ICT

Integrated Constructive Lesson Plan

Lesson Design Considerations

The design of a lesson often determines the kinds of learning that can take place and how learning is achieved. As ICT mediates new information and content in the classroom, teachers often find themselves taking on the role of an instructor as well as a facilitator.

ICT lesson design can be based broadly on the following

Structure and Behaviour

An activity’s structure drives pupil’s behaviour. The structure of an activity and the clarity of learning outcomes have a strong effect on pupil’s behaviour. A well-designed lesson task will always reflect well-considered learning outcomes. The task should also encourage desired pupils’ behaviour through examining task organisation, roles and rules, and physical environment. For example,

  • Providing clearer instructions and objectives to pupils doing Internet search might help those with difficulty staying on task.
  • Modifying the activity structure to have reporting points for pupils to check in their progress at every stage of the task helps provide scaffolding to aid the learning of all pupils.
  • Defining pupils’ roles in teams clearly in an activity can generally promote the correct behaviour and ensure better performance at tasks.
  • Increasing the opportunities and spaces for interaction between pupils, as well as between pupils and teacher can allow closer monitoring.

Key question

How do we encourage desired outcomes?

Some considerations to meet desired outcomes are:
State learning outcomes in measurable terms
Set learning outcomes that are achievable in the lesson duration and reinforced in closure
Design tasks that support the achievement of learning outcomes

Perception and Motivation

Pupils’ perception shapes their motivation. A pupil’s positive perception of a learning task usually results in strong self-directed learning that goes well beyond the classroom. For example,

  • Tasks that are both personally relevant and within a pupil’s means to accomplish can enhance motivation. Feedback through appropriately designed assessment helps to establish this perception.
  • Pupils’ readiness for the tasks expected can enhance motivation. This can be done through preparing pupils for the tasks, creating conducive learning environment, giving pupils access to quality tools and resources for self-paced discovery and helping pupils in setting personal targets.
Key question

How will pupils perceive and relate to the task?

Some considerations to help pupils perceive and relate to the task are:
Relevance
Connect new information to pupils’ prior knowledge
Link assessment and measure it to the achievement of lesson objectives
Readiness
Activate pre-requisite knowledge and skills
Pitch lessons within pupils’ general level of ability

Engagement and Learning

When pupils focus on an activity that is directed towards the learning outcomes, learning will naturally take place. Looking for different ways to trigger and sustain pupils’ engagement to completion of a task is simpler and more effective than introducing a range of punishments and incentives.

ICT offers a diverse range of tools and resources to create exciting and experiential learning opportunities. Pupils can be engaged in different ways through different teaching and learning strategies, such as, inquiry-based learning and pupil groupings in various ICT-enabled learning environments. Employment of the following strategies can increase pupils’ motivation to learn in the long run, such as:

  • Providing more learner-centred activities with varying levels of scaffolding for pupils.
  • Setting authentic tasks.
  • Stretching pupils’ thinking with higher-order thinking questions.

Key question

How can pupils remain fully engaged?

Some considerations to help pupils remain fully engaged are:

ICT Use

Give pupils opportunity to interact and apply ICT skills
Use appropriate ICT tools that support learning outcomes

Teaching and Learning Strategies

Use appropriate pedagogies that suit pupils’ learning styles and readiness (e.g. cooperative learning, inquiry-based learning)
Tap on real-world application or points of interest
Stretch pupils’ thinking (e.g. comparing, classifying, deducing, decision making, problem solving)
Design tasks that encourage collaboration

Roles

Ensure teachers’ roles in instruction, guidance and facilitation are adequate
Define pupils’ roles in individual and collaborative learning clearly

A lesson design checklist  will be useful to facilitate the design of ICT-based lessons.

Value-add of ICT

To realise the full potential of ICT for teaching and learning, it is important to consider how ICT adds value to the learning process. The following table provides some general benefits of ICT use in relation to some actions for learning. After identifying topics in the curriculum, HODs and teachers can consider some actions for learning which would be involved and then integrate the relevant Baseline ICT Skills.

