Building Schools for the Future: The Impact of Digital Technologies on Teaching and Learning.

Building Schools for the Future: The Impact of Digital Technologies on Teaching and Learning.

Vincent Ryszka

Faculty of Education

University of Plymouth 2014

PGDip: Education

Abstract

Much research has been dedicated to teaching and learning in the technological age.  More recently research has begun to focus on the potential of digital, social media to motivate today’s generation of young learners.

This paper takes specific projects undertaken between 2011 and 2013 in conjunction with the Holocaust Educational Trust with a particular focus on Art in schools at KS5.  Data from these projects has been analysed to interrogate the value of technology to Art education from the students’ point of view.  Anecdotal evidence from teaching and support staff involved is also included.

Inferential statistics are used to generalise findings, arguing that there is a strong case for developing digital media in the schools of the future for teaching and learning in the spirit of Constructionism, but that this must not be done at the expense of other teaching methods, as learning styles are varied.

Contents

Introduction  …………………………………………………........................  4

Background & Literature Review  …………………………………………..  8

Methodology .…………………………………………………………………    21

                         Purpose ………………………………………… ……………….. 21

                           Research questions ……………………………………………... 21

                           Research design ……………………………… ………………... 22

                           Data analysis: size and nature of the sample  ……...............  23

                           Instruments ………………………………………………………. 23

                           Procedure  ……………………………………………………….. 24

                           Descriptive and Inferential Statistics ………………………….. 24

Workshop Experiment ………………………………………………………    25

                          Background  …………………………………………................. 25

                           The Holocaust Project  …………………………………………. 26

                           In the Classroom  ……………………………………………….. 28

                           Does the use of digital media improve motivation and outcomes? ………. 29

Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………. 33

                           Inferential statistics …………………………………………   34

Discussion  …………………………………………………………………. 37

                           Personal Learning Environments – the Future? ………    37

                            Teacher perceptions of technology  ………………………  41

Conclusion  …………………………………………………………………  46

References  ………………………………………………………………...  48

Bibliography  ……………………………………………………………….   56

Appendix 1 …………………………………………………………………   58

                           Learning Style Inventory ………………………………  60

Appendix 2 …………………………………………………………………   61

Appendix 3 …………………………………………………………………   62

Appendix 4 …………………………………………………………………   67

Appendix 5 ………………………………………………………………….  69

Introduction

Philosophies of teaching and learning abound, but two important stances are the `Constructionist’ and the `Objectivist’.  An Objectivist (Bates and Poole, 2003) believes that reality exists independently of the human mind, unaffected by any particular belief system.  Reliable facts, theories and laws of physics remain constant and are completely objective in nature.  As human knowledge evolves, so we will perceive changes in our reality, but these are just there result of the discovery of some pre-existing facts that were previously unknown.

The Constructionist, on the other hand, aims to provide learning environments that offer the learner real control, with meaningful learning opportunities: that is, the learner becomes proactive in their own learning and ways forward – they are constructive in their own development.

It is the Constructionist approach that the school of the future may need to adopt, as digital media and technology advance rapidly, and young people grow up with increasing fluency in its use – the Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001) of today and tomorrow.  The digital world encroaches enormously on the art world, especially in the contexts of film, animation, computer games and so on.  These are the new art industries (although they can be traced back through several decades now), expanding as fast as technology can keep up.  Our schools must keep abreast of technological developments, but, not only this, they must seriously embrace technology in teaching and learning, both as the way forward economically and for its relevance, inspiration and motivation for current and future generations.

Not everything was made in a point and click world. Things were not so easy just a few short years ago. Then, everything had to embody a kind of human physical integrity. This cannot be “Googled” anywhere; instead, people were in a “real” place and space.

On the other hand, technology, maths and science are exciting, and lead us into a potential, indeed predicted and expected future. Using technology to aid thinking can be incredibly useful for solving creative as well as concrete tasks.  For example, a designer used to design things and other people made them, but now a 3D printer can be used to print them out with the use of maths, CAD and creativity.

In another example, the “Integration of Technological Solutions for Imaging, Detection, and Digitisation of Hidden Elements in Artworks” project launched in January 2013 under the EU-funded ICT initiative for Learning and Access to Cultural Resources, a European Union-supported consortium, has developed an advanced scanner that looks set to revolutionise the analysis of older works of art and reveal their hidden secrets.  Older artworks can be analysed when the work has undergone skilled restoration.  Apart from knowhow – and patience! – restorers routinely call on advanced technologies. This is an example of combined thinking and the learning of new ways of using the whole process of traditional knowledge and skills alongside the newer technologies in the working environment. Is this the future of the new job market, moving away from those older, more traditional workloads and environments? Are we prepared? With reference to our education system, I have put forward some points from other academics in this review.

Teachers understand that technology has, for many years now, played an important role in statistics and probability by making it possible to generate plots, regression functions, and correlation coefficients, and to simulate many possible outcomes in a short amount of time. Technology is used in this way to plan programmes of study and schemes of work to encourage student learning, and therefore make their results better. On the other hand most teachers, in conversation, believe that data recorded against national standards may make things quantifiable, but there is little flexibility.

If there is a lack of flexibility in the current, structured use of data in education, this is not the fault of new digital technology, since this is only a narrow aspect of its use and should not inhibit its use in other aspects.  Digital technology as a teaching tool has vast, rapidly developing and often little-explored potential for improved student motivation, and thus increased learning potential.  It must not be forgotten that there are many different learning styles within any classroom and that therefore digital technology can never be the only tool and technique used.  It is the view expressed in this paper through considered research, that it must be tempered with, and used in conjunction with, an array of other forms of teaching and learning to be most effective. 

There are constraints on building schools for the future in terms of economics, of teacher training, especially of those teachers who were trained some years ago, and of school organisation, both in terms of curriculum and the physical environment.  These will take financial input, rigorous planning and rethinking of post-graduate courses and CPD; but they are not insurmountable if the belief and will are there.

This review explores literature and research on the subject of digital technology in the classroom, its successes, potential and limitations, along with potential ways forward for the improved learning that can be achieved in future classrooms with an expansive use of digital technology. What is the impact of digital technologies on teaching and learning?

The review includes only findings that are derived from studies with measured outcomes.  Further research can be viewed on my blog (Appendix 4).

Background and Literature Review

Building Schools for the Future

Disaffection with education affects an estimated 13% of students in secondary schools (Ofsted, 2008).  It is a problem that can affect their future career prospects, their moods, their ability to enjoy the process of learning and their day-to-day activities.  Research on the use by young people of digital media largely suggests that this can motivate them in a way that traditional teaching finds more difficult.  In the present paper, the role of digital media in schools will be investigated.  It is hypothesised that, if the full potential of digital media were used in schools, given structure and focus through good planning by the teacher, monitored by the teacher through technology, students’ work submitted through technology and assessments returned through technology, students’ perceptions of learning, their motivation, ownership and autonomy would dramatically improve, and so, thus, would their ability to learn.

In her book, Mizuko Ito (MIT Press, 2013) examines the role of social media and the expertise of young people in using digital media.  She proposes that, in some aspects, the role of `teacher’ as we have always understood it has been superseded by a new way of working, understanding and learning through socialising and play.  Generations that are growing up alongside our rapidly developing digital technology are more likely to become fluent with it from a young age and to glide easily from one form of `social media’ to another without the anxieties of older generations, who, in many cases, struggle to keep up with developments.  This becomes apparent in the classroom where even young students can help, correct the teacher at times, and support their peers in learning particular skills.  This generation of learner has been dubbed `digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001), although it is argued, (Helsper & Enyon, 2010) that breadth of use, experience, self-efficacy and education are just as, if not more, important than age in explaining how people become digital natives.  White and Le Cornu (2011) build on Prensky’s theory and revise it in the light of advancing years and digital experiences, to refer to digital users as `Visitors’ and `Residents’, having little or nothing to do with age, but with `tools’ and `place’.  Their research into the impact of their definition on teaching and learning is current.

