Category: Estrategias de clase

From Binary Thinking to Real Commitment: Engaging Families in Digital Competence

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

A few days ago, while scrolling through Instagram, I came across the existence and work of blablalab.eu. It’s a collective that works on initiatives to promote awareness and action around Climate Change.

One of the things I found most interesting about blablalab’s approach is how they understand people in a complex way. That is, they don’t think there are “the smart ones” who care about climate change and “the dumb ones” who don’t get it. Instead, they acknowledge that society is much more complex. Based on research, they’ve tried to map out the reality of society regarding climate change by identifying eight profiles that describe eight major groups into which Spanish society can be divided based on their relationship with the issue.

You can check them all out here:
https://blablalab.eu/presentacion-de-los-segmentos/

Well, as I was going through that, I kept thinking about how simplification (the idea that “those who believe what I do are the smart ones, and the rest are dumb, old-fashioned, backwards…”) is at the root of the absurd polarization we see in almost every part of our society today. I notice it particularly these days when there’s a lot of noise around “revisiting” digital technology in schools.

So I thought: one of the things we really need to get clear is that society is complex, and as blablalab shows so well in the context of climate change, when we implement things like digital competence in education, the goal isn’t to get “the smart ones” or “the ones who think like me” on board… What we need is for everyone to be committed to Digital Competence. That is, if we understand it as a basic and fundamental literacy, then to achieve it, the messages and initiatives we launch within institutions must consider the diversity of the people involved. We must not direct generic messages to “everyone,” but rather try to tailor messages to specific audiences.

This has been echoing in my mind especially during this time when governments are making public statements about removing screens from schools “to save the children”… while doing very little to go beyond generic headlines or one-size-fits-all policies.

So what now? Well, I thought I should do something within my own sphere of influence, and the most immediate one is my students. I want to work with them on understanding the importance of recognizing that families (and each person within a family) hold diverse perspectives, and that teachers must engage critically with students’ digital competence from those particular viewpoints.

So, we’re going to do an activity based on those perspectives. To do that, I’ve been thinking about what those family profiles might look like. Ideally, we’d have good research to base those profiles on, but since we don’t, I’ve been working with ChatGPT and DeepSeek to create a set of hypothetical profiles for the task with my students — and here’s what came out of that.

Mapping Family Perspectives on Educational Technology

In 21st-century classrooms, educators encounter a complex mosaic of family perceptions about the role of screens in learning. Far from a one-size-fits-all stance, these views are shaped into six archetypes that interact—and sometimes clash—within the educational space. Understanding their nuances is essential to building effective communication bridges.

1. The Guardians of the Analog

They represent a conscious resistance to digitalization. Their discourse, woven with concerns about neurodevelopment and platform capitalism, questions the very foundations of educational technology. In their homes, physical books and unstructured play are sacred. To them, each screen in the classroom is a dangerous concession to the fragmented attention model of the digital era. Their greatest fear: that schools will normalize what they see as a “loss of essential childhood.”

2. The Tech Evangelists

At the opposite end of the spectrum, these families see every device as a gateway to the future. Their belief in innovation often outweighs scientific evidence: they assume early exposure to digital tools guarantees competitive advantages. Their homes are laboratories of educational apps, and they push for schools to accelerate their digital transformation. Paradoxically, their enthusiasm can verge on uncritical, equating novelty with pedagogical progress.

3. The Weary Navigators

They embody a lived contradiction: aware of the risks yet surrendering to daily realities. Their rules are flexible, driven more by exhaustion than conviction. Screens serve as parental anaesthesia during endless workdays. At school, they support any use of technology that lightens the domestic load, though they suspect they should be stricter. Their unspoken motto: “The lesser evil in a lost battle.”

4. The Nostalgic Rebuilders

Their stance is a mix of longing and activism. They constantly compare today’s childhood with their idealized memories of streets, notebooks, and unsupervised games. Screens, in their view, steal essential formative experiences. While not outright rejecting tech, they create “technology-free zones” at home and look skeptically at digital whiteboards. Their uncomfortable question: Are we medicalizing childhood by pathologizing its disconnection from the digital?

5. The Late Navigators

This group embodies the digital divide from a systemic perspective. Their relationship with educational technology follows a slower adoption curve shaped by structural factors (unequal access, limited digital literacy, or language barriers). Unlike ideological resisters, they want to participate but find digital ecosystems unintuitive. Their deepest frustration: feeling like they’re always “trying to catch a train that’s already left,” especially when schools assume a baseline of digital competence. Educators must build bridges without assuming prior knowledge.

6. The Informed Dialectics

Their position is built on constant questioning. They reject both moral panic and tech fetishism, demanding nuance: YouTube is not GeoGebra, just as a textbook is not a novel. Their key value is pedagogical intentionality. They’re the ones who ask in meetings: “What specific problem does this tool solve?” and “Do we have data on its real effects?”

IMPORTANT: The Connective Tissue

These profiles are not rigid categories but dynamic constellations. A single family may shift between them depending on context, the children’s ages, or even mood. What matters most for educators is:

  1. Avoid caricatures: Behind every position are deep rationalities that deserve to be heard.
  2. Find leverage points: The dialectic thinker might connect with the nostalgic; the weary one might find practical alternatives through the guardian.
  3. Recognize silences: The late navigators are often left out of these debates, deepening their exclusion.

This map isn’t meant to label—it’s meant to shed light on the nuances that make the family-school dialogue about technology both complex and fascinating. Ultimately, it reflects something deeper: our visions of childhood, learning, and the future we imagine.

 

IMPORTANT: This is not intended to be a “serious” taxonomy or to ‘establish’ a way of viewing the people in a family; it is just an exercise in reflection to continue reflecting with my students and promote their critical thinking

On this ‘cartography’ I will create some task for the students that will promote an empathic and critical exercise of content with the news surrounding us… but I will tell you about that another day, I suppose 😉.

