridge21. Aibhín Bray

3) Lessons from using the Bridge21 model in the context of 21st century learning approaches. Damian Murchans & Keith Johnston

4) Discussant Carina Girvan (Cardiff)

15/09/2015

12

Bibliography

•  Euler, M., & Maaß, K. (2011). Report about the survey on inquiry-based learning and teaching in the European partner countries. Retrieved from Freiburg: http://www.primas-project.eu/

•  Galton M. and Hargreaves L. (2009). "Group work: still a neglected art." Cambridge Journal of Education 39(1): 1-6.

•  Maaß, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: a synthesis. ZDM, 45(6), 779-795.

•  Puentedura, R. (2012). "The SAMR model: Background and exemplars." Retrieved June 24: 2013 •  Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. International

handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, Springer: 449-460.

Publica)ons I The Model 1.  Sullivan S., Marshall K., Tangney B., Teaching without teachers; peer teaching with the Bridge21 model for collabora:ve technology-‐

mediated learning, Journal of IT Educa)on: Inova)on in Prac)ce – 2015, (14), 63-‐83. Retrieved from hZp://www.jite.org/documents/Vol14/JITEv14IIPp063-‐083Sullivan0919.pdf

2.  Lawlor J., Marshall K., Tangney B., Bridge21 – Exploring the poten:al to foster intrinsic student mo:va:on through a team-‐based, technology mediated learning model, Technology, Pedagogy and Educa)on, 2015, p1-‐20. hZp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1023828

3.  Lawlor J., Conneely C., Tangney B., Towards a pragma:c model for group-‐based, technology-‐mediated, project-‐oriented learning – an overview of the B2C model, Proceedings of the 2010 TechEduca Conference, Athens, May, 2010, pp 602-‐609.

4.  Tangney B., Bray A., Oldham E., Realis:c Mathema:cs Educa:on, Mobile Technology & The Bridge21 Model For 21st Century Learning – A Perfect Storm, in Mobile Learning and Mathema:cs: Founda:ons, Design, and Case Studies, Crompton H., & Traxler J., (Eds) Routledge, pp 96-‐105.

Computer Programming 1.  Tangney, B., Oldham, E., Conneely, C., BarreZ, E., Lawlor, J., Pedagogy and processes for a computer engineering outreach

workshop – the B2C model, IEEE Transac)ons in Educa)on, 2010, vol 53 no 1, pp53-‐60. 2.  Sullivan, K., Byrne, J. R., Bresnihan, N., O'Sullivan, K. & Tangney, T. CodePlus - Designing an After School Computing

Programme for Girls. 45th Annual Conference Frontiers in Education (FIE), 21 - 24 October 2015 El Paso, USA, to appear

15/09/2015

13

Publica)ons II Teacher CPD 1.  Fisher, L., Byrne, J. R. & Tangney, B. (2015) Exploring Teacher Reac:ons Towards a 21St Century Teaching and Learning

Approach to Con:nuing Professional Development Programme in Computer Science, 7th Interna)onal Conference on Computer Supported Educa)on (CSEDU), 23 -‐ 25 May 2015 Lisbon, Portugal, pp 22-‐31

2.  Byrne, J. R., Fisher, L. & Tangney, B. (2015) Computer Science Teacher reac:ons towards Raspberry Pi Con:nuing Professional Development (CPD) workshops using the Bridge21 Model , 10th Interna)onal Conference on Computer Science & Educa)on (ICCSE), 22-‐24 July 2015 Cambridge, UK, in press

3.  Byrne, J. R., Fisher, L. & Tangney, B. (2015) Empowering Teachers to Teach Computer Science -‐ A social construc:vist approach using the Bridge21 Model for CS CPD., 45th Annual Conference Fron)ers in Educa)on (FIE), 21 -‐ 24 October 2015 El Paso, USA, in press

Use in Schools 1.  Conneely, C., Girvan, C., Lawlor, J., Tangney, B., An Exploratory Case Study into the Adap:on of the Bridge21 Model for

21st Century Learning in Irish Classrooms, in editor(s) Butler, D., Marshall, K., Leahy, M., Shaping our Future: How the lessons of the past can shape educa:onal transforma:on, Dublin, Liffey Press. 2015, pp 348-‐381.

