Use a pedagogical lens to write an evaluation of the impact this project has had on your own TPCK. Refer to course readings and your own experiences, include a brief discussion of your views on the social impact of technology on teaching and students.

   The AACTE (2008) argue that the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is crucial to effective teaching with technology. The experiences I had when creating my digital artefact have led me to support this argument. It becomes clear that this project has allowed me to develop my own TPCK which enabled me to successfully integrate appropriate technology into the classroom.  

   The AACTE (2008) outline that the TPCK framework highlights a complex interaction among three bodies of teacher knowledge including pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge and technological knowledge.  Mishra and Koehler (2006) also propose that these are essential qualities of teacher knowledge that are required for successful technology integration in teaching. Similarly, the AACTE (2008) describe how teachers understanding of technology and pedagogical content knowledge can interact and result in the successful integration of technology and effective teaching of technology in the classroom (AACTE, 2008).

   This projects has allowed me to use my isolated knowledge of content, pedagogy and technology in unison to produce a product that enables effective teaching with technology. In the early stages of my artefacts creation I developed my Connect Knowledge (CK) by collecting information on nutrition, healthy eating, the effects of a poor diet, the importance of exercise, and other concepts that were outlined in the syllabus and to be taught. I used this knowledge along with my Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) of teaching and learning methods and considered what teaching strategies could be used to support students learning of this content. I also thought about how I could represent the content in a ways that students would understand. This highlights the use and development of my Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). However, my Technological Knowledge (TK) was also drawn upon in conjunction with my PCK. My Technological and Content Knowledge allowed me to choose technological resources that presented content in a variety of effective and engaging ways, including the use of videos, animations, and online books. I combined my TK and PK when considering how my teaching would be affected by the use of technology. I chose to use technological resources that enabled student collaboration and included activities that were teacher monitored as opposed to teacher directed. For example, by allowed student to create an animoto video in small groups using a video camera, student collaboration was promoted and only teacher monitory required. I addition, I designed my lessons so that the Smart board was used by the students and not dominated by the teacher. 

   It becomes clear that throughout this project I have used my CK, PK and TK in an integrated fashion that resulted in the development of my TPCK. I now understand that teachers’ knowledge and how it is integrated can significantly influence the appropriateness of technology in teaching. It has become clear that when used successfully, technology can support pedagogical strategies, help students understand hard concepts, and be used to represent content and concepts in a variant of engaging ways.

   The use of technology in the classroom also is seen to have a social impact on both teachers and students. According to Gillespie (2006) and Muir-Herzig (2004), new technologies can be used in the classroom to encourage communication, cooperation and collaboration amongst students. In this regard, technology can therefore be used as a means of developing students’ social skills and is said to enhance democratization and civic participation (Kellner & Share, 2007). In addition, Kellner and Share (2007) highlight that when students use technology to collaborate they are given the opportunity to share ideas, perceptions and insights. Such activities are seen to develop students social skills including their communication skills, ability to work with other in a cooperative manner with others, and prompt peer tutoring. For this reason, many group and paired ICT activities were utilised throughout our digital artefact. Furthermore, Elston (2008) suggests that that ICT can also improve student confidence and self-esteem. 

   The use of technology in the classroom is also said to influence the social interaction between teachers and students. When new technology is utilised, teachers take the role of a guide or mentor as opposed to a lecturer. Furthermore, technology is also said to enhance teachers interaction and collaboration with one another, and allow teachers to be more available to both parents and students (Dawn & and Torell, n.d.). This highlights the social impact that technology use in the classroom can have.

Discuss the relevance of multiliteracies and multimodal approaches to supporting student learning.

   As literacy education shifts with changing society, so do its texts in the ways they are communicated and constructed (Healy, 2008). Traditionally, literacy pedagogy has been dominated by reading and writing, centred on language only, and focused on print based text (Cole & Pullen , 2010; New London Group, 1996). However many theorists including the New London Group (1996), Healy (2008), Kalantzis and Cope (2005), and Ng (2006) view the traditional approach to literacy as restrictive, monocultural and outmoded. The concept of multiliteracies has evolved in response to concerns about previous literacy practices and how they equip students for the changing world in which they live (Anstey & Bull,  2006).The concept of multiliteracies constructed by the New London Group (1996) embraces multiple forms of literacy including new forms of communication associated with information communication technologies, traditional types of communication, and various cultural forms of literacy that enable communication in different social and cultural contexts.

   New technologies and multimodal literacies mean that text is no longer restricted to print form. There is now a need for student to have multiple forms of knowledge and understandings in regards to literacy and the social context that is appears (Anstey & Bull,  2006). Students need to recognise that different contexts require different literate practices and be able to use known literacy practices in new and different ways (Anstey & Bull,  2006). Students who acquire this skill are deemed to be multiliterate. Being multiliterate also involves having the ability to analyse texts and understand how they have been constructed (Healy, 2008). However, because texts are increasingly multimodal, students are also required to make meaning using five semiotic systems including linguistic, audio, visual, special and gestural.