This document has been inspired by the work of blablalab.eu and their “8 Spains” (they have conducted a much more rigorous investigation!) and has been created as classroom material for my students. The idea behind it is the importance of reaching everyone with a meaningful message about everything related to technology. Maybe one day we’ll conduct a proper research project on this, but in the meantime, I hope it helps us reflect more deeply. No matter how families are, we need to think about all families and their members. This document was created by Linda Castañeda, with help—sometimes simultaneously, sometimes sequentially—from ChatGPT and DeepSeek..

New roles for the course of Resources and ICT in Education

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

This year, I have started working with my students on something new that somehow transforms the day-to-day of our subject.

In this case, this year, we have made a change that I find important in the roles of the subject (if someone knows nothing about the roles I work with my students and is curious, here is the first definition of the roles that I shared, in this post a version interpreted by my students, this was a reform they underwent in 2018, and this was the role reform we made two years ago).

In this case, I want to optimize the roles and incorporate AI into their performance. We have settled on five more detailed roles, which aim to be much more precise in what they are supposed to do and what we intend to do with them. I present them to you as my students see them (these are their instructions as they appear in my course).

FACILITATOR

The facilitator is responsible for proactively leading the group, ensuring efficient organisation, clear communication, and a positive working environment. This role involves distributing tasks among group members, ensuring everyone understands their responsibilities, and supervising the completion of work within the established deadlines. Additionally, the facilitator reviews the group’s deliverables to ensure they meet quality standards in content, format, and style. To achieve this, they may use digital tools such as Grammarly or DeepL Write to enhance the precision and professionalism of the texts.

A key responsibility of the facilitator is to document the group’s progress through a post on the blog. This post should outline the stages of the project, the decisions made, and the milestones achieved. To make it more visually engaging, it is essential to include a timeline generated using artificial intelligence tools, effectively showcasing the group’s progress and work clearly and creatively.

I am aware that you are familiar with Canva and that ChatGPT is already a tried-and-tested tool, so I challenge you to explore and use other tools that may bring fresh perspectives. Some recommended options are:

  • TimelineJS: Ideal for creating interactive timelines based on a Google Spreadsheet. This is a university-led project, highly professional yet simple to use. https://timeline.knightlab.com/)
  • Tiki-Toki: Specialised in interactive timelines with a professional design. The free account allows for only one timeline, but you could update it incrementally with each task. (www.tiki-toki.com)
  • Preceden: A simple and effective option for planning and documenting milestones. The free account allows for unlimited timelines but with a maximum of 10 events per timeline. https://www.preceden.com/
  • Visme: Similar to Canva, this tool enables the creation of interactive timelines with a professional focus. Its freemium model offers useful basic features. (https://my.visme.co/)

The facilitator should also critically reflect on the use of these tools in the group’s work. This includes evaluating how they contributed to the group’s progress, documenting the advantages and limitations encountered, and proposing ideas to improve their application in future tasks. This reflection should form part of the blog post, encouraging a critical and responsible perspective on the use of technology.

TRANSLATOR

The translator is responsible for selecting, each week, four core concepts directly related to the weekly task. These concepts must connect to the task’s content, the type of media produced as part of the task, or the class dynamics used for presenting the task. At least one concept must address the geek component, one must relate to the methodological-pedagogical aspect, and two must focus on the activity’s theoretical framework. This role is essential for fostering a deeper understanding of critical terms, supporting the development of course competencies, and providing valuable resources for further study.

The geek component refers to technical or technological aspects of the task, including tools, platforms, software, or digital processes used during the activity. For example, if the task involves creating a video, the geek component might involve exploring video editing software or technical terms related to video production. Similarly, if the task requires online collaboration, the geek component could focus on the platforms or systems used to facilitate that process. This aspect ensures that students develop digital fluency and can navigate and leverage technology effectively.

For each concept, the translator must conduct thorough research to provide a clear, original definition written in their own words. Definitions should be concise yet comprehensive, ranging between 50 and 150 words, and must align with the specific focus of the week’s task. Alongside the definition, the translator must recommend at least two bibliographic references per concept. These references should be selected using an academic AI tool and must be relevant to the topic or its application in the task. The translator should briefly explain the relevance of each reference and why it was chosen, ensuring proper attribution and documentation of all sources.

To carry out this task effectively, the translator will use academic AI tools to identify scientific references. Recommended tools include:

The translator must also critically examine the definitions and references provided, documenting how the sources support the task and contribute to the group’s understanding. This reflection must demonstrate thoughtful engagement with the materials and highlight the role of technology in enhancing research outcomes. The aim is to create a robust resource for the group, with practical and theoretical value that directly supports the task and tompetencies of this course,. The goal is to have a good archive to study for the exam and develop future courses along the degree.

ANALYST

The analyst is responsible for conducting the final reflection of the assignment and evaluating group members’ performance each week. This role requires critical and metacognitive abilities to analyze both individual and collective learning, as well as the dynamics of the group’s teamwork.

Evaluation of Group Members’ Performance

The analyst must evaluate each group member’s contribution to the task on a weekly basis. This evaluation follows the general rules outlined below:

  • The grade will range from 1 to 5, using only whole numbers.
  • A grade of 3 (out of 5) means that the person has correctly completed their function and task part on time, without significant mistakes.
  • If all group members receive the same grade, the teacher will disregard the grade, and the analyst will be penalised.
  • Each grade must be qualitatively justified, explaining the rationale behind the mark.

At the end of each week, the analyst must submit this evaluation (both numerical and qualitative) in an online questionnaire provided through the LMS.

