amores: an approach to motivating learners to read in european schools - digital literacy in action...
TRANSCRIPT
AMORES: An Approach to Motivating learners to Read in European Schools - Digital Literacy in Action
Dr Geoff Walton, Senior Lecturer, Northumbria University
Dr Mark Childs, Senior Research Fellow, Coventry University (now at Oxford Brookes)
LILAC March 2016
Plan• Background• Our schools• Overview of project• Data gathering• Baseline data from UK and Denmark• Our response – creativity, creativity, constructionist• Results from Sweden• Feedback from UK• Findings• A information literacy of fiction?
Background• AMORES- An Approach to MOtivating learners
to Read in European Schools • Strap line - Discovering a love for literature
through digital collaboration and creativity• EU Comenius multi-lateral strand, €299,500 • Two year project from 1/12/13 – 30/11/15• Partner universities: Coventry, Staffordshire
Northumbria• Partner schools in Croatia, Denmark, Poland,
Sweden and UK• Management partners: CARNet (Croatia),
Cyberall Access (Greece) and 36,6 (Poland)
Five schools• Skaegkaerschool in Silkeborg, Denmark• Horvati Primary school in Zagreb, Croatia• Primary School ABiS - School4Child in Lodz,
Poland • Karlbergsskolan in Köping, Sweden• St. Mary’s Catholic Primary, in Newcastle-
under-Lyme, Staffordshire• Total of 400 school students (grades 1-9)
Overview• Aim - Motivating learners to read through the creation of digital
artefactsWhy?• Baseline data indicates a needHow do we address the need? Our response• Focus on creativity• Focus on teachers via face-to-face and online workshops to
enhance their digital literacyWhat were the outcomes?• Examples of children’s work (before and after)• Findings• An information literacy of fiction?
Data gathering• Qualitative approach (main approach)– Looking for any patterns, relationships and themes in the
responses – Exploratory and not looking to find statistical significance or
‘proof’ – even one instance of a comment may be significant• Quantitative approach– Specifically ‘sentiment analysis’ – the degree of emotion
(positive or negative) shown in responses– Scale 1 to 5 (where 1 is neutral & 5 is highly positive ) & -1
to -5 (where -1 is neutral & -5 is highly negative) – Looking for numerical differences – Demonstrable differences may be statistically significant
UK data: qualitative
• Year 5 (9 year olds) in 2 classes (n=50)• All responses transcribed from hard copy• 4 themes identified:– Theme 1 is related to feelings about reading – Theme 2 appears to centre on the notion of
boredom– Theme 3 is around the pragmatic/enriching
benefits/value of reading– Theme 4 is around location
Relationship between themes - snapshot
• Identified 5 highest frequency and 5 lowest frequency readers by using responses from question 3
High frequency readers tend to…• Express very positive feelings (T1) about reading, ‘I
enjoy it’, ‘I love it’, I like reading a lot’, ‘the books I have read have inspired me’
• See the value of reading (T3), ‘Reading does not just help you read, it helps you with your work, ‘you will learn new words’
• Be qualified in there feelings of boredom (T2), ‘some books are boring’,
• Read at home (T4) (especially in bed) and at school
Low frequency readers tend to…
• Have mixed feelings (T1) about reading, sometimes I think reading is a little bit fun, ‘you can be doing some more important stuff’, ‘reading books you don’t enjoy’.
• Express strong feeling of general boredom (T2), ‘’books are very, very boring, ‘it’s boring’, ‘boredom and tiring’.
• Mention value (T3), ‘you can learn’, ‘if you read it’s better to learn’, ‘learning facts and new words’
• Read EITHER at home or school, not both (Location, T4)
UK data: quantitative• Used sentiment analysis tool Sentistrength to
measure level of emotion in responses from ‘snapshot group’
• All questions scored and aggregated
A1 A5 A14 A25 B8 A9 A23 B12 B15 B18High High High High High Low Low Low Low Low
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sentiment: summary scores, high v low frequency readers
Aggr
egat
ed sc
ore
• Appears to be a relationship between sentiment and reading frequency
Denmark data: qualitative
• Total of 61 responses (4th and 6th grade)• Began by using same themes as per UK
Similar themes emerged• Theme 1 – feelings
– ‘I think is exciting and cosy to reading if I have a good book’– ‘ ‘I never read for fun. I just read for fulfilling my reading contract’
• Theme 2 - boredom– ‘The bad things about reading are that it is boring’
• Theme 3 – value– ‘The good thing about reading is that you learn from it and that you
can use it in the future’• Theme 4 – location
– I don’t always have time to read but if I have time I sometimes read before bed and in the weekends’
Our response
• Creativity• Collaboration • Constructivist and constructionist
Why creation?