Whilst one argument supports social media as potentially educational, another is that it is very superficial (Flaherty, 2010).   The founders of Twitter, she states, attribute their technology’s appeal to the fact that “it’s connection with low expectations” of any real commitment, and that this could also be low expectations of any real achievement.  A constant digital presence and “the pseudo-community it links the user with” (Flaherty, 2010) discourages' sustained reflection and mindfulness. 

For the digital native the teacher is no longer the repository of specialised knowledge, the expert to defer to.  The students often have greater knowledge of digital media than their teachers, although not necessarily the structure to direct it within the educational parameters of learning for future exams and careers.  This could impact on future teaching and learning in a positive way if carefully managed.

Students have achieved the ultimate in `peer learning’.  They look to each other for help in developing their own skills.  They explore the potential they clearly see in digital technology to learn empirically; they respect peer authority and do not feel the generation barriers that any relationship with an adult teacher presents – nor the resentment that some students feel towards a so-called authority figure.  Beyond fun and socialising, the next stage, “geeking out”, (Ito, 2013) means more focused and academic use of technology, especially for those using the Internet, maybe to extend classroom learning.  As with learning through socialising, this way of working may be mainly self-directed, or `interest-driven’ and in need of a conventional teacher only to bounce ideas off, check academic integrity and, ultimately to give work a mark or grade.

However, the idea that peer teaching is paramount in the understanding and use of digital media, relies on the kind of friendship groups that individuals may have and their particular use of social media, so that the content, ways of interacting and values imparted are widely varying and a matter almost of chance alone.  Selwyn (2011) refers to the reality of young peoples’ `”messy”’ use of digital media as opposed to the idealised digital native.  Much digital native literature, he contends, has little empirical research behind it and can be grounded in anecdotal evidence in some cases.  Young peoples’ use of technology varies greatly along many social divides.

This links to my hypothesis, in that the whole framework of teaching and learning requires re-thinking and re-structuring to capitalise on the energy and excitement generated in young people by this `non-way’ of learning that neither intimidates, nor seems irrelevant, yet teaches so much of importance to the burgeoning global careers market.

However, I believe that these ideas need tempering with some restraint.  The more cautious academic approach supports the use of technology in the classroom, but in a traditional approach to teaching and learning.  All education now relies heavily on data and prescribed ways of teaching and learning.  Teaching the use of digital media cannot exist in a vacuum as a subject on its own, although traditional ICT lessons may account for technical learning:  digital media has its place right across and throughout the curriculum.  However, concern is expressed over issues such as assessment and control over material. These were first expressed with the advent of `Media’ courses, (which were originally confined to TV, film, advertising etc.), but then extended to courses including Internet use and the ability of a variety of technological items to access the internet. 

            `Digital media –and particularly the internet – significantly increase

the potential for active participation; but they also create an environment of bewildering choices, not all of which can be

seen as harmless.’ (Buckingham 2001, p.4)

Further concern has been raised over teacher training in the use of digital media.  Nevertheless, the teacher is still able to give structure to learning and will oversee targets for each individual student.  The one thing that should be stressed is that technology needs to be universal to become beneficial. Student teachers need to be trained in the use of software as well as handling peripherals, printers, scanners, digital programs and methodology in digital learning as part of their PGCE if education is to keep abreast of technology and the classroom use of digital media.  Whilst a number of post-graduate courses in digital arts are available across the UK, broader teacher training in the use of digital media across the curriculum is crucial.  Research in the USA shows a disappointing paucity of such training (Bequette and Brennan, 2008) and this is a pattern reflected in the UK.

            `While most teacher training programs and concepts have focussed

            the technological side of media, the pedagogical scenarios for

teaching and learning have been almost completely neglected.

Teachers certainly need to be trained in the use of technology but this

has to be done without teaching them the technological skills but

showing them great ways to engage their students in learning by using

technology.’ (Atwell and Hughes 2010, p.46)

Mark Bullen (2007), an education technology adviser, posits the idea that the next generation’s use of digital technologies is more complex than has been supposed and although digital technologies’ use is part and parcel of young peoples’ daily lives, their use is not homogeneous. Furthermore, his findings from his study do not support the notion of a unique learning style or preference within the current generation of young people. His findings suggest the younger generation of students may do things and learn slightly differently, but their way of using digital technology is similar to older generations of learners of technology.

It is therefore important to understand how students in schools perceive digital education where it is offered.  The research on students’ perceptions of digital learning leaves much to be desired, both in methodology and scope.  The responses in the two studies discovered demonstrated an unimaginative use of digital media in the Art departments in the two schools studied, and a disappointing lack of excitement as to its possibilities.  The study by Mizuko Ito in America (2013), whilst not directly interrogating students for their perceptions of digital learning, nevertheless demonstrates the vibrancy and imagination of a generation who are growing up with the digital age that the responses gleaned in research lacked (Marner, Anders, 2013:  Monahan, Torin, 2004).  Based on a study of digital technology in one KS3 Art Class in Sweden, (Marner, Anders 2013), positive but limited and predictable perceptions emerged.

Efficiency was highlighted; the search for images on the net, then the use of Photoshop, was felt to be quicker and easier than taking personal photographs, although students felt that their ideas were the most important part of their work, rather than traditional skills.

Simplicity was also placed on the positive side; research for images that would not be available to students, e.g. foreign locations, are readily accessible on the internet.

Lastly speed was important because of limited time-tabled time.  However, most students have access to the Internet at home or in the library.

A study in a Los Angeles school was more critical, although neutral rather than totally negative.  Students felt that their school used technology as a marketing tool for parents who were concerned that Art was not a good career option.  Technology, they felt, gave them another option as a tool, but could not replace traditional art skills. Technology creates an insular way of working that precludes the personal images gleaned from the world around.

The final point resonates with aspects of my hypothesis; although it is the personal opinion of a student, it is a pertinent one. 

Data from a number of my workshop projects in secondary schools has been analysed to better understand the perceptions of learners in the Art and Humanities departments in respect of the use of digital technology in Art (including video and photography). Workshop sizes were 110 students. Data has been collected from questionnaires completed by the students before the projects to ascertain their expectations, including points of interest.  These were collected and noted, then redistributed to share randomly with others. Then, after completing their artwork, students completed questionnaires on their use and understanding of digital technologies, followed by an evaluation sheet.  This artwork involved the use of computers with Photoshop and digital cameras or smartphones.  It has been analysed in terms of students’ age, gender, previous experience (accessibility to technology), learning experience, teaching and learning strategies, perceived level of comfort, and perceived success.  At the end, the students had to write down in no more than twenty words, what they had learned from the project, and something they had learned from technology, bearing in mind what their expectations had been.  From this analysis it should be possible to discern steps forward in digital media education in the light of new art-industry careers.  This analysis will be compared with government statistics and information.

What is important is that we can implement elements of joy in the development of e-learning technologies. Common themes throughout an initial scan of the literature included learner-focus, empowerment of learners and the positive outcomes from listening and acting on learners’ feedback to inform pedagogy and outcomes.  (Golding et al, 2012: Achren et al, 2012: Brown and North, 2010: Sawang et al, 2013: Guiney, 2012: Tyler-Smith, 2006).  Also, according to the DfES (2006), if learners have the chance to participate in the decision-making processes that influence their education, they are more likely to be proactive in supporting the efforts to improve the quality of their education made by the school or college.

In an article in `The Atlantic’, `Is Google Making Us Stupid?’ (Carr, 2008), the dangers of the Net to our intellect are dramatically set out.  In it, Carr and a number of his associates, describe how their own ability to concentrate on written material has diminished commensurate with their increased use of the Net.  He points out how the written page gives space to the individual imagination but the Net chips away at the capacity for concentration and contemplation.  We now, he postulates, take in snippet-sized pieces of information because that is how the Net distributes it.  The digital generation has therefore lost its ability to concentrate, to assimilate concepts and ideas and to use its imagination.