2.  Johnston K., Conneely C., Murchan D., Tangney B., Enac:ng Key Skills-‐based Curricula in Secondary Educa:on: Lessons from a Technology-‐mediated, Group-‐based Learning Ini:a:ve, Technology, Pedagogy and Educa)on, 2014, pp1-‐20.

3.  Conneely C., Murchan D., Tangney B., & Johnston K. (2013). 21 Century Learning –Teachers’ and Students’ Experiences and Views of the Bridge21 Approach within Mainstream Educa)on. Proceedings of Society for Informa:on Technology & Teacher Educa:on Interna:onal Conference (SITE), 5125-‐5132.

4.  Louise Merrigan, Carina Girvan, Kevin Marshall and Brendan Tangney (2013). Teacher AWtudes To Assessment, AfL and ICT for Assessment in Bridge21 Schools, Case Study Report for the NCCA, (p51), Dublin: Centre for Research in IT in Educa)on , Trinity College Dublin.

5.  Carina Girvan, Ciarán Bauer and Brendan Tangney (2013) Integra:ng the Bridge21 Model for 21st Century Learning in Irish Second Level Classrooms. Case Study Report for the NCCA. (pp. 49). Dublin: Centre for Research in IT in Educa)on, Trinity College Dublin.

Bridge21 Supporters

15/09/2015

14

Presenta)on 1 : Cultural Heritage, ‘Doing History’ & Bridge21

[email protected]

Finding a place for Cultural Heritage in a ‘crowded curriculum’

15/09/2015

15

Learning History – Internationally Recognized Problems

•  Memorization •  Text book centred (single

source) •  Largely instructionist

teaching method •  Perceived by students

mainly to be about reading and writing

•  Perceived as not vocational – irrelevant, particularly in the jobs market

How teaching history should change …

from the technical act of conveying knowledge

to a cultural act that teaches students about warrant, about the nature of understanding and about their own role in making historical knowledge

NYU Press (2000)

15/09/2015

16

Historical Thinking

• Think about a document’s author and its creation Sourcing

• Situate the document and its events in time and place Contextualising

• Carefully consider what the document says and the language used to say it Close Reading

• Use historical information and knowledge to read and understand the document

Using Background Knowledge

•  Identify what has been left our or is missing from the document by asking questions of its account Reading the Silences

• Ask questions about important details across multiple sources to determine points of agreement and disagreement Corroborating

Sam Wineburg, Stanford University, author of Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past, winner of the 2002 Frederick W. Ness Award for the “most important contribution to understanding the liberal arts” by the American Association of Colleges and Universities.

History Teaching Transformation meets Transformative use of Technology

• Technology, Social Constructivist & Constructionist Approaches

• Using Primary Sources to DO History • Designing Open but Guided Enquiries

Roy Rozenwig & Randy Brass ‘Rewiring the History and Social Studies Classroom: Needs, Frameworks, Dangers, and Proposals (White Paper, 1999)

15/09/2015

17

Teaching History in the Digital Age

“The best way to use digital media to teach them to see history as we [historians] see it is to create learning opportunities that make it possible for our students to do history – to practice it – to help them make history, using their own creative impulses, rather than simply giving us what they hope is the correct answer to a question we have posed.” T. Mills Kelly, Teaching History in the Digital Age (Michigan,

2013)

How can we use Bridge21 model to affect change in the teaching of history?

15/09/2015

18

Bridge21 Meets Heritage Learning Design

Built Heritage Online Primary

Resources

Online Secondary Resources

Present findings using

technology

Development of “21st Century Skills”

•  Brainstorm – how was life different in 1911?

•  The 1911 Census Challenge – finding various figures from Irish 20th Century History

•  Choose a building to look up in the 1911 Census

•  Extract all information from the various Census forms

•  Search the web for further information about the house/family

•  Present findings via video, poster, drama etc.