Team’s Final Reflection

In addition to the evaluation, the analyst is responsible for guiding and writing the final reflection of the team. This reflection should address not only what was learned about the subject content, but also about teamwork and the experience of being a teacher. The following guiding questions should be used:

  1. How did the process of working on this task match your initial expectations? Did anything surprise you about how the task was completed or how your team worked?
  2. What was the most valuable learning moment? Reflecting on your interaction with the chatbot, what insights did you gain about the work you did and the approach you took?
  3. Which skills or knowledge did you develop most effectively through this task, and how can you apply them in future activities?
  4. How confident are you that the work reflects your own ideas and contributions? Can you describe moments during the process that demonstrated this?
  5. How do the insights and learning from this task connect with your knowledge or other areas of your studies? Were there any surprising connections you discovered?

Reflection Using AI Tools

Before writing the final reflection, the analyst must complete an additional exercise using a chatbot or virtual assistant (such as ChatGPT, PromptPerfect, or Copilot). The objective of this exercise is to encourage a deeper reflection on the task. The analyst must follow the instructions included in the “self-reflection AI helper” document included in the LMS (sorry for the Blog’s readers; I’ll share it lately after testing it a bit more). Once finished the interaction, please Upload the conversation with the chatbot in the analyst questionnaire, along with the weekly evaluation and the numerical/qualitative feedback on team members’ performance. This should be submitted in the same place within the LMS. Based on the chatbot’s interaction, the analyst must perform The Team’s final reflection on what was learned during the activity.

The analyst plays a crucial role in guiding the team through reflection and metacognition. Their responsibilities go beyond evaluating the team’s performance; they are key to helping the group critically assess their progress and the application of technology in the learning process. This role ensures the team reflects on its achievements, challenges, and learning experiences, promoting a deeper understanding of the subject matter and group dynamics.

STAR

The Star is a key group member responsible for presenting the task, collecting feedback from both the professor (Linda) and peers, and using that feedback to improve the task. This role requires strong communication skills, active listening, and the ability to reflect on and constructively implement feedback.

The responsibilities of the Star are:

  1. Presenting the Task:
    The Star will present the completed task to the class, ensuring that the task’s objectives, process, and results are communicated. The presentation should be well-structured, concise, and highlight key points of the task.
  2. Collecting Feedback from the Professor (Linda):
    After the presentation, the Star will gather feedback from the professor, Linda. This feedback should focus on the task’s strengths and areas for improvement. The Star should take note of specific suggestions that can help refine the task.
  3. Collecting Feedback from Peers:
    In addition to feedback from the professor, the Star will actively seek feedback from peers. This involves asking targeted questions during or after the presentation to gather opinions on what worked well and what could be improved.
  4. Writing a Reflection Post:
    After gathering the feedback, the Star will write a detailed reflection post that includes:

    • Outcome of the task: A summary of the task, including the objectives, results, and challenges faced during the process.
    • Feedback received: A thorough account of the feedback from both Linda and peers during the presentation. This should be a balanced view, covering both positive and constructive feedback.Please provide a
    • Incorporating feedback: A detailed plan of how the feedback will be incorporated into the task to improve its quality. The Star should explain how specific suggestions will be applied and what changes will be made to enhance the final result.

Remember that I want to see feedback implemented in the different tasks in the final portfolio, so collecting and reflecting on feedback is crucial. How the input is integrated into the tasks will be an important part of the overall evaluation.

The Star is essential in promoting continuous improvement within the group. Not only does the Star present the task, but they also ensure that feedback is actively collected and applied to enhance the quality of the task. This role encourages reflection, collaboration, and a commitment to ongoing improvement.

SPOTTER

The Spotter is a key member of the group responsible for reviewing the blogs of other groups and analysing the posts of the Analysts and Translators from at least two groups in the class for the PREVIOUS task. Their mission is to identify what their group has not considered, whether concepts, reflections, or approaches, and bring new perspectives to enrich the group’s work.

The responsibilities of the Star are:

  1. Reviewing Other Groups’ Blogs: The Spotter must review the posts –from the PREVIOUS task– of the Analysts and Translators from other two groups. Rather than selecting key concepts, their task is to identify what their group has not considered in terms of concepts, reflections, or approaches that may be relevant to their team’s work.
  2. Comparative Analysis of Reflections: The Spotter must explain in their post what they have found in the reflections of other groups that their group has not considered. This includes identifying new ideas, approaches, or concepts that could enrich their group’s work and that have not been addressed up to this point.
  3. Creating an Accumulative Diagram: After performing the analysis, The Spotter must generate a diagram showing the terms worked on in each task, including the terms they have found in other groups, as well as essential aspects of what has been learned in that task, both from their group and from other groups. This diagram must grow with each task, accumulating new concepts and reflections as the activities progress. Spotter must use an online tool to create the diagram

The following free online tools are recommended for creating the diagram:

The Spotter must include (preferably embed) the diagram in their post and provide a detailed explanation of the differences and key aspects found in other groups’ work and how these can enrich their group’s work.

The spotter’s role is essential for fostering comparative analysis and learning between groups. This role ensures that the group is aware of approaches and concepts other teams are exploring, which helps enrich the team’s work and improve the quality of reflection and concepts. Additionally, as an accumulative task, the diagram will grow with each task, resulting in a complete and collaborative map by the end of the course.

We have just started. My students are in a panic after the first-week hehehehehe, but I think the work could be exciting. We’ll see.

I’ll keep you posted.

What we have done this year 23/24 I: UDL in Resources & ICT

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

https://www.lindacastaneda.com/mushware/rolesupdate2/Every year in the course Resources and ICT in Education for students in the bilingual English group of the Degree in Primary Education, I feel the responsibility to improve how we work on the course fundamental issues that affect the idea of ” Offer students information tools, learning strategies and cognitive mechanisms that allow them to start developing their teaching competence for the digital world and continue developing it autonomously or guided -according to their needs-, throughout their professional performance” (yes, desert sand in a bottle… hehehehe…), so, as a result of this desire to improve, I am introducing changes, and I share with you some of the tasks we do.