However, in her book, Peppler (2013) asserts that learners are unusually motivated when digital media are used by them. Simply because this is their mode of communication and socialising, they feel it almost excludes the `adult’ element, that is, youth feels it has ownership of social media.  So when digital media are used to develop learning, albeit on their own terms, young peoples’ attitudes and motivation are positive.

The Eurobarometer Benchmarking Survey (2011) carried out in 2006 across member states, found that as many as 86% of teachers in some countries claimed that student motivation and attention were much increased when technology was in use in the classroom.  ICT was seen as a means by which success could be achieved, making a huge impact on teaching and learning through digital technology.

As long as the technology is available to them, young people from all backgrounds are included in the use of social media; in a way it gives them a' certain anonymity.  Where digital media can be used to develop knowledge and understanding in an educational mode, it can be accepted.  It must therefore be more acceptable in an educational setting, as well.

Tapscott supports this enthusiastic view:

            `For the first time in history, youth are the authorities on something

really important. And they’re changing every aspect of our society

from the workplace to the marketplace, from the classroom to the

living room, from the voting booth to the Oval Office.’

(Tapscott, 2008 advertising line)

It is easy to be drawn into this exciting vision of a digital future, but in educational terms it is necessary to understand the counter-arguments to these views. Whilst youth culture is charismatic and vibrant, and it uses social technology to interact and learn, can it provide the necessary understanding of creative (or otherwise) employment in the global workplace?  (Cazden, Cope, et al, 1996) take a broader and less excitable view of the situation.  They set motivation as the attainment of an affluent lifestyle.  This may not, however, be the only aspiration.  They also point out that some young people may be excluded from the pursuit of affluence because of their education and training, whether or not they are conversant with digital media.  Herein lies an area of difficulty.  It is generally assumed that interest-driven digital learning will take place, not only in the classroom, but will be extended into the home.  According to the BBC news report (4^th January 2013), a third of the poorest students in the UK are without Internet facilities at home.  This creates a huge digital divide, disadvantaging many.  According to the E-Learning Foundation,

`The data shows that while 99% of children in the richest 10% of households can access the Internet via a computer, this dropped to 57% in the poorest 10% of households with children.  In the poorest households 29% had no computer, 36% had no Internet and 43% had no Internet connection via a computer.  According to the E-Learning Foundation this translates to a total of 750,000 school age children living in households with no Internet, and some 650,000 without a computer.’ (BBC News 4^th January 2013)

An important issue that impacts on teaching and learning with digital technologies will be the ability of schools and colleges to adapt.  Whilst school environments try to adapt to the future of perceived social networks, with the VLE (Virtual Learning Environments), they are rapidly falling short in meeting the demands of a networked society. Web 2.0 and social networks are proving to offer a more personalised, open environment for students to learn formally as they are already doing informally. With the eruption of social media into society, and therefore, education, many voices claim the need of new models that demonstrate the transferability and scalability of e-learning. (Salmon, 2005), (Sclater, 2008), (Atwell, 2007) et al, concur with the relevance of PLEs as useful, or indeed central, to learning as well as their potential for knowledge development and sharing. Much has been written on PLEs: Attwell (2007), Wheeler (2010), et al, all provide insightful definitions of PLEs leading to greater understanding of the educational potential therein.

Further to the adaptation of the learning environment, the next impact of digital technologies on teaching and learning will be course design.  Although referring to online courses for adult education, the essential issues outlined by Eastmond and Ziegahn (1995) remain relevant to all levels of education.  These considerations include overall course design issues, resource allocation, syllabus creation, activity selection, online structure production, and evaluation planning. Appropriate attention to these items during the design phase informs the development and delivery phases of the online course, thereby creating a good learning experience for adult college students. Without good course design in place the success of online learning can relate only to the teachers’ experience, who may be apt to under-utilise specific technologies that could be beneficial to the diverse learners in their classrooms.  Eastwood and Ziegahn (1995) acknowledge that the methods of teaching in online learning should not only be different, but should nevertheless fit into the rigid programs of the education system.

Bauerlein (2008) poses a strong counter-argument to our current courting of digital education in his book `The Dumbest Generation’ (Bauerlein, 2008).  He has cogent arguments for the retention of traditional educational systems and values.  Bauerlein believes the push for digital media in the class- room, the cultural emphasis on having an identity without the presence of a proper knowledge-base, and the lack of support for the traditional values of the past have all hindered teachers from giving students a proper education that will sustain them.  This, in short, promotes intellectual laziness in future generations.

Linking the potential pitfalls of course design with the fun and pleasure element experienced by young people in using technology mentioned previously, Gee (2008) advocates playing video games as a good exemplar for teaching; how do good gamers think about the design of the game and its rules to accomplish success; how do they become `modders’, learning to use the game’s software to redesign the game?  He equates this with the good teacher, considering the design of learning, the classroom, the language of learning and its content.  He states that good gamers seek out instruction from experts and strategy guides; they consult the Internet for examples of strategy and problem-solving; that is, they surround themselves with relevant support.  He argues that good teachers should create classrooms that work this way, as well, with many different tools and many different forms of instruction.

The Department for Education Report, (December 2011) cites a MORI poll of teachers, finding that

`32% of teachers have used ‘games designed for entertainment’ in

their lessons and 59% would consider using them. Their study found

that 63% thought players learn higher order thinking skills and 62%

thought players learnt specific content knowledge. Many, however,

expressed the view that games teach stereotypical views (62%) and

 anti-social behaviour (71%).’ (DfE Report 2011, p. 8 – 9)

What is the impact of digital technologies on teaching and learning?   An overall view of the research explored in this review indicates general support for developing improved digital media and technology in education.  Enthusiasm for harnessing the aspects of youth culture that motivate learning via digital social media is at its highest in America.  It could be a positive move, especially in addressing disaffected learners, if explored in a structured way and if researched using a structured methodology directed at providing the maximum educational benefits through social- and interest-driven use of digital media.  Student motivation and student autonomy in learning are given a high priority in the conclusions drawn from much research.  Clearly, data shows that there is a groundswell of support in the teaching profession, already using or poised to use not just the technology we are already familiar with (the internet, Photoshop) but also games: teachers recognise the educational value of games and gaming and many are ready to incorporate these into their teaching strategies.  Importantly, this also reflects on the need for developing teacher training, both at PGCE level and CPD.  The counter-balance in the argument is that there is a significant place for digital media, but that it needs to be used alongside traditional teaching methods and skills in order to meet the needs of global industry, business and management, not to mention students’ differing learning styles and widely differing levels of expertise with digital technology.

Methodology

Purpose:

The purpose of his paper is to explore the validity of the use of technology in the classroom through an analysis of the responses of 330 students, half a control group, working through traditional didactic teaching methods with demonstrations, against the second half – the programme group – using technologies for research, development and production, of artwork. 

It is to test the hypothesis that digital media enhances teaching and learning with added relevance and motivation, explicitly in Art departments, therefore improving student attainment.

Research Questions:

How can teachers make best use of new technologies?  What are teachers' perceptions of technology?   Should the methods of teaching and learning be different?

What are learners' perceptions of technology, their attitudes and motivation?   Will local teaching of technology change? What about accommodating diversity, freedom of choice, learning techniques?

What are the teaching and learning activities and outcomes? How will the new experience of digital learning fit into the rigid content-driven programmes of education?

Research Design:

The research project was designed to use a `control’ group of students who were guided through their work by traditional teaching methods, that is, a mixture of didactic teaching, booklets of information and practical work – exploration of materials, development of ideas through drawing and experiment leading to a final outcome, and a separate group that worked with computer technology to research topics, including tourism and the Holocaust, research potential images and use Photoshop to develop a final idea before producing their artwork.