15/09/2015

19

7KH�(GZDUGLDQ�+RXVH��7KH�0LGGOH�FODVV�+RPH�LQ�%ULWDLQ��+HOHQ�&�/RQJ��UHDG�RQ�JRRJOH�ERRNV�7KH��&HQVXV�2QOLQH

$W�WKH�IROORZLQJ,GHDO��KRPH�H[KLELWLRQ�LQ��D�IXOO�VFDOH�LGHDO�KRXVH�ZDV�VKRZQ�ZKLFK�FRVW��SRXQGV�WR�EXLOG�DQG�KDG�HOHYHQ�URRPV��LQFOXGLQJ�D�GLQLQJ�URRP��GUDZLQJ�URRP��ILYH�EHGURRPV��GUHVVLQJ�URRPV�DQG�D�ORXQJH�KDOO�ZLWK�HOHFWULF�OLJKW�DQG�IXUQLVKLQJV�E\�%DUNHUV�³ZHOO�ZLWKLQ�PRGHUDWH�KRPHV´��+RPH�PDQXDOV�LOOXVWDWH�D�VLPLODU�UDQJH��IRU�H[DPSOH�0UV�+XPSKUH\¶V�%RRN�RI�WKH�+RPH��ZKLFK�JDYH�DGYLFH�RQ�KRZ�D��URRP�KRXVH�FRXOG�EH�IXUQLVKHG�IRU��

7KH�QRWLRQ�RI�WKH�µLGHDO�KRPH¶�ZDV�FRPPRQ�RQH�E\�WKH�HDUO\�WZHQWLHWK�FHQWXU\��7KH��,GHDO�+RPH�([KLELWLRQ�GLVSOD\HG�D�IXOO�VFDOH�³LGHDO�VPDOO�KRPH´�FRVWLQJ��WR�EXLOG�DQG�FRQWDLQLQJ�HLJKW�URRPV��D�KDOO��OLYLQJ�URRP��SDUORXU�RU�³VRFLDO�URRP´��IRXU�EHGURRPV��EDWKURRP�DQG�NLWFKHQ��$W�WKH�VDPH�H[KLELWLRQ��$UGLQJ�DQG�+REEV�IXUQLVKHG�D�UHDO�HLJKW�URRPHG�KRXVH��9HURQLFD�5RDG��%DOKDP��FRPSULVLQJ�WKUHH�UHFHSWLRQ�URRPV��D�GUDZLQJ�URRP��GLQLQJ�URRP�DQG�PRUQLQJ�RU�EUHDNIDVW�URRP��IRXU�EHGURRPV�DQG�D�VHUYDQW¶V�EHGURRP��

,Q��0RUHKDPSWRQ�5RDG�ZDV�OLYHG�LQ�E\�+HQHU\�%HOOLQJKDP�6RPHUYLOOH�DQG�KLV�ZLIH�0DU\��GDXJKWHU�(OL]DEHWK�0DU\�DQG�WZR�VHUYDQWV��7KH�IDPLO\�RFFXSLHG��URRPV��+HQU\�ZDV�D�UHWLUHG�

'LVWULFW�,QVSHFWRU�RI�WKH�5R\DO�,ULVK�&RQVWDEXODU\��

1R��0RUHKDPSWRQ�5RDG��$Q�,GHDO�(GZDUGLDQ�+RPH"

��1RUWKXPEHUODQG�5RDG�YV��&KXUFK�6WUHHW285�352-(&7:H�GHFLGHG�WR�GR�WKH�DUWLVWLF�VLGH�E\�GUDZLQJ�DQG�SDLQWLQJ�FKDUDFWHUV�RQ�WKH�ZDOO��:H�GUHZ��D�ULFK�PDQ�IURP��DQG�D�SRRU�NLG�IURP��7KH�UHDVRQ�ZH�GLG�WKLV�LV�WR�VKRZ�WKH�FRQWUDVW�EHWZHHQ�ULFK�DQG�SRRU�LQ��WR�VKRZ�WKDW�WKHUH�ZDV�SRYHUW\�SUREOHPV�EDFN�WKHQ��:H�DUH�DOVR�VKRZLQJ�WKH�GLIIHUHQW�LQ�FORWKLQJ�RI�ULFK�DQG�SRRU�SHRSOH��

7+(�7($0'5(:��&2125��+8*+��0$(9(��-$<686�3$77(5621

�

��1257+80%(5/$1'�52$',Q��LQ��1RUWKXPEHUODQG�URDG��WKH�MXQLRU�VFKRRO��0DU\�)UDQFHV�:HVW�D�ZHDOWK\�VLQJOH�ZRPDQ�OLYHG�ZLWK�KHU�PDLG�.DWH�.HQQHG\��7KH\�RQO\�VSRNH�(QJOLVK�DQG�FRXOG�UHDG�DQG�ZULWH�7KH\�ZHUH�ERWK�5RPDQ�&DWKROLF��0DU\�ZDV�IURP�:H[IRUG�DQG�.DWH�IURP�'XEOLQ��:H�FDQ�DOVR�ILQG�RXW�DERXW�WKH�DFWXDO�KRXVH�ZKLFK�KDG��URRPV��ZLQGRZV�LQ�WKH�IURQW��WKH�URRI�ZDV�PDGH�RI�VODWH��WKH�ZDOOV�ZHUH�PDGH�RI�EULFN��

��&+85&+�675((72Q�WKH��QG�RI�6HSWHPEHU��WZR�KRXVHV��DQG��FKXUFK�VWUHHW�FROODSVHG�EHFDXVH�WKH�KRXVHV�ZHUH�LQ�KRUULEOH�FRQGLWLRQ��7KH�ODQGORUGV�GLGQ¶W�WDNH�DQ\�FDUH�RI�WKH�KRXVH��&KXUFK�VWUHHW�ZDV�D�YHU\�SRRU�SDUW�RI�'XEOLQ�DQG�LW�ZDV�PDGH�RI�WHQHPHQWV��SHRSOH�GLHG�WKDW�GD\�DQG�ZH�ZDQWHG�WR�LQYHVWLJDWH�LQWR�ZKR�ZDV�OLYLQJ�LQ�WKH�KRXVH��FKXUFK�VWUHHW�LQ�FRPSDULVRQ�WR�WKH�ULFK�1RUWXPEHUODQG�URDG��,Q��&KXUFK�VWUHHW�WKHUH�ZHUH��SHRSOH�LQ�WRWDO�OLYLQJ�LQ�WKH�KRXVH�DQG�WKHUH�ZHUH��GLIIHUHQW�IDPLOLHV

&RPSDULVRQ7R�FRQFOXGH�WKH�FRPSDULVRQ�LQ��1RUWKXPEHUODQG�URDG��SHRSOH�OLYHG�LQ�D��URRP�KRXVH�DQG�LQ��FKXUFK�VWUHHW��SHRSOH�OLYHG�LQ�D��URRP�KRXVH��1RUWKXPEHUODQG�URDG�ZDV�D�ZHDOWK\�VWUHHW�DQG�WKH�KRXVHV�ZHUH�DOO�YHU\�ZHOO�GRQH�DQG�IDQF\�DQG�ZHOO�NHSW��WKH�KRXVH��FKXUFK�VWUHHW�ZDV�LQ�EDG�FRQGLWLRQ�LW�ZDV�XQK\JLHQLF�DQG�QRW�ZHOO�NHSW��7KH�ODQGORUGV�GLGQ¶W�GR�DQ\WKLQJ�WR�KHOS�WKLV�VR�WKH�FROODSVH�ZDV�EDVLFDOO\�WKHLU�IDXOW�

+($'�2)�+286( 180%(5�2)�3(23/(�,1�)$0,/<

&KULVWRSKHU�&RQUR\ �&KULVWRSKHU�&RQQRU �

1LFKRODV�)LW]SDWULFN �

7KRPDV�6KHULGDQ �

-DPHV�/\QFK �

*DEULHO�6WRNHV�OLYHV�LQ��0RUHKDPSWRQ�URDG�LQ��KH�ZDV�D�.QLJKW�&RPPDQGHU�RI�WKH�2UGHU�RI�WKH�6WDU�RI�,QGLD�LQ�,QGLD��+H�ZDV�NQLJKWHG�E\�.LQJ�*HRUJH��9�RI�(QJODQG��+H�ZDV�ERUQ�LQ�,UHODQG��DQG�HGXFDWHG�LQ�.LONHQQ\��EHIRUH�KH�ZHQW�WR�7ULQLW\�&ROOHJH��

:H�GHFLGHG�WR�GR�WR�D�GUDPDWLVDWLRQ�RI�KLV�OLIH�DV�ZH�IRXQG�KLP�YHU\�LQWHUHVWLQJ�DV�RXU�VFKRRO�XVHG�WR�EH�KLV�KRXVH��DQG�ZH�WKRXJKW�WKDW�GRLQJ�D�SOD\�ZRXOG�EH�D�ZD\�RI�WHOOLQJ�SHRSOH�DERXW�KLV�OLIH�LQ�D�IXQ�ZD\�

:H�JRW�RXU�LQIRUPDWLRQ�IURP��WKH��FHQVXV��WKH�LULVK�WLPHV�RELWXDU\�DQG�ZLNLSHGLD��

2XU�SOD\��GHSLFWV�D�VKRUW�VXPPDU\�RI�WKH�PDLQ�HYHQW�LQ�KLV�OLIH��IURP�KLV�HGXFDWLRQ�WR�KLV�WLPH�LQ�WKH�,QGLDQ�FLYLO�VHUYLFH�DQG�ILQDOO\�WR�KLV�GHDWK�

•  Brainstorm – everything you can do with this object

•  Brainstorm all the events you can from WWI and place on a timeline

•  Select the names of three soldiers from a local monument

•  Research using multiple primary & secondary sources

•  Prepare to tell one story with a video and two on paper – add all of the information to the timeline

15/09/2015

20

Documents, enquiry and the 1641 depositions

15/09/2015

21

15/09/2015

22

Presenta)on 2 – Technology Mediated Realistic Mathematics Education and the Bridge21 Model

Aibhí[email protected]

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin

Outline

1.  Context

2.  The Activities

3.  Results

15/09/2015

23

Context - Project Maths

–  A major “reform” curriculum initiative aiming for example to

•  Increase understanding, problem-solving ability and engagement

•  Emphasise problems set in context

•  Focus on constructivist learning

•  Encourage the meaningful use of technology

–  For faithful implementation of intentions, suitable rich and engaging tasks needed…

–  … as described here


Context - Realistic Mathematics Education •  Use of meaningful contexts.

•  Development of models to help move from the original context to the formal mathematical one.

•  The teacher acting as a guide, helping students to re-invent the concepts themselves through the creation of their own productions and constructions.

•  Interactivity between pupils and with the teacher.

•  A view of mathematics as a connected subject, within and outside the discipline.

15/09/2015

24

The Activities

Activities – Design Heuristics

Literature Review

Pilot Interventions in Bridge21

Teacher Workshops in Bridge21

Research Contribution:

Design Heuristics

In-school interventions

Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2014). Barbie Bungee Jumping, Technology and the Contextualised Learning of Mathematics. 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU2014), 3, 206-2013

15/09/2015

25


Activities - Design Heuristics Tasks •  Contextual •  Meaningful/real •  Problem-solving •  Open-ended •  Low-floor, high-ceiling •  Guided discovery •  Intertwining of strands

Various technologies •  Transformative and Computational


Sample Activities

15/09/2015

26

The Barbie Bungee

Challenge: Using a doll, rubber bands, and some free software, calculate how many bands it would take to give Barbie an exhilarating, but safe jump from a height?

Mathematics: Collection, representation and analysis of data, correlation, line of best fit, extrapolation.


Barbie Video

15/09/2015

27

Analysis

Methods and Data Mixed methods –  Exploratory case study (N = 55) –  Explanatory case study (N = 66) –  Teacher CPD course (N = 33)

Quantitative –  MTAS (Pierce, Stacey, & Barkatsas, 2007) –  20 Item pre/post questionnaire, 5 sub-sections

•  Mathematical Confidence (MC) •  Technological Confidence (TC) •  Affective Engagement (AE) •  Behavioural Engagement (BE) •  Attitude to using Technology for learning Mathematics (MT)

–  Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test analysis of pre/post-tests

Qualitative –  Focus-group and individual interview

•  Directed Content Analysis •  Constant Comparative Analysis

15/09/2015

28

Results • Quantitative:

• Qualitative

Positive change in all subscales; Statistically significant (p<0.05) increases in AE and MT

Maths

Design Heuristics Impact Positive effects Contextual, open-ended, hands-on tasks =>

Curiosity and Interest => Desire for understanding

AE, BE, MC

Meaningful tasks, Intertwined strands =>

Relevance =>

AE, BE

Guided Discovery => Sense of ownership => AE, BE, MC Use of technology => Outsourcing, Meaningful tasks => MC, TC, MT, AE, BE

Teams => Collaboration, peer learning => BE, MC

The Student Voice –  It changed the way I look at maths.

