Student Views on ICT as a Learning Tool: Voice and Personalized Learning, Study notes of Voice

Download Student Views on ICT as a Learning Tool: Voice and Personalized Learning and more Study notes Voice in PDF only on Docsity! NEA05582 Student reflections on the effectiveness of ICT as a learning resource AUTHOR: Greg Neal (Victoria University) Paper prepared for presentation at the AARE Annual Conference Parramatta Nov/Dec 2005 Student reflections on the effectiveness of ICT as a learning resource Abstract Direct investigations of student opinions about the use of ICT and learning are generally missing from the literature. This paper reports on a study that captured the reflective voice of students to investigate what is truly happening in Victorian schools. The focus of this study was the student learner and how students think about their own learning. The study identified key contextual factors that influence the learning process and, in conjunction with ICT, change the learning opportunities for students. The analytical framework in this paper captures the relationship between the substantive factors including the learning culture, social well-being, motivation and engagement, and thinking and learning strategies. Background A key role of education is to empower students with skills and attitudes that are essential to their success in our knowledge society future. Cuttance (2001) suggests that new ways of thinking and solving problems in supportive classroom learning environments require well-developed motivation, self-regulation strategies and metacognitive capacities to engage students successfully. A central aim is to ensure students, such as those in the middle-years, acquire essential information skills (Barratt, 1998) appropriate to the knowledge society, and to nurture modes of learning, or learning styles, such as visual, auditory and kinesthetic (Hinkley, 2001) to maximize the learning potential of individual students. This means that a new challenge confronting education is concerned with meeting the needs of all students: personalised learning where learning is designed around students needs (Hargreaves, 2004). Hargreaves (2004) highlights the importance of ‘nine gateways’ to personalising learningʊcurriculum, workforce, organisation, student voice, mentoring, advice and guidance, new technologies (ICT), assessment for learning and learning to learn, with each potentially “enhancing student motivation and commitment to learning” (p 7). This paper is concerned with two of the aforementioned gateways to personalising learning: student voice the use of new technologies (ICT). It would be meaningless to say we are personalising learning unless we involve them [students] in the process” (Hargreaves, 2004:10). Practices that focus on designing curriculum experiences have been encouraged as central features of reform initiatives to improve the quality of learning in schools. The use of student voice benefits teachers and therefore possible changes to teaching practice and curriculum experiences. In this context, this paper considers student voice from middle-years students (early adolescents), Years 5 to 9, from Victorian Government schools. The voice of students is able to make a significant contribution to what they regard are important factors, particularly with the use of ICT, that affect learning. Furthermore, the need to consider personalised learning adds to the importance of identifying with students in an effort to improve student performance. 1 process of establishing relationships with teachers and students. Interviews with individuals were undertaken after classroom observations throughout the study. As the research developed and issues emerged a smaller number of classes became the qualitative focus for more intensive investigation. Whilst good data can be gathered using informal conversation during and after participant observations (i.e. unstructured interviewing), the decision to undertake semi-structured interviews in this study was designed to gain rich data from individual students and to allow opportunities for the researcher to explore and probe further. Interview guides were utilised to ensure certain topics were dealt with and typical questions were covered (Kurz, 1983). This occurred with 32 students over time, 16 initially in Year 6 and 16 initially in Year 7. Interviews were repeated with the same students in the following year after their transition into a new school or after their transfer into a new class. The final part of the investigative study concentrated on the use of ‘video-recall’ events for 16 of the students to reconstruct orally their thoughts and actions. This technique included the use of captured video of students in the secondary classroom that was replayed to them after the observed lesson. This approach recognises aspects of Clarke’s (2001) methodology that undertook rigorous study combining videotape data with participants’ reconstructions in mathematics and science classrooms. Selecting this research procedure enabled the researcher to probe the student’s reflective thinking, using video as a stimulus and invited students to explain specific learning moments. In addition, other audio-visual methods, including the taking of photographs at opportune times, captured a visual record of the students in their natural setting (Bogden & Biklen, 2003). A focus on new technologies (ICT) There is a broad optimism that ICT can and does support the kind of learning appropriate to the information age. For example, the ease of the technology frees up time for higher-order learning opportunities (Brown, 1994), it supports meaningful learning (Jonassen, 2000) and student autonomy (McLoughlin, 2000), at risk students are more likely to engage in literacy tasks (O'Rourke, 2001), it promotes active learning (Meredyth, Russell, Blackwood, Thomas, & Wise, 1999) and will enable the user to do new things rather than just old things better (Snyder, 1999). Furthermore, it is argued that computing technologies appropriately coupled with other educational innovations can increase the efficacy, efficiency, and extent of student’s self-regulated learning (Winne & Hadwin, 1998: 108). The introduction of ICT does not, however, guarantee better learning for all students and not all researchers agree that educational technology is a panacea. Access to computers and the Internet does not mean new learning methods suddenly emerge. As Schacter (1999) points out, “we should not accept the rhetoric that technology makes learning easier and more efficient because ease and efficiency are not prerequisite conditions for deep and meaningful learning” (p 331). If the inclusion of ICT is to be utilised effectively to engage middle-year students, it should be expected to provide a better option to the practices it is to replace. Given that we know interest levels decline throughout the middle-years of schooling (Hill & 4 Russell, 1999), educators also need to develop pedagogical practices that capture and focus student engagement. Advocates for the inclusion of ICT in pedagogical practice argue that it has the potential to encourage critical and reflective thinking for individuals to attain personal goals. In a supportive (constructivist) environment, the use of ICT promotes student autonomy whilst also providing opportunities to work collaboratively with others, that is, practices that promote deeper cognitive opportunities and engage the learner in intellectual activities with some control over learning. This includes learning attributes described by Meredyth et al (1999) as “capacities such as self-regulation, self-discipline, collaborative learning and creative thinking” (p 228). Approaches where ICT is used to support learning has been found to benefit the affective learning domains (attributes such as motivation, perseverance, etc.) by improving student engagement to tasks (Jacobsen, 2001), improving motivation and enthusiasm (Mandinach & Cline, 1996), and improving attitudes to learning (Ryser, Beeler, & McKenzie, 1995). While it is difficult to assess the direct impact of the affective domain on student learning outcomes, it is widely recognized as an important correlate of effective learning. Research on the impact of ICT consistently reports that students who have regular access to and use ICT demonstrate considerable improvements in these affective areas (Ainley, Bourke, Chatfield, Hillman, & Watkins, 2000; Calnin, 1998; Cuttance, 2001; Schacter & Fagnano, 1999). It is axiomatic that none of these benefits is guaranteed to flow automatically from the use of technology, but many may be achieved through good teaching and the modeling of effective learning. Along with the gains in the affective domains, research is consistent about improvements in the learning environment. The learning environment is not a factor that can be directly related to achievement gains, but like the affective domain, remains an important correlate in student achievement. When ICT is used in the classroom it creates more opportunities for individualised and differentiated curriculum (Calnin, 1998), there is increased student collaboration (Thompson, 2004), it increases self-management and self-regulation as learners (Cuttance, 2001), and relationships between teachers and students are more interactive and guiding, rather than one of transferring information from teacher to student (Shears, 1995). The critical factor in supporting effective learning with ICT is to focus on the way it is integrated into classrooms. When using ICT the hope was that it would be a tool capable of changing the characteristics of problems and learning tasks, and hence be a mediator of higher cognitive skills: synthesis and analysis, critical thinking, evaluating, hypothesizing, questioning, observing patterns, making generalisations and problem-solving strategies. Authors such as Cuttance (2001) and Schacter (1999) conclude that ICT will yield positive gains in student achievement, and Scardamalia & Bereiter (1996) report effective ICT use can support depth of understanding and reflection. Large scale British research provides data that shows students in an ICT environment demonstrate domain-specific attainment gains (British Educational Computing and Technology Agency, 2004). However, the research and the correlation between ICT and student attainment is equivocal (Development Gateway Foundation, 2005). 5 Advances in technology will not make current teaching methodologies redundant. Rather, ICT should be grasped and applied in imaginative and creative ways to enhance cognitive learning for students (Gilliver, Randall, & Pok, 1999). The teacher’s awareness of the way an individual student will benefit from different learning experiences contributes to enhancing the learning process. The effects of the teacher and instructional styles constantly impact on students as they consciously and unconsciously gain new skills and knowledge. By drawing together the literature that has focused on the role of ICT, the middle- years of schooling, and contemporary understanding of learning, key factors that impact on and shape effective learning have been identified as learning culture, social well-being, motivation and engagement, and thinking and learning. The relationship between these factors and the approach to learning has determined the analytical framework shown in