Back to University

On the 6th of July I spent the day watching uni students at ACU go into SL, create their avatar and have some fun answering some tricky questions. Matt Campbell was inspiring. His passion for teaching and learning was evident in the time he spent getting students comfortable in the experience and participating in the discussions online. This was a giant learning leap for me and I really appreciated his time and energy getting me through this.

Further Research

New technologies are transforming education for the Information Age. This article explores progress in the application of new technologies to the education of gifted students. The topics discussed include constructivism, new learning environments, empowerment of students, and some promising applications of telecommunications, image processing, and expert systems. As appropriate uses of these modern productivity tools evolve, new roles are emerging for them in gifted education.

Key Words: constructivism, learning environments, empowerment of students, telecommunications, image processing.

The new technologies that are the tools of the Information Age have changed the way information is managed, presented, stored, retrieved, transmitted, manipulated, taught, and learned. At several levels, new technologies are part of the transformation of education. At the most basic level, they are a factor underlying the need for change in education. At one time, a mimetic approach to education was satisfactory because students could learn a relatively fixed body of knowledge and apply that information later in their work. Now, because of the vast amount of information available and the ever increasing rate of change, a transformative approach to education is required (Moursund, 1992a). Students must become information managers, knowing how to access, organize, and present information. At other levels, new technologies teach relevant skills and knowledge, and their use already has become part of the curriculum.

The computer is an excellent example of new technologies, and the microcomputer is becoming commonplace in homes and schools. When first introduced into education, microcomputers were used as electronic textbooks or worksheets. Educational software delivered textual information or provided drill and practice. As comfort with the new medium increased, ideas about better uses of technology evolved. This article explores the evolution of these ideas and their application to the education of gifted students. First, a brief history of the role of microcomputers in gifted education is presented, and this is followed by a discussion of constructivism, a theory which describes how people learn using technology. Next, new technology-rich learning environments and the resulting empowerment of gifted students are described, and three specific technologies or applications important to gifted education are highlighted. These are telecommunications, image processing, and expert systems. In conclusion, the relationship between gifted education and new technologies is examined.

Microcomputers in Education From the Early 1980s to Present

In 1980, Taylor described three roles for computers in education: the tutor, tool, or tutee. In the tutor role, the computer delivered instruction to the student from educational software which had been programmed by experts. This software promoted learning through drill and practice, tutorial, educational games, simulation, problem solving, and computer-managed instruction. The computer was also viewed as a production tool, primarily used for word processing. The tutee role, in which the student taught or programmed the computer to perform various tasks, was viewed as most advanced. Computer literacy was also taught in the early and mid 1980s. It involved learning to operate a computer in the tutor role and was viewed as an important goal for gifted students. It soon became a goal for most students and many adults.

In 1983, Dover addressed the role .of computers in the education of gifted students. She emphasized applications, such as simulations and programming, in which students had some degree of control as they engaged in creative problem solving and the construction of conceptual models. She saw the computer as a vehicle for individualization of instruction which was becoming particularly important for gifted students because of the trend toward larger class sizes.

In 1985, Beasley declared that most educational software was not using the capabilities of the hardware or the programming techniques of the time. He stated that good educational software should provide mental activity on various levels while emphasizing the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy. Most importantly, the software should be integrated into the curriculum and contribute to valid educational goals. Beasley described computing with gifted students as different from computing with other students because of these students' specific needs. These learners required a broad range of subject matter as well as accelerated learning activities which involved complex thinking and the synthesis of information. Beasley stated that the computer held promise for managing information and as a design and production tool. He believed that learning to program a computer was not necessary for all computer users, and programming was most appropriately taught in business education departments and as enrichment for gifted students. The primary benefit of using computers with gifted students, according to Beasley, was that computers placed no ceiling on learning so that students could reach advanced levels of proficiency and knowledge.

In the context of education reform, Barr (1990) described the role of computers and related technologies. He stated five essential goals and described technologies that could be appropriately used for their attainment. The five goals were to make learning more independent, more individualized, more interactive, more interdisciplinary, and more intuitive.

Examples of technologies to make learning more independent were electronic databases (CD-ROM, on-line, or laserdisc) and various research technologies, such as probes and other automated data acquisition tools. To make learning more individualized, Barr suggested computer-aided instruction, hypertext, and hypermedia. To make learning more interactive, he described video projection systems, expert systems, interactive video, and telecommunication networks. Barr commented that making learning more interdisciplinary using technology was not difficult because most technologies focus on the learning process and are not inherently content-based. For interdisciplinary learning, Barr recommended generic computer data manipulation tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, and data bases. Other technologies that he described for this purpose were simulations and local networks. To make learning more intuitive, he discussed visualization technology, graphing, and model building. Barr did not directly address the relationship between gifted education and new technologies or the issue of differentiation for gifted students. He explained instead applications of various technologies based on his own experience in gifted education.

Since 1990, further changes have occurred. The decade began with CD-ROM (Compact Disks with Read Only Memory) databases in libraries. These databases stored vast amounts of information which could be accessed by computer. By 1991, entire encyclopedias, complete with pictures, video clips, and sound, became available for less than one thousand dollars in this medium. Software applications that were available in the 1980s had a new look in the 1990s. Applications became easier to use and more powerful. The word processor that permitted on-screen editing and the movement of blocks of text in the mid 1980s, gained a spelling checker, thesaurus, and dictionary. Other additions were the ability to make tables, wrap text around inserts, and import graphics or video clips. Spread-sheets of the 1990s added graphing and data exploration to their calculating capabilities, and special purpose databases became available.

Constructivism and New Technologies

The introduction and use of these new technologies in the classroom has changed current thinking about how people learn. One theory of learning, constructivism, is receiving new-found attention as theorists attempt to understand learning through the use of new technologies. Constructivism is based on the idea that knowledge is constructed by the learner, and learners develop their own theories about the environment and what is known. These personal theories are internal representations of knowledge derived from the ideas and experiences of the learner. This knowledge is developed in a social context. The learner negotiates with other people using hypotheses, observations, and data to construct consistent systems of belief (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1991). Constructivists believe that learning is a collaborative, active process occurring in realistic settings, and that evaluation is an integral part of the learning (Merrill, 1991).

Constructivism, which explains how students learn using new technologies, emphasizes the learning process rather than instruction or performance. Under constructivism, students assume much of the responsibility for determining what to learn and how to learn it. Task masters, in the form of teachers and technology, assist by coaching and providing access to the information and skills needed by the learner. The learning space is defined as the difference between what the student can do alone and what can be done with assistance (Polin, 1992). To learn, the student must venture from what is known and construct a new reality. Through this process, the student learns how to learn.

