Web 2.0, i nativi digitali e la didattica: dentro e fuori dall’aula

Presentazione sul tema: "Web 2.0, i nativi digitali e la didattica: dentro e fuori dall’aula"— Transcript della presentazione:

1 Web 2.0, i nativi digitali e la didattica: dentro e fuori dall’aula

2 Web 2.0: Technologies for Learning Key Stages 3 and anni – Tecnologie per l’apprendimento tra gli 11 e i 16 Using Web 2.0 to Support Learning – Usare il Web 2.0 per rafforzare gli apprendimenti

3 I fattori di cambiamento
Impatto del Web 2.0 sull’apprendimento MOLTEPLICITA’ DEI CODICI - Web 2.0 permette di esplorare una vasta gamma di formati espressivi. - Nuove opportunità di manipolare più testi convenzionali di comunicazione - immagini, audio e video, musica, grafica interattiva PARTECIPAZIONE - Il Web 2.0 è sinonimo di partecipazione degli utenti - Crea nuove possibilità per la condivisione e 'effetti di rete' che emergono su scala mondiale. - Maggiore è il numero di persone che partecipano, maggiore è il valore derivato. COLLABORAZIONE - la partecipazione e la condivisione di risorse può evolvere in forme più organizzate di costruzione comune della conoscenza PUBBLICAZIONE E GESTIONE DELLA CONOSCENZA - modelli di scambio e la pubblicazione del Web 2.0 - il Web 2.0 offre nuovi quadri e risorse per la ricerca e la didattica May 23,3009

4 What technologies are students using out of school?
Altissimo accesso fuori dalla scuola alle tecnologie digitali - 93.2% have access to a mobile w/camera; 98.4% to a PC; 96.6% to the internet - 89.4% use and/or instant messaging - 74% use social networking sites - 59% play online multi-user games Statistically significant gender differences: Girls more likely to have used IM recently. Y10 girls most likely to frequently use webcams. Girls are statistically more likely to have created a social networking profile (p= .015) 72% of boys report having played online multi-user games whereas only 47% of girls report having done so.

5 Una ricerca inglese sul Web 2.0 nella scuola 12-16 anni
15 scuole campione di riferimento 12 scelte tra autodefinitesi Web Map depicts participating schools according to region. Normative schools selected from list of schools previously participating in the Becta ImpaCT2 project in If these schools were not available, schools matched on socioeconomic and performance indicators were used. Web 2.0-innovating schools were located through internet research, Advisory Panel recommendations, references from Becta and industry, and word of mouth. Approximately 70 schools were researched for participation. Criteria for inclusion were presence of Web 2.0 activities in at least two curriculum areas, and preferably across more than one year group. Academic performance of our normative schools ranged from 38% of 15-year olds achieving 5 or more good GCSE’s to 99% - NS mean = 70.2% Academic performance of Web 2.0-innovating schools ranged from 42% - 86% - W2 mean = 63.8%

6 Aspects of the context…

7 Metodologia Surveys with more than 2,600 learners at 27 schools
– questionari che hanno coinvolto più di 2700 studenti in 27 scuole Student focus groups at 25 schools (300+ students) - focus group condotti in più di 25 scuole, coinvolti più di 300 studenti Approximately 150 interviews with head teachers, teachers and staff in the 27 schools – Circa 150 interviste a dirigenti, insegnanti e personale ATA in 27 scuole Surveys with 206 teachers from 22 of the 27 schools - questionari che hanno coinvolto più di 206 insegnanti in 27 scuole Screen-capture telephone interviews with 30 Web 2.0 innovators - Interviste videotelefoniche con 30 insegnanti innovatori Guided survey technique involved a researcher always being present to support the student in completing the survey. A Powerpoint presentation was given explaining the project and Web 2.0 terminology. Terms that were explained included wikis, blogs, podcasts, PDA… 3.4% of students surveyed did not allow access to their data, and so the data discussed here does not include their answers. Interviews and focus groups were entered into NVivo for content analysis. In addition, 18 interviews were also held with individual innovators: driving forces of Web 2.0 at a given school, where Web 2.0 hadn’t been taken up beyond that individual or department. These interviewees were found as per the recruitment methods for the innovating schools. Have also held a policy Delphi group on eSafety and conducted about 8 interviews with LA and RBC managers.

8 Attività Web 2.0 prese in considerazione nell’indagine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 VLE Forum Blog Podcast SN Link-Up Wiki Soc. Book-marking The Web 2.0 activities being used by the schools. Technologies are listed in descending order of popularity. Discuss why these activities were selected and how. Schools are labelled 1 to 12 with the number reflective their relative performance – 1 was the highest-performing school and 12 the lowest. Blue boxes indicate where we surveyed about this activity. Green boxes indicate where we interviewed teachers and students about this activity upon discovering that it was happening/ to create a manageable survey for the students. Schools 5 and 7 were systematically interviewed about the use of and chat. Two schools (1 and 3) used online quizzes. School 8 gave each student a personal homepage and School 11 used simulations occasionally. W1 - SP W2 - Egg W3 - ND W4 - Arg W5 – St B W6 - Wil W7 - Corn W8 - Ble W9 - Hon W10 - GCUS W11 - MW W12 - Bid

