The overarching challenge in relation to using ICT to enable and support students’ teaching and learning highlighted by Higgins et al. (2012) is, in various ways, illustrated in the three cases. Higgins’ meta-study recommends having a clear rationale and defined goals for using
80
ICT and to identify the role of the ICT (learning affordances). Furthermore, technology should support collaboration and effective interaction for learning, and teachers and/or learners should be supported in developing their use of ICT to ensure learning (Higgins et al., 2012). Some of the specific learning affordances across the three cases are: cognitive
processes (e.g. through representational mediation, repetitive options and so forth); access to experiences, phenomena and data; peer interaction and networking; and students’ autonomy.
In addition, cases 2 and 3 draw attention to the importance of SMK.
The main conclusion in case 1, “Learning before technology”, is captured in the case title and is very much in line with Higgins. The results from the ARsci project highlight the
importance of meditation in the teacher’s thorough scaffolding of the students’ meaning-making from inquiry with ICT, including model-based inquiry.
In case 2, we found that planning and the pedagogical framework for choosing GIT tools and content, together with time resources and skills among lecturers, were the most important factors for a successful adaptation of GIT for educational purposes. The lecturers participating in this case were divided in their view on the overall benefits of such GIT tools in the learning processes. However, most student interviews and reflection notes provided positive feedback, even though the quantitative data were not entirely consistent. More research is needed to conclude on this point, but the content type, pedagogical framework and research
methodology may influence the answer. Overall, the students were generally positive, but they expected high technical quality and adequate SMK.
Only a few of the reflections from the teacher students in case 3 regarding the task of making a website, mentioned a culture of sharing as beneficial for their learning process. In contrast, several students called out for traditional lectures and guided tours. Whether it was due to limitations in the ICT-tools or the lack of students’ willingness to engage in these newer learning methods, it seems that the learning situations in this case did not facilitate the kind of setting described in connectivism theory (Siemens, 2005). In our data there was a tendency towards in-service teachers being less satisfied with inquiry-based teaching methods used as well as the sociocultural teaching approach involving activities, group work, sharing
experiences and so forth. Some students also reported that technical challenges with the ICT tools were limiting the efficiency of their learning processes. Overall, they were challenged on their own shortcomings regarding geological SMK, consequently accentuating the need for attaining more geological SMK in order to use the GIT tools more effectively. In relation to student autonomy, this might best be seen as a subtle balance.
Navigationism (case 2) highlights the personal empowerment in an ICT-embedded world and, based on case 1, the importance of students being producers with AR tools is a key message.
So, open learning spaces and task degrees of freedom are issues that can be highlighted, but the studies also illustrate the importance of streamlining the ICT infrastructure to be able to focus on PCK. In some situations, features of the ICT systems, e.g., applications’ quirks, licensing schemes and hardware confinements, were found to be limiting and made the use of new approaches to teaching challenging. In case 2, involving teacher education, some
students referred to the software as pretty advanced and questioned whether the same results could have been achieved with paper and pencil. This accentuates the importance of user-friendliness and ease-of-use of the ICT applications.
81
To sum up, lecturers’ and teacher students’ ICT-related self-efficacy and attitudinal barriers to using ICT, seem to be an issue across cases 2 and 3. Case 1 also highlights the teacher role and teacher scaffolding as an influential factor; here, however, as something that added positively to student outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are very thankful to Lars Brian Krogh for being discussant at our symposium at IOSTE 2018 and for letting us use his notes for the symposium when we prepared this paper. The work is supported by The Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (Diku) through the GEO GO project (project no. 33 / 2017) and EU's Erasmus+-program, the project Making knowledge together – addressing climate change through innovative place-based education and blended learning (project no.
2017-1-CZ01-KA203-035519). In addition, the project is supported by the Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
REFERENCES
Abell, S. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In N. G. Ledermann and S. K.
Abell (eds.). Handbook of research on science education. (Vol. I. Ch. 36. pp. 1105-1149). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347-364.
Brown, T. H. (2006). Beyond constructivism: Navigationism in the knowledge era. On the Horizon, 14(3), 108–120.
