So the task was to use a digital tool to design, develop and share a visual model showing my personal structure or schema for language learning and teaching through digital and/or Web 2 tools.
I would love to know your thoughts, especially if you are a teacher with EAL/D students.
As part of my masters research I was required to put my research (see last week’s post) into the use of mobile phones into practice in my classroom. Here is how I applied it…
Teachers often decide to use technology because it is available or looks “cool” not necessarily because it is in the best interests of students. With the need to embrace the smartphone and integrate mobile technology into the classroom, this essay will discuss the idea of using smartphones in the classroom using the Technological Pedagogical And Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework as a method of critically thinking about the issues and implications of the initiative for the new Queensland Economic General Senior Syllabus. The TPACK framework integrates the three primary forms of knowledge, Content, Pedagogy and Technology in order to ensure that there is ‘effective technology integration for pedagogy around specific subject matter’ (Koehler, 2012). The relationship between these components of knowledge differs from context to context (Koehler, 2012). The context presented for this essay is a large K to 12 private school on the outskirts of Brisbane, where all students in the Senior Economics course have access to a smartphone. The focus for the Economics General Senior Syllabus will be the Modified Markets Unit (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2018).
Within the Modified Markets Unit:
Students explore the imperfections within markets and the economic concept that markets do not always deliver socially desirable or efficient outcomes. They investigate the causes and effects of market failure and the measures and strategies that may be used to modify markets in attempts to maximise economic and social well-being. Various market interventions are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in minimising the short- and long-term consequences of markets not delivering socially optimal outcomes. (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2018, p. 20)
The content descriptor which will be the focus is that students will ‘analyse and evaluate government strategies and/or interventions to address inequality and measures aimed at alleviating inequality and improving living standards’ (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2018, p. 24). Essentially students need to understand (or know) the strategies and interventions required to address the market failure of income inequality while being able to use the skills of analysing and evaluating. The Economics General Senior Syllabus identifies Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) skills as part of the 21st-century skills and attributes ‘students need to prepare them for higher education, work and engagement in a complex and rapidly changing world’ (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2018, p. 5). Ultimately students need to be ‘productive users of technology’ (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2018, p. 7).
The initial focus is on the three primary forms of knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technology knowledge (Koehler, 2012). Content Knowledge is the subject matter required from curriculum documents (Digital Learning Futures, 2010). In the case of Senior Economics, the content descriptor is that of government strategies and interventions to address inequality. Students need to know the eight government strategies which address inequality and be able to analyse and evaluate their ability to improve living standards. Pedagogical knowledge looks at how the students learn best and what strategies and techniques will meet their needs best (Rodgers, 2018). The pedagogical strategy utilised with this year eleven cohort is collaboration or working with others (Luckin, et al., 2012). Being able to collaborate and discuss their ideas, the students find the concepts more accessible. The digital and non-digital tools available to use in the classroom or Technological Knowledge will focus on video presentation tools and the use of the smartphone (Digital Learning Futures, 2010). With the primary forms of knowledge set in place, the focus now moves to where they intersect.
The next tier of the TPACK Framework identifies how each of the forms of knowledge interacts together to ensure technology is used with purpose. Pedagogical Content Knowledge is about ‘understanding the best practices for teaching specific content to your specific students’ (Rodgers, 2018). In teaching, how the government addresses the problem of income inequality students need to discuss what each of the strategies and interventions are and how they solve inequality and improve living standards. As there are no incorrect answers in economics, it ultimately comes down to how the answer is justified, having discussions and asking questions ensures students expand their understanding and viewpoints. Once they have an understanding of the concepts, they are then able to analyse and evaluate. From here, Technological Content Knowledge is considered, as there is a need to understand the technology available to transform the content and how students interact with it (Rodgers, 2018). To facilitate the discussions, students will use their smartphones and record their responses and questions in small groups, using the Flipgrid app (Microsoft, 2019). With eight workstations for the students to work through, the use of smartphones makes the process more comfortable as they do not need to lug their notebooks around the room. The Technological Content Knowledge that is required is how to record and edit a video to include titles and stickers, along with how to upload the video. The last interaction is Technological Pedagogical Knowledge, which asks an educator to understand how to use technology as a means to the desired learning outcomes and experiences (Rodgers, 2018). By responding using a video discussion platform students share and discuss the content and also have a way to revisit the discussions long after the lesson has finished (Microsoft, 2019). Students also have the opportunity to learn skills that they can apply to other online video platforms.
The last step is to put it all together; Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge enables powerful learning (Digital Learning Futures, 2010). In order to ensure students can ‘analyse and evaluate government strategies and/or interventions to address inequality and measures aimed at alleviating inequality and improving living standards’ (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2018, p. 24) students will work through eight workstations each focused on a different government strategy. At each station, students will review the strategy in small groups by discussing how the strategy aims to alleviate inequality and improve living standards. They will then record using their smartphones and the Flipgrid App their analysis and evaluation of the government strategy along with any questions they have on the topic. Once completed students then have the opportunity to review the collection of videos on each of the strategies and respond to their peer’s questions further enhancing their understanding. All students had access to this low-floor, high-ceiling task allowing everyone to engage and succeed, realising their potential while contributing to the learning of others (Boaler, 2019).
Utilising the new Senior Economics course and the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, a pedagogical approach for implementing the use of smartphones and mobile technology into the classroom has been developed. The result was a low-floor, high-ceiling transformational task that ensured that technology was utilised with purpose and not for the sake of integrating technology.
Boaler, J. (2019, June 5). Our Teaching Approach. Retrieved from YouCubed: https://www.youcubed.org/evidence/our-teaching-approach/
Caballe, S., Xhafa, F., & Barolli, L. (2010). Using Mobile Devices to Support Online Collaborative Learning. Mobile Information Systems 6, 27-47. doi:10.3233/MIS-2010-0091
Digital Learning Futures. (2010). TPACK Model in a Nutshell. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from Digital Learning Futures: http://www.learningfutures.com.au/tpack-model
Educause. (2019). 2019 Horizon Report Preview: Higher Education Edition. Washington, D.C.: EduCause. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2019/2/2019horizonreportpreview.pdf
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing First- and Second-Order Barriers to Change: Strategies for Technology Integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 47-61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597
Furlong, M. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2008). Engaging Students at School and With Learning: A relevant Construct for All Students. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 365-368. doi:10.1002/pits.20302
Grundmeyer, T., & Peters, R. (2016). Learning from the Learners: Preparing Future Teachers to Leverage the Benefits of Laptop Computers. Computers In the Schools, 33(4), pp. 253-273. doi:10.1080/07380569.2017.1249757
Hartnell-Young, E., & Vetere, F. (2008). A Means of Personalising Learning: Incorporating old and new literacies in the curriculum with mobile phones. Curriculum Journal, 19(4), 283-292. doi:10.1080/09585170802509872
Hazel, C. E., Vazirabadi, G. E., & Gallagher, J. (2013). Measuring Aspirations, Belonging, and Productivity in Secondary Students. Psychology in the Schools, 50(7), 689-704. doi:10.1002/pits.21703
Karaca, F., Can, G., & Yildirim, S. (2013, October). A Path Model for Technology Integration Into Elementary School Settings in Turkey. Computers and Education, 68, 353-365. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.017
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Jonas, D. (2014). Mobile Phones in Education: Challenges and Opportunities for Learning. Education and Information Technologies, 19(2), 441-450. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9235-7
Khlaif (Doctoral Student), Z. (2018). Teachers’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Their Adoption and Acceptance of Mobile Technology in K-12 Settings. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 49-67. doi:10.1080/07380569.2018.1428001
Koehler, M. (2012, September 24). TPACK Explained. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from TPACK.Org: http://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/tpack-explained/
Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., & Noss, R. (2012, November). Decoding Learning: The Proof, Promise and Potential of Digital Education. London: Nesta. Retrieved April 8, 2019
Mahesh, G., Jayahari, K., & Bijlani, K. (2016). A Smart Phone Integrated Smart Classroom. International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Applications, Services and Technologies (pp. 88-93). Cardiff: IEEE. doi:10.1109/NGMAST.2016.31
Markett, C., Arnedillo Sanchez, I., Weber, S., & Tangney, B. (2006). Using short message service to encourage interactivity in the classroom. Computers & Education, 46, 280-293.
