Glow: questions answered, and asked…

Posted on | August 16, 2008 | 6 Comments

Good research answers the questions asked; the best research answers the questions asked but also raises very many more questions to be taken up in further research or in debate and argument. Jaye Richards’ research paper – Will the Lights Stay On? Glow and Embedding ICT into Secondary School Curriculum Subjects: A Quantitative and Qualitative Design-based Classroom Study – indeed answers the questions she asked but additionally generates a hundred other questions besides.

If you have any interest in the effectiveness of ICT in teaching and learning then I would urge you to download Jaye’s paper and study her findings carefully. I will leave the detail of the findings to the paper itself, but suffice to say that Jaye’s research into the use of Glow in her secondary biology class is extremely positive, with significant gains in attainment measured, in parallel biology classes, for those young people who used Glow as against those who made no use of it.

As ever with research in the humanities and social sciences, it is extremely difficult to isolate the precise variables that cause the effects noted, but Jaye, I believe, has done a very good job indeed, through a clever methodology, at the very least in turning the spotlight firmly on Glow as a major player in the effects generated. I would contend, of course (as Jaye might choose not to), that high quality teaching will have played a part too – but that is fine, since those who would claim that the introduction of technology into teaching is sufficient in itself to raise attainment and achievement exist largely in the imaginations of those who, conversely, tend to deny the efficacy of technology at all in education.

So, in the first instance, what comes out of Jaye’s research for me is the powerful message that good teaching combined with imaginative use of learning technologies can be brought to bear on existing curriculum and assessment structures with highly positive results. Anyone who doubts the efficacy of a VLE in the classroom will have to demonstrate (as opposed to simply speculate on) where Jaye’s research methodology, and therefore her findings, might be suspect. I, for one, feel that she has built these findings on very solid grounds indeed.

As I noted, Jaye’s paper raises many more questions than it answers, questions that Jaye and others might wish to take up in further research – but also lots of questions that should trigger much argument and discussion amongst those with a real interest in the use of digital technologies in teaching and learning. Some of the questions raised in my mind include (amongst many others):

The Glow VLE and collaborative tools were used to faciitate a range of interactions, including, for instance, peer-assisted learning – to what extent was the availability of Glow critical in making these kinds of interactions possible – could they have been achieved without technology?
What are the implications of the research for the perennial cries from teachers for more and more Continuous Professional Development (CPD) in the use of ICT in the classroom? Are there some grounds for thinking that teachers who wait for their local authority to provide all the ‘necessary’ training might simply be wasting valuable time – and so perhaps teachers should simply grab Glow and get on with it, learning as they go (and, of course, taking advantage of the Glow training when they can).
To what extent does the introduction of Glow and similar technologies into the work of teachers necessitate a shift, or a series of shifts, in the pedagogical practice of teachers? Jaye indicates that this is an area she hopes to move onto in the next phase of her research.
The deployment of digital technologies such as Glow ought, it would seem reasonable to suppose, to make possible the use of a much wider range of media – text, graphics, video, animation, audio – than is usual in the non-technology classroom: how do we factor in the effects of that broader use of media in the eventual outcomes?
Jaye’s research, for very good reasons, was conducted within the parameters of the existing curriculum and existing national assessment and accreditation structures of Scottish secondary schooling – how might we go about testing the extent to which the availability of Glow or similar technologies could enable a shift in practice, in pedagogy, in the use of content, in the deployment of other means and methods for assessment and evaluation of learning, and in a decisive shift away from the classroom as the locus of teaching and learning? In other words, how can Glow be used to shift the fundamental paradigm within which education happens, and what other factors and inputs, including other digital technologies not yet available within Glow, would we need to add to make this possible?

I could ask many more questions – however, I hope that others will read Jaye’s paper, think about her results, and then engage Jaye and others in a constructive debate around some of the myriad other questions that will inevitably arise in your minds. It may also, with luck, provoke others to think about conducting additional research to begin to answer some of those many other questions themselves.

Technorati Tags: jaye richards, glow, ssdn, research

Category: education, glow, ict, learning, pedagogy, research, teaching, technology

Comments

6 Responses to “Glow: questions answered, and asked…”

Don Ledingham
August 17th, 2008 @ 10:21 pm

Thanks for the link. Jaye is doing some great work exploring innovation from the perspective of a classroom practitioner.
jaye richards
August 18th, 2008 @ 10:10 pm

Thanks for your comments John. The research has thrown up many questions, mainly about the nature of the effects which may have been influencing the classroom learning and teaching. My own feeling is that there have been a combination of factors here including increased pupil engagement simply resulting in more time on task per lesson as well as pupils needing more help having both more able classmates as well as their teacher available to offer help and support. It is perhaps significant that the lower and middle ability pupils have demonstrated the largest attainment gains in this study, just as in the Wiliam/Black formative assessment research. Of course, most of the tasks completed by my pupils using GLOW have an element of formative and peer assessment involved.
The tools in the GLOW platform do appear to have been instrumental in the development of better critical analysis, evaluative and problem solving skills by the pupils.
Dr Steve Draper (a Glasgow Uni academic involved in research into the human/computer interface as well as ICT in education) and I will be collaborating on a series of journal papers examining the different aspects of classroom practice in this study and how using GLOW might have affected attainment. We have already started investigating the teacher/pupil and pupil/pupil interactions in more detail using a coding mechanism, as well as recording teacher activity in both GLOW and non-ICT lessons. We hope to start by producing a more general journal paper later this year based on my research paper. I will be presenting my paper at this year’s SERA conference in Perth in November and would like to do something at SLF 2009 if posible.
Busy times ahead !
John Connell
August 18th, 2008 @ 11:19 pm

Jaye,

I just hope that you are the first of many to investigate the benefits or otherwise of using Glow (and not just Glow, but the Web and digital technologies generally) in our classrooms – and for that matter beyond our classrooms.

I’m currently trying to work out a way to be in in Glasgow for SLF ‘08 in a few weeks’ time – there’s a strong chance I might have to be in Kenya that week – so that I can catch up with you. If I can’t, in the end, make it to the conference, I would love to be able to get through to Cathkin some time soon to chat to you and see for myself the great work you are doing.

John

ps I wonder if the SLF ‘08 organisers have any scope at all to offer you a platform at this years festival to discuss your work and your findings? I think it’s as important as that!!
jackie cameron
August 19th, 2008 @ 12:28 pm

As someone from outwith education I found the paper fascinating. The issue of teachers engaging with the new technologies is replicated across many professions. I am an HR professional and our professional body is currently having a similar debate .
From the report I understand that some teachers do not understand the potential of the technology available well enough to engage with it themselves let alone use it meaningfully and effectively in the classroom ( virtual or otherwise). Like John says it might just be time to bite the bullet and give up waiting for the “training” though I expect that will depend on preferred learning style. I am also well aware of the time ( and energy) challenges in school days ! But I am hopeful that the interest in new tecnologies that GLOW supports will gather pace and we will be hearing great stories about its impact on learning in Scottish schools
jaye richards
August 19th, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

It would be good to meet you if you can make it to SLF John. I think its probably too late for me to do a presentation this year on the GLOW/ICT research – I would imagine all the slots are taken. A pitty since as you say, it’s rather topical and current.
You’d be welcome to pay us a visit at Cathkin. Just let me know when you are able to come along.
Moving forward with IT « Mimanifesto – Jaye’s weblog
July 9th, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

[...] coding work may point us in the direction of being able to answer some of the questions posed by John Connell and others as to an explanation of just how the attainment gains are realised. We now have data for [...]