Constructivism, thus, has implied a new role for technology, that of teaching how to learn (Winn, 1991). To clarify this role, Winn focused on two tasks for the instructional designer. One is to present instruction in areas of basic knowledge and skills. This is needed so the learner will have some background and tools with which to begin exploring. The technologies or tools which teach content are said to be "full" of information to be transferred to the student. They are contrasted with "empty" shells into which students put information for exploration. Thus, the other task for the instructional designer is to develop the shells which allow students to construct meaning for themselves. Bull and Cochran (1991) explained that these shells should have a low threshold so that learning to use them is not difficult, and they should also have a high ceiling so that learning is not restricted. Five of these powerful instructional tools are currently available for classroom use (Polin (1992): Point of View, STELLA II, LogoWriter, The Geometric Supposer, and LEGO TC Logo.

The use of shells to promote exploration of information has potential for gifted education because it involves open-ended activities with a high ceiling for the learning. These same characteristic are also present in the constructivist learning environments themselves. For example, Jonassen (1991) identified three stages of knowledge acquisition under constructivism that become meaningful in the context of gifted education. They were initial (or introductory), advanced, and expert. In the initial or introductory stage, learners have little knowledge that can be transferred. It is in the second, or advanced, stage that constructivist learning environments become appropriate, and learners are able to construct, test, and revise their own theories. As these theories expand and incorporate information about the structure, schematic patterns, and interconnectedness of knowledge, learners move beyond the advanced stage to become expert. For gifted learners the acquisition of basic skills occurs quickly, and at the second and third stages, a constructivist learning environment permits these students to use their knowledge for the construction of more complex views of reality.

New Learning Environments

Technology-rich learning environments, such as those from which constructivist theory has evolved, have been studied since 1985 in Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT). These studies provide a preview of possible scenarios for education in the future and information about the process of change. For example, Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz (1991) described five stages in the evolution of teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. At the entry stage, classrooms were provided with conventional teaching materials, computers, and multimedia technology. During the next stage, described as adoption, teachers taught as they had before but used technology to support some objectives. In the adaptation stage, conventional teaching practices continued, and technology was integrated throughout the curriculum. Students received information through lecture, recitation, and seat work which was supported 30% to 40% of the time by word processing, the use of databases, and instructional software. During this phase, teachers talked about productivity as students produced more and faster, and the quality of classroom interaction changed as students became very involved in their own learning.

The next stage, called appropriation, was marked by mastery of the technology by teachers and students, and new instructional patterns emerged. Team teaching, individualized instruction, and interdisciplinary, project-based activities became more common as the tone of the classroom changed from competition to collaboration. Teachers noted that students showed tremendous curiosity about one anothers' work, taught each other, and sought advice from the teachers. Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz stated that the most important change in this phase was the new role which emerged for teachers as they reexamined old teaching methods and patterns and reflected on the changes that were taking place in their students.

In the last stage, invention, teachers invented new instructional strategies and viewed learning from a different perspective than they had previously:

Today, the staff of ACOT's classrooms are more disposed to view learning as an active, creative, and socially interactive process than they were when they entered the program. Knowledge is now held more as something children must construct and less like something that can be transferred intact. (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991, p. 50)

Studies of education in technology-rich environments offer new perspectives on the nature of information and the learning process. Some new learning environments support multiple interpretations of reality and provide a wealth of experience-based activities. Three components of the new environments have particular promise for gifted students: individualized learning, collaborative learning, and adults learning with children.

Individualized Learning. Individualized learning becomes a reality when supported by new technologies which help plan, monitor, and evaluate the progress of many students simultaneously. New technologies also can provide a variety of learning experiences in which the content and pace are customized and the environment is safe for exploration and error. All learners will benefit from individualized learning and being allowed to make and correct errors. This includes gifted students who often expect themselves to produce error-free work and, thus, may limit their activities and inquiry to be certain of this outcome. The complexity introduced by new technologies frequently makes error-free work impossible, but most technologies facilitate the revision process. Thus, right or wrong becomes less important than whether it is "fixable" (Papert, 1980), and the learner becomes more comfortable with error.

Collaborative Learning. Constructivists include collaboration as an important feature of the new learning environments. Collaborative learning is an umbrella term denoting learning that is not competitive and does not occur in isolation (Chung, 1991). In collaborative learning, the distinction between teachers and students is blurred as they both actively participate in the learning process. Their collaboration produces a sense of sharing and community as they create knowledge together rather than transferring it from one individual to another (Whipple, 1987).

Collaboration is a broad term involving the interaction of teachers, mentors, and technologies with one another or with students. Groups are not required for collaboration. Indeed, individualized learning may be collaborative when only one student interacts with a teacher. Another example is a student working in one setting to produce a product, but sharing information by modem with a mentor or other students. With the rich offerings of new technologies, the possibilities for collaborative learning are numerous and easily applicable to the education of gifted students.

One type of collaboration is cooperative learning (Chung, 1991). Recently, cooperative learning and the grouping of students have been major sources of concern in gifted education. It is possible, however, these grouping practices and teaching strategies may represent only the explorations to date in the development of collaborative learning environments. In the future when cooperative learning is viewed simply as one type of collaborative strategy, perhaps the needs of all students, including the gifted, will be met.

Adults Learning With Children. The roles of teacher and learner are blurred in the new learning environments due to the information explosion; teachers and students often learn together and teach each other. CD-ROM encyclopedias were not even known when adults were in school, and teachers must continuously update their knowledge. At times, teachers may learn only hours or minutes before the students do, and there are times when they learn together. This frequently happens with gifted students who seek information beyond the teacher's scope. In some instances, the roles of teacher and student may be reversed. Koetke (1983), a teacher of mathematically gifted students, stated:

Some of my most enlightening experiences have occurred as my students attempt to teach me enough to understand their computer-related work. And when they do this with a patient smile, the experience is most enjoyable (p. 270).

This reversal of the roles of teacher and student is an example of the new experiences available for learners in technology-rich learning environments. These experiences empower students and occur in varied forms. Examples of this empowerment are given in the next section.

Empowerment of Students

In technology-rich settings students are empowered in many ways. They gain access to real data and work on authentic problems (Williams & Brown, 1991). Information about demographic and economic trends, for example, can be used for calculations and projections. At a magnet high school in Virginia, students use two supercomputers for their projects (Trotter, 1991). The students won access to the supercomputers through team efforts in Superquest, a national student computing contest, and some of their findings have received attention from the scientific community.