–  We learnt much more. Because we learned by what we did. It was me and not just what someone said.

–  You're actually seeing it happening in front of you and you have to figure out what's happening for yourselves.

–  You're going to have much more interest when you can use computers and other physical things, instead of just thinking.

–  It was a life-changing experience.

AE

BE

MT

MC

15/09/2015

29

Warm up!

• Form groups of 3 – 4

• Work together to try to solve following problem

• You have 5 minutes!

Warm Up!

Someone has written a sentence containing only five words, the mean number of letters in each word is 4, but none of the words has four letters. What might the sentence have been?

15/09/2015

30

Solutions?

•  The cow is above gravity!

•  I do not get mathematics!

•  An ode to mathematical π.

Presenta)on 3 : Lessons from using the Bridge21 model in the context of 21st century learning approaches

Damian Murchan, Keith Johnston, Claire Conneely, School of Education & School of Computer Science

15/09/2015

31

Structure/Overview • Research methodology

– Design & participants – Research objectives

• Findings – F1. Findings 1: Students’ experiences and views – F2. Findings 2: Teachers’ experiences and views – F3. Findings 3: Impact on Key skills

• Summary and conclusion

61

Adapting B21 to the School/Classroom • Implementation options

– Single subject model – Integrated curriculum model – Thematic model

• Teacher CPD: planning, experiential learning, reflection & reform of practice

• Workshops for students at beginning of year

• Degree of fit between B21 approach and realisation of Key Skills?

62

15/09/2015

32

Methodology - Design and Sampling Cohort 1 (c1)

• Case study of two secondary schools (n=134) • 25 teachers; 134 students. Mix of curriculum approaches • Pre and post student questionnaire incl visual representation • Team & individual reflections • Focus groups with participant teachers in Schools A and B Numeric and non-numeric analysis Cohort 1 (c2) • Pre and post student questionnaire • Pre-test: 394 students; 75% female; 7 schools; 16% ESL • Post-test: 170 students; 4 schools; 84% female; 25% ESL

63

Methodology - Research Objectives

1.  Illustrate students’ and teachers’ experiences and views of Bridge21

2.  Identify the factors that facilitate and impede the implementation of the Bridge21 model within the sample of schools

3.  Assess the viability of the technology-mediated collaborative learning model as a vehicle for the realisation of selected key skills by students in the participating schools

64

15/09/2015

33

Use of Technology • B21 rated Excellent/Good: 96% (c1), 75% (c2) • Students reported greater use of technology: 1-2 times per month rising to an average of 1-2 times per week (c1)

• Technology was present in the visual depictions of 64% of student representations (c1): the majority depicted using technology alone and without the teacher present.

Interaction between Use of Technology, Collaboration and Role of teacher in drawings

65

Element of Bridge21 model Yes No Unclear Collaborate with others 28 54 18 Teacher Visible 13 72 15

F1: Student Experience

Use of Technology

66

Visual examples(c1):


15/09/2015

34

Use of Technology Frequency of learning resource use (c2)

67

Learning Resources Used in all B21

classes Used in most B21

classes Used in some B21

classes Used occasionally Never used

Laptop 31 17 8 9 34

PC 3 34 29 17 8 13

Textbook 21 16 20 10 32

Whiteboard 1 45 32 10 7 6

SoVware 2 42 27 14 6 11

Worksheets 4 24 36 16 10 13

Camera 34 17 16 10 13

Copybook 27 17 15 9 32


Use of Technology Qualitative examples :

Motivational factor and contribution to enjoyment of learning • “it made learning fun working with computers”, “helped me see that computers are a great way of learning” (c1)