Microsoft. (2019). Flipgrid. Retrieved May 30, 2019, from Flipgrid: https://flipgrid.com/
Mitchell, S. (2012). Don’t Put Your Phones Away. NATE Classroom, Fall(18), 30-32.
Nikolopoulou, K. (2018, December). Mobile learning usage and acceptance: perceptions of secondary school students. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(4), 499-519. doi:10.1007/s40692-018-0127-8
Nouri, J., Cerratto-Pargman, T., Eliasson, J., & Ramberg, R. (2013). Exploring the Challenges of Supporting Collaborative Mobile Learning. In D. Parsons (Ed.), Innovations in Mobile Educational Technologies and Applications (pp. 178-194). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2139-8.ch013
Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2018). Economics 2019 v1.1 General Senior Syllabus. Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Rodgers, D. (2018, January 19). The TPACK Framework Explained (With Classroom Examples). Retrieved June 5, 2019, from Schoology Exchange: https://www.schoology.com/blog/tpack-framework-explained
Roy Morgan Research. (2016, August 22). 9 in 10 Aussie teens now have a mobile (and most are already on to their second or subsequent handset). Retrieved June 4, 2019, from Roy Morgan Research: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6929-australian-teenagers-and-their-mobile-phones-june-2016-201608220922
Squire, K., & Dikkers, S. (2012). Amplifications of learning: Use of Mobile Media Devices Among Youth. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(4), 445-464. doi:10.1177/1354856511429646
Thomas, K. M., O’Bannon, B. W., & Bolton, N. (2013). Cell Phones in the Classroom: Teachers’ Perspectives of Inclusion, Benefits, and Barriers. Computers in the Schools, 30(4), 295-308. doi:10.1080/07380569.2013.844637
Walker, R. (2013). ‘‘I don’t think I would be where I am right now’’. Pupil perspectives on using mobile devices for learning. Research in Learning Technology. 21. Association for Learning Technology. doi:10.3402/rlt.v21i0.22116
Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2008, February). Over-connected? A qualitative exploration of the relationship between Australian youth and their mobile phones. Journal of Adolescence, 31(1), 77-92. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.04.004
With all the news about banning phones in schools I feel the need to add my perspective. As part of my masters studies I chose this topic to research and feel the need to share it here… Please feel free to comment your views below.
“The phones at the Good Old office”by Hugo Wetterberg is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0
Ninety-one per cent of Australian teens have a mobile phone in their pocket (Roy Morgan Research, 2016). Nevertheless, teachers and schools have historically viewed the mobile phone as a disruption to learning and as a result, have banned the phone from the classroom (Thomas, O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013). Mobile phones are no longer just for making and receiving calls. They have evolved into smartphones with a large number of applications and increased functionality (Thomas, O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013). As such, for many students, they have replaced alarm clocks, cameras, books and diaries with this versatile and mobile device (Walsh, White, & Young, 2008). Within an educational setting, smartphones with their ubiquitous access can increase student engagement, motivation and productivity. However, many teachers are reluctant to incorporate mobile phone usage into their classrooms due to their own personal beliefs and lack of agency and capability. Educators must embrace the smartphone and integrate mobile technology into the classroom.