Therefore, this is the first in a series of “what we have done this year” posts for the 2023-2024 academic year, and no, in this first one, we are NOT going to talk about AI; we are going to talk about universal design.

I confess that although I always try to include “something” related to the importance of the “inclusive” perspective of technologies in my students’ assignments (thanks to the insistence and the always positive influence of my partner Javier Soto), the truth is that I have the impression that it was always a kind of “patch”, that I never ended up finding a way to make it “tangible”. I care a lot that the tasks I propose to my students are authentic, and that means that they allow them to put the competence they should develop (start to develop, to be more precise) in a way that is as realistic as possible but also trying to build bridges with other fields of knowledge of the profession, without getting too involved in the work of other courses and without neglecting my own work (that of my course, I mean).

Well, this year I came across an idea that I really liked to work with my students on the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework in the context of educational technology (no, I am not discussing whether UDL is or is not, research already has sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of UDL elements to improve teachers’ competence in inclusive classrooms, foster students’ abilities to value diversity and promote accessible lesson planning and delivery skills, and more).

I proposed that, in groups, they analyse in depth one of the tasks I had proposed to them during the course in light of the UDL proposals (strengths and problems) and also make suggestions (I asked them for at least three on three different aspects) on how I could improve the universality of my instructional design. The analysis was presented in the last class session in a speed-learning format (we start and finish the course with this dynamic to try to see how we have changed).

The result was very interesting. In general, you can notice many things in work done at the end of the term like this: You can notice that we know each other better (within groups, between groups, they know the teacher better, and they know what she expects from them), you can notice that they have been thinking about “the same” things for a while, and I also think that the task gives rise to very interesting analyses for them and for me.

In their presentations, they discussed technology, TPACK, tools, multimodality, digital competence, and accessibility. They also discussed pedagogical design and thinking from the student’s perspective. They tried (timidly) to criticize my teaching designs, and at the same time, they gave me ideas to enrich them.

Next time, I think I should focus the activity more on the search for technological or didactic alternatives to the problems they have encountered so I can focus more on the subject. But I like the task; I think it is appropriate to introduce it at this point of the course (at the end), which has a metacognition point by analysing the tasks proposed above.

Scheme used by the VELVET team in their speed-learning of task 10 https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/9OHcuRqtyMxq5GgtNuGMGmfgqU-WIGkiXOJmp9BXXYetqLK-xGhNs7GcHmuzzNJcJLAxahAg-XMBgIlcTG4lqqcRB78lq6-uKPV6oRZ3ldFPuGgPTkYq7N8dSKYxzCre=w1280

DISCLAIMER: To contextualize, I work with my students in a subject organised around weekly cooperative tasks every year I try to publish the instructions of the tasks I propose to my students (when the 23/24 ones are published, I will post them here), but I leave you some previous posts that can give more context if you feel like it:

Un catálogo de herramientas con clasificación ética y de privacidad

Replanteando los roles de la asignatura (actualización)

Ethics & Privacy criteria Webtools catalogue

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

In one of the courses I teach at my university called “Resources and ICT in education” -for students in the 1st year of the Primary Education Degree-, one of the most remarkable challenges is going beyond the instrumental training on ICT and effectively integrating the competencies for helping them to become a real Teacher Competent in the Digital era. And from this challenge, one of the most difficult parts, beyond the use of technology and even beyond the pedagogical implementation of technology, is helping them to address and manage an ethical and critical perspective of the use of technology, and of the technology itself.

Well, with the aim of working on this part of the course’s competencies, this year I propose to my students a specific assignment  (just before the Easter break) in which they explored the relationship between privacy, ethics and the tools they used, or those they intended their future students to use. Let me tell you the story:

After a mandatory introduction to the topic made in f2f class (more regarding the topic awareness than any kind of profound theoretical content), the first thing they had to do individually -and at home- was:

Watching 2 videos :

Then, they had to choose ONE tool (the one they wanted, a game, an app, a web tool) and pass the next two tools to it:

Then in class, in groups (6-7 each), they shared their findings and agreed (they did it, I was just there) on how to convert the results of these tool rubrics into a 1 to 5 stars tools rating (I have to point out the MANY interesting discussions that took place in that session).

As a final task, together they collectively create a GDocs including the analysed tools, with a short description and the tool’s rating from this star rating privacy perspective, and a link to the completed rubric.

Photo of the document in Google Drive with link to Google Drive

Furthermore, from that moment onwards and for the rest of the course, in ALL the assignments (including the exam), they were forced to include every tool they use in the tasks in the catalogue, and reflecting about the ethical perspective, so that it would not only be useful for this course now, but could also be useful for them, and why not for other teachers, in the future.

Until the 25th of May (the day of their final exam), they have included the classification of more than 75 tools and I hope that, having incorporated it into the way they work with technology, it will be useful as a revival of their approach to technology

Do I agree with their classification of the tools? is it correct? I think it doesn’t matter (sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t) but students have made decisions, they have analysed the tools, they have understood how classification works, what a rubric is, what some privacy criteria are… maybe when they finish their degree there will be other criteria or other perspectives… but the most important is that maybe some of those students will consider that these issues are important… and they will continue searching… maybe for some of them, some of this will start to be part of their PLE…

It is important to note that the important thing about this post is NOT the catalogue itself, which may be useful to someone or not. What is actually important is THE ACTIVITY, the TASK and what my students got out of it….

Next year maybe we’ll do another one… but it will be with other people… another river.