These students all responded to a questionnaire, both before their work, citing their expectations, then after completing their work.  A pre-test, post-test two-group randomised experimental design was used in this study, in notational form as follows:

R         O         X         O

R         O                     O

Where:

R = randomly assigned groupings

O = pre-test and post-test questionnaires

X = use of digital media in developing artwork.

This data has undergone analysis to reveal answers to the research

questions.

Using this research design with groups of secondary schoolchildren was appropriate to the situation.  It presented a selection bias threat, in that the groups were unlikely to be exactly balanced in terms of prior experience, ability, or socio-economic background, however, the nature of the work, being art, was felt to neutralise this threat to a greater extent and that there existed a probabilistic equivalence.  This research design also posed a social threat, in that students socialised during their breaks and the control group became aware of the work of the programme group, indeed desiring the same digital input for themselves.  Fortunately, they did not have access to the appropriate equipment.

Data Analysis:  size and nature of the sample:

The sample used for analysis consisted of three groups of 110 students, making 330 students in total, aged between 16 – 18 years old.  These students were all from the South-West area of the UK.  Only 7% of these were of ethnic origin and 64% of the sampled students were female: 13% were from under-privileged backgrounds.  There were social and cultural constraints due to social grouping, gender, and ethnicity because of the location, that is, the South-West.

Instruments:

Data was gathered using students’ Application Monitoring Forms for the workshops and secondly from the students’ responses to their questionnaires.

The Monitoring section of the Application Forms gave basic gender, ethnicity and ability to pay for the workshop (grants were available for those who could not pay).

The questionnaires gave data on five main areas:

◦       Personal expectations of learning

◦       Previous personal experiences of learning

◦       Perceptions of learning

◦       Use of technology in their personal lives

◦       Use of technology for learning

Procedures:

Ethical protocols were observed (Appendix 5) according to the University of Plymouth Ethics  Guidelines.  Analysis of data was undertaken using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Descriptive and Inferential Statistics

Descriptive statistics is the term given to the analysis of data that helps demonstrate or summarise data in a meaningful way.  This method might usefully reveal patterns, for example.  However, descriptive statistics are limited; they cannot see beyond the data we have, or make any significant conclusions relevant to any hypothesis that is proposed.  It does give a straightforward interpretation of data.

Inferential statistics are as they sound; the researcher infers from the sample data what a wider conclusion might be in, for instance, the general population.  So the sample that has contributed the data becomes a potential mirror reflecting a large population.  Judgments are to be made on probabilities based on the data obtained.  Using this method of statistical analysis on the pre-test/post-test two-group randomised experimental design leads to conclusions in line with the proposed hypothesis of this paper.

Workshop Experiment:

Background

This part explores my experience of teaching Holocaust and Human Rights Art workshops to schools and the way the experiment for analysis underpinning the hypothesis was set up. The project was designed to use traditional and computer based art tools. It argues the relevance of combined arts or inter-disciplinary art forms.

The Human Rights Commission, but mainly The Holocaust Educational Trust, were worried that the survivors and victims of crimes against humanity would be forgotten in the near future as nearly all the victims of the Holocaust had died due to age and illness.  The Holocaust Trust decided to start recording all the victims’ experiences and utilise these as a resource.  These recorded testimonies can have a dramatic impact on students watching and listening to them, however, there may be a certain `immunity’ imposed on the viewer by exposure to film and TV – a sort of fictionalising of the matter viewed. 

There were some actual face-to-face talks given to the students on the project by living survivors; the reality of this made a huge emotional impact on students.  However, there is a rapidly dwindling number of Holocaust survivors to tell their stories directly to students.  Those that are left are able to tell their life stories to video equipment, however, and this makes their memories accessible and valuable to future generations – a historical record more meaningful than book learning.  

The Holocaust Project

The project was directed at giving students aged 16 – 18 an informed picture of the Holocaust to enable a creative, visual response underpinned by empathy and understanding.  Students were taken to Auschwitz as part of this project, which then culminated in a day of working on individual art pieces in response to all they had researched and learned.  In each workshop, half of the students – the programme group – had digital input in the research stages and were enabled to respond through digital means.  The control group used traditional methods of teaching and learning.

The research had four points of instruction, one was the initial seminar, the second the visit to the site, and the third a follow up seminar. The fourth was a selection of art-based lessons for which a local well-known human rights artist and myself were commissioned.

Initially, the art of the Holocaust was discussed. At the beginning participants spent ten minutes working with their partner and a questionnaire. At the end they spent fifteen minutes on anther questionnaire, they were also allowed five minutes to reflect on their learning at a later date and these comments were picked up from the schools at a later date.

The students carried out two tasks in the first double period lesson. The first task was to browse the given website on the Holocaust, the idea was to give them the facts and let them explore the Holocaust denier sites and discuss this in small groups. The students found these sites useful.

The students were organised into groups with very short sessions at Auschwitz, as it was likely to be crowded at the site for our lesson. There were selected sites for each group to respond to, some students were given talks around areas of interest e.g. the gas chamber, barracks and museum displays of items preserved for visitors.  Selected students were directed to other experiences, where there were rooms that were accompanied by visual aids, i.e. DV recorded images and the opportunity to listen to testimonies and watch visual images on PDAs.  The artists {myself included} and teachers had two groups of learners that would experience two different approaches. This was organised to help save time and to deal with the amount of students we had, but also to subject half of the students to the use of technology.  PDAs were given out on site to the technology group for their research. The visit outline was set out as follows: the railway track, quarantine barracks and latrines, cattle wagon, unloading ramp, gypsy camp, crematoria II & III, the Birkenau Memorial, sauna building and photo exhibition. The students selected to use traditional approaches had the same orientation seminar as the other, digitally supported students, but then, having traditional talks and teaching, posed challenging responses and behaviour to the educators during the talks they were given.  Educators were instructed to read out strictly regulated responses laid down by the Holocaust Educational Trust if this should happen. Statements were issued to each educator/teacher for each location. There were other people and TAs present for `crowd control’.

A learner will always be subjected to influences from the social and cultural setting in which the learning occurs.  E-learning in modern schools should consider students’ behaviour, learning as the construction of knowledge and meaning, and learning as social practice that underlies individual performance.

A constructivist perspective is the assumption that learning must be personally meaningful, and that this has very little to do with the informational characteristics of a learning environment.  Activity, motivation and learning are all related to a need for a positive sense of identity (or positive self-esteem), shaped by social forces.  It was important to demonstrate in the project that events around 70 years ago are still relevant to young people today and not mere history.

In the Classroom:

Between 2011 and 2013, three groups of 110 students each, aged 16 – 18, were given the broad topic of Human Rights to respond to in a piece of artwork.  The groups were randomly split into two.  The students had no indication at first of which group were doing what, as they were combined for an initial digital presentation.  After this, the `control’ group went to one art room along with the professional artist who works in paint.  The other `programme’ group stayed in a different art room with myself to use digital technology to produce their artwork.

Scenarios were presented verbally in the traditional class whilst the research was online in the programme group who were using technology.  Students’ approaches to learning will usually relate to their teachers’ approaches and how this motivates them, in my personal experience.

Each group was shown skills to use; the `control’ group was shown pencil and charcoal techniques for their preparatory drawings, then acrylic paint and inks to experiment with for their final outcomes.  The `programme’ group was shown how to use Photoshop to develop ideas and images.  Halfway through the workshop they were given a `booster’ session of techniques to advance their skills. They then worked on their best image, using combinations of print with other media, such as pastel and paint, creating mixed media pieces.  The `control’ group produced more traditional pieces.  At the end all the students came together to assess and discuss their outcomes followed by a short session to complete the questionnaire to be used for data collection to assess the hypothesis that digital media in the classroom motivates and inspires learning.

Does the use of digital media improve motivation and outcomes?