Engagement is a predominant factor in a student’s success at school (Hazel, Vazirabadi, & Gallagher, 2013). Students exhibit engagement through their attendance and active participation in class; this, along with the work that they complete both in and out of the classroom, determines motivation (Furlong & Christenson, 2008). Technology, in particular, the use of smartphones, is one area that ‘can improve student engagement, motivation and productivity’ (Thomas, O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013, p. 296). According to Nikolopoulou (2018), students themselves believe that ‘mobile devices improved and fostered their motivation to study’ (p. 503). Walker (2013) also found that students used many of the features of their smartphones and regularly find ‘creative ways to employ these features in their schoolwork, both at home and at school’ (p. 11), regardless of whether the phones were permissible at school or not. Smartphones facilitate many different pedagogical strategies, including student-centred (Thomas, O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013), authentic learning (Thomas, O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013), personalised learning (Hartnell-Young & Vetere, 2008), student-created content (Hartnell-Young & Vetere, 2008), collaborative learning (Nouri, Cerratto-Pargman, Eliasson, & Ramberg, 2013), differentiation of instruction (Thomas, O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013) along with assessment and reflection (Markett, Arnedillo Sanchez, Weber, & Tangney, 2006). Smartphones ‘have been referred to as the “Swiss army knife” of technology because they have a growing number of tools’ (Thomas, O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013, p. 296). This collection of tools includes ready access to digital cameras, calculators, video and audio recorders, internet access, email and numerous apps that are valuable to classroom instruction and student learning. By having access to these applications, students want to take responsibility for their learning (Mahesh, Jayahari, & Bijlani, 2016), leading to an increase in intrinsic motivation. The use of a smartphone in the classroom allows students to ‘upgrade their knowledge in any field at anytime’ (Mahesh, Jayahari, & Bijlani, 2016, p. 88). Mobile devices have instant access to the internet and can consequently respond quickly to learner’s impulses at any time and in any place (Walker, 2013).
Mobile devices have developed into high-tech computers with ubiquitous access to a plethora of data and information anytime, anywhere. ‘Mobile phone users can connect to people worldwide while walking down the street’ (Keengwe, Schnellert, & Jonas, 2014, p. 443). This ability to access a mobile network to conduct learning, access information quickly at a time and place which suits the student ensures that teachers see an improvement in student motivation (Nikolopoulou, 2018) as they no longer need to wait until they walk into a classroom in order to learn. ‘Today’s school-aged children have grown up with technology and expect to have it readily available’ (Grundmeyer & Peters, 2016, p. 255). The focus of mobile learning is on connectivity and convenience, along with the ability to move anywhere (Educause, 2019). This portability extends the traditional classroom to museums, libraries, art galleries, field trips, parks, or workshops (Caballe, Xhafa, & Barolli, 2010). Extending this further, students can utilise their smartphones to talk with experts, study, complete assigned readings, research, or take notes while travelling on the bus to and from school or during a lunch break at work, thus empowering them to take ownership of their learning (Keengwe, Schnellert, & Jonas, 2014). Using smartphones to accomplish ubiquitous, collaborative learning; ultimately is dependant on both the individual student’s preference, interest and self-motivation and the willingness for educators to embrace and integrate mobile learning into the classroom.
Educators are the ultimate stumbling block to enabling the use of smartphones in the classroom. As second-order barriers, their attitudes to technology in general, including the smartphone, serve as an obstacle to adoption (Thomas, O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013). Teachers are quick to come up with numerous excuses as to why a new technology will not work in their classrooms (Ertmer, 1999). Whether the new technology is a laptop or a smartphone, excuses range from legitimate concerns through to irrational fears (Thomas, O’Bannon, & Bolton, 2013). Most of these fears stem from a lack of confidence and perceived level of competency. Karaca, Can, and Yildirim (2013) found that an educators technology competency was ‘the most influential factor explaining technology integration’ (p. 361). This competency also had an impact on a teacher’s attitudes and beliefs about the implementation of new technologies (Khlaif (Doctoral Student), 2018). Part of this stems from a teacher’s beliefs about education, their beliefs about technology and their established classroom practices, all of which lead to an unwillingness to change (Ertmer, 1999). While several factors including teaching experience, experience with smartphones (or technology in general), and time impact these attitudes and beliefs. If schools can provide teachers with ongoing support (both principals’ and colleagues’), then teachers are more likely to develop a positive attitude and belief towards the integration of smartphones in the classroom (Khlaif (Doctoral Student), 2018). Once an understanding of the reasons why educators are fearful of implementing new technology in the classroom is established, along with educators’ beliefs about the role of the smartphone in the curriculum, strategies such as developing a vision, training, modelling, obtaining and managing resources can be established (Ertmer, 1999).