Actions for Learning Benefits of ICT Use Baseline ICT Skills Area
Gathering information from online sources Fast access to authentic and current information from different sources Learning with Searches

  • Use of Internet to search for specific information
  • Use of Internet to gather real-world data
  • Use of Internet to locate, view and compare different accounts
Viewing multi-media objects Effective way of demonstrating and illustrating abstract concepts, processes and applications Learning with Multimedia

  • Use of animation and videos
  • Use of digital graphic organisers
Manipulating variables with real-time feedback Ability to control and change variables, as well as evaluate responses to facilitate inference of patterns and relationships Basic Operations

  • Use of simulations
Collecting real-life physical data

Fast and efficient method of data collection, in particular rapidly and continuously changing data

Ability to record real-life data

 Learning with Data Collection Tools

  • Use of dataloggers to measure physical quantities
  • Use of cameras to collect evidence
  • Use of sound recorder to record interviews
Managing and processing data

Efficient method of organising and computing data

Ability to manipulate data/ variables to generate patterns

 Learning with Spreadsheet

  • Use of spreadsheet to input data into tables
  • Use of spreadsheet to sort and process data
  • Use of spreadsheet to tabulate and/or calculate
Presenting and sharing data

Ease of presenting and sharing multiple sources of information

Ability to present data through multiple modes of representation

 Learning with Spreadsheet

  • Use of charts to represent data graphically

Learning with Text

  • Use of word processor to report findings in the form of text, graphics and tables

Learning with Multimedia

  • Use of media objects to enhance presentation
Communicating with different audiences Fast and efficient method of communication Learning with Communication Tools

  • Use of emails to write to a real audience
Creating multi-authored products Ability to contribute asynchronously or synchronously to a common piece of work Learning with Communication Tools

  • Use of wikis to collaborate on an information report
Editing peer’s work Efficient method of including multiple comments/annotations in a document Learning with Text

  • Use of word processor to track changes

ICT Grouping Strategies

In order to provide opportunities for every pupil to access and use computers in their learning efficiently, teachers should develop classroom routines and strategies that help pupils to focus on accomplishing learning tasks with minimal disruptive behaviour.

In addition, teachers should consider the following ICT grouping strategies and design learning tasks with the strategies in mind to engage pupils meaningfully.

ICT Grouping Strategies ICT Use
Learning Individually
Individual use of computers is appropriate when pupils need to demonstrate individual mastery of skills or submit individual responses during the lessons.
Teachers could design two different learning tasks where half the class will be involved in a non-ICT activity while the other half uses the computers, after which both halves swop.
Learning in Pairs
Sharing a computer between a pair of pupils is appropriate when the learning tasks require interaction and collaboration between two pupils.
This arrangement also facilitates peer tutoring where pupils help each other or a higher ability pupil helps a weaker pupil.
Learning in Groups
Sharing a computer among a group of pupils provides opportunities for pupils to experience teamwork (e.g. taking turns) and collaboration.
In designing learning tasks for group work, it is important to provide them with a collaborative structure (e.g. roles assignment) so that every group member is meaningfully engaged and accountable for his/her part of the task. This will help to ensure an even contribution among members.
 
 
————–

Creating a Lesson Plan

 
From the course by University of London
ICT in Primary Education: Transforming children’s learning across the curriculum
41 ratingsUniversity of London

Why and how are teachers integrating ICT (Information and Communication Technology) into primary education? In this course we analyse examples from schools in different parts of the world, and bring professional teachers, headteachers and policymakers together to share their best ideas and inspiring stories. The materials in the course are based on studies carried out for the UNESCO Institute of IT in Education, Moscow. Learning Outcomes: to be aware of the range of reasons for using ICT to critique the strategies for developing ICT over time to analyse the strengths and weakness of different decision-making mechanisms to become familiar with a wider range of useful tools and resources for integrating ICT

From the lesson
ICT and the 21st Century Primary School
This week will enable you to be aware of the range of reasons for using ICT and to critique the strategies for developing ICT over time. You will also analyse the strengths and weakness of different decision-making mechanismsand become familiar with a wider range of useful tools and resources for integrating ICT

Meet the Instructors

  • Professor Diana Laurillard
    Professor Diana Laurillard
    Professor of Learning with Digital Technologies
    London Knowledge Lab, UCL Institute of Education, University of London
 

A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning

Qiyun Wang 

Abstract

Effective integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) into teaching and learning is becoming an essential competency for teachers. However, teachers do not usually follow linear instructional design models when they are planning for ICT integration. This paper proposes a generic model, which consists of three fundamental elements: pedagogy, social interaction and technology. Sound design of these components should help teachers to integrate ICT into their curricula in effective ways. Constructivist learning theories, the design of interactivity and the notion of usefulness provide the theoretical foundations for the construction of this model. Some examples of applying this model to the design of Web‐based learning environments, facilitation of online discussions and comparison of ICT tools are presented.