Hypertext, or hypermedia, is another application of technology that empowers students. Hypertext is augmented text in which the computer provides access through windows, buttons, or links to supplemental information that the user might want or need. The supplemental information may be additional text, audio and video input, graphics, animated sequences, or combinations of these. As a user of hypermedia or hypertext, the student chooses what to do next. As the creator of these productions, the student decides what information to make available to the audience.

Using computers for more practical applications, such as word processing, also gives students a powerful, successful feeling. Through word processing applications, students learn to focus their thoughts, collaborate, revise and produce quality work. When students achieve this success, they are more apt to take risks (Soloman, 1992). This is especially important for gifted learners who later enter occupations that involve decision making with incomplete information or in ambiguous settings. New technologies offer a safe environment with sufficient complexity that students can practice the skills that they will need in the future.

In addition, technologies are important for gifted education because dents can access information and participate in activities that would have been beyond their reach in the past (Beasley, 1985). Since computers are relatively new to education, grade level objectives and expectations are incomplete. Producing these objectives is itself a difficult task because as quickly as educators form an understanding of what may be expected, modifications in hardware or software change what is possible. Also, outside of the classroom, students may have acquired an extraordinary proficiency in some complex technological task. In their use of new technologies, students frequently form their own objectives and are empowered not only by the new media but also by the lack of limitations placed on them by adults.

Empowered students may look to computers and other technologies for challenge and recreation that reaches beyond video games. Because of the nature of the media, students can sample broadly or focus their inquiries as they wish while gaining useful skills. An example of intellectual recreation that involved technologies was studied by Jian-jun (1991) He compared young "computer wizards" in China with their counterparts in the United States. These young people had taught themselves to program in several different computer languages. When asked why, the reasons given most frequently were to master a tool and to develop talents. Some students reported that they learned programming languages for enjoyment in their spare time.

Specific Technologies and Applications

Of the many new technologies and applications with potential for use in gifted education, three are described here: telecommunications, image processing, and expert systems. Telecommunications and expert systems have matured to the stage that they could be used more widely than they are now in the education setting, and image processing is a new field which may provide students with giftedness in the nonverbal realm opportunities to excel.

Telecommunications. Telecommunications is a broad field, rapidly becoming more complex as new modes of communication are developed and combined with existing ones. Interestingly, the public readily accepts developments in this field, ideas for applications abound, and the cost is often minimal. Knowing how to access and use the technology offer the main barriers to its adoption. Schools, which could be teaching about these technologies, have been slow to understand the possibilities that they offer. Two forms of telecommunication that have multiple uses in gifted education are telelearning and electronic mail (E.mail).

Telelearning, or distance learning, has many possible configurations. In its simpler forms, it may involve audio conferencing with speaker phones, video tape exchange networks, or computers with modems linked by phone lines; but it may also involve electronic blackboards, audio conferences, satellite downlinks, video teleconferencing, and more. Whatever form it takes, it links people who are geographically distant; and it is currently used to provide classes for students in remote or rural areas. Lewis (1989) described a distance learning system that transmitted advanced course work to academically talented high school students in rural areas of Louisiana. University of Alaska routinely uses interactive satellite systems, E.mail, electronic conferencing, FAX, and audio and video tapes to reach students in remote settlements. Telelearning can involve the gifted student directly, or it may bring staff development training or course work to teachers of gifted students (Clasen & Clasen, 1989). It removes the barrier of distance and offers one more tool for individualizing instruction.

Electronic mail or E.mail refers to communication between persons using computers to access phone lines with modems. E.mail is supported by worldwide telecommunication networks, which use a store-and-forward process to move information from node to node. E.mail messages can be sent between two users or from one user to an entire list of others who might have interest in the topic. Messages can also be posted on electronic bulletin boards for public access. Some of the most common uses for E.mail messaging are to request and transfer information, consult experts, and communicate with others. Clasen & Clasen described linking educators of gifted students in isolated school districts via E.mail. This was done in Wisconsin to create a statewide network for sharing information about gifted education. Students can also be linked to pen pals with E.mail and learn about other students around the world.

Another use of E.mail is to access information. This may be done directly from sources such as remote databases, library catalogs, and on-line encyclopedias; or access may be gained through an electronic bulletin board or some other information service. This method of retrieving information is not only convenient but permits the user to locate information that might not otherwise be available. Southern and Spicker (1989) described use of bulletin boards and electronic curriculum for distance learning with gifted students in rural Indiana.

Image Processing. Image processing is a new field now opening for exploration, and it has promise for students with nonverbal giftedness. Image processing can be as simple as enhancing images using application software, or it can be as complex as using mathematical transformations for enhancement, formulas from physics for prediction, and bio-medical knowledge for interpretation. It could involve the development of new information processing mechanisms for the storage, transmission, manipulation, retrieval, and classification of these data.

Massive amounts of image data are accumulating from such varied sources as medical imaging techniques and the space program with its fly-by photos. For example, over 20,000 planetary science images are available for exploration. The data are in digital form and must be manipulated by computer to enhance on-screen images. To do this, image processing is required. It involves manipulating the digital data, in a sense editing it, until satisfactory results are obtained. Also measurements involving scaled distances must be made. Images are stored in picture databases for information retrieval at a later time. Image processing has many similarities to word processing, and some other manipulations of verbal information have counterparts in the image form.

In gifted education, students with very high abilities in the abstract or non-verbal realm are routinely identified for special services, but their true talents have rarely been cultivated. Using technologies now available for image processing or other graphics applications, these students can explore and develop their exceptional talents while preparing for a future role in these new fields.

Expert Systems. Expert systems are single purpose computer programs that give customized information to the user, and because of this customization, these programs are useful in gifted education. They are programmed to question, reason, and advise as an expert would, and they may become valuable tools for individualizing instruction, augmenting existing information resources for gifted individuals (Wepner, 1988). Based on the child's interests and reading level, for example, a program might recommend books for a gifted child to read.

With some expert systems, the user can examine the reasoning trace, or how the computer arrived at its decision. This is instructive and leads to other uses of these programs. Tamashiro and Bechtelheimer (1991) described expert systems as having educational applications in the tutor, tool, and tutee roles. Suggesting an appropriate book for a student or an appropriate course of study would be an example of using an expert system in its tool role. In this role, if the decision-making process is available for the user to examine, the expert system becomes an aid in teaching about thought processes. In the tutor role, an expert system which organizes or classifies information is designed by the teacher for student use. Tamashiro and Bechtelheimer gave an example of such a system that was used by second graders to identify cloud types. In the tutee role, the expert system is a shell that students use to organize information. In this role, students design the expert system themselves while exploring classification and the logic of decision-making.