Very proud of my students… as always…

Students’Task: A Podcast about The Hour of Coding

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Computational thinking and developments in educational robotics are part of the content of the subject I work on with students in the first year of the degree in primary education. However, this year, due to the working conditions with the students (blended learning and express prohibition of any kind of physical interaction or exchange of materials in the face-to-face sessions), it was difficult for me to think about how to get them to explore the subject, to see its possibilities and not just a “theoretical” approach to the issue.

So I decided to propose as a weekly task an exploration of the activities of The Hour of Code, a project that is helping teachers all over the world to get introduced to coding as an introduction to Computational Thinking. My proposal (which is framed in the group working conditions, by performance roles that some of you already know) included that they should:

  • try at least three activities from https://hourofcode.com/us/gb/learn. Choose the three of them from those classified on Grades 2 to 5. Choose at least one to be used on Poor or not internet conditions, and another with NO computers or devices; the third one do not have more requirements.
  • Collecting evidences of the process and document the experience in your performance blog.
  • Answer some questions such as: What level would be appropriate for this? What is(are) the objective(s) of this task follow the Bloom Taxonomy? What content/standard from the curriculum would be suitable to be developed with this activity? What is the added value of using digital tools in this case? What ethical problems could you (or your students or the parents) find doing this activity in the classroom? What changes do you need to make to allow your students to do it from home?

All the weekly assignments we do in class are presented to the rest of the class members in big group sessions so that we can receive feedback and also learn from each other’s work, but we try to do each of these presentations in a format that is also set up as subject content. So, this time we tried something different, I asked the groups to create, during the class period (and without any prior training), a podcast about their experience.

When I gave them the instructions for the assignment I told them that they should make a podcast in class but I did not tell them the conditions of the content. The same day of the class, I gave them the conditions which were that they should create a radio programme (in the audio tool -podcast or audio, social network- of their choice) and that this programme should tell the story of the assignment and must include:

  • Welcome and goodbye clips
  • An advertisement for the Webpage “The Hour of Code.”
  • Two main clips:
    • Interview regarding the experience
    • A story about your experience
  • A reflection about the importance of using this kind of activities in the classroom.

The complete duration of the radio program can not exceed 15 minutes and must be of mínimum 8 minutes.

You already know that I am a big fan of my students, so I want to share with you the artifacts they have presented, not only because I have been surprised by their self-confidence and good work, but also because the content of the reflections of my students has pleasantly surprised me (I insist that they are works made in less than 2 hours of work and WITHOUT previous experience in podcasting).

Here you have got some of them to listen to ;-):


Click on the pictures to listen to the podcasts 😉

Congrats to my students!! I’m very proud of you!!

At the end of the course, I’ll publish all the task guides that I have used this year.

Update, the performance roles we carry on in class

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

This is an update regarding the roles my students perform in class. My previous posts are from 2014 and 2016, this is an extract from a published paper (just in Spanish): Castañeda, L. (2019) Initial teacher training in the educational use of technology, a pedagogical proposal. Quaderns Digitals, 89. 1-49. http://www.quadernsdigitals.net/index.php?accionMenu=hemeroteca.VisualizaArticuloIU.visualiza&articulo_id=11517  pages 31 and following.

I hope it would be interesting

“The roles that articulate the work of the groups in my course have changed over the years. They are designed to be exercised in a unipersonal way (with some exceptions especially in the figure of the star), they are assigned discretionally by the members of the team using the method that they consider more appropriate but with some restrictions, namely: first that the assignment of the roles is valid for one week, that the same role can only be exercised for one task at a time, and that they must rotate so that all the members of the team go through each of the roles, at least, once during the four-month period.

The main function of the roles has to do with the development of the general competences of the degree, which in turn are closely connected to the transversal competences of the University of Murcia, corresponding approximately in this way:

  1. Role of Facilitator-Administrator:

Considered as a role of help to the conformation and functioning of the group (Johnson et al., 1999), and with evident inspiration in the roles of moderator in some of the proposals (De Wever et al, 2010), the person in charge of performing this role acts as the group leader, being responsible for distributing the task, mediating in conflicts, making sure the work is done, motivating and encouraging the work of their colleagues. In addition, this role is in charge of maintaining the blog and all the group’s sites on the social web, as well as reviewing format, spelling and grammar associated with the group’s work.

  1. Role of Historian-Chronicler:

He is in charge of making a weekly chronicle of what has happened during the week in the group. He/she is in charge of documenting everything that happens in the group, having the freedom to do his/her task in the format he/she considers most appropriate, and the students are encouraged to “tell the stories” of their groups using the variety of formats allowed by ICT.  It is hoped that such a chronicle can serve, in addition to the teacher’s obvious process evaluation purposes, the group as a field notebook and record that will enable them to make decisions about whether to maintain or modify their own internal work dynamics.

This role, which we can include within the roles that “help the group to function” (Johnson et al., 1999), insofar as it allows them to maintain a record of activities that it is hoped can be useful for monitoring the group’s work.

In addition, the role of the historian is to explore sites of interest that may be of interest either for the development of the subject or for the training of class members as teachers. The commitment includes references in the blog, at least, a website of WITHIN the class and another one of OUTSIDE the class, making reference to the reasons of the election and also leaving a comment in the site that is an object of review.

  1. Role of Curator:

The curator is in charge of compiling and organizing in a schematic way all the sources of information that the group has used for the development of the activity. In addition, he or she must be in charge of sequencing the documentation indicating the process carried out and linking and referencing (according to APA standards) this documentation in a schema (mind map) so that this mechanism allows students to make a representation of a part of the cognitive structure they have set up for the specific task (McKeachie et al., 1987, p. 15).