Introduction

In recent years, with the rapid development of emerging technologies, the integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has increasingly attracted the attention of teachers. A simple combination of hardware and software will not make integration naturally follow (Earle, 2002 Earle, R.S. 2002. The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology, 42(1): 5–13.  [Google Scholar]). Teachers need to plan thoughtfully before they start ICT integration into a curriculum. For instance, they have to choose the correct ICT tools for particular learning objectives or contexts, modify existing resources or develop new learning environments to engage specific groups of learners, or decide scaffolding strategies for student‐centred learning.

Numerous instructional design models are currently available to help teachers integrate ICT into a curriculum. Examples of these include: the ASSURE model (Analyse learners; State objectives; Select media and materials; Utilise media and materials; Require learner participation; Evaluate and revise) described by Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino (2001Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J.D. and Smaldino, S.E. 2001. Instructional media and technologies for learning , (7th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.  [Google Scholar]), the ICARE (Introduce; Connect; Apply; Reflect; Extend) model (Hoffman & Ritchie, 1998 Hoffman, B. and Ritchie, D. . Teaching and learning online: Tools, templates, and training. Paper presented at SITE 98: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Washington, DC.  [Google Scholar]) and the systematic planning model (Wang & Woo, 2007a Wang, Q.Y. and Woo, H.L. 2007a. Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. Educational Technology and Society, 10(1): 148–156.  [Google Scholar]). These models provide useful guidelines for incorporating ICT into teaching and learning from different perspectives. However, studies have shown that teachers who are trained in using linear instructional design models are often reluctant to apply them in real instructional planning processes due to the impracticality of the models in a complex school environment (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108: 1017–1054. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Neiss, 2005 Neiss, M.L. 2005. Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching & Teacher Education, 21: 509–523. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Nevertheless, certain elements are found fundamental in most learning settings. Sound design of these elements should ensure effective ICT integration. This paper presents a generic model, as shown in Figure 1, for guiding teachers in effective integration of ICT into teaching and learning.

Figure 1 Key components of the generic model.

The generic model consists of three key components: pedagogy, social interaction and technology. An educational system is a unique combination of pedagogical, social, and technological components (Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers, 2004 Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.W., Kreijns, K. and Beers, P.J. 2004. Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 52(3): 47–66.  [Google Scholar]). In an educational context, pedagogy often refers to the teaching strategies, techniques or approaches that teachers use to deliver instruction or facilitate learning. The pedagogical component is critical for distinguishing a learning system from other communities, such as an alumni community, as it primarily reflects the educational purposes of the learning system (Chen, 2003 Chen, T. 2003. Recommendations for creating and maintaining effective networked learning communities: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(1): 35–44.  [Google Scholar]). Other communities are often built without any concrete learning purposes in mind.

Pedagogical design is an ongoing process, which cannot be simply pre‐determined before a lesson. In addition to the selection of proper content or activities, pedagogical design must deal with how to use these resources in an effective way in order to scaffold students during learning processes. In terms of pedagogical design, a learning environment ought to support and satisfy the needs and learning intentions of students with different backgrounds. It should also involve using various learning resources and activities that support students’ learning, and allow teachers to facilitate learning (Chen, 2003 Chen, T. 2003. Recommendations for creating and maintaining effective networked learning communities: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(1): 35–44.  [Google Scholar]; Kirschner et al., 2004 Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.W., Kreijns, K. and Beers, P.J.2004. Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 52(3): 47–66.  [Google Scholar]).