Although expert systems have been available in other fields, applications are relatively new in education. Because these programs teach about thinking processes and provide customized information, their uses in education of gifted students could be explored.

Conclusion

New technologies are used productively in gifted education and promise change for the future. Specific technologies are pushing back the limits on what can be done and impacting the allocation of resources. Technology-rich learning environments are changing ideas about learning as they reshape the roles of teacher and student. Moreover, technologies have changed our ideas about what people should know. In the early days of microcomputer use in the schools, these technologies were viewed as an appropriate component of gifted education because of their complexity and predictable importance in the future. Now computer skills are viewed as being necessary for most people, and some technologies have been found to be more useful than others for highly able learners.

In the past, learning with technology was introduced in gifted education and then allowed to trickle down to regular education. This occurred inadvertently when there was one computer per classroom, and the students who finished work first could use it. This also has happened when there was a computer available for student use in the gifted resource room, but few computers were available for use elsewhere. Now, however, computers are more widely used, and they are seen as important tools that can engage most learners.

Applications of some new technologies will be piloted in regular education. This is already being done in the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow and the Saturn School (Hopkins, 1991). At times, however, gifted education may be the setting for the debut. This is due to a number of factors such as the complexity of the technology, scarcity of equipment and resources, and lack of knowledge on the part of the teachers. In such instances, implementing new technologies with groups of gifted students quickly provides educators with information about best uses. Gifted students are helpful in this process because they grasp the complex ideas, ask difficult questions, and use their own creativity to invent new applications. At the same time, the gifted learners gain experience with modem productivity tools (Moursund, 1992b), and they may be thrust into a leadership role. This role could involve their future assistance with the technology or its introduction into the school setting. It is important not to overuse gifted students as teachers. However, the rate of change confronting education is becoming so rapid that it is important to accelerate the adoption process. By enlisting the help of gifted students in this way, innovations will used well and by those for whom they have promise as quickly as possible.

REFERENCES

Barr, D. (1990). A solution in search of a problem: The role of technology in educational reform, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 79-95.

Beasley, W. A. (1985). The role of microcomputers in the education of the gifted, Roeper Review, 7(3), 156-159.

Bull, G., & Cochran, P. (1991). Learner-based tools, The Computing Teacher, 18(7), 50-53.

Chung, J. (1991). Collaborative learning strategies: The design of instructional environments for the emerging new school, Educational Technology, 31(12), 15-21.

Clasen, D. R., & Clasen, R. E. (1989). Using telecommunications to meet the staff development and networking needs of educators of the gifted in small or rural school districts, Roeper Review, 11(4), 202-205.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991). Some thoughts about constructivism and instructional design, Educational Technology, 31 (9), 16-17.

Dover, A. (1983). Computers and the gifted: Past, present, and future, Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(2), 81-85.

Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practice in technology-rich classrooms, Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-52.

Hopkins, M. (1991). Technologies as tools for transforming learning environments, The Computing Teacher, 18(7), 27-30.

Jian-jun, Li (1991). A report on "computer wizzards" in China, Educational Technology, 31(2), 55-57.

Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning, Educational Technology, 31 (9), 28-33.

Koetke, W. (1983). Computers and the mathematically gifted, Mathematics Teacher, 76(4), 270-272.

Lewis, G. (1989). Telelearning: Making maximum use of the medium, Roeper Review, I 1(4), 195-198.

Merrill, M.D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design, Educational Technology, 31(5), 45-53.

Moursund, D. (1992a). Restructuring education, Part 4: Mimetic and transformative approaches, The Computing Teacher, 19(4), 4.

Moursund, D. (1992b). Restructuring education for the information age, Part 8: Measures of success, The Computing Teacher, 19(8), 5.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms, New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Polin, L. (1992). Subvert the dominant paradigm, The Computing Teacher, 19(8), 6-7.

Soloman, G. (1992). Technology and the balance of power, The Computing Teacher, 19(8), 10-11.

Southern, W. T, & Spicker, H. H. (1989). The rural gifted on line: Bulletin boards and electronic curriculum, Roeper Review, 11(4), 199-202.

Tamashiro, R., & Bechtelheimer, L. (1991). Expert systems in the elementary grades: Developing thinking skills and independent learning, The Computing Teacher, 18(5), 21-26.

Taylor, R. P. (Ed.), (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, and tutee, New York: Teachers' College Press.

Trotter, A. (1991). The sky's the limit when students meet supercomputers, Executive Educator, 13(2), 17-18.

Wepner, S. B. (1988). Creating computer environments for gifted learners in primary classrooms, Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 4(3), 155-170.

Whipple,W. R. (October, 1987). Collaborative learning: Recognizing it when we see it, AAHE Bulletin, 4-6. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 289)