There is no choice as an educator not to embrace the smartphone and integrate mobile technology into the classroom. Students today have grown up with ready access to smartphones available in their back pocket. With this ready access, smartphones facilitate pedagogical strategies to engage students and motivate them to investigate their passions. Students are bringing their smartphones to school regardless of the school’s policy, so educators should work with them rather than resisting them. Teachers want students to experience success at school and develop into life long learners. Educators must stop being an obstacle to the adoption of mobile technology. With support from their principals and colleagues, teachers will embrace the Swiss army knife of technology and move to integrate the smartphone into the classroom. In an era where ninety-one per cent of teens have ready access to a mobile phone, its time to stop banning the phone from the classroom.
Boaler, J. (2019, June 5). Our Teaching Approach. Retrieved from YouCubed: https://www.youcubed.org/evidence/our-teaching-approach/
Caballe, S., Xhafa, F., & Barolli, L. (2010). Using Mobile Devices to Support Online Collaborative Learning. Mobile Information Systems 6, 27-47. doi:10.3233/MIS-2010-0091
Digital Learning Futures. (2010). TPACK Model in a Nutshell. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from Digital Learning Futures: http://www.learningfutures.com.au/tpack-model
Educause. (2019). 2019 Horizon Report Preview: Higher Education Edition. Washington, D.C.: EduCause. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2019/2/2019horizonreportpreview.pdf
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing First- and Second-Order Barriers to Change: Strategies for Technology Integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 47-61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597
Furlong, M. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2008). Engaging Students at School and With Learning: A relevant Construct for All Students. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 365-368. doi:10.1002/pits.20302
Grundmeyer, T., & Peters, R. (2016). Learning from the Learners: Preparing Future Teachers to Leverage the Benefits of Laptop Computers. Computers In the Schools, 33(4), pp. 253-273. doi:10.1080/07380569.2017.1249757
Hartnell-Young, E., & Vetere, F. (2008). A Means of Personalising Learning: Incorporating old and new literacies in the curriculum with mobile phones. Curriculum Journal, 19(4), 283-292. doi:10.1080/09585170802509872
Hazel, C. E., Vazirabadi, G. E., & Gallagher, J. (2013). Measuring Aspirations, Belonging, and Productivity in Secondary Students. Psychology in the Schools, 50(7), 689-704. doi:10.1002/pits.21703
Karaca, F., Can, G., & Yildirim, S. (2013, October). A Path Model for Technology Integration Into Elementary School Settings in Turkey. Computers and Education, 68, 353-365. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.017
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Jonas, D. (2014). Mobile Phones in Education: Challenges and Opportunities for Learning. Education and Information Technologies, 19(2), 441-450. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9235-7
Khlaif (Doctoral Student), Z. (2018). Teachers’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Their Adoption and Acceptance of Mobile Technology in K-12 Settings. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 49-67. doi:10.1080/07380569.2018.1428001
Koehler, M. (2012, September 24). TPACK Explained. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from TPACK.Org: http://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/tpack-explained/
Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., & Noss, R. (2012, November). Decoding Learning: The Proof, Promise and Potential of Digital Education. London: Nesta. Retrieved April 8, 2019
Mahesh, G., Jayahari, K., & Bijlani, K. (2016). A Smart Phone Integrated Smart Classroom. International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Applications, Services and Technologies (pp. 88-93). Cardiff: IEEE. doi:10.1109/NGMAST.2016.31
Markett, C., Arnedillo Sanchez, I., Weber, S., & Tangney, B. (2006). Using short message service to encourage interactivity in the classroom. Computers & Education, 46, 280-293.