Students completed a questionnaire after the project.  This, in conjunction with pre-test expectations, forms the basis of data collection for analysis.  Both from observations made during the workshops and from open-ended questions in the questionnaire, in the classroom the students who worked with online research felt that it allowed them deeper perception and quicker access to the material they felt they needed to form opinions. This avoided this difficulty of focused investigating that the second, traditionally taught group had, with less information and images to learn from. A former human rights artist provided their information, he directed the students’ ideas, and he found that he had to justify an opinion more, whilst the online groups sorted their own opinions and were directed to do so, given that they had the appropriate tools. When confronted by the deeper components of their perceptions in making their idea work, successful integration of learning technologies into classrooms was proven.

The result of the work from the control group demonstrated that they had drifted from the original intended outcomes. The work was superficial; this had to do with the perceived need to comply with what was understood as the artist/teacher requirements. The technology-based group was more involved and had deeper critical reflection on their work. These results were observed and re-tested by a Q & A evaluation.

I developed and administered a posttest questionnaire to each of the groups of 110 students enrolled in the introductory tutorial groups to evaluate the students’ perceptions of technology-based tutorials and outcomes.  Participants were asked to describe what they perceived as the way in which they learnt most effectively.  Each participant in this formal questionnaire offered responses and comments.  The survey results indicate that a high percentage of study respondents perceived digital research to be at least as effective as lectures and the technology skills learned to be equally as important as the tutorials if not more so.  Information on student perceptions of tutorials with technologies in place showed that students felt they gained more reflective time and they were more effective in reflecting on their overall experiences. This supported the concept that their learning environment and stimulating tutorials improved student learning and led to higher levels of student satisfaction with their learning experiences.

The same study conducted on student participants in the traditional classes revealed that they thought the tutorials were useful in learning and reviewing the material. The majority of these participants thought the tutorials helped them spend less time in having to learn the technology-based material and more time completing the assignment.

All participants made a clear distinction between passively learning, for example being talked to and watching demonstrations, compared to digital learning online. This was evident in students’ perceptions of e-learning.

Most students, from both groups, favoured the use of technology to develop the work and were excited by its potential.  Many in the `control’ group were disappointed that they had not had the opportunity to use the technology. They were asked how they might use it in the future and in discussion decided the benefits of technology in art were the increased options it gives the artist and the potential breadth of visual development offered.  On the downside, lack of technical knowledge and expertise could restrict the outcomes.  The latter was apparent during the workshops in weaker students who had sought greater input from the teacher, and who had produced just a print from the computer as their final outcome, without being able to use this creatively with other media.

The students produced highly emotive work in general, strongly influenced by their Holocaust experience.

Data Analysis:

Data from the students involved in the workshops was analysed in relation to the areas outlined above (p. 23-24).  A percentage (5%) of questionnaires were of no value, as they were incorrectly filled in, or not filled in at all and were not included in the test results.  The remaining 95% gave data on the significance of the use of technology in teaching and learning compared to traditional teaching and learning methods.

The analysis concerns the effects of teaching through traditional versus e-learning style instructional methods on three urban sample groups of 110 students each, 16 – 18 years of age, mixed-grade students and mixed in attitude, empathetic tendencies and transfer skills in response to lessons on the Holocaust.  Empirical methods were used to achieve the data and pre-test percentages were based on yes/no/not sure student answers (Appendix 1).  Post-test percentage results were based on a sliding scale of students’ 1 – 5 responses, combined with a series of yes/no/not sure answers.  Open-ended questions supported observational data, exploring how much students gained or did not gain from using technology (Appendix 2).  The data gathered tested the hypothesis:

Alternative hypothesis: Digital media enhances the relevance of teaching

                                         and learning and the motivation of students.

Null hypothesis:           Digital media make no difference to the relevance

                                        of teaching and learning or the motivation of students.

Dependent variables for this investigation were gain scores on achievement in post-tests, these mean scores were obtained from pre-test (Appendix 1) and post-test (Appendix 2) questions.  The independent variable was the instructional method.  I administered the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1989) as part of the pre-test questionnaire to determine learning style preferences, although student groupings were randomly assigned.  The control group was taught about the Holocaust with a traditional teaching method (lecture, group discussion, visual resources) and the programme group was taught the same content with the aid of technologies. The data that was subjected to statistical analysis supported the implementation of a digital rather than a traditional approach for teaching lessons concerned with emotionally charged events.

The pre- test questionnaire showed that students had some degree of understanding of technology prior to engaging in the workshop.

The 9.5 mean difference (between Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, Appendix 3) indicated that a significant percentage of students benefited from digital media technologies in arts and humanities education in the schools that undertook the projects.   This mean difference gave an early indication that the null hypothesis might be rejected, once p-values were fully ascertained.

Inferential Statistics

It could be inferred from the descriptive data statistics (Appendix 3) that in the general population, young people would benefit substantially from using digital media in the arts and humanities when engaged in project work.  The veracity of this inferential statistic has been substantiated via t test calculations (Appendix 3).  The t test provides a numerical basis from which to work out the p-value, and it is this value that provides the percentage of error on the descriptive statistic if applied to the general population.  A low p-value indicates that the alternative hypothesis may be accurately applied generally, in this case to sixth-form students engaged on project work involving Art and Humanities, as there is a small percentage error.  This is how we may construct inferential statistics.  Once the descriptive analysis was done, the p-values, for pre-test groups before they were split into control and programme groups, then for the technology group only pre- and post-test, were found to be statistically insignificant (Appendix 3).

The t tests revealed a positive and statistically significant impact on achievement test scores (p > .001). When students were taught using technology, gain scores revealed significance (p > .001) that indicated that students’ performance was higher (p > .001) on the transfer of skills when students were instructed with a digital instructional method rather than with a traditional approach. Large to resounding effect sizes were revealed for each of the dependent variables.

The probability is that, whatever statistic was realised from a sample it would be consistent, providing that the true mean is what was assumed in the null hypothesis. Thus a very low p-value indicates a low probability that there would be that sample statistic, given the null hypothesis, and we tend to say that this is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. This really depends on the alpha level set.  The number alpha is the threshold value that we measure p-values against, usually set at 0.05 or 0.01. It tells us how extreme observed results must be in order to reject the null hypothesis of a significance test.  As the p-value is lower than both, I therefore feel confident that I have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Discussion

Personal Learning Environments – the future?

Graham Atwell (2007) suggests in his paper that there is a major issue in that everyday informal learning is disconnected from the formal learning that takes place in our educational institutions. For younger people there is a danger that they will increasingly see school as a `turn off’ – as something irrelevant to their identities and to their lives. 

            `By contrast, the new and emergent features of the social

Web are created and maintained by the users themselves.’

(Wheeler 2009, p.4)

Personal Learning Environments have the potential to bring together these different worlds and inter-relate learning from life with learning from school and college, but there are also many unresolved issues, including who provides technology services, post-graduate teacher training and in-service CPD, security of data and of course the personal safety of students all of which need to be considered.

The need for enhanced teacher training at post-graduate level, and the need for CPD for teachers already in post is emphasised in this paper elsewhere, but it as been given close attention as an issue by the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency with support from the European Commission.  This Agency has been working on MUVEnation (Multi-Users Virtual Environments) since 2007 until 2009.   The final report (2010) explains that the aim of the project was to enable teachers across Europe to use and embrace the challenges of technologies for enhanced learning in the classroom as we currently perceive them.  It was seen as an initiative needed to satisfy the needs of a growing and relatively uncharted area of classroom practice, but one which is seen to be of major importance over the coming years.  The final report claimed that the project aimed ` to create new models for collaborative learning in virtual environments; with teacher's training being part of the problem and of the solution.’ (2010: 7)

By involving teachers from across Europe and five Universities in a complex and demanding programme of study, including the use of not only Virtual Environments, but also Second Life in teaching and learning, it was hoped to bring widespread CPD on the use of fast-emerging technologies to motivate learners in the classroom.