   Healy (2008) suggests that classrooms have a responsibility to reflect community practices with text and should therefore not focus only on linguistic and print technology. In addition, Anstey and Bull propose that in order to support multiliteracies, teachers need to give students access to a broad range of texts and give student the skills to analyse these texts.  For this reason my digital artefact requires student to use a variety of the semiotic systems to understand a variety of texts and create meaning. The texts that I used throughout my digital artefact are seen to reflect the lifeworlds of students and include video clips, online books, website, moving images, photos, music, graphs and many more. These forms of text require students to use a variety of semiotic systems to decode meaning. Students were also given the opportunity to create their own original resources, including Glogsters, videos and websites, and apply their knowledge of how meaning is created for different contexts.

Explain how a depth of curriculum knowledge also supports the decision making process relating to ICT use in the classroom, with reference to a learning moment in phase two of your project.

   In order to create successful lessons that generate quality learning experiences for students, teachers must draw on their knowledge of the curriculum. This requires teachers to have a deep understanding of the subject matter, content and skills that are outlined in the curriculum, requires a familiarity with curriculum documents and relevant outcomes and indicators, and requires the ability to select appropriate resources and technologies that link student learning to these outcomes and indicators.

   Our digital artefact aligns with the New South Wales Board of Studies (2007) Personal Development, Health and Physical Education K-6 syllabus and addresses outcomes PHS2.12, DMS2.2 and ALS2.6. The lessons were designed to teach stage 2 students about nutrition and exercise. Our curriculum knowledge of the syllabus allowed us to find technological resources that were both stage appropriate and relevant to the curriculum. Our knowledge of curriculum documents led us to use the Personal Development, Health and Physical Education K-6 Modules (Board of Studies NSW, 1999) document which inspired the sequencing of the lessons as well as some of the lesson content.

   Teachers need to consider how ICT can be used to communicate and represent content outlined in the syllabus and develop ICT skills in students. When designing and creating my digital artefact I needed to develop my curriculum knowledge in regards to the content I would be teaching. In order to improve my content knowledge I researched information about good eating habits, healthy choices, and the importance of physical exercise. After I had acquired this curriculum knowledge I was able to use it to make informed decisions in regards to ICT.

   ICT resources that are used in the classroom need to be authentic and engaging but also need to be relevant to the outcomes and indicators that are being addressed. Teachers need to use their curriculum knowledge to assess the appropriateness of ICT resources. Teachers who have deep curriculum knowledge can use it to find ICT resources that directly address the curriculum, are stage appropriate, and relevant to students. When creating my digital artefact I used my curriculum knowledge of the PDH/PE outcomes and indicators to selected ICT resources that allowed students to demonstrate their understanding of the curriculum content. For example, I allowed student to create a Glogster that informed others about the benefit of engaging in regular physical activity. This ICT activity directly addressed outcome ALS2.6 and the indicator that requires students to identify the effects of physical activity on the body (NSW BOS, 2007). It also enabled students to develop their ICT skills through explicit teaching and experience. This highlights how a teacher’s depth of curriculum knowledge can be used to support the decisions that are made in regards to ICT.

Describe a key learning moment during phase one of your artefacts production and explain how at least two design decisions were made.

   The positive and negative experiences I had while creating the digital artefact informed my teaching and lead to many learning moments. One key learning moment resulted when using Smart Notebook. Although I had some previous experience using Smart Notebook software I did experience some technical difficulties when using the program. For instance, I inserted teacher tabs onto many of the smart board pages that outlined instructions for the relevant task, saved the file and when returning to it at a later stage realised that some of the teacher tabs were clear of text. Luckily I had another saved version of the document and was able to add the relevant text into the cleared teacher tabs. After trying to find out why the problem had occurred in the first place I realised that this problem was a result of a glitch in the program. This experience highlighted that when using technology and ICT resources in the classroom teachers should always have alternative activities and expect that technical failures will happen occasionally. In the future when working with Smart Notebook I will be sure to have multiple copies of the document saved and also make sure to print out any important text or other resources that would be inserted in case technical difficulty occurred.

   Research on ‘Digital Natives’ and ‘authentic activities’ influenced the decisions we made during phase one of our artefacts production. Digital Natives are people who have grown up with digital technologies and the internet as part of their everyday lives (Thomas, 2011). According to Prensky (2001) the students that we will teach will all be ‘native speakers’ of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet and will find interaction with these resources engaging. For this reason, when designing our digital artefact, we decided to incorporate activities that gave students opportunities to use the Internet, and engage in online video games including ‘fuel for fun’. Furthermore, Prensky (2010, p. 4) highlights that “students want to create using the tools of their time”. By allowing students to create their original artefacts using Glogster, Wix, Prezi, and Animoto, students are given the opportunity to do this.