Microsoft. (2019). Flipgrid. Retrieved May 30, 2019, from Flipgrid: https://flipgrid.com/
Mitchell, S. (2012). Don’t Put Your Phones Away. NATE Classroom, Fall(18), 30-32.
Nikolopoulou, K. (2018, December). Mobile learning usage and acceptance: perceptions of secondary school students. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(4), 499-519. doi:10.1007/s40692-018-0127-8
Nouri, J., Cerratto-Pargman, T., Eliasson, J., & Ramberg, R. (2013). Exploring the Challenges of Supporting Collaborative Mobile Learning. In D. Parsons (Ed.), Innovations in Mobile Educational Technologies and Applications (pp. 178-194). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2139-8.ch013
Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2018). Economics 2019 v1.1 General Senior Syllabus. Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Rodgers, D. (2018, January 19). The TPACK Framework Explained (With Classroom Examples). Retrieved June 5, 2019, from Schoology Exchange: https://www.schoology.com/blog/tpack-framework-explained
Roy Morgan Research. (2016, August 22). 9 in 10 Aussie teens now have a mobile (and most are already on to their second or subsequent handset). Retrieved June 4, 2019, from Roy Morgan Research: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6929-australian-teenagers-and-their-mobile-phones-june-2016-201608220922
Squire, K., & Dikkers, S. (2012). Amplifications of learning: Use of Mobile Media Devices Among Youth. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(4), 445-464. doi:10.1177/1354856511429646
Thomas, K. M., O’Bannon, B. W., & Bolton, N. (2013). Cell Phones in the Classroom: Teachers’ Perspectives of Inclusion, Benefits, and Barriers. Computers in the Schools, 30(4), 295-308. doi:10.1080/07380569.2013.844637
Walker, R. (2013). ‘‘I don’t think I would be where I am right now’’. Pupil perspectives on using mobile devices for learning. Research in Learning Technology. 21. Association for Learning Technology. doi:10.3402/rlt.v21i0.22116
Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2008, February). Over-connected? A qualitative exploration of the relationship between Australian youth and their mobile phones. Journal of Adolescence, 31(1), 77-92. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.04.004
I’m not quite sure what happened. Term 1 started and now we are just a few short days away from Term 2 starting. It just disappeared. On reflection, it was a hard term. One I was not quite prepared for. I had my ideas of how I was going to personalise my courses I’m just not sure I completely pulled it off…
In some classes I focussed on offering the same information at different reading levels. This worked for topics which had lots of information on a topic. Not so easy on more specialised topics.
In some classes, I focussed on offering the same information in different formats – videos, readings, tutorials, workshops. Again this worked for topics which had lots of information on them but not so much on more specialised topics. Though there was more available if it was a topic that is taught worldwide compared to subject matter only taught in the Australian curriculum. Or if I was looking for an Australian example, i.e. legal studies.
I tried self paced learning in one course. For some students this worked really well for others I am going to have to offer compulsory tutorials for after the holidays as they are so far behind.
I want students to work at their own pace and level so that they can experience success. I just don’t know how, especially in the new Queensland ATAR system. How do I accomplish this? There is such a limited time to cover the curriculum. The depth of the course is fantastic. I’m enjoying both teaching it and watching the students work with it. However, the time it takes to create resources and in some instances teach myself the concepts is eating into the time I would like to spend on personalising learning, offering feedback and working with students who require the additional assistance.
Hoping in the next two days inspiration for the new term hits!
Critical and Creative Thinking is one of the general capabilities in the Australian Curriculum. One element is “Generating ideas, possibilities and actions”. This element involves students
So, what does this look like in your classroom?