The potential of MUVEnation is to create an exciting and much-needed advance in digital education through educating teachers.

Learning platforms are already being used across schools to successfully support or transform existing practice in a variety of ways including enhancing data management and communication.  For example, tracking learners’ behaviour and attendance, enabling teachers to share resources and keeping parents/carers informed and involved in their child’s learning. It is difficult to establish causality of ICT on attainment due to the number of variables that are impossible to control in a school environment.  However, two of the largest studies in the UK looking at ICT’s impact on attainment, the ImpaCT2 2002 study, (Harrison et al 2002), and the Test Bed Project, (Somekh et al 2007) have found there are statistically significant positive relationships between the use of ICT and achievement in mathematics, English and science.

A proven benefit in social and educational terms is that technology enables schools to collaborate together.  One established example of this is ‘The Dissolving Boundaries’ programme that uses ICT to enable schools in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to work together on agreed projects.

`Data both from pupils and teachers have shown that pupils have

been highly motivated by the sense of audience that

their links have provided and this has led to improved literacy,

oracy, ICT and communication skills. Other reported benefits

included better concentration, improved problem-solving and a

better sense of responsibility for ensuring that work was completed

by agreed deadlines.’ (Austin, Smyth et al, 2009, p.3)

When ‘Moodle’ was introduced in 2006 ‘wikis’ could be utilised by students. Wikis are online collaborative areas and in ‘Dissolving Boundaries’ projects they have allowed both schools in a given partnership to contribute to and edit a shared on-line workspace, and have given teachers the opportunity to more easily monitor the contributions from both sets of students (Austin et al 2010).

However, whilst research shows a large body of support for classroom use of digital media, including harnessing social media to education (Ito, 2013) research for the Education Endowment Foundation, Durham University, (Higgins, et al 2012), provides evidence that, as posited earlier in this paper, the use of digital media in classrooms must be tempered with other teaching strategies.

            `The crucial lesson emerging from the research is that it is the

            pedagogy underpinning technology use which is important: the how

            rather than the what. The challenge is to ensure that technology is

            used to enable and to advance effective teaching and learning

            practices.’ (Higgins et al 2012, p.3)

It is argued from research into the impact of technology on learning, that on it’s own there is no benefit in the use of technology unless clear learning objectives are in place with the digital activity to be undertaken.

This is supported by Dunn, Dunn and Price, who have spent approximately three decades researching learning styles, to produce, (Dunn, Dunn and Price, 1989) a Learning Style Model, as they believed, from such lengthy and exhaustive research, that varying environments, resources and approaches in teaching must be used to respond to different learning-style strengths. As Burke, Guastello et al (1999-2000) point out, because everyone is different with different strengths and weaknesses, there can be no formula for a best way to learn.

This suggests that PLEs, whilst they would undoubtedly work well for some students, there would be others whose learning styles did not accommodate them well.  From the workshop detailed previously, whilst there was enthusiasm generally for using technology, the scope offered was necessarily limited by a lack of students’ prior knowledge of the software used, the relatively short timescale of the practical work and the computer hardware available.  Widespread creation of PLEs in educational institutions must be a long way off as teachers in all subject areas will need sufficient training, not just to understand the why and how of PLEs, but to feel comfortable with them and able to work with students to create them.

 

Teacher perceptions of technology:

Staff from the schools involved, who were supporting the workshop activity, had almost no knowledge of the software, and learnt alongside the students.  This underscored the need for positive teacher and support staff interaction with digital media, but, importantly, teachers and other staff embraced the potential of the technology as they saw the students’ research, ideas and final pieces developing with its use.   Teachers expressed some enthusiasm for developing more digital skills of their own for use in the classroom, but did not feel that technology was the only way forward for artists and designers of the future and demonstrated a firm belief in traditional skills - that could be enhanced by technology, but never replaced - and traditional teaching methods, with which they felt a lot more confidence.  There was an awareness of the need for CPD in order to be effective in classrooms, hence schools, of the future.

Development of situated assessment, or assessment in real life situations that entail communication and collaboration, such as on-site Holocaust education field trips, requires flexible use of digital media and presentations, that inform and challenge the specific on-site environment in ways that meet the needs of the 21^st century.  Technology allows us an unprecedented opportunity to develop tasks in this context.  There are many improvements that could be added, virtual field trips and web quests, among others.  In our Holocaust project we used a tour and subsequent commentary on the history of Auschwitz, then development of tasks which incorporated higher order thinking skills and metacognition, such as knowledge and how to use it, analysing and improving cognitive processes, supporting reflection, critical analysis and different thinking styles.

Feedback with technology gave rich opportunities for students, both from immediate feedback and structured feedback, using PDAs, social networking, Twitter, and links to staff and educators.  The Microsoft Word application `Track Changes’ and the use of audio and podcasting to deliver commentary on tasks that also included links to RSS feeds, were also useful in this respect.  Students also collaborated using digital media on the project, which included peer group assessment using all of the above technologies.  Clearly, however, not all young people are `digital natives’ (Prensky 2001); a small, but significant, number needed help.  Some staff and educators were able to do this, but most of the help came from the students’ peers, supporting much of the writing from Ito (2013) and Tapscott (2008).  It is possible, even likely, that the reason for this was more about the younger generation’s perceived `ownership’ of digital media than actual staff lack of knowledge of it, that encouraged students to ask each other for help rather than turning to an adult.

The extended use of Micro blogging sites such as Twitter provided a useful means of enquiry by students who especially felt empathetic through the Holocaust project toward other social issues and gave them more confidence to ask, reflect and comment.  For instance, during a session that was attended by a Prime Minister’s representative, a student asked, `What is the Prime Minister’s response to refugee arrivals?’  Anecdotally, this demonstrates that social networking sites offer wide ranging opportunities, confidence building and are informative.  Students who were connected to the Holocaust `Lessons from Auschwitz’ blog (Holocaust Educational Trust 2014) used it to facilitate reflection and, when questioned on their use of social networking, related their connections to other relevant sites.  They used all this in their e-portfolios, which provided opportunities for students to collate digital artifacts such as relevant podcasts, web links, video clips, written responses and reflections. 

Student reflections demonstrated good levels of depth, knowledge and understanding:  e-portfolios also showed clear development of research skills.  It could be argued that this would be the case anyway and there would naturally be growth in maturity and skills development over time.  However, e-portfolios have a number of significant advantages over paper-based portfolios; a greater variety of stored artifacts multi-media driven, accessibility by a larger, wider audience and easier storage among others.  Apps have contributed to these advantages: `OneNote’ and `EverNote’ have given us great possibilities in this respect.  Easy storage, filing and retrieval of past work to contribute to development of ideas also have the potential to lead to the achievement of desired standards. 

After the Auschwitz visit and during and after the art workshop, social media was heavily used by students for peer assessment and reviews, along with exchange of files and information.  On completion of their work this developed into informed discussion and commentary.  Significantly, used for this were Twitter and wikis, which were used as a tool for the collaborative writing skills that were necessary for presentations that students were to make in their `next steps’ project – a follow-up that schools organised for themselves.

The experiences from the Holocaust projects question the proposition by Carr (2008) that using technology on a frequent basis leads to lack of concentration.  He refers specifically to the written page, however: the immersive concentration demonstrated by our students was about focusing on a subject, finding out about it through a variety of means – online research, hands-on situational experience, talks, video and so on – a much broader spectrum of concentration than reading a written page only.  Reading a page is one form of concentration; our students clearly demonstrated that there is more breadth to concentration than this.

A final note must be made on assessment procedures online.  Whichever digital media is used by students to enhance their learning, formative feedback is highly valued by them.

`Increasing the frequency of formative feedback is known to be

desirable, helping students to judge their progress, reassure them or

spur them on, and thereby contributing to improved retention and

progression. Computer-based approaches afford opportunities for self-

paced and on-demand self assessment.’  (McCulloch et al 2004, p.4)

It has been shown to improve students’ perceptions of learning as well as its usefulness to students who are reluctant to engage in classroom discourse.  The collaborative aspect of digital learning is particularly valuable here; as learning takes place in a social context.