Williams, C. J., & Brown, S. W. (1991). A review of the research issues in the use of computer-related technologies for instruction: An agenda for research. In B. Branyon-Broadbent & R. K. Wood (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 17) (pp. 26-42). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Winn, W. D. (1991). The assumptions of Constructivism and instructional design, Educational Technology, 31(9), 38-40.

~~~~~~~~

By Christine Mann

Christine Mann teaches gifted students in Scottsdale Public Schools.

Research Findings into using ICT in Gifted Learning

My university lecturer has very kindly allowed me to write my final essay on
The benefits of using ICT in developing learning tasks for gifted students.
I am looking at the Second Life experience and suggesting that the charateristics of the gifted learner are suited to this type of learning experience.

Here is some of the research so far...

Australian Journal of Educational Technology 1998, 14(1), 35-48.

AJET 14

Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students through technology supported distance teaching

Catherine McLoughlin and Ron Oliver
Edith Cowan University

In 1997 an initiative by the Education Department of Western Australia extended the use of audiographic conferencing to provide for talented and gifted students in rural Western Australia. In addition to increasing the access and participation of rural and isolated students to a special curriculum designed to extend and enrich their learning, the initiative also aimed to extend and develop the applications of technology for gifted students. For these students, the goal of higher order thinking was sought as a learning outcome. Based on observations and research on the actual classrooms where audiographic conferencing was used to mediate learning, this paper suggests that higher order thinking among students can be fostered by utilising audiographic conferencing to create a classroom milieu of peer discourse, investigation and visual display of ideas. Teachers were encouraged to support the skills of negotiation, verbal elaboration and peer revision of ideas and to utilise the two-way audio and video elements of the technology to maximise learning. The initial evaluation of the project for gifted and talented students indicated that the interactive features of the technology provided the possibilities for task-related collaboration and gave students the opportunity to interpret, discuss and evaluate concepts, thereby leading to higher order thinking.

---

Background to the study

In 1997 an initiative was taken by the Education Department of WA (EDWA) to extend the Academic Talent Program via telematics delivery. The curriculum to be delivered, while covering the core curriculum areas, was also intended to enrich and extend students, and to develop independent thinking strategies. The stated aims of the curriculum as laid down in the Curriculum Framework (EDWA, 1996) documents was to develop both content knowledge and understandings and to enrich students so that they could demonstrate a range of higher level cognitive skills such as:

• the ability to access and synthesise information; a knowledge of the ways in which language varies according to content, purpose, audience and context;
• the capacity to work collaboratively;
• the capacity to develop reasoned arguments about interpretation and meaning;
• the capacity to develop reasoned arguments about interpretation and meaning;
• the capacity to apply problem-solving capacities in a purposeful ways, including situations requiring critical thinking;
• the capacity to apply solving approaches in various contexts;
• an appreciation of the ways in which language varies according to context; and
• the capacity to plan and organise activities, sort out priorities and monitor one's own performance.

Teachers were expected to develop these competencies in students while teaching via audiographic conferencing, in a networked synchronous environment. In the research, teachers were observed and monitored as they worked towards achieving higher order thinking outcomes with their students.

The immediate context of the study was a cluster of 5 telematics classrooms of Western Australia, where audiographic conferencing was used extensively for delivery of programs in Maths, Science, Italian, Social Studies and English (McLoughlin, Oliver & Wood, 1997). Delivering to several sites simultaneously, teachers used the resources offered by the technology and combined these with both pedagogy and curriculum objectives. This paper reports a research study which sought to explore ways to assist the teachers to utilise the technology in ways which were able to achieve the higher order thinking outcomes that were stated explicitly in the curriculum documents. In addition, through collaborative research partnership with teachers, the researchers aimed to assist in the development of practical strategies which would complement the curriculum orientation and teaching approaches that were already in place.

Rationale for the study

The rationale for the study was to support students in the achievement of higher order thinking outcomes and to develop pedagogies for the particular contexts of the schools involved in the distance education program. In Western Australia, audiographic conferencing is used for delivery of curricula to students in rural and remote areas. This form of delivery is likely to continue and be augmented by other conferencing technologies as rural schools continue to expand and offer specialised programs for gifted and talented students.

Despite the fact that over 100 schools in Western Australia are served by the audiographics program, little attention has been given to the actual social interactions and applications of technology or to the nature of teaching in this form of distance teaching. Nevertheless, discussion of the unique character of audiographics teaching and learning are in evidence. Burge & Roberts (1993) report on the potential of this technology to support collaborative, visual learning and an "extended classroom " model of teaching. In another study, Gunawardena (1992, p. 61) reports that "two-way interactive telecommunication systems such as audiographics provide opportunities to develop learner-controlled instructional systems that make frequent interaction mandatory for effective learning experiences". In the Australian context, Oliver & McLoughlin (1997, p. 51) report a study which found that telematics learning environments had low levels of learner control and learner autonomy, and that lessons were strongly teacher directed. The authors concluded that "few teachers used instructional models that would enable them to promote higher order learning outcomes". These findings are consistent with an earlier study conducted by Oliver & Reeves (1994) where interactions tended to be centred on low level questions and exchange of information, rather than engagement in tasks which involved problem solving and reasoning.

In a later study by McLoughlin, Oliver & Wood (1997), it was proposed that both a pedagogic framework and a socially based classroom model can be used to reconceptualise teaching and learning. Given the intrinsically verbal and aural nature of teaching and learning via audiographics, research that examines the different communicative and interactive functions of talk is imperative, as these interactions support the teaching-learning relationship, define roles and influence how and what students learn. By investigating participant roles, the research focus planned to take on a different perspective, described by Greeno (1997) as 'participation structures'. This meant looking closely at how teachers and students interact, as it is through these interactions that most learning outcomes are achieved.

Methods of instruction are not only instruments for acquiring skills; they are also practices in which students learn to participate. In these practices, students develop patterns of participation that contribute to their identities as learners, which includes the way they take initiative and responsibility for their learning (p.12).

One aspect of the research was therefore to examine the patterns of interaction that occurred and the manner in which they were supported by technology, in order to understand how student-collaboration was supported and maintained, and how this was fostered by the technology and by teacher pedagogy. The study was based on actual teaching encounters and events over the duration of one academic year, and traced the evolving skills of the students at expressing ideas, reasoning, explaining and engaging in collaborative discourse. It also monitored the communicative strategies used by teachers in fostering higher order cognition.

Learning and theories of social interaction

If it is accepted that learning in technology supported environments is a socially organised educational activity involving talk, interaction and dialogue between learners and adults or expert teachers, it follows that there are different ways of conceptualising learning in directions that connect it with the social world, with language and with culture. For Laurillard (1995) this means the adoption of a communicative model of education, in which knowledge is a negotiated commodity. Like socio-cultural theory, Laurillard's conversational framework provides a social and communicative perspective on teaching and learning. Learning is culturally influenced and a social rather than an individual process. Vygotsky believed that " human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 89). Language plays a vital role in enabling the learner to participate and communicate with others, and so talk and interaction are therefore essential to learning (McLoughlin & Oliver, 1997).