We can also include this role within the roles that “help the group to function” (Johnson et al., 1999), although sometimes it assumes a unifying role of the work of all (summarizer of (De Wever et al., 2010), it is also true that its role does not include a true synthesis, but a compilation of resources that are expected to be useful beyond the subject itself.

  1. Role of the Translator

Inspired by roles such as theoritician from other proposals such as that of De Wever et al. (2010), this role can be classified by its function, among those that help students to formulate what they know and to integrate it, as well as those that aim to encourage students’ thinking and improve their reasoning (Johnson et al., 1999).

The translator is in charge of defining each week the 5 central terms related to the subject that have been worked on in the activity. This role takes on a special relevance since the student has to be in charge not only of selecting which are the 5 substantive topics that are talked about that week but also of reworking and building those key terms. In the role instructions, the students are given a special emphasis on the need to “dialogue” with the authors, referring specifically to the possibility of “borrowing” someone else’s words, but making them flow in our discourse, properly referenced.

But, in addition, in this role a specific question is included that will have to be included in the post to greater of the 5 terms and that is referred to which are the less brilliant sides of the thematic, methodology or tool that has been approached in the task and which decisions on which aspects, should be made explicit to obtain the best possible implementation scenario or, at least, to avoid unwanted influences in the educative processes. This question is intended to elaborate on the specific content of the Subject Competence: “critical analysis of educational technology”.

  1. Role of Analyst:

Inspired by the role of Analyst described in some of the works referred to in Strijbos and De Laat (2010), the analyst is the role responsible for making the final reflection of the work and also make the weekly evaluation of the performance of group members.

The performance evaluation is carried out following a generic rubric, in which the analysts are expected to assess the contribution of each of the group members, and. at the end of the workweek, each of the analysts must include this assessment (numerical and qualitative) in an ad-hoc online questionnaire.

In addition to this assessment, as we have said before, the analyst is in charge of making the final reflection of the team, in which he/she should include comments on what they have learned about the contents of the subject, as well as about the group work and the exercise of being a teacher in general. To increase the quality of these reflections, the first week of work includes a workshop with the students dedicated to reflection and the different levels of reflection that they should handle during the course, so that they know what is expected of them and value the importance of interconnecting ideas by attributing causes to their statements, proposing dialogical relationships and above all assuming with a critical sense, what the contribution of their activity is to their learning process, in the educational and social framework in which they are developing.

This is surely one of the most important roles in the job since he is in charge of reflecting on the work, paying attention to the work done in the other roles, seeing what aspects they have dealt with, thinking about how they have worked and agreeing with their colleagues on a reflection on what they have learned. In the end, he is in charge of making explicit and agreeing on the process of reflection and meta-cognition of the team.

  1. Role of the Star:

The role of the star is to present to the whole class the final product of the weekly tasks, attending to the requirements specified by each task.

It is important to emphasize that, although all the members of the group should be involved in the achievement of the task, it is always the star that each week showed a higher level of interest. During the development of the subject, we have observed how it is the role in which more information is sought for the final achievement of the task.”

Extract from Castañeda, L. (2019) Initial teacher training in the educational use of technology, a curricular proposal. Quaderns Digitals, 89. 1-49. http://www.quadernsdigitals.net/index.php?accionMenu=hemeroteca.VisualizaArticuloIU.visualiza&articulo_id=11517  pages 31 and following

Fair of Technology Enhanced Didactic Activities by #rict1617

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

As it is already a tradition in this course (#Research & ICT for students of the First year of the Degree of Primary Education), this Wednesday the 17th has been our fair of Technology Enhanced Didactic Activities. It is a time for students to propose the activities, collect some feedback from other teachers and colleagues of the faculty, and have some chance of improving them before being delivered as final deliverable of the course.
Here you have some visual testimony of what happened on Wednesday in the hall of our faculty

(Español) TIC, brecha digital y proyectos incluyentes (Material de clase)

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español.

En el curso 2014-2015 fui la encargada de la docencia de la asignatura “TIC, brecha digital y proyectos incluyentes”, del Máster en Inclusión y Exclusión Educativa de la Universidad de Murcia.

La idea de fondo, la misma de casi todas las asiganturas donde trabajo: aprendizaje basado en tareas, producto final presentado en puesta en común,  evaluación continua y una evaluación final basado en portafolio basado en competencias.  La asignatura tenía una periodicidad semanal con 3 horas de trabajo en cada sesión.

En total el material incluye la guía para estudiantes de 7 actividades y la guía de evaluación:

  • ESTADOS DE LA CUESTIÓN
  • BRECHAS DEL MUNDO DIGITALIZADO
  • CIUDADANÍA EN TIEMPOS 2.0
  • PARTICIPACIÓN 2.0
  • COMPETENCIA DIGITAL
  • ENTORNO PERSONAL DE APRENDIZAJE
  • DESARROLLO COMUNITARIO CON TIC A TRAVÉS DE LA EDUCACIÓN
  • GUÍA DE EVALUACIÓN 2014-2015

Lo urgente, que no me deja casi nunca tiempo a lo importante, así que no había tenido tiempo de compartir el material de clase que hemos usado, pero, por si a alguien le hace algún papel, aquí lo tenéis con una licencia CC-BY-NC-SA, así que, si te es de utilidad, úsalo, mejoralo y vuelve a compartirlo.

Guía completa de la asignatura TIC, brecha digital y proyectos incluyentes 2014-2015

Performance Roles Reinterpreted

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Those who you spend some time around here, maybe you remember than in subjects in which I teach, we work in groups and use performance roles. I told here some time ago in this blog post about roles.

As I told you then, results have been diverse, but I still use them because the students’ work is very rich… at least have told us and gives me the impression.

However, as we told you in previous works, sometimes afraid not always get organizing the experience for students to be aware of what is required in each role, the essence of their performance.