Social activities are crucial in daily life. People naturally live and work in various communities, in which they turn to others for help when they encounter problems (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999 Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L. and Wilson, B.G. 1999. Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.  [Google Scholar]; Wilson & Lowry, 2000 Wilson, B. and Lowry, M. 2000. Constructivist learning on the web. New Directions for Adults and Continuing Education, 88: 79–88.  [Google Scholar]). In many situations, students might use stand‐alone computers which only allow them to interact with embedded learning resources. With the development of computer‐mediated communication (CMC), computers are now connected world‐wide. Social activities become more convenient and flexible through the support of CMC (Khine, Yeap & Tan, 2003 Khine, M.S., Yeap, L.L. and Tan, C.L. 2003. The quality of message ideas, thinking and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Educational Media International, 40(1–2): 115–125.  [Google Scholar]). Students may still use computers individually. However, they have the opportunity to work collaboratively, for instance in problem solving. Computer‐supported collaborative learning has shown positive effects on students’ performance in solving problem‐based tasks (Uribe, Klein, & Sullivan, 2003 Uribe, D., Klein, J.D. and Sullivan, H. 2003. The effect of computer‐mediated collaborative learning on solving ill‐defined problems. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 51(1): 5–19.  [Google Scholar]). The social design of a learning environment must provide a safe and comfortable space, in which learners are willing to share information and in which they can also easily communicate with others.

The technological component becomes more prominent in a technology‐enhanced learning environment, for many learning activities are conducted through the support of a computer. An online learning environment must be available all the time and access must be convenient and fast (Salmon, 2004 Salmon, G. 2004. E‐Moderating: The key to online teaching and learning , (2nd ed.), London: Taylor & Francis.  [Google Scholar]). Availability and easy access are initial requirements for an effective online learning environment. In addition, human–computer interface design is crucial – as it determines the usability of a technology‐based learning environment. The interface design of a computer program ought to focus on ease of learning, ease of use and aesthetics (Wang & Cheung, 2003 Wang, Q.Y. and Cheung, W.S. 2003. “Designing hypermedia learning environments”. In Teaching and learning with technology: An Asia‐pacific perspective, Edited by: Tan, S.C. and Wong, F.L. 216–231. Singapore: Prentice Hall.  [Google Scholar]). Ease of learning is critical for beginners while ease of use becomes more important while users gain experience over time. Certainly, the interface must be attractive so that it can motivate and engage learners.

In summary, pedagogy, social interaction and technology are critical components of a technology‐enhanced learning environment. Technology is more likely to be a basic condition for effective integration of ICT. Sound design of pedagogy or social interaction very much depends on the availability of technological support. Without sufficient support of technology, undoubtedly many pedagogical and social design activities, such as 3D simulations or asynchronous online discussions, would be hard to implement. However, the primary factor that influences the effectiveness of learning is not the availability of technology, but the pedagogical design and social design (Mandell, Sorge, & Russell, 2002Mandell, S., Sorge, D.H. and Russell, J.D. 2002. Tips for technology integration. TechTrends, 46(5): 39–43.  [Google Scholar]).

Theoretical foundations

Theoretical foundations that support this model are described in this section to elaborate why these three components are involved in this model.

Constructivist learning theories

The basic belief of constructivism is that knowledge is actively constructed by learners rather than transmitted by the teacher; learners are active knowledge constructors rather than passive information receivers (Jonassen, 1991 Jonassen, D. 1991. Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 39(3): 5–14. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Nevertheless, there are minor distinctions between cognitive constructivism and social constructivism, which are two representative types of constructivism (Hirumi, 2002 Hirumi, A. 2002. Student‐centered, technology‐rich learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10: 497–537.  [Google Scholar]; Liaw, 2004 Liaw, S.S. 2004. Considerations for developing constructivist web‐based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31: 309–321.  [Google Scholar]). Cognitive constructivists believe learners construct knowledge individually based on their prior experience and new information. Knowledge is the result of accurate internalisation and reconstruction of external reality. Social constructivists, however, argue knowledge is the outcome of collaborative construction in a socio‐cultural context mediated by discourse; learning is fostered through interactive processes of information sharing, negotiation, and discussion.