In audiographics classrooms these elements are vital to the success of the lesson, and are recognised in the socio-interactionist perpectives on learning (Crook, 1994). The second theoretical concept associated with the socio-cultural framework is the use of tools and signs to mediate learning about the world. According to Vygotsky (1978) signs include language, mnemonics, mathematics language, art and diagrams etc. Tools on the other hand, mediate forms of interaction with the environment and support problem solving and development of understanding. Such technologies as computers are part of the communication process in many classrooms, and they are also part of the social fabric of learning as they support interaction and provide a focus for discussion by enabling sharing of ideas, visual display and collaboration. Technology use was therefore regarded as integral to the classrooms of the study, as it supported dialogue, interaction and sharing of ideas.

Planning for higher order thinking

Several elements were identified by the researchers as important to the design of the learning environment for talented and gifted student learning in the classrooms of the study. Firstly, teachers needed to have a clear idea of what higher level thinking entailed, and how it could be supported in discourse and dialogue. It was proposed that teachers adopt a socio-communicative theory of learning and teaching, which supported the curriculum outcomes, but with the added dimension of collaborative reasoning and verbal expression. An emphasis on communication appealed to teachers, and provided a sound basis for these telematics classrooms, as listening and speaking skills were fundamental to the effective use of the technology. Secondly, the adoption of a collaborative dialogue model (Burge & Roberts, 1993) provided teachers with a broader and socially based perspective on learning, where learners contributed to, and supported the learning process, and technology acted to bridge the distance. It was characterised by fundamental changes in perspective from:

• a view of learning confined to the classroom and controlled by the teacher, to one of a learning environment which was supportive, extended and distributed, consisting of a community of learners;

• a view of technology as a tool or as a teacher, to a view of computers as resources which could display creative ideas, provide a resource for inquiry, and extend thinking by bringing together students from different locations;

• a view of learning as individualised, to one which was communicative, shared and dynamic;

• a preoccupation with teaching "content" to multiple sites simultaneously to allocating responsibility to small groups for self monitoring and sharing of ideas, and analysing content, ideas and experiences.

Adoption of the extended classroom model encouraged teachers to create opportunities for higher order thinking by giving students more responsibility for their learning and by fostering communication between remote sites using the communications networks. Teachers were able to oversee social interaction in groups to ensure that there was equal participation between the remote schools. In addition, creative forms of leadership where students took control were encouraged, rather than teacher initiated discourse.

Thirdly, a clear focus on learners as active participants and collaborators enabled the teacher to plan lessons where a range of communicative functions were initiated and sustained by the learners. Autonomy and self-direction were fostered throughout the one-year observation period in which classes were monitored and observed.

Method

The participants in this study were five teachers in different subject areas, Mathematics, Science, English, Italian and Social Studies. Each teacher taught a small class of students, with the students distributed across several distant sites. All students participating in the study were in the first year at secondary school and aged between 12.5 and 13.5 years. The study focussed on two important aspects of teaching for higher order thinking, teacher planning for higher order thinking, through specification of lesson formats and teaching strategies that would support these outcomes, and the adoption of pedagogies that would facilitate the development and maintenance of higher order thinking and students' awareness of their own thinking.

Teachers utilised the curriculum guidelines to develop programs to meet the needs of their students, while applying the potentialities of the technology to achieve an appropriate level of communication and create a context where higher levels of cognition could flourish. The research involved both naturalistic observation of classrooms and diagnosis of teachers' pedagogies and students' learning processes.

Research phases

The research was conducted in three phases.

Phase 1: During this stage classes were observed and teacher and student behaviours were monitored and recorded on videotape. Two hours of classroom teaching were videotaped for each subject. Lessons were then fully transcribed to include activities, technology use and interactions of students. At the end of this ten week phase, the nature of each classroom environment was analysed and teachers were able to consider the appropriateness of strategies they had employed.

Table 1: A framework for investigating interactions in classrooms

Type of interaction	Description	Example
non task talk	participants engaging in social or administrative talk not relevant to the learning task	T: Hello Vicky how are you? S: Very well thank you. T: Good. So how was your homework ?
procedural	teacher/student dialogue involving information exchange on course requirements or homework and procedures	S: Teacher can you tell me how many pages you want us to write? T: I'm looking for about 2 pages in total. S: Can we do more?
expository	student or teacher demonstrating knowledge or skill in response to a direct request from another	T: Can anyone tell me word for ice-cream in Italian? S: Is it gelato? T: Fantastic
feedback	teacher using student responses to give feedback, praise or reinforcement	T: This is how we place our fingers to play the note A. Can you play for me Mandy? S: (plays the note on her recorder) T: That was good but you have to blow a bit harder
cognitive support	teacher providing constructive feedback to a student response causing the student to reflect and to consider an alternative perspective/reality	T: Can you explain what you think was the main reason for his actions? S: He was angry and wanted to get even. T: But was that all? What about his wish to improve his position and standing? S: I suppose he did but I thought that he would have done it differently.
control	teacher issuing a directive or instruction to students that would limit interpretation of the task	T: OK everybody, write "speech " in your graphic outline of culture.
reconstruc- tion	teacher repeats the student's response, but changes the wording so that it is more correct	T: So why are trees useful to us? S: They are home for animals T: Yes , good. They are the natural habitat for animals.

Phase 2: In collaboration with the researchers, a training session was planned to enable teachers to develop strategies and language protocols in their classrooms which would substantially improve students' independent thinking skills. Teachers were then videotaped and interviewed for 2 lessons during another term of 10 weeks as they sought to implement their changed teaching practices and to foster more occurrences of higher order thinking.

Phase 3: Teachers were shown the outcomes of their changed practices and caused to reflect on their achievement of increased higher order thinking and how this could be further enhanced. Once again, two lessons of each teacher were videotaped during a third term of teaching in order to explore the nature of the teaching and learning environments.

Instrumentation for analysis of data

A classroom observation instrument that served as an indicator of teacher pedagogy was developed and used to provide descriptors of the teaching and learning environment. A number of approaches have been proposed for analysing interactions in classrooms and learning environments, such as discourse analysis, systematic observation and coding schemes (McLoughlin & Oliver, 1995). Discourse analysis of communicative interactions was chosen for the present study because of its potential to provide a multilevel understanding of the learning process. A framework of seven forms of interaction and discourse was chosen for the present study because of its potential to provide a multi-level understanding of the learning process. Table 1 presents an overview of the categories used to code teacher-student talk.

For analysis of talk, the categories of non-task, procedural and expository talk were used, as these were reciprocated by students when teacher initiated the dialogue. The other major category of student talk was higher order thinking, which was coded according to whether higher order thinking was evident in the discourse. Four dimensions of higher order thinking were identified through language indicators of reasoning (Perkins, 1997) where students cited evidence for views held, demonstrated inquiry and reflective skills and interpreted concepts throughout the lesson.

Classroom observations in Phase 1

The initial observations of teachers working in classrooms showed that much of the talk that occurred was expository, procedural and control based. Didactic patterns were evident in the data, where teachers asked the questions and students responded with short factual answers. Descriptive statistics on each of the categories are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2 illustrates that much of the teacher talk that occurred in the observation phase was to do with non-task, or procedural matters, such as management, roll call, disciplinary issues and homework. The proportion of teacher talk that related to cognitive support and development of conceptual understanding was relatively low, with the maximum being 20% in the Mathematics classes.

Initial observations of the classrooms in phase 1 of the study also revealed that students had:

• dependent roles in the dialogue where they responded but did not initiate;
• limited opportunities to talk and practice skills, and engage in social talk;
• lack of meaningful activities to enable them to express personal views, opinions and engage in informal reasoning about their own educational experiences.

Table 2: Mean percentages of teacher talk by category in phase 1

Lesson	non task %	procedural %	expository %	control %	reconstr- uction %	cognitive %	feedback %	Total %
Maths 1 & 2	13	18	21	14.5	3.5	20	10	100
English 1 & 2	12	19	21.5	20.5	4	17	7	100
Science 1 & 2	13.5	25	21.5	15	2	17	6	100
Italian	10	21	22	17	2.5	16	11.5	100
S. Studies 1 & 2	7.5	25	20	23	2.5	15	7	100

Phase 2

To overcome these limitations, the teachers and researchers planned to develop strategies to assist the students to become independent thinkers and develop rational forms of talk in the classrooms. The teachers recognised the need to:

• be explicit in stating the goals and objective of each lesson;
• develop a lesson plan for each lesson stating student thinking outcomes;
• build into the lesson opportunities for students to respond to classroom experiences and reflect on these;
• encourage learners to judge the purpose and effect of their own learning, and make personal statements about their classroom experiences.

Teachers were encouraged to adopt a variety of strategies based on modelling, scaffolding and encouragement of analysis, questioning and critical thinking. Instructional approaches were based on the provision of supportive social contexts for learning. Videotaping of lessons continued during the second semester, following the intervention.

The principal changes from phase 1 to phase 2 phase were that :

• there was an increase in cognitive support for students across all subject areas;
• the proportion of higher order thinking in student talk increased;
• the amount of non-task talk and procedural talk decreased.

The types of teacher talk which decreased were those related to non-task or routine, and management issues (Table 3). Table 3: Mean percentages changes in teacher talk by category
from phase 1 to phase 2 in all subjects

Stage 1-2	non task %	procedural %	expository %	control %	reconstr- uction %	cognitive %	feedback %
Maths	-4	-6	-2	-3	-.5	+7.5	+4.5
English	-5	-3	-3.5	-21.5	+1.5	+23	+4
Science	-3	-10	-3	0	0	+9	+4
Italian	-2	-8	-4	-6	-1	+10	+3
S. Studies	-4	-20	-5	-9	+2	+18.5	+2.5

Phase 3

Following the intervention, changes were observed to occur in the pattern of teacher talk and student talk. In phase 3 the pattern of pedagogic support was that teachers continued to support thinking skills in students by offering a range of scaffolds, such as asking reflective questions, encouraging discussion, promoting reflection, and promoting collaborative questioning which enabled students to reflect and elaborate on their own thinking processes.

Table 4 shows the mean percentage changes in teacher talk from phase 2 to phase 3, when teachers were implementing their process-based strategies for higher order thinking.

Table 4: Mean percentages change in teacher talk from phase 2 to phase 3

Phase 2-3	non task %	procedural %	expository %	control %	reconstr- uction %	cognitive %	feedback %
Maths	+7	-4	-1	-2.5	+0.5	+0.5	0
English	+1	-1	-2.5	-2.5	-1.5	+2	0
Science	-1.5	-1.5	-2	0	+6	+1	-3
Italian	-1	-3	-3	-1	+2	+3	+1
S. Studies	+1	+3.5	-3.5	-4	-0. 5	+4.5	+1.5

The data clearly showed that for teachers, the proportion of cognitive talk devoted to supporting thinking and reasoning improved from phase 1 of the study and remained reasonably stable for the two terms following the training program. Student talk also showed increases in higher order thinking from phase 1 to phase 3.

Pedagogical techniques and roles in the extended classroom

Teachers were found to have adopted various pedagogical techniques in order to achieve their objective of higher order thinking. Observations of the classrooms suggested that the pattern of interaction engaged as the term progressed, and that teachers became less controlling, or less explicit in their approaches. Research on classrooms has shown that teachers engage in talk to a greater extent than students, and that such roles tend to be interrogative (Carlsen, 1991). In contrast, teaching for higher order thinking meant that teachers had to capitalise on the provision of opportunities for children to cooperate, to explore and to engage in peer review of the ideas adopted.

Discourse patterns displayed in the transcripts of teacher talk showed that teachers fulfilled two basic functions, organisational roles and pedagogical-emotional roles. Table 5 shows that teacher fulfilled a number of functions in their talk, which served both pedagogical and socio-cognitive functions. In addition there were other functions observed, related to the control or management of the class which decreased in frequency as the term progressed.

Table 5: Pedagogical roles in the extended classroom model

Pedagogical roles of teachers	Organisational function	Socio-cognitive function
control/management of turns	setting up and managing the classroom	ensure full participation of all students
co-respondent and conversational partner	commenting and participating in talk	creation of interactive, open and friendly ambience
providing positive evaluative feedback	focus on relevant issues	summarise discussion; prompt students to make their contributions relevant
reflective questioning	promote critical discussant behaviours	provoke thought, deeper explanation and meaning

Accompanying the changes in pedagogic roles, technology was used initially by teachers to display ideas and to introduce new concepts. As the term progressed, the interactive features of the technology were used to achieve collaborative dialogue and thereby to achieve higher order thinking. Teacher roles became more participatory and less didactic and learner control of the technology was encouraged. Students achieved the outcome of higher order thinking and this was reflected in classroom dialogue, independence of thought and the growth of autonomy.

Conclusion

The results from the study were extremely positive in that they demonstrated the capacity of audiographics learning environments to support strong levels of higher order thinking through appropriate forms of teacher discourse and participatory roles for students.

One finding that was of interest to the researchers was the role of intentionality in support higher order cognition. It was made evident in the study that if teachers are to cultivate higher order thinking in the classroom, they need to have a clear instructional intention to facilitate its occurrence, and to plan for it. They also need to encourage language use, model appropriate skills and create conditions in the classroom for the transition from regulation by other to self-regulation. Our study confirmed that when teachers planned and acted in such ways, higher order cognition emerged as an identifiable outcome in the learning environment.

The study found that technology use can enhance communication and reasoning if it is used, not a device to display syllabus content, but as a cognitive tool to enhance understanding. This was achieved by teachers in the distance classrooms increasingly engaging students in cognitive talk, rather than procedural and expository. In addition, teachers adopted strategies whereby their management role became secondary to that of reflective questioning and conversational engagement. Teachers' use of the two-way audio technology in these audiographics environments was one factor in the classrooms of this study which appeared to hold considerable potential to enhance learning to achieve higher order thinking outcomes.

The implications of the study are essentially to emphasise the use of the audiographic conferencing to foster collaboration and dialogue among students. Socio-cognitive pedagogies were applied by teachers in order to sustain collaborative dialogue and open communication among students. The technology was used as a cognitive and social tool to augment discussion, to display ideas and to enable collaborative construction of ideas across the geographically separated classrooms. This study provides insights into how learning in a distributed classroom can lead to improved cognitive outcomes for students, if pedagogic practices and technology use combine to support dialogue and collaboration.

