Web 2.0 technologies in the High School English Classroom – Using Google Docs to promote constructivist, student centred, critical thinking

As a teacher of English in a NSW High School context, due to the content heavy syllabus we have to wield (NSW Syllabus, filtering the Australian Curriculum), we seem to be pushed towards teaching in a style which is incongruent with ‘the philosophy and ethos prevalent in the Web 2.0 world in which we live’ (McLoughlin and Lee, 2010, p.31). It becomes very easy to rely on a teacher centred ‘sage on the stage’ style of teaching where the student is viewed as an empty vessel, ready to be filled with all the requisite knowledge required to fulfil the syllabus outcomes. In this instance, the teacher is perceived to be the expert who owns all the information, transmitting it to the students, in what can become ‘thinking free zone’, where facts are conveyed, rather than knowledge and understanding being fostered.

As a way to mitigate against a teacher centred classroom becoming the sole style of teaching and learning that takes place in my context and develop a constructivist approach to learning, I have deliberately attempted to embed Web 2.0 technologies into our teaching and learning programs. In embedding Web 2.0 technologies in programs, I am hoping to become more competent in using, ‘openly available online technologies that allow creation, editing and sharing of digital content between (often large) groups of people via a web-browser.’ (Bower 2016, in Bower 2017, p. 162).

By using Googles docs, an example of a Web 2.0 platform, ‘that can enrich learning environment[s] by transferring teaching instruments toward users.’ (Wahyuni, 2017, p. 158), I have found I can meet the needs of my students who, ‘want an active learning experience that is social, participatory and supported by rich media.’ (McLoughlin and Lee, 2010, p. 28). This is facilitated by creating a space where students are not simply ‘acquiring’ but also ‘participating’ in the knowledge development, where there is a ‘continuous negotiation of meaning and identity in practice in the mutual, though not necessarily harmonious, engagement with others.’ (Dohn, 2009, p. 351). As well as this, Google docs provides a space that is protected, open only to those who have been invited to connect with the developed activity through the invitation of the learning designer, therefore limiting and managing risks associated with unfiltered publically available Web 2.0 tools (Bower, 2017).

In one particular learning activity, with a view to consolidating and developing understanding of Waiting for Godot, I divided my Extension 1 English class into two groups of five, according to the two acts in the play. I then asked them to develop a summary of their allocated act and its key ideas, by condensing the characters’ dialogue into a twitter style conversation. The conversation were to be transferred to a contemporary context, and delivered in a style that was representative of a section of today’s youth culture. They were to post their Twitter conversation onto the following Google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aw4dg3xbvOF6DCFd0yK-nOTMN3IZLiXeQGbJ3DopGWE/edit?ts=5d420b8a

Here are some screen shots of the doc, to give you an idea of the results…

On reflection, it gave the students a safe and effective way to develop understanding through the constructivist approach, by using Google docs a Web 2.0 technology.

References:

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning – Integrating research and practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group

Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International journal of computer-supported collaborative learning, 4(3), 343-363

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28-43.

Wahyuni, E. (2017) Teaching English with an internet-based nature of Google docs to improve students’ critical thinking. International Journal of Education Vol. 10 No. 2, February 2018, pp. 157-161