`Collaboration is vital to learning so that students understand questions, develop arguments, and share meaning and conclusions among a community of learners.’  (Bender, 2003, p.8)

For those students who feel reluctant to be heard in a public context, social media, online assessment and discourse are highly instrumental in their learning and development.  Within the Holocaust projects, assessment was tracked through individual and group interviews and written feedback, both formative and summative at different stages of the project.  However, the real impact and real achievement of these projects could not be summed up in data or assessments; it lay in the spiritual and emotional responses of the learners.  The information and visual development afforded by technologies gave those students in the programme group a wider cultural appreciation, broadened participation and personalised learning experience.

Conclusion

A basic tenet of constructionism is that any idea, developed and discovered by the learner, is valid, and that multiple representations and interpretations of knowledge are encouraged.  Learning is a social and active process, where the focus shifts from teacher-directed to student-directed learning.  For the students involved in the programme group of the Holocaust project the focus shifted from student as passive recipient of information to active constructor of knowledge.  Constructionist thinking entails building knowledge from personal experience.  However, quite how learning through technology serves in the development of experience is a question needing further, future research.

The research carried out for this paper contains a number of significant variables, notably the previous experience of technology of the members of the programme groups, their previous experiences when related to the instructor and the kind of instruction received at the time.  When both the programme group and the control groups’ outcomes and motivation were observed, a picture arose that both digital and traditional approaches to Art work were valid; students were clearly seduced by the potentials of technology and worked well with it, achieving exciting, creative responses.  Students in the control group also worked well, but with less depth.  Their use of materials, however, showed a good level of skill.  The implication of this is that the research and investigation stages benefited most from the use of technology in this case, although the use of Photoshop to develop responses was also of considerable value.

In conclusion, the proposition that digital media is exciting, motivating and improves achievement, needs modifying, in the light of the experiment that was carried out, observations from it and the review of the research of others, to the proposition that digital media needs to be used in conjunction with a range of other teaching styles.  This can be referred to as blended or hybrid conditions for learning (Research and Evaluation Team, University of Minnesota 2011).  In building schools for the future, we must take account of the differences in learning styles that reflect the differences in young people.  It is the pedagogy that makes the most difference to learning, but the teacher’s willingness to embrace technology creatively and in step with young peoples’ lives has the potential to motivate significant groups of our future generations.

Word Count:  10,182

REFERENCES

Attwell, G: (2007) The Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers: Vol 2, (1) [online] Available at  www.elearningpapers.eu  [9^th May 2014]

Attwell, G. and Hughes, J (September 2010) Pedagogic Approaches to Using Technology for Learning  Lifelong Learning UK p.4 – 65 [online]  Available at www.webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk   [12^th May 2014]

Austin, R., Smyth, J., Mallon, M., Rickard, A., Metcalfe, N., Grace, A (2009) Cross-border digital school partnerships Dissolving Boundaries 1999-2009: [Online] Available at http://www.dissolvingboundaries.org/4/research.html  [9^th September 2014]

Austin, R., Smyth, J., Mallon, M., Rickard, A., Metcalfe, N., Grace, A (2010) Enterprise, ICT and intercultural learning An Interim Report on the Dissolving Boundaries/Joint Business Council Enterprise Pilot Programme [Online] Available at http://www.dissolvingboundaries.org/4/research.html  [9^th September 2014]

Bauerlein, M (2008) The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes our Future New York, NY: Tarcher/Penguin

Bender, T. (2003) Discussion-based Online Teaching to Enhance Student Learning: Theory, Practice and Assessment Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing LLC

Buckingham, D (March 2001) Media Education: a Global strategy for Development  A policy paper prepared for UNESCO p1-16 [online] Available at  http://www.mediaculture-online.de: [11^th May 2014]

Bullen, M and Janes, D.P (2007) Making the Transition to E-Learning: strategies and issues Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing

Burke, K., Guastello, F., Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Beasley, T. M., Gemake, J., Sinatra, R., & Lewthwaite, B. (1999-2000) Relationship(s) between global-format and analytic-format learning style assessments based on the Dunn and Dunn model National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal 13(1),  76-96.

Cazden, C. Cope, B. Fairclough, N.  Gee, J. et al (1996) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures Harvard Educational Review: Vol. 66, (1) p.60-89 [online] Available at  http://www.pwrfaculty.net/summer-seminar/files/2011/12/new-london-multiliteracies.pdf: [25^th May 2014]

UK, Department for Education (2011) What is the evidence on technology supported learning? London The National Archives (UK Gov) Available at http://www.education.gov.uk/a00201823/digital-technology-in-schools [22nd May 2014]

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., Price, G. E (1989) Learning styles Inventory Lawrence, KS: Price Systems

Eastmond, D. and Ziegahn, L. (1995) Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom in Distance Learning in Berge, Z.L, and Collins M.P (eds), Instructional Design for the Online Classroom Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press

Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency (2010) MUVEnation: Motivating pupils, linking teachers through active learning with Multi-Users Virtual Environments http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/project_reports/documents/comenius/all/com_mp_134221_muvenation.pdf  [14^th September 2014]

Ehlers, U.D. and Schneckenberg, D. (2010) Introduction In U.D. Ehlers and D. Schneckenberg (eds) Changing Cultures in Higher Education: moving ahead to the future Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag

Flaherty, J. (2010) Bridging the Digital Divide Academic Matters: the journal of higher education October 2010 [online] Available at: www.academicmatters.ca/2010/10/bridging-the-digital-divide/ [12^th August 2014]

Gee, J. P. (2008) What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy: 2^nd Ed Pallgrave: McMillan

Harrison, C et al (2002) ImpaCT2: the impact of information and communication technology on pupil learning and attainment University of London Institute of Education [online] Available at www.dera.ioe.ac.uk

[15^th September 2014]

Helsper, E. and Enyon R (2010) Digital Natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal 36 (3). 503-520 [online] Available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27739/1/Digital_natives_(LSERO).pdf: [27^th May 2014]

Higgins, S. et al (2012) The Impact of Digital Technology on Learning
A Summary for the Education Endowment Foundation [Online] Available at http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technology_on_Learning_-_Executive_Summary_(2012).pdf

[16^th September 2014]

Holocaust Educational Trust (2014) Lessons From Auschwitz www.het.org.uk/index.php/lessons-from-auschwitz-general [September 2013]

UK, JISC Innovation Group (2010) Assessment in a Digital Age A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback: [Online] Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassass_eada.pdf  [20th September 2014]

Ito, Mizuko (2013) Hanging Out, Messing Around and Geeking Out: Kids living and learning with new media Cambridge MA: MIT Press

Marner, A. (2013) Digital Media Embedded in Swedish Art Education  Education Enquiry 4 (2) 355-373 [online] Available at www.education-inquiry.net/index.php/edui/article/download/.../28814: [21^st May 2014]

McCulloch, M., Macleod, H., Mogey N (undated): Assessing Online: Post workshop report:  The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh: [Online] Available at http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/report/assessing-online-post-workshop-report.pdf?sfvrsn=20  [20^th September 2014]

Monahan, Torin (2004) Digital Art Worlds: Technology and Productions of Value in Art Education: in Foundations in Art: Theory and Education in Review 26: p.7-15 [online] Available at http://torinmonahan.com/papers/Digital_Art_Worlds.htm  [10th May 2014]

UK, Ofsted (2008): Good practice in re-engaging disaffected and reluctant students in secondary schools: London (070255)

Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., Glaser, R. (eds) (2001) Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, National Research Council [Online]: Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10019.html  [20^th September 2014]