References

Burge, E. J., & Roberts, J. M. (1993). Classrooms with a difference: A practical guide to the use of conferencing technologies. Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157-178.

Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.

EDWA (1996). vCurriculum framework documents. Perth: Education Department.

Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.

Gunawardena, C. (1992). Changing faculty roles for audiographics and online teaching. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6 (3), 58-71.

Laurillard, D. (1995). Multimedia and the changing experience of the learner. British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 179-189.

McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (1995a). Analysing interactions in technology supported learning environments. In R. Oliver & M. Wild (Ed.), Learning without limits, 2 (pp. 49-62). Perth, WA: ECAWA.

McLoughlin, C., Oliver, R., & Wood, D. (1997). Teaching and learning in telematics environments: Fostering higher level thinking outcomes. Australian Educational Computing, 12(1), 9-15.

Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1997). Interactions in audiographics teaching and learning environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 34-55.

Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (1994). Telematics in rural education. Perth: Intech Innovations.

Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow.

Perkins, D. N. (1997). Epistemic games. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(1), 49-61.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. (Original material published in 1930, 1933 and 1935).

Authors: Catherine McLoughlin and Ron Oliver, Edith Cowan University Please cite as: McLoughlin, C. and Oliver, R. (1998). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students through technology supported distance teaching. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 35-48. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet14/mcloughlin.html

---

[ AJET 14 ] [ AJET home ]
HTML Editor: Roger Atkinson [rjatkinson@bigpond.com]
This URL: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet14/mcloughlin.html Last revision: 1 May 2002.
Previous URL 6 Jun 1998 to 1 May 2002: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet14/mcloughlin.html

Help... I am finally ready to take the plunge and get on Second Life. For some reason, I suspect our IT set up, the log in wont work. That's right. The log in wont work. When you are trying to develop new skills there is nothing more frustrating then not being able to trouble shot your way around problems. I now need to chase up the fellow, who is already busy, and see if he can help out. Hopefully he will be in a receptive mode.
Did I mention I had a great meeting with Tim and Steve. They are very generous with their time and knowledge. I really want to be able to train myself to fly etc today so that I can go to Jokadia tonight.
Heard a good podcast on ABC EdPOD on teachers and innovation.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/edpod/stories/2010/2907664.htm

Here is my reply to a discussion about education and facebook on the CEO Ning...

I think that schools share a responsibility with parents and the broader community in supporting children make good choices on the net.
We need to be there modeling good behaviour, scaffolding appropriate responses and dealing with the consquences of doing something that harms others or causes distress.

I think there is something to be gained from considering the role school have always played in supporting social development. Think of the first school dance. Schools have often run these and in doing so provided young people with the opportunity to 'know' what are our communities expectations. My students recently attended a dance at a boy's school and we went to great efforts to explain the expectations of behaviour and consquences. We asked senior students to be present to model best behaviour. The girls commented all evening about how polite the boys were, asking them to dance and generally being good hosts. Obviously someone at the boy's school had done the same. What a great learning experience.

My project in Second Life hopes to achieve this same outcome. We have a very strict protocol in terms of behaviour and consquences. Students are expected to be 'on their best' behaviour and image themselves in full school uniform attending a sophisticated event where they need to observe all the most important social conventions of meeting new people such as minding your tone, thinking through what you might say and how you can be proactive in building a community. Poor behaviour is not tolerated and students will be excluded. It is made explicit in the beginning what is considered appropriate. Learning in virtual worlds, although not on facebook, gives me an opportunity to talk about the virtual versus the 'real' and challenge students ideas of what being social online means.

We dont belong on their facebook pages, just as we cant be at every social occasion, We can, however, use similar environments to scaffold and develop the idea that virtual is real.

This post was prompted by comments made by Steve Collis in our meeting at NBCS. He is an inspiration and just a really nice guy.

Getting ready for the project

So much to include...

I found some great research papers on learning via Greg Whitby's blog.

There was one article on How People Learn which is really interesting. Everything I read keeps taking me back to Understand by Design principles or even Challenge based learning. This article focuses on the need for students to know the links between the content and its broader application. The main idea is that if students understand the context of the learning they will be more able to apply the learning - which is really what learning is about isnt it?

For example, when it comes to the SOR course it says that students need to be able to "show an appreciate of how society is enhanced by an understanding of religion, its influences on human behaviour and interaction within culture" . BOS SOR

My research is on different understanding of Christianity but the enduring understanding is applicable in all cases when students are learning about cultural/religious understanding. To know something about beliefs you need to engage and learn from people who practice/live these beliefs.

So the idea is that students gain an understanding of how a persons religious beliefs impact on their lived experience.

One key difference between Catholicism and Anglicanism is the notion of salvation and revelation. Catholics, simple put, tend to see salvation as a process of belief and good works. Anglicans believe in the notion of salvation by God's grace alone. These are very different interpretations of the one sacred text.

How then, other than just telling my students, do I support them in understanding this difference. I guess, for me, the bext way is to expose them to the lived experience via the students are NBCS and see what happens. This is where the virtual world comes in.

The challenge for my students is to see what they can learn from others whose life experience of the same faith is based upon different ideas of God.

More reading to do on learning. More enduring understandings to explore. Did I mention I managed to convince my uni lecturer in gifted ed to allow me to do some background research on gifted students use of the internet as my final assessment for the Certificate in Gifted Ed.

One of the things I am still to do is get onto the NBCS Second Life island. I know that this is somethign I will need to master before I set my students up... What did Freud say about doing things that feel good and avoiding things that feel bad. This is my next challenge.

Saturday morning investigations

Welcome to the iLearn in Second Life Blog...

This is my first blog. I am a little uncomfortable with the medium but I am hoping to relax by using this more often. I know that to teach using a tool like blogging I need myself to have experienced what it offers and what limitations it has. I guess the whole iLearn process is designed to provide these opportunities.
I meet ith Kay Carroll and Diane Brooks two weeks ago to discuss the possibility of doing formalising some of the research process and producing something that has a wider audience and is more credible, analytical and comparable with other work teachers are doing. Kay gave me a great overview and I guess she was suggesting that gathering empirical data would not necessarily be the best avenue. I read an article she gave me on Action Research. I found it reassuring that the article claimed that the model is valid. I guess I just want to move away from looking at engagement (via student reflections) as the key success of the project.

Greg Basford from CEO sent me a note via the NING letting know about Skoolaborate. Looks good. Will investigate more. I have not yet been on second life. More nervous than I would be going to a party of people I have never meet. Maybe second life is just for extroverts.
Next time...