Cognitive and social learning constructivist theories give strong support to the design of pedagogical and social activities, respectively. Cognitive constructivists acknowledge individual differences and believe individual learners can construct different knowledge even given the same condition. Based on cognitive constructivism, pedagogical design must support and satisfy the needs and learning intentions of individual learners. This requires various learning resources and activities. In addition, as teachers are facilitators in a constructivist learning environment, the pedagogical design must enable teachers to scaffold students during a learning process.

On the other hand, social constructivists suggest collaborative learning with which students can learn from each other, construct correct and meaningful knowledge. Based on social constructivist learning theories, social design of an online learning environment must provide a safe and comfortable space, in which learners are willing to share information. Also, the learning environment must offer certain tools so that the students can easily communicate and collaborate with others. Obviously, cognitive and social constructivist learning theories provide theoretical support for the pedagogical and social design of an effective learning environment.

Interactivity design

Interactivity is a major construct and striking characteristic of a learning environment (Chou, 2003 Chou, C. 2003. Interactivity and interactive functions in web‐based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34: 265–279. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Vrasidas, 2000 Vrasidas, C. 2000. Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6: 339–362.  [Google Scholar]). In the instructional context, interactivity refers to sustained, two‐way communication between students, or between students and an instructor. The purpose of interactivity may be completing a learning task or building social relationships (Gilbert & Moore, 1998 Gilbert, L. and Moore, D.R. 1998. Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3): 29–35.  [Google Scholar]; Liaw & Huang, 2000 Liaw, S.S. and Huang, H.M. 2000. Enhancing interactivity in web‐based instruction: A review of the literature. Educational Technology, 40(3): 41–45.  [Google Scholar]). A technology‐based interactive learning environment involves four types of interaction: learner–content, learner–instructor, learner–learner, and learner–interface (Chou, 2003 Chou, C. 2003. Interactivity and interactive functions in web‐based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34: 265–279. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Moore, 1989 Moore, M.G. 1989. Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2): 1–6. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]). The interaction of learner–instructor and interaction of learner–learner can be combined as interaction of learner–people, or called social interaction (Liaw & Huang, 2000Liaw, S.S. and Huang, H.M. 2000. Enhancing interactivity in web‐based instruction: A review of the literature. Educational Technology, 40(3): 41–45.  [Google Scholar]; Moallem, 2003 Moallem, M. 2003. An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 51(4): 85–103.  [Google Scholar]). The interactivity in a learning environment can therefore be simplified into learner–content, learner–people, and learner–interface interaction, as depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Relationship between the model components and interaction.

These three types of interaction are closely related to the components of the generic model. As a practical guideline, the design of the three components of the model can focus on learner–content, learner–people, and learner–interface interaction, respectively. For instance, the pedagogical design of an interactive learning environment can (1) make content meaningful, authentic, and relevant to learners and (2) allow learners to add further resources to share in addition to those suggested by a teacher. The social design of a learning environment ought to (1) involve more authentic tasks, group work, or project‐based learning to promote interaction with peers, teachers and other experts, and (2) involve both synchronous and asynchronous communication, which can be implemented in forms of text, verbal chat or visual exchange. The technological design of a learning environment cannot ignore interface design, for both interaction with content and interaction with people are implemented through the interaction with the interface.

Usefulness

Kirschner et al. (2004 Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.W., Kreijns, K. and Beers, P.J. 2004. Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 52(3): 47–66.  [Google Scholar]) argued that a useful system should meet two primary conditions: necessary utility and high usability, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Illustration of the usefulness of a system.

Utility refers to the kinds of functionality that a system provides. For instance, a mobile phone must enable users to talk to others at a distance, which is the basic utility and also the value of a mobile phone. Usability is concerned with ‘whether a system allows for the accomplishment of a set of tasks in an efficient and effective way that satisfies the users’ (Kirschner et al., 2004 Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.W., Kreijns, K. and Beers, P.J. 2004. Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 52(3): 47–66.  [Google Scholar], p. 50). A mobile phone must be easy to operate. Nobody would like to buy a mobile phone with sufficient functionalities but is hard to use.