Even when they give instructions, we know that students make their own interpretation of the instructions and they build their own idea of what to do (back to Sellander, 2008).

So this year, in one of the activities, I have asked students to make a video (30 “) in which they show to other colleagues, the 10 keys to achieve each of the roles in the best way possible.

Here are the results:

Journalist

Facilitator

Curator


Star


Translator

Analyst

In almost all cases I think the essence of the work is clear, although I confess that analysts have been not as precise as I would like -it is no so rare, considering it is undoubtedly the most complex-role-. I will have to work more on defining the role and make some activity so that it is better specified.

As always, thanks to my students that make all this possible 🙂

Selander & the #Rict1516 Fair

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

On May 17th, we celebrated -my students and myself, in the hall of the faculty, a new edition of our “Fair of Technology Enhanced Didactic Activities”. As you probably remember, last year we invite you to come 🙂 and after that, we show you a little of what had happened there.

This year, in addition to telling a bit of the story, I want to take advantage of this blog post to emphasize the rationale of that “show”, beyond its playful nature, the idea of being together and doing the students’ work more visible, as well as opening windows reality on the walls of our classroom.

I want to do it, because sometimes, the “lights” and “lanterns” of the fair, do not let us see everything that is an “event” like this, and maybe, make this reflection would help me to organize my thoughts and, who knows, maybe, this would encourage you to give me better ideas to improve it.

The Fair was created with the intention of serve as event presentation of the students’ work, but with the difference that, in this time, the work is assessed but not graded, i.e., is an event in where the goal is, specifically, to conduct a formative evaluation of the work (this is the final work of the course). Both by the teacher of the subject that gives feedback one to one to all groups, about all jobs; by other classmates that are passing by the exhibitors; by other students of the faculty who pass; as well as by other teachers of the faculty that can approach.

After the event, I put a “mark” (the 10% of the final grade for the course) for his staging of the work at the fair (effort, organization exhibitor, and exhibition, etc.), but they still have 2 and a half weeks to finish, profiling and “round up” their activity before the final submission of it for final summative evaluation and, of course, for the qualification.

This idea fits with the notion of The Secondary Transformation Unit, in the Learning Design Sequences described by Sttaffan Selander in his 2008 paper, and summarized quite well when he says::

A sequence starts when the teacher introduces a new task and sets the conditions for the work. The Primary Transformation Unit then entails the interpretation of the task and the setting, and the process of transformation and formation of knowledge – by way of different modes and media. The Secondary Transformation Unit starts with students presenting their work. If the goals, as well as the expectations of the process and the product, are clearly defined and explained in the beginning, both students and teachers will have a powerful tool for reflection and evaluation. During the whole sequence, teachers make interventions and have the possibility to reflect on the signs and indications of learning that occur during the process. (Selander, 2008: 15)

Thus, Selander represents the complete sequences bellow

"Learning Design Sequences". Sellander, 2008.
“Learning Design Sequences.” Selander, 2008.

It is, as we told you last year in the JUTE (Castañeda, Adell & Llopis, 2015), getting foster “a second part of learning, beyond the feedback of the task; getting a third phase in which the possibility of remaking the task under the light of that feedback, as well as reflect on what was learned in the process”, get to think and rethink what we are creating, allow us to learn more and better.

We’ll see 😉

REFERENCES:

Selander, S. (2008). Designs for learning: A theoretical perspective. Designs for Learning, 1(1), 10-23 Disponible en http://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.5

Castañeda, L. Adell, J. & LLopis, M.A. (2015). Cinco años de reflexiones y diálogos docentes a propósito de la asignatura de Tecnologías Aplicadas a la Educación. Comunicación presentada a las JUTE 2015. Badajoz, mayo de 2015.

By the way! If you want to see how was the show this year, here are some of super-dinosaur footprints:

Roles para el trabajo en equipo: experiencias y nuevos caminos

Roles para el trabajo en equipo: experiencias y nuevos caminos

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Desde hace unos años mis estudiantes y yo llevamos a cabo las asignaturas con un trabajo basado en tareas que llevan a cabo ellos -siempre les digo que mi objetivo es trabajar lo menos posible- en grupos formados por entre 6 y 8 miembros. Estos grupos, además de la tarea que tengan pendiente cada semana, asumen de forma rotativa una serie de roles que incluyen determinadas responsabilidades dentro del grupo.
Después de 4 cursos (en cada curso solemos trabajar 3-4 asignaturas con este modelo) trabajando de esta manera, hemos probado algunos roles que tengo ganas de compartir con vosotros, para ver qué os parecen:

El Facilitador
Suele ser el jefe de grupo esa semana, reparte roles, organiza el trabajo, recibe instrucciones extraordinarias si las hay, está pendiente del trabajo del grupo y resuelve conflictos internos y externos

El Historiador
Es el encargado de contar la historia del grupo. Hace la crónica de la semana y nos da pistas de cómo han organizado los días y cómo han trabajado. Se le suele pedir que sea muy multimedia en su relato… Total libertad.

El explorador
Debe echar vistazos al entorno e incluir en el blog de grupo una reseña de al menos un sitio interesante en la Web para su profesión (y en relación con el contenido de la asignatura), y de algo de alguno de los blogs de sus compañeros que le haya llamado la atención. En ambos casos es imprescindible comentar en el sitio original y hacer la reseña en el propio blog

El analista
Evalúa -con arreglo a una rúbrica básica- el desempeño de cada uno de sus compañeros. Además lidera la reflexión de aprendizaje del grupo. Suele tener algunas pistas de qué reflexión le pedimos, debe responder a cosas como ¿qué se pretendía en la tarea?,¿qué habéis aprendido?¿qué te va a ser útil en el futuro?¿qué es lo más inútil de la tarea?¿lo más divertido?…. Entre otras varias (a las preguntas de estas reflexiones le hemos dado muchas vueltas, especialmente con el profesor Jordi Adell de la UJI con quien solemos compartir calentamientos de cabeza relativos a nuestras clases, porque son seguramente lo que más echamos en falta, la reflexión de los estudiantes).