the Table 1. Table 1: Students approach to learning in the middle-years Factors influencing student learning (learning process) APPROACH TO LEARNING Surface Deep Learning culture Teacher-centred Student-centred Transmission of knowledge Self-directed learning Social well-being Low self-efficacy High self-efficacy Peer pressure/alienated Social interaction Motivation and Engagement Extrinsic Intrinsic Intention to complete tasks Intention to understand Integrating knowledge Thinking and learning Low level thinking Higher cognitive strategies The goal, in each of the factors, is to enrich the student’s approach to learning with the qualities associated with surface approaches with those of deep approaches. Deep learning strategies involve transformational processes that link new learning with past learning and are supported by intrinsic motivation (Ainley, 1993). Cognitive skills most appropriate to the knowledge society are those associated with deep learning. Such skills include higher-order thinking strategies: seeing connections between ideas and patterns, applying metacognitive skills, and the application of the skills of analysis, synthesis, evaluation, reflection and problem-solving. Deep learning is more likely to emerge from authentic learning experiences particularly when students are intrinsically motivated to learn. To comprehend and capture the relationship between the factors, the use of student reflections describes how students think about their learning, and the effectiveness of ICT as a learning resource. The learning culture and ICT The learning culture encompasses such things as school setting, the influences of different groups of people within the organisation, curriculum management and delivery, values and traditions, and the school’s place in the community. The 6 The Internet restrictions at schools prevent student learning opportunities that may well be otherwise available in home environments. The issue of home access to ICT further compounds the role of the school and the impact on student learning within classroom environments. I find it (the Internet) slower than at home and it takes longer to find stuff…and I’m not as comfortable with it because I don’t know it as well as our computer at home. I can always go home and look up stuff on our computer. The issue of home access to ICT further compounds the role of the school and the impact on student learning within classroom environments. Access to computers in the home often includes more freedom to accessing Internet sites. The positive and negative aspects of the use of ICT, as seen above, impact on effective learning for all. What becomes apparent from all these situations is that the role of the teacher plays a significant part of the learning potential when using ICT in the teaching-learning process. Teachers’ subject knowledge, pedagogical skills, discipline, and enthusiasm are important determinants in establishing and maintaining the classroom learning culture. For most students who were asked, they value the teacher who is able to support them to integrate the technology effectively with their own knowledge-base. One of the teachers doesn’t know how to really use the computer, so she doesn’t understand if it’s hard or not. She’ll say, “Well, you should have done it by now”, but doesn’t know how hard it is. I gave her a disk one time and she wouldn’t accept it. I had to take it home and (re)type it up. Some of our teachers don’t know how to use a computer, so they really can’t help us out when we’re stuck, so a lot of the boys in our grade help us out. The remarks from the students suggest teachers are needed to support the students to deal with technical matters associated with ICT, and to understand the degree of effort put into the use of some applications. Social support and success in learning Rowe (2002) and Kindermann (1996) report that students who experience support from their teachers are more likely to be engaged in learning. Regardless of the teaching methodologies, what remains critical to good learning is the quality of the relationship between student and teacher (Pomeroy, 1999) and student support of one another. I like having one teacher for a lot of subjects. Like we have [teacher] for Science and Maths and as our form teacher. I think it helps a lot more when you know the teacher a lot better and they kind of understand how you work. In the given example the student identified the value the teacher brings to understanding his/her needs as a learner, and as a developing adolescent the importance of the relationship between him/herself and the teacher. 9 A major constraint on developing relationships with teachers in a subject discipline environment lies in the restrictive nature of the timetable. For example, one Year 7 student remarked; Because you’ve got the primary school teacher for nearly every class, here you change around that much they [teachers] don’t get to know you very well . This was supported by another comment: [With] less teachers…you get to know your teachers better, whereas if you have heaps of teachers, one for each different subject, you don’t really get to know them as well. Both comments show the value the students place on having a good working relationship with teachers that contribute to more effective learning. The timetable is a main source of contention for effective learning (McInerney, Hattam, & Smyth, 2001; Nixon, Martin, McKeown, & Ranson, 1996) and reform efforts (e.g. Middle Years Research and Development) suggest more contact time between teachers and students can improve relationships and lead to better understanding of students’ learning capabilities. This will have an impact on