9 Uso di strumenti Web 2.0 a scuola e fuori dalla scuole
Give usage of the three most popular Web 2.0 tools in our innovating schools: discussion forums, blogs, and podcasts. [NB data is for both NS and W2 samples]. While this is a somewhat arbitrary focus, the size of the dataset necessitates breaking down the discussion and that this method enables us to focus on what schools are currently valuing as educational tools, and students’ in and out of school experience with these tools. This slide highlights one of the strongest findings of the research: that despite students’ engagement with Web 2.0 out of school, the nature and frequency of engagement with Web 2.0 in school, is quite different. If time, provide list of activities with <10% take-up. Blog: 39.1% never, 45.3% out of school only, 3.9% both, 4.7% in school only Discussion forum : 48.9% never, 34.2% out of school only, 4.7% both, 5.6% in school only

10 Uso di strumenti Web 2.0 a scuola e fuori dalla scuola
This slide reinforces what has been just said about the division between in and out of school Web 2.0 activities, using the example of media sharing and/or podcasting. This is a very popular activity with students outside of school. The slide highlights a second important finding from the research: the divide between students as digital consumers, and students as digital producers. The audio and video that students upload are likely to be media that they did not themselves produce, based on focus group findings, and as you can see there is little representation in school of what is a very popular extracurricular activity. It also highlights how despite the presence of these technologies at particular schools, certain activities such as podcasting tend to be limited to select groups of students, such as g+t. Watch video: 4.7% never, 71.3% out of school only, 16.2% both, 2.3% in school only Listen to Radio: 43.5% never, 38.8% out of school only, 6.4% both, 5% in school only Upload video: 45% never, 43.1% out of school only, 2.5% both, 2.6% in school only Upload audio: 51.6% never, 33.3% out of school only, 3.6% both, 5.1% in school only

11 Quali strumenti Web 2.0 sono stati utilizzati per fare i compiti a casa
We asked students to evaluate certain tools and activities for their usefulness in doing homework outside of school. This is one way of assessing a Web 2.0’s potential impact on learning, without running an intervention study or using data such as test scores: by measuring students’ perception of these tools’ usefulness, we get a sense of what they currently find to be useful and how they may already be engaging with Web 2.0 technologies to support learning. The most popular resources, unsurprisingly, are search engines. Online encyclopedias are also useful, and our analysis of students’ most popular websites for learning indicates that Wikipedia is really the primary encyclopedia used (some teachers access other wiki encyclopedias). Most popular site access for schoolwork is Wikipedia – NS 58.0%, W2 56.9% This is twice as commonly used as the next favourite site for learning, BBC/Bitesize – NS 24.0%, W2 28.8% VLEs are not perceived by students to be particularly useful. Focus group data and interviews with teaching staff suggest that some reasons may be inconsistency in VLE use between departments; difficulty accessing the VLE outside of school; use of the VLE in a “noticeboard” manner; and, interestingly, aesthetics. Instant messaging with friends is clearly a useful tool for students – we know that this must be out of school, and suggests that issues of propriety and classroom management aside, IM can be and already is a valuable tool for assisting collaboration and coordination between students. Social networking sites, however, are not viewed as helpful for homework – focus group data backs up that there are few instances of using SN sites to support learning, and this suggests that whilst some students may have difficulty viewing this tool as educational rather than social, there is much scope for teachers to help create a social networking environment conducive to learning and exploiting the conveniences of these sites as this has not already happened on the students’ own initiative.

12 What do students think important to use more of in class?
Quali strumenti gli studenti pensano che sia più importante usare in classe What do students think important to use more of in class? We asked students what they thought was important to use more of in class, out of a selection of Web 2 and “web 1” technologies. Here are some results – blogs and podcasts are examined in keeping with the previous slides, wikis because Wikipedia is a popular resource with students, online chat because it is popular out of school, and PPT as a non-Web 2.0 technology. Statistics reveal that there are significant differences between NS and W2 students’ importance ratings of wikis, blogs and Powerpoint. W2 students value blogs and wikis more highly than NS students, and have a lower important rating of Powerpoint than do the NS students (though they still classify it as important). One interpretation is that with experience of use, students come to value these technologies for learning and wish to do more of them.

13 LA DIDATTICA DIGITALE DENTRO L’AULA
SPAZI DELLA DIDATTICA E STRUMENTI DIGITALI IN AULA

14

15 La trasformazione degli spazi didattici

16

17 E la nostra scuola

18 NUOVI AMBIENTI E STRUMENTI

19 A SCUOLA CON IL DIGITALE:
LA TECNOLOGIA AL SERVIZIO DELLA METEDOLOGIA

20 Wireless devices

21 wireless

22 Copertura wireless della scuola

23 Copertura wireless in aula

24 Il laboratorio portatile

25 Dalla lavagna tradizionale…

26 …Alla LIM: Lavagna Interattiva Multimediale
LA LIM COME OCCASIONE PER IL CAMBIAMENTO …Alla LIM: Lavagna Interattiva Multimediale