Estrella
Es el encargado de representar al grupo. Es la voz del grupo en las puestas en común de los trabajos, así como el protagonista del artefacto que estemos construyendo en cada actividad (si, normalmente las actividades tienen un “artefacto” final para hacer) sea éste un vídeo, una presentación en pechakucha, un debate…

El administrador
Que se encarga del blog y la vida 2.0 del grupo. Revisa los posts de estilo y forma, tuitea, administra las cuentas 2.0 que se vaya creando el grupo, responde a los comentarios, etc… En fin! Se encarga de la Identidad digital del grupo.

Estos venían siendo “los clásicos”, las preguntas de la reflexión han ido cambiando, algunos roles se han juntado (por consejo de los estudiantes o a la vista de resultados) aumentando las funciones de algunos (facilitador-administrador, por ejemplo; aunque este cuatrimestre hemos compartido la asignatura de Educación Social con mis compañeros Isabel Gutiérrez y José Luis Serrano -con los que afortunadamente comparto asignatura e ideas ;-))- y hemos reformulado esos y hemos incorporado dos roles nuevos:

El curador
El miembro del grupo que debe organizar en un mapa mental (se recomienda el uso de una herramienta de mindmapping en red) las referencias (sí la referencia en APA Style -la broma del Gangham style ya la hemos hecho ;-)) de todos los recursos que usaban para documentar y trabajar las actividades, de manera que tuviéramos -ellos y nosotros- una visión de las fuentes de información que se usan en la asignatura.

El Traductor

Que debe elegir los 5 términos clave que se trabajan en cada actividad y definirlos con sus propias palabras -pero con base en la literatura- en menos de 500 palabras cada uno.

Este cuatrimestre he vuelto a reformular para el trabajo con mis alumnos del grupo bilingüe (#soyer1314), he juntado roles, y he creado uno nuevo que agrega labores al curador y que además por primera vez tiene una herramienta concreta asociada (no suelo usar marcas en clase…

The curator-farmer
Básicamente es el mismo curador, pero ahora además de las APA Style, debe cultivar, con toda la info de las fuentes de información usadas ubicadas en red, y de los sitios donde dejan huellas o visitan, el árbol del grupo en Pearltrees

La experiencia ha resultado apasionante…. los resultados son muy variados… Y, aunque tengo “evidencias” del cambio para bien en mis estudiantes (responsabilidad, impicación, experiencia de organización, etc.), NO creo que haya receta alguna que vaya bien en todas partes y que obre milagros en ningún aula… Así que esto no es un recetario, sólo quería compartir con vosotros algo más de lo que hacemos en nuestras clases, por si alguien quiere comentarlo, ofrecernos mejoras, o simplemente quiere usarlo -como ejemplo o contraejemplo ;-)-
Ah! Por cierto! Este año con Isabel y Jose estuvimos experimentando con badges asociados al trabajo de algunos de estos roles y su repercusión en la nota final… Si, gamificación… Pero creo que eso os lo contaré en otro post… A ver si lo hago pronto 😉

Mapas mentales, Esquemas colaborativos

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Dice Antonio Bartolomé (de quien, como bien se me nota soy fan) que cada vez que tiene tiempo de navegar por la red le sorprende. Pues bien, la red me vuelve a sorprender con una herramienta…
La verdad es que soy consciente de que en estos tiempos de Software social las herramientas nuevas aparecen en la Web como setas y que, de hecho, mientras escribo esto seguramente habrán aparecido unas cuantas más. Sin embargo no está mal de vez en cuando hablar de ellas.
En este caso se trata del ExploraTree una herramienta de “Mapas mentales colaborativos” o, en román paladino, esquemas colaborativos en red. Ha sido desarrollada por el FutureLab (un sitio al que espero podáis echar un vistazo, siempre tiene cosas interesantes para ver y leer) y por Microsoft y, auqnue está en inglés, me encanta la introducción que hacen de la herramienta y cómo ponen el énfasis en las utilidades educativas de la misma o cómo se podría usar con los estudiantes en “directo”… en fin! que se habla de cómo usarla para enriquecer esa experiencia de enseñar.
A ver qué os parece

La Web 2.0 explicada en forma de nube

Posted on by lindacq@um.es

Web 2.0
Muchas veces un concepto, o varios, que aparecen en un corto espacio de tiempo y que están relacionados de una u otra forma, se mezclan y confunden hasta que los menos cercanos al conocimiento o la técnica que los fundamenta no podemos distinguir las relaciones que existen realmente entre ellos y entonces aparecen grandes confusiones, lagunas e incluso errores en su concepción.
Desde mi punto de vista, esto ha pasado en el mundo de la educación con todo lo relativo a la Web 2.0, el software social, la Web Semántica, y ha salpicado incluso a los llamados “objetos de aprendizaje”… cada vez hace más falta que nos tomemos con calma (no con lentitud, con calma) dichos conceptos o filosofías e intentemos verlos de forma clara.
Pues nada, buceando en la red me he encontrado con uno de esos esquemas que te hacen tener una visión, a mi gusto muy ajustada, de uno de los temas que hemos mencionado la Web 2.0, el esquema (en forma de “nube de pensamiento” – perdonad mis traducciones del inglés ;-)) no sólo está traducido a diferentes idiomas, entre ellos el castellano, sino que en los idiomas que está más desarrollado conecta los elementos del esquema con otros sitios web de gran interés…
Para los que andamos en las nubes, una nube de indicaciones 😉