When designing our digital artefact we wanted to move away from traditional academic activities like textbook work and make engaging and authentic learning tasks the focus of the learning environment. Reeves, Herrington and Oliver (2002) propose 10 characteristics of authentic activities that assist teachers to design authentic activities of online learning. We used these characteristic when making decisions in regards to the activities we used in our digital artefact. For example, since it is suggested that authentic activities provide the opportunity to collaborate, we chose to include activities that enabled to students to work on tasks in groups and pairs (Reeves, Herrington & Oliver, 2002). In addition, Reeves, Herrington and Oliver (2002) also highlight that authentic activities create polished products that are valuable in their own right. For this reason we decided to include activities that would allow student to create polished products including Glogsters and Wix websites that were valuable in their own right and could be shared with others.

How can a pedagogical lens assist teachers in making choices relating to ICT integration in the classroom?

   Using a pedagogical lens, such as the New South Wales Quality Teaching Model (QTM), allows teachers to make informed decisions about the use of ICT resources and gain an understanding of how ICT can be used to enhance teaching and learning within the classroom. The QTM was designed by James Ladwig and Jennifer Gore as an initiative to improve teaching practices and contribute to quality learning (Long, Labone, & Nicholson, 2009). The QTM consists of three dimensions of pedagogy including Intellectual Quality, Quality Learning Environment and Significance, which are each subdivided into 6 elements (Cantwell & Scevak, 2010). The eighteen elements of the QTM can be used by teachers to evaluate the effectiveness of ICT resources.

   When choosing what ICT resources to include in my sequence of lessons and when creating my own original technological artefacts I used my knowledge of the QTM to make informed decisions. I used the elements of the QTM to evaluate each digital artefact and its effectiveness. For example, I gave students the opportunity to create their own original glogster and wix website because these activities adhere to many elements of the QTM. These technological tools allowed student to share their work with audiences beyond the classroom and therefore address the ‘connectedness’ element of the QTM (DET, 2003). In addition, by using these technological tools in pairs and small groups, students are given many opportunities to engage in sustained interaction that is focused on the substance of the lesson (DET, 2003). According to Hinde McLeod and Reynolds (2007), this highlights that ‘substantive communication’ is taking place. This highlights that the QTM can be used by teachers to determine the suitability and quality of ICT resources and also help teachers make educated choices about how ICT is integrated into the classroom.

References

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2008). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. 

Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: changing times, changing literacies. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.  

Board of Studies NSW. (1999). Personal Development, Health and Physical Education K-6: Modules. Sydney: Author.  

Board of Studies NSW. (2007). Personal Development, Health and Physical Education K-6: Syllabus. Sydney: Author.

Cantwell, R. H., & Scevak, J. J. (2010). An academic life: A handbook for new academics. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press.

Cole, D. R., & Pullen, D. L. (2010). Multiliteracies in motion: Current theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

Dawn, D. S., & and Torell, C. R. (n.d.). Computers in the classroom: The impact of technology on student learning. Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/lss/htmlpublications/spotlights/200/spot206.htm.

Elston, C. (2008). Using ICT in the primary school. British Journal of Education Technology, 39(1), 191.

Gillespie, H. (2006). Unlocking learning and teaching with ICT: Identifying and overcoming barriers. London: David Fulton.

Healy, A. (2008).  Multiliteracies and diversity in education: New pedagogies for expanding landscapes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hinde McLeod, J., & Reynolds, R. (2007). Quality Teaching for Quality Learning: Planning through reflection. South Melbourne, Australia: Thomson.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2005). Learning by design. Melbourne, Vic.: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy in not an option. In J.W. Hunsinger and J. Nolan (Eds.) Learning Inquiry. Springer. Aviable at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11519-007-0004-2 

Long, J., Labone, E., & Nicholson, M. (2009). Evaluating broad based professional learning: A case study of a school system's implementation of quality teaching pedagogies. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities & Nations, 9(2), 125-137.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. L. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers and Education, 42, 111-131.

New London Group. (1996). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (20063). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: A classroom practice guide. Ryde NSW: Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate.

Ng, J. (2006). Enhancing literacy skills through the multiliteracies teaching approach. International Journal of the Humanities, 9(3), 13-22.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. In On the Horizon, 9(5). Lincoln: NCB University Press.

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin.

Reeves, C. R., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. Perth, W. A.: Higher Education Research and Development Society.

Thomas, M. (2011). Deconstructing Digital Natives: Young people, technology, and the New Literacies. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.

Walsh, M. (2011). Multimodal literacy: Researching classroom practice. Newtown, N.S.W.: Primary English Teaching Association.