teacher support for students. Schools and teachers will often deliberately set up computers so as to support peer- learning situations. Such learning opportunities play a major part in constructing a student-centred learning environment (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997) and affords opportunities for collaborative modes of learning that lead to learning gains (O'Rourke, 2001; Thompson, 2004). The idea is to have at least two students purposefully sharing one computer. The shared arrangements, according to one teacher, are deliberately implemented to encourage students to scaffold learning, share ideas and assist each other when using ICT. Students provide evidence about the impact of having to work with a partner. There are those who appreciate the support, I think it’s more fun if you work with others because you get a few laughs out of it. It’s easier to think up heaps of ideas. Probably only have one computer, because then you could say, try this, or that didn’t work, I’ve got an idea now try that. and those that prefer their independence: Alone, because that way it’s your own choice again. I find it easier to work by myself than have someone saying they won’t do this, or, do that. You’d learn better on your own, but if you needed help I think you should do the same thing, but use two computers. Working with partners requires negotiation and collaboration. For some students, the sharing of computers presents as an inconvenience and their sense of autonomous decision-making is affected. However, a key finding according to all of the students is that the use of shared arrangements with the computer is dependant on the particular task at the time. It is succinctly stated by one student: Depends what I’m using. Sometimes I like to work on my own. When I’m using Word and typing up a story I like to be alone, so I can think properly. But if I’m looking for stuff on the Internet, looking for stuff for projects, I like to be with people. 10 The indications from all of the students highlight the value they place on working interdependently or independently. The independent approach allows them choice and enables them to work their own way. Some students prefer to be autonomous as its better on your own and you get more stuff done. In making the decision about working with a partner or not, one student sums up that working independently provided better learning: I like to get things so I know about them, whereas with a partner he feels he just go[es] along with them. Students' peer relations are influential on their social development and can also be regarded as influential in their motivational development (Kindermann, McCollam, & Gibson Jr., 1996). This influence is a part of the culture that early adolescents deal with in daily classroom and learning experiences. It is the relationships students develop that contribute to their emotional state, and positive attitudes and self-esteem are important preconditions of effective learning. The need for healthy relationships with peers and adults remains important to the vast majority of middle-years students and contributes to their self-esteem and positive attitude toward learning. Motivation and engagement Research indicates that declining attitudes and motivation toward learning among our middle-years students is a serious issue (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Dweck, 1996; Russell, 2001). Student recollections of their learning experience uncover intrinsic and extrinsic motives that have an impact on their engagement to learning. The focus, however, is on intrinsic motivation as an essential precondition of more effective learning. Intrinsic motivation is based on the “satisfaction derived solely from the qualities of the activity or its consequences” (Carter et al., 1996: 155). A primary intrinsic motivator is when students are interested (as a characteristic of the person or of the learning environment) as this increases their willingness to learn. Interest increases students’ attention to task, and they show greater concentration and enthusiasm (Ainley, 2001). One of the consistent messages from research (Braggett, 1997; Cormack, 1996; Cumming, 1996; Earl, 2000; Hill & Russell, 1999; Lee & Smith, 1993) has been the problems associated with student alienation and disengagement within the middle-years of schooling. Developing classroom strategies which activate the intrinsic motivation of middle-years’ students has become an important goal in education. Student-centred classrooms that promote authentic learning tasks, provide active learning opportunities and incorporate ICT are strategies that have been developed. A review of student voices highlights classroom practices that represent some of the attempts to intrinsically motivate and engage them in learning. We’re doing a project thing on the computer and I’m doing mine on motorbikes. It’s just easier because you can draw it and takes a lot less time I think. [The teacher’s] given us topics and said that we can design our own activities. Some teachers say, “Okay in this unit we’re doing this… is there anything else you would like to do?” [25] 11 Because you can cut and copy things. Our teacher…gives us a set subject and gives us web sites to go to. Where the sole objective is the intention to complete the task, ICT can be used to ease and to expedite the process. I usually copy it but then I re-write it. I delete some of the words and put it in my own words so it looks like I understand it. We went to the headings and looked for the key words. When we found the sentence we needed, it had like answers all through it and we wrote them down on the sheets. The surface learning examples above demonstrate how the ICT applications are used for basic cognitive tasks. For example, where the student is retyping text, the thinking has predominantly occurred prior to the typing. These types of task do not amplify student thinking and require low level thinking skillsa surface learning approach. The surface learning approaches described by students may be appropriate if they are aware that this approach enables them to succeed, such as with information gathering, or if presentation or speed are perceived by the student to be part of the assessment. However, it may not be a suitable approach if the students were required to show their ‘true’ level of understanding. In many school situations learning tasks only demand surface approaches as this fulfills the expected requirement. To demonstrate, or at least have the intention of understanding, a deep learning approach is desirable. Deep learning approaches encourage students to understand new learning by challenging prior knowledge, experiences and perceptions. Where middle-year students are intrinsically motivated by the learning process, or by the content being studied, they will be active rather than passive in the learning task. Examples of the different types of thinking that occur in deep learning include: editing, creating and evaluating, analyzing data, testing hypotheses, problem-solving and programming, and planning and reflecting. While no task requires the application of a single thinking skill in isolation, there were isolated cases of evidence provided by student voice, that identifies the deep learning associated with specific tasks. Editing ,creating and evaluating One of the most common uses of ICT is word processing, for report writing, retyping essays, creating stories, and transferring documents into other applications such as PowerPoint. Word processing has a number of benefits. Maddux et al. (1997) believe word processing tasks empower students and allow them to stimulate creativity. The word processor can release the writer from the low level aspects of text production and allow the student to concentrate on the process of writing, such as drafting, editing and revising text (Underwood & Underwood, 1990). As I’m writing it I think, it probably would be better over here and stuff like that, and so I go back to it. The student is in a position whereby editing and evaluating their own work is important, and they are empowered to think and communicate their ideas. A further example using word processing is shown below where the student found himself 14 running short of time to complete the task as first intended. The student has assessed his own progress and realised the need to modify his thinking. On the computer it’s a lot easier as well because when I was doing it at the start, I was doing a guide to all the Egyptian Gods, but then I sort of changed my mind and thought, the deadline’s Monday it will take way too long. I wouldn’t be able to do that. So, I’ve just done it down to a profile of one God, like a big profile on him, and I wasn’t actually planning that, but if I had of done it with a pen and paper… The student was able to use self-regulation strategies: he understood the learning task, set goals, evaluated his own progress, adapted and modified his attempts, and then revised his final product. Analysing data Another important thinking skill is that associated with the analysis of data. When students construct and query databases, they are building and exemplifying structural models of the content they are studying, and are comparing and contrasting relationships between information contained in their models. Databases and spreadsheets function as cognitive tools for enhancing, extending, amplifying and restructuring the way students think about the content they are studying (Jonassen, 2000). Evidence of this deep approach is seen in the example below: Because, it was a lot easier to notice and stuff. When we typed up the graph it went into this graph thing (from an Excel spreadsheet), line graph, and we could actually notice it. The student, having received teacher instruction, has time to explore, and then pursue his/her own learning needs. Testing hypothesis When the ICT encourages the end-user to test hypotheses, it provides students with an opportunity to ask new questions, and think more deeply about further possibilities: it is a ‘what-if’ approach which is open-ended rather than the closed approach of predetermined answers. Without a computer, the exploration of alternatives is less feasible (Evans, 1986). One student tests out his own hypothesis while working with the Internet. You just got to think how because if you’re typing something that has ten thousand answers to your word, you’ve got to cut it down to a smaller thing. If you type in ‘trees’ heaps come up, but if you type in ‘gum trees’ it might come up less. Make it not as many to choose from, narrow it down. In the case shown the student refines the searching that tests out his thinking in his quest for more accurate information. However, other students find the open-ended nature of searching inhibits their learning. Well it’s a good thing (the Internet) if you know what you’re looking for specifically, but if you’re just hoping that something will come up, it’s really hard to find stuff. 