Kirschner et al. (2004 Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.W., Kreijns, K. and Beers, P.J. 2004. Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 52(3): 47–66.  [Google Scholar]) further claimed that utility and usability are vital for educational systems too. The utility of an educational artefact (like a learning environment) refers to the needed educational and social functionalities or affordances, while the usability is more concerned with technological affordances including human–computer interface design. When usability is neglected, there is a risk that an educational artefact is produced with necessary functionalities, but which cannot be handled by learners.

Applications of the generic model

This section presents some examples of using this generic model, from which teachers can learn how this model can be applied in other aspects of ICT integration.

The design of a Web‐based learning environment

A Web‐based learning environment (Wang, in press‐a) was designed for a class of trainee teachers who were seeking additional educational diplomas at the National Institute of Education in Singapore. The learning environment was designed based on pedagogical, social and technological components.

In terms of pedagogical design, the instructor chose learning activities/tasks as a result of negotiation with the trainee teachers. In order to meet their individual needs, each group (of four members) was allowed to select two different topics to study or choose one topic plus an extra final project. In addition, the instructor suggested two to five reading materials for each topic. The trainee teachers were also encouraged to add extra resources to share with their group members.

The social design of the learning environment focused on students’ interaction with their group members, the whole class and the instructor. Each group was provided with a group sharing space, in which group members could share information, discuss questions, and work on the topic. The learning environment had a facility for real‐time chatting. It also had a Question and Answer forum, in which anyone could post questions, answers or comments regarding course design or the assessment. In addition, the learning environment supported asynchronous online discussions.

With regard to technological design, an easy‐to‐use system, Moodle, was chosen as a platform to host this learning environment. The lab computers had fast Internet access. The instructor’s contact information was presented at the top of the home page so that the students could easily communicate with the instructor at any time.

The results of the study indicated that the pedagogical design of the learning environment was correct. The participants liked the flexibility offered in this environment. With regard to social design, the survey results showed that the learning environment promoted trainee teachers’ collaborative learning, knowledge construction and social relationship building. With respect to the technological aspect, they agreed that the learning environment was easy to access and navigate. They could conveniently download and upload resources. However, they met some technical problems occasionally.

More information regarding the design specifications, implementation, and evaluation results of this Web‐based learning environment can be found in Wang (in press‐a).

Facilitation of online discussions

Learning through online discussions is an important instructional strategy (Hung, Tan, & Chen, 2005 Hung, D., Tan, S.C. and Chen, D.T. 2005. How the Internet facilitates learning as dialog design considerations for online discussions. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1): 37–46.  [Google Scholar]; Wang & Woo, 2007b Wang, Q.Y. and Woo, H.L.2007b. Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face‐to‐face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2): 272–286.  [Google Scholar]). Research indicates that online discussions have numerous advantages – such as promoting students’ critical thinking and knowledge construction (Marra, Moore, & Klimczak, 2004 Marra, R.M., Moore, J.L. and Klimczak, A.K. 2004. Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 52(2): 23–40.  [Google Scholar]; Wu & Hiltz, 2004 Wu, D.Z. and Hiltz, S.R. 2004. Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2): 139–152. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v8n2/v8n2_wu.asp [Google Scholar]) and improving students’ relationship (Powers & Mitchell, 1997 Powers, S. and Mitchell, J. . Student perceptions and performance in a virtual classroom environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago.  [Google Scholar]). However, participants often do not value online discussion as an effective means of knowledge construction. Online discussion therefore needs facilitation to make it more effective (Salmon, 2004 Salmon, G. 2004. E‐Moderating: The key to online teaching and learning , (2nd ed.), London: Taylor & Francis.  [Google Scholar]; White, 2004 White, N. 2004. Facilitating and hosting a virtual community Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.fullcirc.com/community/communityfacilitation.htm [Google Scholar]).

In order to achieve this, online tutors and moderators need to have appropriate skills. The literature has reported a number of specific facilitation skills that a moderator should possess, such as providing information, inviting missing students, monitoring regularly, or acknowledging contributions (see, for example, Barker, 2002 Barker, P.G. 2002. On being an online tutor. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39: 3–13. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]). These facilitation skills can be categorised into four broad categories as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Facilitation skills for online discussions.

