Week 4

Week 4 blog: Present, Talk, Communicate. Ephrem Uwalaka Web 2.0 technologies have changed the way the internet is used by allowing people to be creators instead of just passive readers. ‘Since the introduction of the iPad in 2010’, an insurgency of mobile technology has ensued (Cochrane, 2014:65). It means users can add data, information like photos and text; everyone is now a potential author.

In the seminar a range of programmes were demonstrated, experienced and evaluated. My favourite aspect of the session was the coding that ran concurrently, adjacent too, in tandem. This dichotomy emulates the Department of Educations (2013) rhetoric that ‘pupils become digitally literate’ by being computer literate-understand basic programs-know what algorithms are. Just my embedding program codes into sites to action an order; a creation is the best hook to begin a learning journey. All the programmes experienced in the seminar had some educational benefit or some way they could be embedded in the classroom, although some offered more than other.

 The Tagxedo programme I personally found was not user friendly, I thought if as a teacher. Would I be able to effectively manage a class using this programme? The ‘my puzzles’ programme, I found to be not only creative but individual in design and execution. On another aspect, dialogic teaching is still considered the most important tool in the classroom (Beauchamp, 2012; Woods, Alexander, 2004) and across all subjects. My argument is through dialogic teaching, how can we as teacher ensure that it is collective, reciprocal, supportive cumulative and purposeful. These are the main values, but we have to bridge the gap between the key features of interactive teaching which are ‘surface interactivity’ through to ‘deep interactivity’ (Beauchamp, 2012:20) to bring about interactivity engagement and potential for effective learning. Beauchamp (2012:20) compares and contrasts these two principles and further justifies his reasoning by referring to ‘levels of interactivity from engaging pupils with a new, but not necessarily challenging, feature of the technology (such as writing your name in smiley faces with your finger on the IWB)’. I suggest the web 2.0 experiences in the seminar make another answer to the argument.

Cochrane (2014:65) suggests a new focus must be placed on the ‘collaborative learning activities’, this to me implies similar lines to what was discussed in the previous paragraph, for Cochrane (2014:65) says pupils would fare well to share through group work in a ‘social constructivist learning environment’ gaining knowledge and development alongside the teacher. This is why engagement through discourse and interactivity will help bridge the gap between traditional learning and new media learning.  

E-safety was discussed in the seminar, this issue I would like to discuss further but in the meantime it may benefit providing a picture bank rather than letting children search online due to copyright and other risks.

Bibliography

Alexander, R. (2008) Towards Dialogic teaching. (4th Edition) York: Dialogos UK Ltd.

Beauchamp, G. (2012) ICT in the Primary school. Harlow; Pearson Publication Limited.

Cochrane, T, D. (2014) Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile Web 2.0 British journal of Educational technology. Vol. 45 No.1 pp65-82.

DfE (2013) national Curriculum in England: computing programmes of study [online]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study (Accessed on: 10/02/2014)