15 Yes there’s hardly anything. If you’re doing a project on something a little bit different from normal, you can’t learn anything from the Internet. I like books because the Internet’s really hard to find, like the specific information you want. I go to ‘search’ and type in what we’re looking for and sometimes it comes up if it’s a subject that a lot of people look for but, if it’s not, you probably won’t get anything out of it. Students often commented on open-ended ‘surfing’ through the Internet, and were alert to how it impacted on their learning. For some students, they do not have the necessary skills, such as the ability to refine their search, to evaluate relevance of information, or to monitor and self-direct search strategies, and therefore the opportunity to test out any hypothetical problem-solving. Problem-solving Problem-solving tasks are intended to challenge and engage students to promote higher-order thinking. One of the key aspects of effective problem-solving tasks for students is to encourage metacognitive thinking strategies (Hacker, 1998). Given that every problem has three partsgivens, a goal and obstaclesmetacognition will allow the student to identify the problem and work strategically (Davidson & Sternberg, 1998). A small number of students highlighted the value of ICT in assisting with their problem-solving strategies. In the example shown, the student worked with a partner (peer learning) and was required to dissect a bull’s eye so as to be able to identify and describe various parts of the eye. We got a digital camera but had to share the camera around the room and …like my partner who kind of worked with me on the project, she dissected most of the eye ball and I took most of the photos. When you’ve taken the photos you can look back on it and then find out what you’ve been working for. The students were able to work collaboratively and the digital camera enabled them to reflect on their learning experience. The use of ICT provided the means to reconstruct key moments through the use of visual prompts, and facilitated a problem-solving strategy for the students. Teachers used multimedia and programming exercises as part of problem-solving. According to Papert (1980) students acquire powerful problem-solving tools by learning to program. Underwood (1990) suggests computer-based learning, such as Logo, intrinsically motivates students. Much of the early research from Papert’s (1980) development of Logo (the basis for Microworlds) claims that teaching programming to students provides transferable skills (e.g. planning), seen to be integral to problem-solving (Calnin, 1998). Robotics provides similar programming experiences and is becoming a more commonly used programming tool. What we (a group of students) had to do is, you get a little brick (car), they call them bricks, they’ve got the batteries and everything. We made it first, then you have to program it and you have to experiment, because you’ve got to make it go for a certain amount of seconds, and one wheel stops and the other will keep 16 fewer limitations and the familiarity of the home resources made it easier to use as a learning tool. x Intrinsically motivated students were more goal-oriented toward achieving and pursuing new learning with more effort and persistence. Student activity around and in a computer environment can mask the true learning approach of the individual student. This means that the ‘busyness’ of a student will not automatically equate to active or deep learning. Meaningful learning was often associated with project-based learning where students were encouraged to integrate content through inquiry-based tasks. x When the learning tasks provide little opportunity for students to explore their thinking and understanding, most students were generally passive learners. While the use of ICT has been regarded as a tool to transform thinking and learning, it can actually promote surface learning approaches. Many students often described moments where the sole intent was to reproduce or regurgitate information. The use of higher cognitive thinking was evident in tasks when ICT was purposefully integrated with subject content. The aim of this paper was to provide insights into classroom learning supported by ICT. In implementing any strategy to improve the quality of learning there is arguably considerable benefit in studying the effect on students, and looking at the experience through their eyes. This paper has concentrated on two of Hargreaves (2004) gateways to personalising learning: student voice and the use of new technologies (ICT). References: Ainley, M., Bourke, V., Chatfield, R., Hillman, K., & Watkins, I. (2000). Laptops, computers and tools. Melbourne: ACER Press. Ainley, M. D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Mulitdimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395-405. Ainley, M. D. (2001). Interest in learning and classroom interactions. In D Clarke (Ed.), Perspectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science classrooms. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle years. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287 - 309. Bowring-Carr, C., & West-Burnham, J. (1997). Effective learning in schools. London: Pitman Publishing. Braggett, E. (1997). The middle years of schooling: An Australian perspective. Cheltenham, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education. British Educational Computing and Technology Agency. (2004). ICT an attainment. Retrieved 12 July, 2004, from http://www.becta.org.uk/research/display.cfm Brown, A. (1994). Processes to support the use of information technology to enhance learning. In Computers Assisted Learning (Vol. 22, pp. 145-153). Bruner, J. (1985). Models of a learner. Educational Researcher(June/July), 5-8. Calnin, G. T. (1998). Laptop computers: Changes in teachers' practice. Unpublished Doctor of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne. 19 Cormack, P. (1996). Theoretical Constructions (Vol. 2). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association. Cumming, J. (1996). Teacher Action (Vol. 3). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association. Cuttance, P. (2001). School Innovation: Pathway to the knowledge society.Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Cuttance, P. (2002). National Quality School Framework. Melbourne: Centre for Applied Educational Research. Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs. (2001, May 2001). Information and communication technology for teaching and learning. Retrieved 20 September, 2001, from http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publications/index.htm Development Gateway Foundation. (2005). Knowledge maps: ICTs in education. Retrieved 18 May, 2005 Dweck, C. S. (1996). Social motivation: Goals and social-cognitive processes. A comment. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children's school adjustment. New York: Cambridge University Press. Earl, L. M. (2000). Reinventing education in the middle years. Paper presented at the Middle Years of Schooling Conference, Melbourne. Entwistle, N. (1995). The use of research on student learning in quality assessment. Retrieved 1 November, 2001, from http:www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/ocsd- pubs/islass-entwistle.html Evans, N. (1986). The future of the microcomputer in schools. London: MacMillan. Fletcher, A. (2003). Meaningful student involvement: Guide to inclusive school change. Washington: The Freechild Project. Gilliver, R. S., Randall, B. J., & Pok, Y. M. (1999). The orbicular model - cognitive learning in space. Educational Technology Review (Autumn-Winter), 18 - 22. Gipps, C., & Stobart, G. (1993). Assessment: A teacher's guide to the issues. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Green, P. (2002). Naturalistic inquiry: A method for transforming curiousity into active inquiry. Melbourne: RMIT University Press. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice.Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hargreaves, D. (2004). Personalising learning: Next steps in working laterally. Hill, P. W., & Russell, V. J. (1999). Systemic, whole-school reform of the middle years of schooling. Paper presented at the National Middle Years of Schooling Conference, Melbourne. Hinkley, T. (2001). Learning to learn - engaging the 10 per cent. In I. Dalton, R. Fawcett & J. West-Burnham (Eds.), Schools for the 21st century: developing best practice. London: Pearson Education. Huggins, M., & Knight, P. (1997). Curriculum continuity and transfer from primary to secondary school: the case of history. Educational Studies, 23(3), 333 - 347. Jacobsen, D. M. (2001). Building different bridges: Technology integration, engaged student learning, and new approaches to professional development. Retrieved 20 24 February, 2003, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs/aera/buildingbridges.html Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kindermann, T. A., McCollam, T. L., & Gibson Jr., E. G. (1996). Peer networks and students' classroom engagement during childhood and adolescence. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social Motivation: understanding children's school adjustment (pp. 279-312). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experential learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66(July), 164-187. Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1996). Classroom dynamics: The impact of a technology-based curriculum innovation on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(1), 83-102. McInerney, P., Hattam, R., & Smyth, J. (2001). 'We're in for the long haul': Middle Schooling for Year 8s at Christies Beach High School. Adelaide: Flinders University of South Australia. McLoughlin, C. (2000). The student voice: Perceptions of autonomy and collaboration in learning with technology. Australian Educational Computing, 13(2), 28 - 33. Meredyth, D., Russell, N., Blackwood, L., Thomas, J., & Wise, P. (1999). Real time: Computers, change and schooling. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia. Munns, G., McFadden, M., & Koletti, J. (2003). The messy space: Research into student engagement and the social relations of pedagogy. Retrieved 1 May, 2003, from http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/mun02359.htm Muth, K. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1999). Teaching and learning in the middle grades. Needham Heights, USA: Allyn & Bacon. Nixon, J., Martin, J., McKeown, P., & Ranson, S. (1996). Encouraging learning: Towards a theory of the learning school. Buckingham: Open University Press. O'Rourke, M. (2001). Mulitliteracies, ICT and engaging students in the middle years. Paper presented at the Discovery Day - ICT in the Middle Years, Derrimut Heath. Pomeroy, E. (1999). The teacher-student relationship in secondary school: insights from excluded students. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(4), 465- 482. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. Ravitz, J. I., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-Compatible beliefs and practices among U S teachers. Retrieved 12 July, 2001, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tic/html/findings.html Russell, J. (2001). Victorian Middle Years Research and Development Project (MYRAD). Paper presented at the Middle Years of Schooling Conference, Melbourne. Ryser, G. R., Beeler, J. E., & McKenzie, C. M. (1995). Effects of a computer- supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) on students' self-concept, self-regulatory behaviour, and critical thinking ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(4), 375-385. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. 21