Caliskan O. (2011). Virtual field trips in education of earth and environmental sciences.
Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 15, 3239-3243.
Clarà, M. and Barberà, E. (2014). Three problems of the connectivist conception of learning.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, pp. 197–206. Retrieved 2018.10.31 from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcal.12040
Cuban, L. (1986). The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press, ColumbiaUniversity.
Dunaway, M. C. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes, Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675-685.
Hennessy, S., Wishart, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, R., la Velle, L., McFarlane, A., Ruthven, K. and Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Computers & Education, 48, 137-152.
82
Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., and Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for theeducation endowment foundation. London: Education Endowment Foundation.
Higgins, S. (2016). New (and old) technologies for learning: Innovation and educational growth, in J.L. Castejón Costa (Ed.), Psicología y Educación: Presente y Futuro. (pp.
45- 52). Alicante: ACIPE. Retrieved 2018.10.31 from http://hdl.handle.net/10045/63558 Hoban, G., Nielsen, W. and Shepherd, A. (2013). Explaining and communicating science
using student created blended media. Teaching Science, 59(1), 32-35.
ICILS (2014). The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS 2013). The European commission.
ITL (2011). Innovative teaching and learning research. Findings and implications.
Washington: ITL Research.
Krajcik, J.S. and Mun, K. (2014). Promises and challenges of using learning technology to promote student learning of science. In N. Lederman and S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education, (Vol II, pp. 337-360). New York: Routledge.
Mercer, N., Hennessy, S. and Warwick, P. (2017). Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: Some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research, Retrieved 2018.02.13 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.007
Nielsen, B.L., Brandt, H. and Swensen, H. (2016). Augmented reality in science education – affordances for student learning. NorDiNa 12(2), 157-174.
Panek, J., Gekker, A., Hind, S., Wendler, J., Perkins C., Lammes, S. (2017). Encountering place: Mapping and location-based games in interdisciplinary education. The
Cartographic Journal, Retrieved 2018.02.13 from https://doi.org/10.1080/00087041.2017.1386342
Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533–1543.
Remmen, K. B. and Frøyland, M. (2014). Implementation of guidelines for effective fieldwork designs: Exploring learning activities, learning processes, and student
engagement in the classroom and the field. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(2), 103–125.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. ASTD Learning News, 10(1). Retrieved 2018.02.10 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm
83
Stainfield, J., Fisher, P., Ford, B. and Solem, M. (2000). International virtual field trips: A new direction? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(2), pp. 255-262.
Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J. and Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the
classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 212-223. Retrieved 2018.10.31 from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131507000498
Waldrip, B. and Prain, V. (2012). Learning from and through representations in science. In B.J Fraser, K.G. Tobin and C.J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. (pp. 145-155). Dordrecht: Springer.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. and Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations.
Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.
84
Sakyiwaa Danso: Fulfilling diverse learner needs: Preparing learners for high school science success through differentiated instructions
Fulfilling diverse learner needs: Preparing learners for high school science success through differentiated instructions
Sakyiwaa Danso*
Univeristy of the Witwatersrand, 27 St Andrews Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa
* Corresponding author e-mail address: 1443569@students.wits.ac.za
Abstract
This paper examines the impacts of differentiated instruction on learner perception, engagement, learning retention and outcomes and perceived challenges in its implementation. Using a pragmatic mixed-methods design, an experimental study was conducted in one public high school in Mthatha, South Africa, with one grade 11 physical science class. A total of one physical science teacher and 42 physical sciences learners in their intact classroom constituted the sample for the study. The intervention involved learners in physical science classroom instructed under Type 1 teaching styles: where the differentiated instructions were implemented for three weeks for the teaching of sub-topics under electricity and magnetism. The intervention was followed by a control in the same class where physical science learners were instructed under Type 2 teaching styles:
where the traditional teacher-centred strategies were implemented for another three weeks for the teaching of sub-topics under electricity and magnetism. A pre-test and post-test questionnaire, followed by semi-structured focus group interviews and bi-weekly class observation schedules were used to gather data for the study. A series of statistical analyses were conducted to reveal the impact of differentiated instruction on learner engagement, perception, and retention and learning outcome.