27

28

29

30

31

32 Valuzione sull’efficacia dell’uso della LIM nelle differenti materie – scuola primaria
Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project Report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families, July 2007 Bridget Somekh, Maureen Haldane, Kelvyn Jones, Cathy Lewin, Stephen Steadman, Peter Scrimshaw, Sue Sing, Kate Bird, John Cummings, Brigid Downing, Tanya Harber Stuart, Janis Jarvis, Diane Mavers and Derek Woodrow Centre for ICT, Pedagogy and Learning Education & Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University partners.becta.org.uk/upload.../whiteboards_expansion_summary.doc

33 Vantaggi in test sperimentali sulle scienze

34 Vantaggi in test sperimentali sulla matematica

35 Vantaggi in test sperimentali inglese

36 Vantaggi in test sperimentali scrivere

37 I vantaggi della LIM

38

39

40

41 FUORI DALL’AULA NEL WEB

42 Un modello risultante per l’e-learning

43 Un approccio costruttivista all’e-learning: flessibilità cognitiva e ipertestualità
Insegnamento/apprendimento è un processo ”emergente”, sociale e culturalmente situato Le comunità di pratiche (docenti, studenti) devono poter gestire questo processo complesso e articolato Le comunità di pratiche devono trovare un equilibrio tra programmazione e processi emergenti, rimodellando progressivamente il setting didattico Wenger E., Communities of practice, Learning, meaning, and identity Cambridge University Press, 1998 Le Piattaforme di E-learning CSCL e LCMS permettono di gestire l’apprendimento come un processo emergente di rappresentare e mettere in circolo la conoscenza emergente di gestire la conoscenza tacita dei docenti e degli studenti trasformandola in costruzione cooperativa del sapere

44 I modelli didattici: le blended solution
I modelli didattici variano a seconda di diversi fattori quali il numero di studenti, la possibilità di riproporre e riutilizzare nel tempo gli stessi contenuti, la disponibilità a seguire studenti o gruppi di studenti che praticano attività on line. In generale, i modelli sono forme miste di: Didattiche attive E-tievities Didattiche espositive LO

45 Apprendere dai Learning Object
La creazione di LO come “integrazione del testo” e non come sostituzione permette di: Aumentare l’efficacia didattica dell’oggetto stesso, che sfrutta la multimedialità e aggiunge interattività al testo; potenziare l’efficacia del libro di testo per le parti che effettivamente vengono apprese meglio attraverso la lettura di un testo approfondito; Abbassare i costi di produzione dei Learning Object relativi ad un insegnamento, diminuendo il numero di oggetti creati. Pochi Learning object di qualità che affiancano testi di qualità per una didattica efficace a costi ragionevoli.

46 Esempi di Learning Object
LEARNING OBJECT sperimentati: brevi video, immagini e animazioni ad alta risoluzione Tutorial sull’uso di uno strumento o risoluzione di un problema Registrazioni di audio/video di porzioni di lezioni o conferenze Contenuti erogati in forma ipertestuale

47 Apprendere dalle “e-tivities”
La creazione di e-tivities permette di: Aumentare le occasioni di apprendimento attivo, collaborativo e coooperativo, che permettono di migliorare l’efficacia della didattica; Abbassare il fenomeno del drop-out, permettendo anche ai non frequentanti di sentirsi protagonisti dell’attività; Migliorare la dimensione relazionale tra gli studenti e il corpo docente e tra gli studenti stessi, riavvicinando all’università gli studenti non frequentanti e permettendo di stabilire una comunicazione positiva tra i soggetti coinvolti nel processo didattico.

48 Esempi di e-tivities E-TIVITIES sperimentate:
Studio di caso (individuale o di gruppo) Progetto (individuale o di gruppo) Field trip (costruzione di un testo corredato di risorse esemplificative) Test on line Relazione scritta Esercizi (specifici per disciplina) Webquest (ricerca mirata sul web) Gruppi di discussione

49 L’evoluzione dell’ambiente: Da Docebo 2.0 a Docebo 3.5
Innovazioni co-progettate dallo staff di ricerca: Miglioramento interfacce (2.0) Sistema di erogazione di Test (2.0) Registro di valutazione (3.0) Accessibilità (3.0) Innovazioni in corso di implementazione (3.5) E-portfolio (su progetto della Facoltà di Sociologia) Wiki del corso; Video player integrato per filmati in flash; Videoconferenza; Repository per le consegne degli studenti; Sistema di iscrizione automatizzata ad eventi.

50 L’evoluzione dell’ambiente: Da Docebo 2.0 a Docebo 3.5

51 Prospettive future:possibilità e scenari:
Mettere a sistema un modello di insegnamento on line Mettere a sistema un modello organizzativo Mettere a sistema un modello di co-progettazione dell’ambiente per l’apprendimento on line Mettere a sistema un modello di formazione per i profili dell’e-learning (docenti, mentori, e-tutor) Mettere a sistema un sistema di sviluppo di Learning Object Mettere a sistema un modello di valutazione dell’e-learning Prospettive future:possibilità e scenari: