Just before Christmas 2012, I was presented with an iPad. I was told to take it home over the holidays and practice using it because next term I would be using it to support some of the children in my class. At first I was extremely excited and it resulted in me going out the very next day and purchasing a little Christmas present to myself…… the iPhone 5. That evening whilst attempting to set up and get to grips with my new phone it dawned upon me that my ICT skills left much to be desired.

This led me to reflect upon my own experiences with technology. My parents always wanted me to be technology lingual. I remember when my father brought home our very first computer a Commodore Amiga 500. I spent hours playing ‘Back to the Future’ and ‘Bubble Bobble’. Over a number of Christmas’s my sister and I received Game Boys, a Sega Mega Drive and a Nintendo 64 and I remember playing ‘Super Mario’. I have bought myself a laptop, a Wii (which only comes out at Christmas, New Year and whenever the family get together), a Play Station and a baby pink DS Lite. My thoughts then spread to the mobile phones that I had used and the development from personal tape player to personal CD player and most recently the iPod that was my daily companion whilst travelling around the world for seven months.

I know you must be thinking, why is she telling us about her life experiences when what I want to know is about how I could use iPads within the classroom, but I shall reach my point shortly. For me each piece of technology was a fad, something I wanted because it was what everyone wanted, the latest craze. My knowledge of how they all worked was very limited and often my use of these products was for a very limited time. I lost interest very quickly whereas my sisters persevered. I had to ask myself why this had become a repetitive pattern in my life. The answers were because I often became confused, I didn’t give myself time to experiment with new things and I was a little bit scared of breaking it by pressing the wrong button.

The iPad that was sat in my handbag suddenly became quite a daunting piece of equipment, something that I had been given that I would have to learn how to use effectively and most importantly become confident with. It dawned upon me that receiving this iPad would change my whole way of thinking about technology, both within my professional and personal life. However, here I am over six months later typing this very article on that ever so worrisome iPad that has changed the way I teach, plan and assess. Initially I was given the iPad to support SEN children within my class and I have focused upon this area within this article.

Initially I looked for books that were child friendly and would encourage children to read on a regular basis. We now have a number of books available for children where they can have the story read to them, or read with the iPad, they are also able to record their own voices reading the story. These books allow the children to read independently but still have support when they feel they need it. For one child an IEP Target related to her use of vocabulary and ability to discuss objects and pictures. I downloaded an app called ‘WIld Friends’ created by Fotopedia which allows you access to thousands of beautiful pictures of animals. It has lead to many interesting discussions about the pictures she does and does not like and importantly she is encouraged to express her opinions about them. Also, she is now able to explain and identify what is similar and different about the animals. The ‘Toca Monsters’ app helps to encourage discussions about food and helps you to address issues with food that children may have; for example why people like or dislike certain types of food, how to cook food and why it is important to eat our lunches etc. This was particularly supportive tool when covering the Science topic ‘Healthy Eating’ and next year I will be using it to support EAL learners within the class to introduce key vocabulary for the unit.

To support children with weak writing skills I have recently used the ‘Toontastic’ app. This is an app that allows you to create a cartoon following a very simple set of instructions which are both written and spoken. The children have a choice of characters and settings which I then encouraged them to plan and create a story about. To create their story the children then manipulated the characters around the screen and recorded their voices for each character. This app was particularly supportive for children who are EAL as it took away the ‘writing’ aspect of story writing and allowed them be creative orally, which lead to spontaneous creativity. What I found using this app is that even though I had used and practiced using this app prior to the lesson, the children’s inhibitions and willingness to experiment meant that they soon exceeded my knowledge.

There are a number of games that support and help develop key skills for learners. I have used simple matching games such as ‘Touch then Match’ and simple puzzles that are aimed at young children and were ideal for particular children within my class. I have also found that playing games and just using the iPads regularly has helped to develop the children’s fine motor skills. Having to manoeuvre and manipulate images on the screen has resulted in better pencil grip and neater handwriting.

Having had regular sessions with iPads I have also noticed a boost in confidence for many of my children. A dyslexic child in my class found it very difficult to begin any task independently and needed reassurance throughout every lesson. When they were first introduced to the iPads he reacted in the same way. However, a few weeks later he was happy to try any new activity on the iPad independently and now feels confident to experiment and find out solutions for himself. Last week he taught me how to use ‘Minecraft’ a complex building game, and was extremely supportive when I became confused and needed help. This has had a positive effect upon him in other lessons too where he now enjoys the challenge of working independently.