Qualitative data was analysed using inductive data analysis. The findings indicated that learners developed positive learning experiences, engaged in their school work and retained the information they learned. The study has implications for curriculum development, teacher professional development and research directions. Conclusions drawn from this study may be used to help improve teacher instructional practices and ultimately learner achievement in physical sciences.
Keywords:differentiated instructions; learner achievement; learning styles; physical sciences
INTRODUCTION
The current state of public education in South Africa has created a system in which high school learners’ achievements and teachers’ performances are scrutinized intensely. Both private and public schools are accountable for the performance of learners in yearly matric end of year examination. Schools are then evaluated based on their performance in the NCS matric examination. As a result of the increased accountability placed on schools and the continuous pressure to meet national and provincial standards, teachers are constantly challenged with the difficult task of meeting the needs of all learners and preparing them to succeed at the end of year examinations. However, learners come to the science classroom with their diverse individual cultural backgrounds, learning styles preferences, interest, and with different intellects. This diversity among learners in the science classroom could result in a considerable challenge for teachers in reaching out to all learners.
Nonetheless, during classroom interactions, some learners may find the topic to be too easy and the lesson interesting, while other learners may find the topic to be too difficult to comprehend.
However, knowing learners allow teachers to respond to learners’ readiness, interest, and learning profile (Martin, 2013). Responding to learners’ readiness involves the learner’s current understanding of a topic. When learners’ readiness levels differ, the teachers’ instructional strategies must be differentiated to meet the needs of each learner. What the learner loves to do and what motivates the learner refers to learner interest. Interest differentiation, involves taking
85
the curriculum or content and delivering instruction based on what interest the learner (Heacox, 2012). Therefore, it is utmost important that learners are provided with different instructional strategies to cater for their individual differences. As Burke and Garger (1985) argued, effective educational decisions and practices must derive from an understanding of the ways that individuals learn, and therefore, as suggested by Landrum and McDuffie (2010) the use of differentiated instructional strategies are necessary to reach individual learners.
For that reason, differentiated instruction is considered an effective method for providing instructions for all learners and hence as argued by Tomlinson (2000a) “promotes equity and excellence by focusing on best-practice instruction in mixed ability classrooms,” (p. 25).
Drawing on the work of Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, and Reid (2005) who specified that, by using differentiated instruction, teachers expect learners “to bring a variety of experiences, abilities, interests, and styles to their learning; they acknowledge that these affect learners’ performance in the classroom; and they address this natural diversity when planning and delivering rigorous and relevant, yet flexible and responsive instruction,” (p. 196). Thus, for learners to be engaged and motivated in the classroom simultaneously, teachers must understand and acknowledge their differences when teaching.
Although much research has been conducted on differentiated instructions, much less research seems to have been conducted on the use of differentiated instructions in high school science classrooms. Smit and Humpert (2012) agreed on this view by stating that, differentiated instruction “has not been deeply researched” (p. 1152), especially in high school science classrooms (Maeng, 2011, Callahan, Moon, & Oh, 2017). In addition, previous qualitative studies determining the effectiveness of differentiated instruction have reviewed conflicting results. Some studies have revealed the effectiveness of differentiated instruction over traditional teacher-centred instruction (Aliakbari & Haghigi, 2014; Dosch & Zidon, 2014).
However, some studies showed no significant difference with the traditional teacher-centred instruction (Maxey, 2013; Vincent, 2012). Indeed, after a review of the literature, this perception seems to hold some validity, yet a few studies suggest positive learning outcomes resulting from differentiated instructional practices. The gap in the literature has therefore motivated the researcher to conduct this study.
Against this background, this study aimed at implementing differentiated instruction in a science classroom to determine its impacts on learners’ academic outcomes. This study further investigated learners’ experiences with differentiated instruction. Hence, this study was set to specifically address the following research questions:
(1) What impacts does the differentiated instruction have on learners’ academic outcomes, interest and retention?
(2) What are the learners’ experiences with differentiated instructions?