School Experience Report - Learning With Technology

In most schools, integrating technology in the classroom across all subjects has become vital in aiding successful teaching and learning. In 1999, Marilyn Leask and Norbert Pachler (1999: xvii) researched the `enormous amount of political pressure on teachers to move swiftly to a position where ICT is integrated into their work in schools.`. Of course, this has all changed in recent years, despite the Labour government`s call for `anytime, anywhere` (Becta, 2005) access to learning platforms until they were outvoted in favour of the Conservatives in 2010. Under Michael Gove as Education Secretary, provision and policy regarding technology has been patchy at best. Though the Labour government offered little guidance on which learning environment to use and, indeed, how to use it, the Conservative government has reneged on many policies previously held. However, the question of `What can technology do for learning?` (Gove, 2012) apparently remains a priority. Despite this, the once enforced Virtual Learning Platform (VLE) implementation has been dropped so the consistency of their usage across schools leaves much to be desired. Consequently, most schools have taken to making their own decisions on the use of online VLEs based on price, ease of usage and benefits to staff and students. Because of the lack of policy, however, provision can be inconsistent and training inadequate which, in turn, causes unsettlement amongst staff and affects pupils differently from department to department.

The school I will be studying is a Church of England school with a sixth form in inner East London. The school is currently undergoing the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme so the ICT provision during the half term that I was conducting my research has been rather poor. With the opening of the new building after the Easter holidays, however, provision should be much improved and pupils will be able to use iPads and laptops, as well as designated computer spaces. Most of the pupils own a mobile device of some sort - usually a smart phone - and a high proportion of pupils have access to a computer and the internet at home, according to a school survey. As part of the BSF programme, the school is allocated £180,000 for their `ICT vision` (see interview with Deputy Head, Appendix). From this fund, the school has decided to implement the recently fashionable UK-based `Frog` VLE, which promises to `Raise standards and increase engagement` (Frog.com, 2013). Therefore, my research question asks whether the implementation of a VLE in this school has enhanced pupil engagement and performance. To be specific, `engagement`, here covers staff and pupils` opinions on whether they feel Frog improves their ability to learn and enjoyment of learning, and `performance` will refer to pupil Level data at Key Stage Three (KS3).

Frog is part of the school`s three-year ICT vision and, as such, it is a work in progress. It was introduced in the last year and has been met with both open arms and animosity within the staff body. The school previously implemented the `Fronter` VLE cheaply, hastily and with very limited success when the Labour government decided all schools should provide a learning environment for pupils and staff. With a lack of guidance as to how to use this software and realising very quickly that it was limited and user-unfriendly, Fronter was left unused. The Deputy Head has therefore taken advantage of the opportunity to improve the VLE through BSF and is very enthusiastic about using Frog to the height of its resourcefulness. As part of the three-year vision, the Deputy Head offers training after school every Thursday night along with support sessions, whole-school training programmes and staff training led by other members of staff who have engaged with the VLE. The school has appointed Frog `Champions` - those who have made a lot of progress within their usage of Frog and are able to maximise its features. On the whole, the Deputy Head, who leads the implementation of Frog, is taking an organic approach to its usage, offering support where needed and aiming for eventual consistency rather than any enforced deadline for Frog`s total implementation, which could cause hostility. There is no official guidance on what teachers should be uploading to Frog or how they should be using it, which creates big differences in departmental engagement with the VLE. As such, I am studying its usage in two of the core subjects, Maths and English, which both have `Frog Champions` in their departments but use Frog to differing degrees and in different ways.

Literature Review

There is a great deal of literature written about the use of ICT in schools and how ICT can aid learning, as well as plenty of research relating to the use of VLEs in higher education or particular fields of research. Literature written about ICT usage is overwhelmingly positive and mostly written in the latter part of the twentieth century into the earlier part of the twenty-first. Even at this time, studies recognised that `practice in teaching and learning in UK schools could change radically if the teaching profession and the community at large grasped the opportunities available through the use of internet and online technology` (Leask and Pachler, 1999: xvii). Unfortunately, in 2013, we find ourselves in a position in which there is still no consistency of provision across schools in the United Kingdom. Even to this date, there is very little written directly regarding the benefits of the use of VLEs in schools, though these are surely self-evident. In a culture which suggests that schools do not `prepare. children for this new world` (Gove, 2012), VLEs can be crucial to providing learning convenience and flexibility, up to date material, increased pupil information retention, individualised and tailored learning, and speed and effectiveness of feedback over a traditional classroom setting (Massy and Zemsky 1995; Hackbarth 1996, Kiser 1999). At Higher Education level, there seems to be an agreement that this software and learning style is necessary; that somehow, pupils become more able to learn independently as they become older. Whether or not this is true is the subject of much of the literature I have read for this project, and I will use this to infer meaning about the effects of a VLE on learning and engagement in schools.