The iPad has also become a key assessment tool within my classroom and practice. In any lesson I can quickly take pictures of what the children are doing or have achieved. I am able to record group and class discussions quickly and can reflect upon them when evaluating my lessons. Particularly within PE and Music sessions you can record the children and have them immediately evaluate their own work and identify their own next steps to make an impact upon their progression. Stories, cartoons, films etc that the children create can be downloaded and watched by all, giving them a greater purpose for the work that they are generating. The TA’s and other adults who support during lessons are also able to use this technology, which ensures I can assess my class’s progress more thoroughly.

Teachers as the creators of the technology

The time where teachers just modelled or facilitated learning using new technologies has long passed.Recently, their interest in new technologies started to shift from ‘user’ profile to ‘creator’. Today, there are fantastic apps and softwares designed directly by teachers. The story behind each creators interest in making an app or software is going to vary. I tried out Math Evolve for iPads and I had to say I was very impressed not only with the design features of the app, but also with its content. Looking at how the progression of mathematical concepts were created. I wondered if the designer had talked to a maths teacher. I was neither right nor wrong as the designer was a teacher. So this is the story behind the creation of MATH EVOLVE by ADAM COCCARI, Founder of InterAction Education and an Elementary school teacher.

The Concept

The origins of Math Evolve began long ago, when I was a child growing up in the 80’s and 90’s, enchanted by the thrill and creativity of playing video games. However, like most inventions, the idea to create a maths game came from practical challenges in my daily life. I started teaching 4th grade in a small independent school with no formal training or education degree. I knew that I loved working with kids and helping people learn, so I thought it would be a great place to start.  The school quickly saw my interest and ability to teach maths concepts, so I was put in charge of the maths classes and curriculum for 4th grade. As you probably remember, in 3rd and 4th grade you are forced to memorize your multiplication facts (times tables), usually through a mixture of flash cards, verbal recitation, and speed drills. Some children take to this naturally and learn them quickly, but for others it is painful. Unlike some subjects, knowing the multiplication facts is absolutely because they are the foundation of all maths that comes afterwards (fractions, percentages, ratios, ect).  So, it became my task to get my students to reach automaticity with the facts through any means necessary.  I would use every tool in my arsenal: flash cards, visual aids, physical toys, and long speeches to teach them about how important it was.

I would have them play games, jump around the room like a madman, and even have them do relay races involving multiplication, all with the hopes of getting them excited about maths.

It was a tough battle, because at the core of it, memorizing these facts is really boring for most kids.  The flash cards and quizzes can feel like torture, and it becomes even harder when they get home.  They need to practice in the evenings, but the kids loathe it and the parents don’t want to get in fights every night about it.  It becomes a source of tension for a lot of parents, and most would rather give up and enjoy the time with their kids than get in a fight every night about flash cards.

It was in this context that I realized that both teachers and parents needed better ways to make maths. We used a computer lab for an hour a week, and I started using a lot of free educational games on the Internet to reinforce the maths facts. I grew up loving video games as a kid, so I knew first hand how engrossing and rewarding games could be. The kids loved the games because they provided a fun change of pace, instant feedback, and competition amongst each other. I saw the power of educational games and the potential they held, but most of the games that were available were very basic and cheaply made, so the kids would tire of them quickly and never choose to play them in their own time.

It was around this time that the iPad was first released, and I bought the first version.  I brought it over to a student’s house for a tutoring session, because I knew this particular student was obsessed with video games but had a deep aversion to maths. I found a few maths games for him to play, and I watched as his fear and anger toward maths practice melted away as he tried to defeat some robot dogs in an app called Maths Ninja. I saw how well the touch screen worked as a device for educational content, and his anxiety about maths was alleviated when presented in a game context. Although I found a few good apps for my students to play, I was surprised by the general lack of truly fun and high-quality educational games available for the iPad and iPhone (this was 2010). Most apps merely presented the facts in flash card format, requiring you to simply type in or touch the correct answer. These apps usually had the maths separate from the game, thus the game became a thinly-veiled way to get children to practice maths facts in the traditional format.

As a child I spent many hours sitting and building creations out of Lego. As a parent I have spent hours helping build or just watching my children play. Lego can bring out the inner child in us, it is often the one toy as adults we have the urge to pick up and start to play. So when looking at planning ICT to be told we have Lego WeDo sets (not only Lego but it also connects to the computer!), I have to say my inner child was a little excited. 

After a trial run at home, I managed to build a crocodile and use the software to control movements of the mouth. The software came with the set and could print off a large document with instructions. After several attempt to read and follow, I discovered that plug it in and play around was much more fun. I was ready to go and unleash 30 year 4 children on the sets.

We have enough sets that the children could work in pairs. Sets were handed out and children shown how to locate the instructions to build, and command software on the system. Then I let them play. At first it was clear that many were not regular Lego builders. As I observed and assisted in building, I was able to assess skills in transferring a two dimensional image into an actual three dimensional model. At first there were questions, “Is this the right bit?” or “Does it go there?” This got the response “I don’t know. How we can check?”

by Chris Carter

A Team Leader, Tech Coach, and Teacher using tech as a tool to guide kids through higher-order thinking, project-based learning experiences at Concordia International School Shanghai, China

Summary

Threaded discussions, or forums, or discussion boards, are becoming a common means of communication both in wholly on-line and hybrid high school classes. Whilst they are used to promote both healthy social academic environments and to promote critical thinking, some researchers question if threaded discussions actually accomplish either task.  Recent quantitative and qualitative research indicates that threaded discussions do at least as well as in-class discussions, and have the potential to achieve higher levels of success, in both areas. Research indicates that systemic change is necessary both in how teachers are trained to use the technology, and in how educators perceive their roles in the online environment.

Threaded Discussions

Threaded discussions are asynchronous, computer-assisted communication that graphically represent posts and replies, thus allowing participants to track the progression of conversations around a common theme or prompt (Business, n.d.). They make up the heart of communication for most on-line and hybrid courses around the globe, due in a large part to their allowing both students and instructors to communicate free from time and space constraints, and due to the fact that students prefer discussion boards over synchronous communication (Shin Yi & Overbaugh, 2007; Mayfield, 2010). The 2009-10 academic year saw over 1 million K-12 students take wholly online courses in the United States alone, and this with a projected growth rate of 30% for the foreseeable future (Thomson, 2010). In addition, 4 million 4-year college students, and half of all community college students in the United States take on-line courses (Batts et al., 2010). When the (currently unknown) number of hybrid K-12 classes is included, the scale of discussion board use in academia becomes apparent.

To clarify what a threaded discussion is, perhaps it is best to address what it is not.  As an asynchronous form of communication, it is not an instant messaging system, such as twitter, chat rooms and text messages are.  Discussion boards are not email, in that they are viewable by all members of a course and are threaded, or stacked, so that viewers can follow the flows of separate sub-discussions that develop from a common prompt, rather than having to scroll through every reply to every post.

This allows for greater clarity in the formulation of arguments and responses. Also, threaded discussions are persistent, remaining viewable from the initial prompt to the latest post for the duration of the course, and beyond should the instructor so choose.  For these reasons, and also for their perceived benefits in building social learning communities and developing critical thinking skills, discussion boards are the communication form of choice in hybrid and wholly on-line courses (Cox & Cox, 2008).

Voices of dissent. Despite the ubiquity of discussion boards and their general acceptance as excellent forms of communication (or perhaps because of it), some scholars raise serious questions as to their educational efficacy.  These researchers are troubled by the relatively few large-scale qualitative studies on the subject, and particularly that those studies that do exist tend to examine graduate students, and not the typical user of online courses. In her synthesis of 37 studies, Looking for Critical Thinking in Online Threaded Discussions, professor Paula Maurino makes this concern explicit (Maurino, 2007). The objections strike at the perceived twin strengths of threaded discussions, the community building and critical thinking aspects (Chen & Hung, 2002; Maurino, 2007; Maurino, Federman & Greenwald, 2007). Issues with building social learning communities. Most researchers see the building of social networks through discussion boards as a positive benefit, or even necessary prerequisite, both for increased student interest and participation, and for the deeper learning that is presumed to result (Beckett, 2010; Cox & Cox, 2008; Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Shin Yi & Overbaugh, 2007).  In quantitative studies, instructors and professors see achieving social and cognitive goals through discussion boards as inseparable (Maurino, Federman & Greenwald, 2007). Yet this goal is questioned in that some researchers believe building community may actually inhibit the kinds of discussions that build critical thinking. Essentially, the argument runs, if students are more concerned with maintaining positive relationships than with arguing issues, then they may not disagree or offer counterarguments to those positions posed by classmates. As Maurino points out, though students in the studies under her examination did create social relationships, these relationships did not appear to foster critical thinking.

“Expansive or deep learning requires conflict or contradiction” (Maurino, 2007, p. 50). Researchers Der-Thanq Chen and David Hung expand this argument by indicating that students using threaded discussions are successful creators of “idea artifacts” based on collective knowledge, but do not internalize and subjectivize these artifacts into “knowledge objects” of personalized understanding (Chen & Hung, 2002, p. 280). In other words, students quickly reach common understandings that are not debated or internalized.

Tellingly, several researchers who are more enthusiastic toward the present use of threaded discussions also reflect concerns for the need for respectful argument. Doctor Sarah Prestridge, after an exhaustive study of 8 Australian primary schools, concluded that there are collegial conversations and critical conversations evidenced in threaded discussions, and that these two types are mutual exclusive (Prestidge, 2009). Researcher T. Solhaug, in developing his elements of discursive democratic practice, includes the importance of presenting differing viewpoints and questioning authority as two of the five essentials (Solhaug, 2009). More broadly, open-ended prompts are seen as key in encouraging differences of opinion and building nuanced arguments, as identified by several researchers (Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Jeong, 2003; Rizopoulus & McCarthy, 2008).

Issues with building critical thinking skills. Not surprisingly, given their concerns over the impact of social community, the above researchers find the development of critical thinking through the tool of discussion boards to be lacking (Maurino, 2007; Chen & Hung, 2002). Again, the issue of lack of large-scale qualitative studies is raised (Maurino, 2007). Yet at this point a measure of balance must be addressed. None of the researchers reject outright the use of discussion boards as a useful learning tool.  Chen and Hung offer a solution to critical thinking development through the implementation of visualizations to assist in the creation of “knowledge objects” (Chen & Hung, 2002, p. 280). In all three of Maurino’s studies the researcher finds the instructor to be the key component, and raises several suggestions to improve threaded discussions that will be incorporated into the professional development piece following (Maurino 2007; Maurino, 2007; Maurino, Federman & Greenwald, 2007). That the threaded discussion is not living up to its presumed capacity to develop deeper, more critical thinking, and that this shortfall may be due to current instructor practices, is strongly suggested by the conclusions of many studies which specifically call for modifying instructor practices (Archambault et al., 2010; Batts et al., 2010; Mayfield, 2010; Rosenthal, 2010; Thomson, 2010). These findings clearly point to a need for ongoing professional development, both in pre-service and in-service settings, to equip pedagogues in the most effective uses of this primary means of communication for on-line and hybrid courses.

Insight: threaded discussion versus face-to-face discussion.While wholly on-line courses are somewhat limited in their communication options, and thus default to threads, face-to-face classroom settings do not have the same pressure to include asynchronous discussions, thus becoming de facto hybrid courses.  While anecdotal evidence from several research efforts

suggest the utility of discussion boards in principle, six studies under review specifically examined threaded- versus face-to-face discussions for their academic efficacy (Brown & Green, 2009; Kamin et al., 2001; Larson, 2003; Miller & Benz, 2008; Prestridge, 2009; Zacharis, 2010). First, the question of equity is addressed by Brown and Green’s research into how much time students in both settings spend actually participating in discussions.  The study concludes that the formats foster roughly equal amounts of participation (Brown & Green, 2009).  Another study examines threaded- versus fishbowl discussions.  The researchers conclude that both threaded- and fishbowl discussions increase academic performance, but go on to state that discussion boards are usable with both small and large groups, and benefit from not having time and place restrictions (Miller & Benz, 2008). The Zacharis study concludes that students of multiple learning styles are just as successful with on-line classes as with the classroom setting (Zacharis, 2010). The remaining three studies conflict somewhat in outcomes. The Prestridge research effort concludes that face-to-face discussions are more collegial, while threads develop more critical thinking (Prestridge, 2009), in direct contradiction to Maurino’s findings (Maurino, 2007).  The Kamin and Glicken study supports the Prestridge conclusion, but only in a quantitative, not qualitative, way, thus leaving room for argument (Kamin & Glicken, 2001). Larson reports that threads allow for a more egalitarian exchange (Larson, 2003). All of the reports support threads in hybrid and on-line settings, yet their varied findings are troubling.  Clearly, other variables are at work.  The next insight addresses one possibility.

Insight: the silent student. Threads have long been thought to give voice to the silent students. To begin, author and researcher Mary Reda takes issue with the presumption that the introverted, reflective student is disadvantaged in face-to-face discussions (Reda, 2010). Reda argues that many silent students simply process differently, learning at least as well as more verbose students while quietly forming complete arguments in their minds. Reda does state, however, that these students often see in-class discussions as high-stakes verbal testing rather than knowledge construction, and thus opt out of the exercise (Reda, 2010). This position seems a confirmation that quiet students may be choosing not to participate at some cost to their intellectual development. Other researchers take this more traditional view that silence is somehow detrimental to the student, and comment on the egalitarian nature of threads versus face-to-face discussions, where the most extroverted dominate, with Larson noting, “Several “quiet” students  shared extensively in the threaded discussions,” (Larson, 2003, p. 363; Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Solhaug, 2009).  Solhaug goes so far as to refer to silent students as “empty shells” (Solhaug, 2009, p. 417).

But drilling down into the numbers reveals a more subtle reality. Researchers JeongMin Lee and Youngmin Lee used the Myers-Briggs type indicator to measure introvert-extrovert personalities, and then divided 96 undergraduate students into a homogeneous extrovert group, an introvert group, and a heterogeneous group, to find the quantitative and qualitative results of the threads these three groups produced. After careful analysis, the research reveals that the extrovert grouping consistently produces the most posts, but the least depth of thought, while the introvert group consistently posts the least (JeongMin & Youngmin, 2006). The greatest depth of thought, however, is being generated in the heterogeneous groups, where extroverts take the lead in initiating discussions but introverts successfully deflect and defeat these initial offerings through carefully thought out and reasoned rebuttals.  The resultant threads are rich in cognitive development and collegial exchanges and challenges (JeongMin & Youngmin, 2006).

hus, the silent, “empty shells” are always learning, but learn best when paired with the traditionally vocal students, who dominate in-class discussions, but typically fail to fully form their arguments, and thus fail to maximize their critical thinking potential.  If this research holds true, then threads are potentially more beneficial for both extroverts and introverts than in-class discussions, provided the groups and discussions are structured in ways that allow the time necessary for all students to participate.

Insight: labeling the thread. A key benefit of threaded discussions that make them attractive when compared to other forms of communication is the structure of the thread itself.  By allowing participants to view posts and responses that spread like roots from the common “tree” of a given prompt, threads facilitate understanding and, presumably, lead to deeper learning. That being said, scholars are concluding that additional structure, in the form of labeling of responses to both the prompt and posts, leads to more frequent argumentation and greater depth of thought (Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Chen & Hung, 2002; Jeong, 2003; Brooks & Jeong, 2006). The earliest study under review focuses on the use of the CaMILE (Collaborative and Multimedia Interactive Learning Environment) system for labeling threaded discussion posts and responses between rebuttals, clarifications, explanations, and other forms of communication (Guzdial & Turns, 2000). The later pieces examine other systems of labeling, but the core goal of increasing participation and depth of thought through additional structure remains. The Chen and Hung piece takes labeling to the level of symbols (“!” for ideas, “?” for questions, “+” for strong argument, “-” for weak argument, etc.), yet the fact remains that these symbols serve to further clarify the structure of the threads (Chen & Hung, 2002). In their 2006 study, Brooks and Jeong achieve impressive results by comparing pre-structured threads using labels versus a control group using unsupported threads.

The labeled threads show a 64% increase in challenges per argument, thus strongly supporting the understanding that the addition of labels contributes to increased debate, and thus increasing critical thinking (Brooks & Jeong, 2006). Taken together, the research pieces all indicate that increased structure results in increased discourse and more critical thinking.  The specific structure appears less important than that there be the added structural support.  That being the case, Brooks’ and Jeong’s labels of claims, challenges, supporting evidence and explanation are particularly suitable for their brevity and utility (Brooks & Jeong, 2006). Yet, increased structuring of threads alone will not maximize the benefit of discussion boards. The single most consistent finding in the available research is the need for effective instructor training.

Insight: it is all about the instructor. Of the studies and examinations under review, 10 overtly identify either the lack or need of teacher participation in the use of threads. Dr. Maurino is the most direct in stating, “teachers need to become more involved as experts in classroom discussion.” (Maurino, 2007, p. 50) Again, Maurino identifies the most common failings of threads as being the lack of teacher effort and unclear goals (Maurino, 2007).  Though uncharitable, perhaps, her assessment is not unique. A recent study, though praising the efficacy of threads, does make clear that professors must participate more in them as monitors and guides in order to enhance thread effectiveness (Becket, 2010). The remaining 7 studies do more to fix the problem than to fix the blame, either identifying the lack of instructor preparation, or offering concrete steps to remedying the deficit. Maurino herself calls for teacher remediation (Maurino, Federman & Greenwald, 2007), and studies from recent months echo this conclusion. Researcher David Batts sees teachers as being chronically undertrained, concluding “… nearly two-thirds of the faculty taught themselves how to create and deliver online courses.” (Batts, et al., 2010, p. 28) Researchers Gronseth and Brush flatly conclude that teacher technical proficiency is not sufficient to integrate technological best practices into their courses (Gronseth et al., 2010). Though every teacher training program they evaluate contains a technology component, the technology instructors themselves, they conclude, are like the blind leading the blind in that they do not have the time nor the training to keep pace with the latest research and technological innovations (Gronseth et al., 2010). A successful professional development program as described by Dr. Leanna Archambault is unique in the studies under review in that it pulls teachers out of regular duties specifically to create planning time and provides a stipend, while also demanding proof of redesigned and implemented units that incorporate use of technology (Archambault et al., 2010).