Peppler, K. (2013) New Opportunities for Interest-Driven Arts Learning in a Digital Age [Online] Indiana University: Available at http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/arts-education/key-research/Documents/New-Opportunities-for-Interest-Driven-Arts-Learning-in-a-Digital-Age.pdf  [9^th May 2014)]

Prenksy, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants  On the Horizon Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 1-6 [onine]  Available at http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf  [8^th May 2014]

Research and Evaluation Team, Office of Information Technology (2011) Is Technology-Enhanced Learning Effective? Recent Research and Best Practices: [Online] University of Minnesota: Available at www.oit.umn.edu/research-evaluation  [19th September 2014]

Salmon, G (2005) Flying not Flapping: a strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutes  ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 13, (3), p. 201–218 [online] Available at

www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/.../1291   [14^th May 2014]

Sclater, N (2008) Web 2.0, Personal Learning Environments, and the Future of Learning Management Systems Educause Centre for Applied Research, Volume 2008 (13) [online] Available at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0813.pdf  [June 5th 2014]

Somekh, B., Underwood, J., Underwood, C. et al (2007) ICT Test Bed Project London: BECTA

Selwyn, N. (2011) The Digital Native: Myth and Reality Aslib Proceedings  61 (4) 364-379 [online] Available at http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~tefko/Courses/e553/Readings/Selwyn%20dig%20natives,%20Aslib%20Proceedings%202009.pdf  [2^nd September 2014]

Tapscott, D. (2008) Grown Up Digital: how the net generation is changing the world NY: McGraw-Hill

Wheeler, S  (2009) Learning in Collaborative Spaces in Wheeler, S (ed) Connecting Minds Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning  Charlotte, North Carolina: Information in Age Publishing Inc.

Wheeler, S (2010) Anatomy of a PLE:  Available from: steve-wheeler.blogspot.com. {29^th July 2014]

White, D. & Le Cornu, A (2011) Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement First Monday 39 (5) 775-786 [online] Available at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3171/3049  [2nd September 2014]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong, V and Curran, S (2006) Developing a collaborative model of research using digital video Computers and Education, 46 (3), 336-347.

Bassey M (1995) Creating Education Through Research Edinburgh: British Educational Research Association.

Beardsley, L., Cogan-Drew, D. and Olivero, F. (2007) Videopaper: bridging research and practice for pre-service and experienced teachers In Goldman, R., Pea, R.D., Barron, B. and Derry, S.J. (Eds.) Video Research in the Learning Sciences Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Clarke, D. (2002). The Learner's Perspective Study: methodology as the enactment of theory of practice, Paper presented at the interactive symposium, 'International Perspectives on Mathematics Classrooms', at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1-5: Available at http://www.lps.iccr.edu.au/images/Publications/AERA_Clarke_Method.pdf

Facer, K., Furlong, J., Sutherland, R. and Furlong, R. (2003) Screenplay: Children and computing in the home London: Routledge.

Hensley, D. (2013) Good E-Practice Guidelines for disadvantaged learners in VET: Melbourne, Victoria: Flexible Learning Advisory Group [Online]: Available at http://flexiblelearning.net.au/wp-content/uploads/Good-e-practice-guidelines-for-disadvantaged-learners-in-VET-Final-Report.pdf

Olivero, F., Sutherland, R. & John, P. (2004) Learning lessons with ICT: Using videopapers to transform teachers’ professional knowledge Cambridge Journal of Education 34 (2) 179-191.

Vaidhyanathan, S (2008) Generation Myth: in The Chronicle of Higher Education [Online] Available at http://www.itma.vt.edu/modules/spring11/efund/lesson3/Vaidhyanathan2008MythOfDigitalNatives.pdf

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.

APPENDIX 1

PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE

Gender:   Male               Female                

1.    On average, how many hours per week do you use a computer for study purposes? How many hours per week do you use a computer in total?
	Weekly time spent on a computer for studying purposes	Weekly time spent on a computer in total.
No answer
0 hrs
1 – 5 hrs
6 – 10 hrs
11 – 15 hrs
16 – 20 hrs
21 – 30 hrs
30 + hrs

2.    Are you capable of managing the following tasks using ICT?
	YES	NO	NOT SURE
Can you use a printer?
Can you file transfer on the web?
Can you use  a Virtual Learning Environment?
Can you develop spreadsheets?
Can you make a presentation using PowerPoint?
Can you retrieve information from the library databases?
Can you handle attached files in emails?
Can you use search engines to retrieve general information on the web?
Can you word process?

3.  What are your experiences of using ICT creatively for learning?
	YES	NO	NOT SURE
Have you, or do you, use a video camera?
Have you, or do you, use any creative programmes, e.g. video editing programmes, sound editing, etc?
Have you, or do you, use any image processing programmes, e.g. Photoshop, Flash etc?
Do you have a mobile phone or PDA that you use for media, e.g. music or film? Taking photos and emailing them or uploading them to Facebook etc?
Do you think that you need the skills mentioned in the above questions?
Do you have an internet connection at home?
Do you feel that you have enough access to computers at school?
Do you have access to a photocopier or scanner?

By taking part in this study, you are agreeing to the use of your responses in data collection and analysis.  You have the right to withdraw from this activity if you do not agree.  Please understand that the answers you provide are anonymous.

Learning Style Inventory

On a scale of 1 – 5 with 1 being not important and 5 being very important, how do you rate the following influences on your learning?
	1	2	3	4	5
Noise
Music
Lighting
Temperature
Comfort/seating
Self-motivation
Structured classes
Perseverance
Responsibility
Working alone
Working in pairs
Working in a team
Working with an adult
Have you eaten?
Time of day
Moving around
Quiet reflection
Being impulsive

By taking part in this study, you are agreeing to the use of your responses in data collection and analysis.  You have the right to withdraw from this activity if you do not agree.  Please understand that the answers you provide are anonymous.

APPENDIX 2

Post-test questionnaire

By taking part in this study, you are agreeing to the use of your responses in data collection and analysis.  You have the right to withdraw from this activity if you do not agree.  Please understand that the answers you provide is anonymous.

Answer the following questions using a scale of 1 – 5, (1 being very poor, 5 being excellent),

1.  How do you rate your ability to use appropriate and effective search terms and queries?
1	2	3	4	5
2. How much do you feel that new technologies enable and enhance your development and collaboration with teachers?
1	2	3	4	5
3.  Do you think that the different ways digital technologies are being incorporated into the classroom helps you?
1	2	3	4	5
4.  Do you think that teachers’ personal use of and attitudes toward different digital technologies in the classroom was useful to you?
1	2	3	4	5
5.  Overall, would you say that the impact of the Internet on your research habits have been mostly positive?
1	2	3	4	5
6.  To what extent did technology aids make it harder or easier to follow the narrative of a particular part of the project, on a scale of 1 – 5 (1 being hard, 5 being easy).
1	2	3	4	5

7.  Did you find that tuition for the technology used took more or less time than traditional teaching/instruction?
More	Less	Not sure
8.  Which programmes did you find most useful?
9.  Overall, what would you say is the most NEGATIVE aspect of today’s access to conduct research online?
10.  What did you find was the advantage or disadvantage of audio and PDAs on the visit to the site?

Appendix 5

Ethics Protocol

In the students’ application to enroll on the Holocaust Project, consent was sought and obtained from their parents/carers to visit a sight of genocide and to follow this up with visual responses.  Initial information to parents/carers established the nature of data gathering that would take place. All information on individual students’ backgrounds, student responses to the material and the visual and emotional impact of the visit to Auschwitz would be monitored for their own safety as well as for the benefit of the educators and other staff involved, as the project involved very sensitive issues.  Observations, they understood, would be made in the case that they might have some emotional upset and educators and other staff would need to be very aware of issues and situations that might arise.  Staff, at all levels, were instructed on the protocol.

Students were made aware, on the questionnaires that they used, that the data and responses they gave would be used for analysis for the benefit of future educational projects and for other students undertaking similar project work.  They were also made aware that it would be of benefit to the educators.