Acquisition of technology related skills • “improving skills on computers”, “it helped me use cameras”, “learned how to make a movie”, “upload some camera files” (c1)

• “ It showed me how to use technology like the computer and camera” (c2)

68


15/09/2015

35

Use of Technology Location of B21 Activities (c2)

LocaFon Used in all B21 classes

Used in most B21 classes

Used in some B21 classes

Used occasionally

Never used

Classroom 1 54 20 10 6 11

School library 14 13 12 9 53

Computer room2 33 27 21 5 14

School hall 11 13 16 12 48

Other rooms in school 3 24 22 21 12 22

Outside (school grounds) 4

16 15 15 16 18

Outside of school 11 11 12 11 56

69

c. 1 1. Outside 2. Other room 3. Classroom 4. Computer Room


Learning Collaboratively • Qualitative examples (c1): • Pre: “I don’t like sitting at a desk for a whole class” • Post: “we interacted with everyone” • Pre:“sitting listening to [the] teacher go on and on” • Post:“working in groups with more independence

than in a normal class” • Qualitative examples (c2):

•  “we learned that it is better to learn in a group every now and again”, “I can work in a group better now” (c2)

• Visual examples (c1): 70


15/09/2015

36

Students’ Visual Representations(c1)

71

Elements reflected in participant images Yes No Unclear Pair or group collaboration 38 47 15 Use of technology 64 30 6 Teacher visible 16 67 17 Learning occurs away from classroom 3 14 84

Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding The figures are based only on those 112 students who provided a drawing.


Role of the Teacher Student responses indicated recognition of a change in teacher role Greater awareness of own learning and ability to plan and implement learning strategies

I drew up or helped to draw up an action plan for a task – Rarely/Never: 43% reduced to 23% post-intervention (c1)

27% to 21% (c2) – Mean: Pretest 1-2 times a month)

Posttest closer to 1-2 times a week (c2) I plan for learning one or more times per day 8% in pretest incrased to 27% at posttest. (c1)

72


15/09/2015

37

Teachers’ Views • Particular attention to changed role for teacher and student • More difficult to manage unstructured approach: unsure of amount of guidance they should provide

• Students’ prior experience in teamwork a predictor of success => students require input and practice

• Group composition a factor in success - challenges with mixed-ability groups => allocation of roles/tasks within groups

• Nature of project and timeframe seen as a factor in success

73

I would also spend some time working on teaching group work – teaching how to rely on each other.

What’s more, I didn’t give them particular roles the last time and I’d certainly do that

We gave out roles to everybody and everybody was assigned a role but I think that the roles were so difficult and unfamiliar to the weaker students …it

didn’t really work out

F2: Teacher Experience

Teachers’ Views • Teachers saw Bridge21 more in terms of a project based approach, facilitated by technology rather than dependant on it

• Technology experienced both as an enabler and as a challenge • As an enabler...

– Facilitated the team based approach – Motivating factor effecting student engagement – Enabling connections between personal and educational uses

• As a challenge... – Technical issues – As a distraction to pursue non task related interests

74


15/09/2015

38

Teachers’ Views • Student enjoyment • Student collaboration viewed as contributing factor to perceived positive outcomes: research, observational, presentational skills

• ‘Deep’ learning - positive engagement with a task based on an element of student choice and collaboration within groups

• Peer assessment experienced as a motivational factor for students to produce their best work in the context of presentations

• Student collaboration potentially worthwhile but requiring nurturing

75


Statement POST PRE DIFF

I was encouraged to think about whether my way of looking at something was the only way (Exploring options)

2.15 1.91 0.24

I was given a chance to choose what I wanted to learn (Exploring options) 1.81 1.66 0.15

I worked with one other student on a task (Cooperating) 2.83 2.44 0.39

I contribute as many ideas and suggestions as I can to a task (Contributing) 2.92 3.03 -0.11

I always listen to other students’ ideas (Contributing) 3.2 3.29 -0.09

It’s OK to spend a lot of time working on a task and not find an answer (Thinking Creatively) 2.21 2.11 0.10

Learning is all about getting the highest grade possible in a test (original coding) (Reflecting & evaluating)