Not surprisingly, the results are impressive, as teachers transform their styles from sages on stages to guides on the side, a necessary perspective shift echoed anecdotally by Professor Irene Rosenthal, and supported by a massive examination of over 2400 gifted K-12 students (Rosenthal, 2010; Thomson, 2010).

Need for Service Learning Projects. Taken together, these studies make a profound case for improved teacher pre-service and in-service training.  The old saw of there being insufficient funds for technology integration cannot withstand the near ubiquity of student access to the internet. Scores of free or extremely low cost options for threads and other technologies abound (Singh, Mangalaraj & Taneja, 2010). Nor can the argument fairly be made that teachers do not wish to learn these skills, when nearly two-thirds of college level instructors are teaching themselves, however imperfectly, how to implement these technologies (Batts et al., 2010).

Clearly, there is demand, and there is will among the faculty. Resolve at the administrative level is needed to turn these resources into effective pedagogy. As Goethe said, “We always have time enough if we will but use it aright.”

Lessons Learned. Synthesizing several research findings, a picture of effective teacher training in threaded discussions emerges. First, overt, clear guidelines for what is expected of student interactions must be used (Solhaug, 2009; Rosenthal, 2010; Mayfield, 2010).  Solhaug’s five elements of democratic discursive practice serve as a useful resource here (Solhaug, 2009, p. 419). Second, a robust rubric, an excellent example being found in the Rizopoulos and McCarthy piece, backed by a significant grade, facilitates active participation (Maurino, Federman & Greenwald, 2007; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2008; Mayfield, 2010; Rosenthal, 2010). Third, in addition to the inherent structure of threads, increased structure in the form of labels results in more frequent academic arguments, thus promoting deeper thinking, with Brooks and Jeong offering a simple four-category model that is a good starting point (Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Chen & Hung, 2002; Jeong, 2003; Brooks & Jeong, 2006, p. 372; Rosenthal, 2010). Fourth, teachers must see themselves as highly participative guides in the learning process, rather than aloof towers of knowledge (Maurino, 2007; Maurino, Federman & Greenwald, 2007; Solhaug, 2009; Archambault, et al., 2010; Mayfield, 2010; Rosenthal, 2010). Fifth, the prompts themselves must be open ended and interesting, inviting discussion and debate (Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Jeong, 2003; Larson, 2003; Maurino, 2007; Maurino, Federman & Greenwald, 2007; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2008; Mayfield, 2010; Rosenthal, 2010).

Please click here to view the Bibliography page.

At Wilbury we have always valued learning through participating in International projects.  We believe that it provides children with very valuable opportunities to develop their understanding of worldwide issues such as sustainability and also opens a window into other cultures through online collaboration with children from other countries.

One of the projects that we are delighted to be part of is called Global Partners Junior, which is a technology driven education program that connects urban middle schools from around the world. This program was developed by New York City Global Partners, the non-profit organization that connects the Mayor’s Office of the City of New York to cities around the world.

This year the focus of the project was Urban Stages, where the children investigated their own city, discovered how things were different in other cities around the world, by doing not just online research but also reading and replying to other children’s work in the online shared area.

The students began the project by introducing themselves in a few sentences; some of them got more creative and used a video or photo messages. They shared information about the main facts about our own city and discussed the theatre districts in the cities, such as Broadway in New York, The West End in London. The children then moved onto storytelling and playwriting. After exploring the basic elements of what makes a good story, they made their own storyboard for a story that they liked.They also looked at famous musicals such as; Mamma Mia, Wicked, The Lion King. They identified the main roles in a theatre; scriptwriter, director, set designer, costume designer, etc. The children have written short play scripts which then they animated using ‘I Can Animate’.