(2008)
Enabling the student to create a new product or point of view?
Evaluating
Analysing
Applying
Understanding
Remembering
Creating
Bloom’s revised taxonomy
Online collaboration for design
Learning through design has two essential features:• learners construct meaning through the act of
design – constructivism• collaborative learning - meaning is constructed
jointly by a community – social constructivism• Combined in constructionism – Papert –
blends cognitivist and situative strategies
So online social tools key too
• Edmodo for asynchronous sharing• Skype or Connect for synchronous link• DK use Facebook, PL use videoconference• Limitations– “In England in particular where we have legislation (sic)
about social networking and things like that. I know it’s a secure server but I still think that’s a big concern, even though it’s in an educational setting. It’s something we need to look into before we can say for definitely. “
Teachers f2f workshops
• Participatory• Aim – Create a collaborative team across the 5 schools
• Achieved through 3 day workshop– Confidence building– Identify digital skills gaps– Opportunities for collaboration– Identify focus for online follow-up workshop
Technological focus
• Technologies for creation– Videos (PowerPoint, Prezi, Slidemaker, keynote)
(iMovie, Moviemaker) (Animoto, Tiki-Toki, Photobooth)
– Comic Strip generators (Lego Storyteller, various online eg Makebeliefs, ToonDoo, Witty Comics)
– Statistics-based card game “Top Trumps”
Online workshop
• From the workshop emerged an outline syllabus for the online workshop:– Creating movies, Cartoons, Games, secure social
media (Edmodo), Videoconferencing• Two week pre-workshop lead-in (from 5th May)• Six week online course• Evaluation via questionnaire and focus group• Constructivist, learning by doing approach
Some results from Sweden…
Sweden – Mio my son
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2s-YCNG1jc#t=97
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDTlUXMx9CY#t=152
http://mojojojodesuyo.edu.glogster.com/untitled-glog/
UK children’s feedback• We read the book, then we had to make up our own
Mischevions. • Mine was called Grease Grocer, I remember one of yours
[to H] Pooey Pooey [they all giggle]• It was hilarious[…] because it was really quite, mmm…. I
think it was, there were quite a few words for it, adults would probably say it was immature [giggles] we say funny.
• We did like the news reports [ video e-artefact] on the Mischevions breaking out
• Going round the school, we went into the kitchen and things, where we had never been before. We didn’t go in the classrooms.
• Doing the action and making up our own Mischevions has helped some of them [original characters] stick into my mind but not every single one. There was one called the ‘End Roller’ and the ‘Yawn Mower’.
Findings• Evidence form the UK (and Croatia and Poland)
shows that students engaged with the characters and narrative in more depth than normal (finding and evaluating)
• Students enjoyed creating e-artefacts (communication)
• More findings
Further informationWebsite
http://www.amores-project.eu/Flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/amoresprojectEmail
References• Bloom’s digital taxonomy: Andrew Churches, (2008) Bloom's Taxonomy Blooms
Digitally, Tech & Learning, 4th Jan, 2008 http://www.techlearning.com/studies-in-ed-tech/0020/blooms-taxonomy-blooms-digitally/44988
Additional background reading• Experiential learning cycle: Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the
source of learning and development Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. P. 24• Trust cycles: Soetanto, R., Childs, M., Poh, P., Austin, S and Hao, J. (2014) Virtual
collaborative learning for building design, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law 167 February 2014 Issue MP1, Pages 25–34
• Storytelling model: Sheherezade Consortium (2011) Sheherazade, 1001 stories for adult learning Theoretical background for methodology: summary, http://www.sheherazade.eu/sites/default/files/deliverable/d3/deliverable3_EN.pdf
• Virtual Teams: Lin, C., Standing, C. & Liu, Y. 2008, "A model to develop effective virtual teams", Decision Support Systems, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1031-1045.