The pedagogical (or intellectual) role of facilitators is to help group members achieve predetermined learning objectives, such as understanding critical concepts or building subject knowledge (Green, 1998 Green, L. . Playing croquet with flamingos: A guide to moderating online conferences. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flamingoe.pdf [Google Scholar]; Hew & Cheung, in press). The social role is to create and maintain a friendly, interactive environment in which participants feel safe and comfortable to interact with one another (Anderson, 2004 Anderson, T. 2004. “Teaching in an online learning context”. In Theory and practice of online learning, Edited by: Anderson, T. and Elloumi, F. 273–294. Athabasca, CA: Athabasca University.  [Google Scholar]; White, 2004 White, N. 2004. Facilitating and hosting a virtual community Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.fullcirc.com/community/communityfacilitation.htm [Google Scholar]). The managerial role aims at setting the agenda (such as timeline, norms and rules) so that online discussions can go on smoothly. The technical role is to help group members get familiar and become comfortable with the discussion programs so that they are able to participate without technical difficulties.

The three components (pedagogy, social interaction, and technology) of the generic model are among the important facilitation skills. In addition to these, management is another critical facilitation skill. More information about the four broad categories of facilitation skills and student‐facilitators’ perceptions on these four facilitation skills can be found in Wang (2008 Wang, Q.Y. 2008. Student‐facilitators’ roles of moderating online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5): 859–874.  [Google Scholar]).

Comparison of weblogs and discussion forums

In the planning process for ICT integration, teachers often meet difficulties in deciding what or which ICT tools are more suitable for specific learning contexts. For instance, discussion forums and weblogs have certain similarities and differences. Teachers have to decide which is better for a given learning activity. Table 1 shows the differences between weblogs and discussion forums based on the affordances of the three components of the generic model. Here, affordances refer to the perceived and actual fundamental properties of an ICT tool that determine the usefulness and the ways in which it could possibly be used (Norman, 1988 Norman, D.A. 1988. The psychology of everyday things, New York: Basic Books.  [Google Scholar]). Certainly, this model can be used to identify or compare the affordances of other ICT tools as well.

Table 1. Comparison of weblogs and discussion forums.

Based on the affordances listed in Table 1, we can conclude that the weblog is a more personalised tool, as it gives the student blogger full control and ownership over the content published. It is more useful for individual reflections. The discussion forum is a shared space in which participants can exchange ideas. Students are participants rather than owners of the space. It is more likely to be useful for collaborative knowledge construction. Teachers can hence decide whether a weblog or a discussion forum should be adopted for a specific learning setting. More information with respect to the differences of weblogs and discussion forums on the pedagogical, social and technologies dimensions is provided in Wang (in press‐b).

Conclusion

Pedagogy, social interaction and technology are three key components of a technology‐enhanced learning environment. A sound design of these components should enable teachers to integrate ICT into teaching and learning in an effective way. Naturally, pedagogy and social interaction are the central focus of a learning environment, and technology provides essential support.

The generic model fits well with constructivist learning theories, interactivity design and the definition of the usefulness of a system. Consequently, the pedagogical design of a learning environment can follow the cognitive constructivist learning theory to include basic educational functionalities by focusing on interaction with content. The social design can follow the social constructivist learning theory to provide a comfortable learning space in which students can interact with peers or the teacher. The technological design must ensure the usability of the learning environment by focusing on interaction with the interface.

The generic model is applicable in many phases of an instructional planning process. It can be used to guide the design and evaluation of Web‐based learning environments; facilitate online discussions; or help teachers to compare and choose appropriate tools for specific educational contexts.

Notes on contributor

Qiyun Wang is an assistant professor in the Academic Group of Learning Science and Technologies (LST) at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interests include online learning, interactive learning environment design and constructivist learning.

References

  • Anderson, T. 2004. “Teaching in an online learning context”. In Theory and practice of online learning, Edited by: Anderson, T. and Elloumi, F. 273–294. Athabasca, CA: Athabasca University.
  • Barker, P.G. 2002. On being an online tutor. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39: 3–13.

    ,

  • Chen, T. 2003. Recommendations for creating and maintaining effective networked learning communities: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(1): 35–44.
  • Chou, C. 2003. Interactivity and interactive functions in web‐based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34: 265–279.