Vygotsky and collaborative learning:

Vygotsky`s theory of `the zone of proximal development` (ZPD) argues that pupils working in conjunction with one another, and aided by a more learned adult, create a zone within which learning takes place (Miller, 2003). Learning with a VLE would seem to complement Vygotsky`s theory, particularly in its use of forums and chat function. Leese (2009) suggests that pupils may increase and extend their ZPD using these tools; commonly known as `Web 2.0` tools. Through them, pupils are able to increase the `interaction and collaboration` (Leask and Pachler, 1999: 6) occurring both in school and out of the classroom. Indeed, a study by the Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) (2008: 7) finds `The social aspects of the VLE draws the young person into the community where they spend time to engaging in dialogue with friends, colleagues and co-learners. This enables them to develop measurable social and cultural competencies`, creating active rather than passive learners.

The forum and chat function of a VLE is used extensively in university settings; pupils know how to use these technologies, are familiar with `commenting` and interacting socially via the internet, as Gove (2012) recognises. YALSA (2008: 2) argues that `social networking technologies create a sense of community. meaningful ways to use and improve reading and writing skills.` In this way, pupils work independently, contributing to the learning of one another whilst the presence of a teacher is available for queries and extra information. Some studies have found that HE students are disconcerted by this technological barrier between themselves and the teacher/lecturer (Goldberg and McKhann, 2000). This supports the Social Constructionist research of Jean Piaget (1973) on cognitive development, which suggests that there is no reality outside human interaction. However, this method of learning has the additional bonus of being shared on a large scale with other pupils, so more learners can become involved. Of course, there are researchers like Bonnett (1997: 147) who urge us not to misconstrue `quantity of information. as quality of experience`.

Affecting attitudes: Teacher-led or government-led?

It seems that many of the technical problems occurring within use of VLEs surrounds the question of ease of implementation. Gove (2012) argues that `the Government must not wade in from the centre to prescribe to schools exactly what they should be doing` and, whilst this may seem desirable given levels of freedom, it also creates inconsistency. Maltby and Mackie (2009) suggest that a good VLE will not require high levels of computer-literacy and be simple and easy to use. Despite this, inconsistent provision would suggest that some educators are averse to the idea of extra learning to use a VLE and workload to maintain it. Since there is no compulsory element to any training, this leaves individual schools to persuade or train willing members of staff whilst leaving others behind. Many schools seem to feel this is a question of stereotypically older or more traditional teachers feeling disinclined to engage with a VLE based on assumptions about its relative ease of use. Leese (2009), working at HE level, argues that in order for this to be resolved, a technical support team should be attentive to each tutor with help in designing the course at their personalised technological level whilst maintaining the `blended` (Conole, White and Smith, 2007) features of a VLE which allow course to home transparency of learning.

Teacher attitudes towards a school`s VLE has a direct impact on pupil engagement with and attainment through that VLE. In 1994, Crook (1994: 101) recognised that `the effectiveness of new technologies in the learning process depends on the "centrality" of the role of the teacher in rendering pupils` experiences and work`. Though independent provision has its own issues, on the other hand, if government was to regain hold of the implementation of technology across the curriculum, a sense of personal importance and ownership could be removed from the appeal of the VLE. Hill and Hannafin (1997) argue that, to create a successful Virtual Learning Environment, HE establishments `emphasize on self-control, diffuse thinking models, diverse viewpoints and independent thinking`. Indeed, as I will show later on in this study, some teachers feel very proud of their independent and time-consuming creation of VLE pages and perhaps would feel far less positive if this had been enforced policy. If teachers are enthusiastic about their work, pupils are far more likely to engage and correspond with that attitude. Furthermore, much of the literature upon this topic is keen to point out the teaching and learning benefits for teachers, referring to a decrease in workload, the ability to share resources and more efficient differentiation. Andrews (2000: 10) supports this view, suggesting that `The multimedia potential of ICT is. a multi-sensory one. embracing or inspiring the social dimension, using the visual and aural to stimulate and engage, and even providing kinaesthetic experience for young people`.

Policy vs. Practice Dichotomy:

Sefton Bloxham (2006) suggests a re-focussing on the learner within e-learning. Indeed, Richards (2006: 241) discusses the best practice use of a VLE as one that focuses on pedagogical goals as a priority, followed by which technology is appropriate to meet these goals; a `convergence between technological and pedagogical perspectives`. In the past, Richards suggests that too much Government Policy has focussed on the idea of upgrading technology without any guidance on how to implement this technology to create the best effect on teaching and learning. Because of this, schools have been unable to keep up with Policy demands. When huge papers like Harnessing Technology: Transforming Learning and Children`s Centres (DfES, 2005) were released, schools were expected to implement changes with little guidance. This paper focussed more on developments within education technology rather than practical, pedagogical uses of technology in education. Indeed, Conole, White and Smith (2007) discuss the ever-present gap between government policy and school practice, pointing to this lack of practical guidance and advice coupled with unfoundedly high expectations as causing the problem.

Even at HE level, the focus does not seem to rest on pedagogical practice. Richards (2006) describes VLEs as becoming `integrated` into courses in a way which can alleviate the need for a student to be physically present. The reasons cited for this include the relieving of `the professor from being primarily responsible for delivering core content and enables the professor to use the physical classroom for engaging students in higher level seminar-style discussions.` (Goldberg and McKhann, 2000: 65) These issues are translatable into a secondary school setting in some ways, too. However, as I will go on to analyse and as Leese (2009) finds, VLEs require quite high levels of teacher input. As the Becta Use of technology in assessment study recognises, this is not always well-received in an already overworked secondary school environment and, with very little policy guidance offered to teachers regarding their use of technology, can be very frustrating to the less technologically literate. The School use of learning platforms and related technologies published by Becta (2010: 43) suggests that good use of a VLE involves the integrated aspect that HE institutions implement, where a VLE is essential to the information communicated rather than used to share, for example, a hand out. However, the amount of time such an environment takes to implement and sustain is an off-putting factor for teachers, and is not mediated at government level. Consequently, further inconsistency reigns.

Student engagement and attainment:

It is not just tutors and teachers who must familiarise themselves with this learning environment. For pupils, Hara and Kling (2000) suggest, VLEs can create frustration, anxiety and confusion and therefore an unwillingness to engage with material. Lots of the literature available focusses on the technology literacy levels of tutors and teachers. Indeed, Gove`s 2012 BETT speech suggests pupils` knowledge of using technology far exceeds that of their elders. Whilst this might be true, there are gaping differences between being able to use social media and gaming and the ability to use a VLE to the productive end of learning. Maltby and Mackie`s (2009: 52) study of HE VLEs also discuss technology as an additional barrier to learning happening; if a pupil must gain extra knowledge to access further knowledge, they are going to be far less likely to engage with the task presented to them. To alleviate this, Leese (2005) suggests teacher intervention and training can stem this in the early stages of a course. Whether or not secondary school and a now younger and more technologically advanced cohort of pupils would be able to overcome this barrier remains to be seen.

Goldberg and McKhann`s (2000: 63) study of whether the use of a VLE in HE improved attainment found that `Over 70% of the students believed that the VLE was more effective than the conventional lecture hall in delivering content and would prefer to enrol in a class that used the VLE for presenting the core curriculum`. However, several pupils showed concern that working this way led to an `inability to interact with the lecturer throughout the presentation` (Goldberg & McKhann, 2000: 63) and too much independent learning required of them. Goldberg and McKhann suggest follow-up seminars where material could be discussed in detail, alleviating the pressure on the tutor or teacher to simply make sure core information was communicated. Indeed, the `asynchronous` (Chou & Liu, 2005: 65) approach certainly seemed to produce the best results, with data showing that pupil test scores improved when the course implemented the use of a completely integral VLE. However, the study is not clear as to whether other factors may have affected this improved data. Furthermore, the issue of physical presence is not pertinent to secondary schools in the UK, so is the integration that Andrews (2006) refers to necessary at such a level, or is the use of a VLE as a bonus or `add-on` adequate?

Conclusion:

The use of VLEs is a highly contentious issue, from which seems to emerge a pattern of inconsistencies and differences of approach. Most literature agrees that a VLE, used well and to its fullest, can transform teaching and learning and, indeed, increase student engagement. However, for a VLE to be implemented successfully, there are some obstacles which must be overcome. Quite clearly, tutors` familiarity and ability to create and use VLE pages is an issue and, without support, can become a stumbling block to efficient use of the virtual environment. In turn, this can create extra planning and time spent by tutors to ensure they can maximise their use of the VLE in an `asynchronous` way - making the VLE a fully integrated part of a course. There is, even in HE, an inconsistency of provision and training; the differences between which will affect pupils` learning abilities. This is not a measurable factor in a study of this scale, but I will be analysing these considerations at school practice micro level.

Methodology

The use of government policy documents in the subject area is inconsistent. Nonetheless, I will examine the context of the current government position, focussing on past publications. I will also look deeper into the governments` position on the use of technology in schools - focussing on VLEs specifically - and complete a critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2000) on Education Secretary Michael Gove`s most recent speech regarding his position on the use of ICT in schools. I will make links between old and newer policy, analyse the changes made and what effect these will have at practice level. The fact that there is no hard copy of a policy makes for interesting analysis, as the school I am working at has no current policy on the use of technology in teaching and learning or the implementation of the VLE specifically. Because of this lack of policy, the only way to collect data on the use and implementation of Frog is to carry out interviews and investigate spoken policy. I chose to interview the Deputy Head, leading the implementation