2.12 2.34 -0.22

Changes in selected variable means: Pre-test to Post-test (c2)

F3: Impact on Key Skills

15/09/2015

39

Sub-Skill Variables Exploring options & alternatives

1.  I brainstormed ideas 2.  I tried to complete a task in lots of different ways 3.  While solving one problem, I learned skills that I could apply to other problems 4.  I was encouraged to think about whether my way of looking at something was the only way 5.  I was given a chance to choose what I wanted to learn

Co-operating 1.  My teammates have to ask me to do more work in a task 2.  My teacher has to ask me to do more work with my team 3.  I contribute as many ideas and suggestions as I can to a task 4.  I always do my fair share of the work 5.  I always listen to other students’ ideas

Thinking creatively and critically

1.  I like when my answer is good but different to that of other students in the class 2.  It’s OK to spend a lot of time working on a task and not find an answer 3.  I like to hear how other students plan their tasks 4.  I sometimes leave a task when I’m stuck and return to it later 5.  I look at lots of different ways of completing tasks before deciding what to do 6.  I often see connections between what I learn in different subjects

Selected Consolidated Sub-skills: Variables (c1 & c2)


Impact on Key Skills (c1)

Key Skill Sub-‐Skill Mean

Difference SD t Alpha Effect Size Being Creative Exploring options & alternatives .27 .87 3.4 .001 .32 Implementing ideas & taking action .14 .56 2.9 .005 .26 Learning creatively -‐.06 .48 -‐1.43 .154 .13 Working with Others Co-‐operating .22 1.10 2.16 .03 .23 Contributing .04 .58 .67 .51 .06 Learning with others .12 .93 1.4 .17 .15 Using ICT to work with others .34 1.32 2.6 .01 .31 Managing information and thinking

Gathering, recording, organising and evaluating information

.12 .82 1.68 .10 .17

Using information to solve problems and create new ideas

.11 .61 2.02 .05 .21

Thinking creatively and critically .12 .51 2.63 .01 .24 Reflecting on and evaluating my learning .00 .57 .67 .94 .02


15/09/2015

40

Impact on Key Skills (c1) Being creative Working with others Managing information and thinking

Imagining

Exploring options and alternatives

Implementing ideas and taking action

Changing and taking risks

Learning creatively

Being creative through ICT

Relating effectively and resolving conflict

Co-operating

Respecting difference

Contributing

Learning with others

Using ICT to work with others

Being curious

Gathering, recording, organising, and evaluating information

Using information to solve problems and create new ideas

Thinking creatively and critically

Reflecting on and evaluating my learning

Using ICT to access, manage and share knowledge

Modest evidence of gain No evidence of gain


Key Skill Sub-Skill Post Mean Post SD Pre Mean

Pre SD Mean Diff Post - Pre

Creative Exploring options & alternatives 2.15 .82 2.08 0.81 0.07 Implementing ideas & taking action 2.74 .69 2.76 0.63 -0.02 Learning creatively 2.20 .52 2.21 0.51 -0.01 Others Co-operating 2.80 .78 2.48 0.85 0.32 Contributing 2.84 .65 2.92 0.58 -0.08 Learning with others 1.97 1.03 1.95 0.91 0.02 Using ICT to work with others 2.07 1.38 1.33 1.19 0.74 Managing Gathering, recording, organising and

evaluating information 2.84 .76 2.87 0.66 -0.03

Using information to solve problems and create new ideas 3.02 .70 3.02 0.61 0.00

Thinking creatively and critically 2.68 .64 2.67 0.58 0.01 Reflecting on and evaluating my learning 2.77 .70 2.83 0.57 -0.06

Changes in skill means: Pre-test to Post-test (c2) [Unpaired samples]


15/09/2015

41

Summary & Conclusion

81 B21 Learning Model

21st Century School

• Corroborating evidence supporting the main elements of the model • Students are enthusiastic – technology, teamwork, teacher • Teachers realistic about challenges – change in role => importance of

CPD, technical support • Resolving tension between Bridge21 model and national curriculum

with high-stakes assessment – transitioning – recalibration of frames of reference

Discussant

Carina Girvan University of Wales - Cardiff