    ,

  • Earle, R.S. 2002. The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology, 42(1): 5–13.
  • Gilbert, L. and Moore, D.R. 1998. Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3): 29–35.
  • Green, L. . Playing croquet with flamingos: A guide to moderating online conferences. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flamingoe.pdf
  • Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J.D. and Smaldino, S.E. 2001. Instructional media and technologies for learning , (7th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Hew, K.F. and Cheung, W.S. 2008. Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions: A case study of peer facilitation. Computers & Education, 51(3): 11–1124.
  • Hirumi, A. 2002. Student‐centered, technology‐rich learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10: 497–537.
  • Hoffman, B. and Ritchie, D. . Teaching and learning online: Tools, templates, and training. Paper presented at SITE 98: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Washington, DC.
  • Hung, D., Tan, S.C. and Chen, D.T. 2005. How the Internet facilitates learning as dialog design considerations for online discussions. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1): 37–46.
  • Jonassen, D. 1991. Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 39(3): 5–14.

    ,

  • Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L. and Wilson, B.G. 1999. Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  • Khine, M.S., Yeap, L.L. and Tan, C.L. 2003. The quality of message ideas, thinking and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Educational Media International, 40(1–2): 115–125.
  • Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.W., Kreijns, K. and Beers, P.J. 2004. Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 52(3): 47–66.
  • Liaw, S.S. 2004. Considerations for developing constructivist web‐based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31: 309–321.
  • Liaw, S.S. and Huang, H.M. 2000. Enhancing interactivity in web‐based instruction: A review of the literature. Educational Technology, 40(3): 41–45.
  • Mandell, S., Sorge, D.H. and Russell, J.D. 2002. Tips for technology integration. TechTrends, 46(5): 39–43.
  • Marra, R.M., Moore, J.L. and Klimczak, A.K. 2004. Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 52(2): 23–40.
  • Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108: 1017–1054.

    ,

  • Moallem, M. 2003. An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 51(4): 85–103.
  • Moore, M.G. 1989. Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2): 1–6.

    ,

  • Neiss, M.L. 2005. Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching & Teacher Education, 21: 509–523.

    ,

  • Norman, D.A. 1988. The psychology of everyday things, New York: Basic Books.
  • Powers, S. and Mitchell, J. . Student perceptions and performance in a virtual classroom environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago.
  • Salmon, G. 2004. E‐Moderating: The key to online teaching and learning , (2nd ed.), London: Taylor & Francis.
  • Uribe, D., Klein, J.D. and Sullivan, H. 2003. The effect of computer‐mediated collaborative learning on solving ill‐defined problems. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 51(1): 5–19.
  • Vrasidas, C. 2000. Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6: 339–362.
  • Wang, Q.Y. 2008. Student‐facilitators’ roles of moderating online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5): 859–874.
  • Wang, Q.Y. in press. Designing a web‐based constructivist learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments,
  • Wang, Q.Y. in press. The affordances of weblogs and discussion forums for learning: A comparative analysis. Educational Technology,
  • Wang, Q.Y. and Cheung, W.S. 2003. “Designing hypermedia learning environments”. In Teaching and learning with technology: An Asia‐pacific perspective, Edited by: Tan, S.C.and Wong, F.L. 216–231. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
  • Wang, Q.Y. and Woo, H.L. 2007a. Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. Educational Technology and Society, 10(1): 148–156.
  • Wang, Q.Y. and Woo, H.L. 2007b. Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face‐to‐face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2): 272–286.
  • White, N. 2004. Facilitating and hosting a virtual community Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.fullcirc.com/community/communityfacilitation.htm
  • Wilson, B. and Lowry, M. 2000. Constructivist learning on the web. New Directions for Adults and Continuing Education, 88: 79–88.
  • Wu, D.Z. and Hiltz, S.R. 2004. Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2): 139–152. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v8n2/v8n2_wu.asp

College programs

Years Established

Faculty

Students

Visitor Counter

Get In Touch

Location:
Family Lane, Bijang, Teddim Road, Post Box No. 23
Churachandpur, PIN -795128, Manipur, India
Contact  Numbers:
+91 8794256802, 7005489311 (10 AM- 4.30 PM)
Email: bethanychristianinstitute@gmail.com

Quick Link