Stage 3 students are required to compose and record [Voice Recorder] a meaningful and persuasive speech which compliments a virtual reality image [Momento360] and audio recordings of nature sounds [GarageBand]. Of the three lessons the first lesson is conducted in situ of the BMNP excursion. The second and third lesson are completed in the classroom. The low-immersive virtual reality element [Momento360] is a major engagement factor as it allows the students to continue immersing themselves in the environment beyond the physical excursion (Southgate, 2018) and provides them with ongoing authenticity and inspiration for the English learning outcomes at hand which fosters deeper level learning (Dede, 2009). This module marriages the skills required of individual technologies which students are already familiar with, with an authentic task which requires collating the various skills and tools into a seamless product. By using tools students already are familiar with students are able to better direct their attention towards the creative elements afforded by technology rather than being caught up on technology frustration (Fiore, Fischer & Taneja, 2015).
Creativity is fostered in this module through three interconnecting forces; problem solving (designing and creating their response), social interaction (peer support and assessment) and creative cognition (the editing process and final output) (Wheeler, Waite & Bromfield, 2002). Creative cognition and creative action is demonstrated with the final product which is displayed at the “exhibition” which brings the task to a close. Altinary (2017) describes collaborative work as a contributing factor for friendship building in the learning environment. This friendship is necessary for creating a safe, supportive and highly communicative environment which fosters opportunities for knowledge creation (the creative cognition output) (Harvard Educational Review, 2014). This model is inherently constructionist and reminiscent of the Makerspace classroom which fosters collaboration rather than competition to promote engagement, enjoyment and higher academic output (Pope, 2016).
The Makerspace element of this task is created by having a student-centered constructivist model of teaching and learning. The teacher plays the role as facilitator by using a scripted website to guide students through the module as well as give them a sense of independence and autonomy in their learning as they guide themselves through the instructions (Martinez and Stager, 2014). Support and guidance is incorporated into the website module by providing the scaffolding and language for students to provide peer feedback based on the task’s marking rubric. This scaffolding is crucial as collaborative learning has the potential to lead to off-task work if students do not have a clear understanding of what is expected of them (Fischer and Kollar, 2010).
The most integrated model of assessment within this task is formative and collaborative. Ongoing formative feedback facilitates conscious improvement over a short period of time as well as acts as a motivator for improving upon creative ideas (Altinay, 2017). Consequently it utilizes the capabilities of the students for providing feedback which helps the teacher as they may not be able to provide the same amount of feedback in the time given for this module (Brady & Kennedy, 2012). The module concludes with the students providing informal feedback on the overall synchronization of the various elements; the persuasiveness of the speech and how it compliments the natural recorded sounds and virtual reality image. After the module is completed the teacher provides summative assessment by marking the same criteria with the marking rubric provided on the module’s website.
Overall students come away feeling empowered to speak up and advocate for real world problems which are meaningful and relatable to them and have the English and technological skills required to create a multimodal product to convey their messages.
…
References
Altınay, A. (2017). Evaluating peer learning and assessment in online collaborative learning environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(3), 312-320.
Brady, L., Kennedy, K. (2012). Assessment and Reporting: Celebrating Student Achievement. 4th Edition. Melbourne, Victoria: Pearson Australia.
Bromfield, C., Waite, S. J., Wheeler, S. (2002). Promoting creative thinking through the use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 367-78.
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66-69.
Fiore, V., Fischer, B., Taneja, A. (2015). Cyber-slacking in the classroom: Potential for digital distraction in the new age. Computers & Education, 82, 141-151Fiore, V., Fischer, B., Taneja, A. (2015). Cyber-slacking in the classroom: Potential for digital distraction in the new age. Computers & Education, 82, 141-151.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I. (2010). Peer-assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20, 344-348.
Harvard Educational Review (2014) The Maker Movement in Education: Designing, Creating, and Learning Across Contexts Symposium Introduction. Winter 2014. Retrieved from: http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-84-number-4/herarticle/symposium
Martinez, S., Stager, G. (2014). The maker movement: A learning revolution. International Society for Technology in Education. Available at: https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=106
Pope, P. (2016). Exploration of the implementation of positive behavior interventions and supports framework in a Title I school. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Southgate, E. (2018). Immersive virtual reality, children and school education: A literature review for teachers. DICE Report Series Number 6. Newcastle: DICE Research.
Year 6 EnviroMission 