Author(s)

Loyce Kiiza Kobusingye ¹

Affiliation(s)

¹ Department of Educational, Social and Organisational Psychology, Makerere, University, Uganda

Corresponding Author

Loyce Kiiza Kobusingye

ABSTRACT

The study aimed at navigating how edtech tools enhance and transform task-based learning method among university students pursuing graduate studies in Educational Psychology. Basing on Blooms Taxonomy especially the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), Laurillard's Conversational Framework, TPCK model, SAMR design and the Teaching Change Framework, the researcher motivated the graduate students to utilise Mindmups, Google Slides, WhatsApp texts and Turnitin educational technology (EdTech) tools to navigate if these tools, due to their respective affordances, enhance and transform task-based learning. The study was a visual ethnographic one by design with visual narratives for analysis purposes. It was established that the mentioned tools enhanced learner motivation, interest, participation and ultimately, academic performance. It was concluded that edtech tools, if selected due to their respective affordances, based on the right models, can improve learning and cause changes in the methods in place to transform low-technology-lecturer-centred learning to high-technology-learner-centred learning.

KEYWORDS

Edtech, Task-based, Emerging Technologies, Transform, Enhance, Learning

CITE THIS PAPER

Loyce Kiiza Kobusingye, Navigating the Importance of Selected Educational Technology Tools in Enhancing and Transforming the Task-Based Learning Method: Reflective Insights from Teaching Graduate Educational Psychology Students at one Ugandan University. Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology (2022) Vol. 6: 108-123. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/aetp.2022.060517.

REFERENCES

[1] Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive Engagement versus Traditional Methods. A Six Thousand Student Survey of Mechanics Tend Data for Introductory Physics Courses.     American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
[2] University of Minnesota (2019). Centre for Educational Innovation
[3] Bonwell, C.C &Eisen, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Washington. George Washington University.
[4] Sanchez. A. (2006). The Task-Based Approach in Language Teaching. International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 39-71.
[5] Aksit, F., Niemi, H., &Nergi, A. (2016). Why is Active Learning so Difficult to Implement: The Turkish Case. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 94-109.
[6] Freeman, S.,Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K.,  Okoroafor,N., Jordt,H., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active Learning Increases Performance in Science,     Engineering, and Mathematics. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
[7] Puentendura, R.R. (2013). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to Transformation. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.co/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html
[8] Misha, P & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers’knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054
[9] Mojica, K.D. (2010). Ordered effects of technology education units on higher order thinking skills of middle school students. PhD Thesis. Pace University
[10] Zenisky, A, Lisa, A.A & Xi.W. (2014). De-constructing constructs: Evaluating Stability of Higher Order Thinking Skills across Technology-Rich Scenarios. Annual Meeting of NCME, Philadelphia
[11] Tarling, I & Ngámbi,D. (2016). Teachers' Pedagogical Change Framework: a diagnostic tool for changing teachers' use of emerging technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 554-572.
[12] Pink, S. (2001). Doing Visual Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
[13] Clandinin, D.J. (2007). Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Fransisco. Jossey-Bass
[14] Fraenkel, J.R &Wallen, N.E. (1990). Hoe to Evaluate Research in Education. Hightstown. McGrawHill.
[15] Hartson, R. (2010). Cognitive, Physical, Sensory and Functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22(5), 3015-338
[16] Matt, B. (2008). Affordances analysis-matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15.
[17] Appler, M.J. (2006). A Comparison between Concept Maps, Mind Maps, Conceptual Diagrams and    Visual Metaphors as Complementary Tools for Knowledge     Construction and Sharing. SAGE Journals, 5(3), 202-210.
[18] Davies, M. (2011). Concept Mappings, Mind Mapping and Argument Mapping: What are the differences and do they matter. Higher Education, 62(3), 279-301.
[19] Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching. A conversation framework for effective learning technologies. London. Routledge.
[20] Brooks, K.A. (20140. Models for Technology Integration in the Learning Commons. School Libraries in Canada, 32(1).
[21] Craig, R.J. (2006). PowerPoint Presentation Technology and the Dynamics of Teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 3(3), 147-160
[22] Lowry, R.B. (1999). Electronic Presentation of Lectures. Effect upon Student Performance. University Chemistry Education, 3, 18-21.
[23] Shampa, I. (2016). Google Classroom:What Works and How? Journal of Education and Social Sciences,3, 12-18.
[24] Holmes, M.R., Tracy, E.M., Painter, L.L., Oestreich,T., &Park, H. (2015). Moving from Flipcharts to the Flipped Classroom: Using Technology Driven Teaching Methods to Promote Active Learning in Foundation and Masters Social Work Courses. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 215-224
[25] Bouhnik,D &Deshen, M. (2014). WhatsApp Goes to School: Mobile Instant Messaging between Teachers and Students. Journal of Information Technology     Education.,13, 217-231.
[26] Barhoumi, C. (2015). The Effectiveness of WhatsApp Mobile Learning Activities guided by Activity Theory on Students' Knowledge Management. Contemporary     Educational Technology, 6, 221-238.
[27] Nitza, D & Roman,Y. (2016). WhasApp Messaging: Achievements and Success in Academia. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(4), 255-261.
[28] Sutherland-Smith, W. & Carr, R. (2005). Turnitin.com: Teachers perspectives of anti-plagiarism software in raising issues of educational integrity. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(3). Article 10. Retrieved on 10 may 2013 from http://ro.uow.edu. au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1037&context=jutlp
[29] Stappenbelt, B &Rowles, C. (2009). The Effectiveness of plagiarism Detection Software as a Learning Tool in Academic Writing Education. Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity, 28-30 September, 2009.
[30] Murray, W. (2006). The Plagiarism Phenomenon. E Learning age. Retrieved March, 7th, 2019 from ABI/INFORM Global.
[31] Ngámbi, D., Bozalek,V., Gachago,D., Morkel, J., Ivala,E., Campbell,A &Bere,A. (2015). The Case Studies:emerging technologies (pp.211-233).In V. Bozalek, D. Ngámbi, D.Wood, J.Herrington, J. Hardman &A.Amori (Eds). Activity Theory, authentic learning and emerging technologies. New York:Routeledge.
[32] Gon, S &Rawekar, A. (2017). Effectiveness of E-learning through WhatsApp as a Teaching Tool, MVP Journal of Medical Sciences, 4(1), 19-25.
[33] Kim, C &Hannafin, M.J. (2010). Scaffolding Problem Solving in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments: Bridgeing Research and Theory Practice. Computers     &Education, 56(2), 403-417.
[34] Horgan, K&Pressley, M. (1997). Advances in Learning and Teaching. Scaffolding Student Learning. Instructional Approach and Issues. Cambridge. Brookline Books
[35] Vygostky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sponsors, Associates, and Links

---

• Curriculum and Teaching Methodology
  
  
• Transactions on Comparative Education
  
  
• Applied & Educational Psychology
  
  
• Advances in Vocational and Technical Education
  
  
• Adult and Higher Education