Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 355–377 | Cite as

Digital learning trails: Scaling technology-facilitated curricular innovation in schools with a rhizomatic lens

  • Azilawati Jamaludin
  • David Wei Loong Hung
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Technological advances in the form of ubiquitous computing has altered the learning landscape today. Contemporary modes of learning afford curricular innovations in schools. While learning journeys of decades ago entailed field trips to places of interest such as museums and zoos where students completed tasks or worksheets after each trip, the learning journeys of today are facilitated by technological tools such as smart devices and global positioning systems. Learners are moving away from being mere content consumers through technology-facilitated dialoguing and content creation (Tay and Lee 2014; Tan et al. 2011). In this paper we unpack tenets of a technology-facilitated curricular innovation (CI) through a case study analysis of the development and implementation of a Digital Learning Trails (DLT) project. Through tracing the trajectory of the DLT project, we identify factors related to the scalability and sustainability of this CI that was developed in one school and subsequently used by more than 200 schools in Singapore. We posit that scaling curricular innovations in schools can be conceptually provisioned through a rhizomatic lens where innovation is characterized by multiple trajectories, allowing for recontextualizations of CIs. We argue that, (1) the pedagogic process in the context of education and scaling is based on supporting apprentice-schools to make multiple recontextualizations; (2) the enculturation process of a school adopting and implementing a particular innovation is based on a rhizomatic rather than linear, conception of the development of expertise; and (3) the process of CI implementation is based on developing the capability to not only make multiple recontextualizations but also to accumulate enough capital to send out new ‘roots and shoots’ as it spreads.

Keywords

Curricular innovations Digital trails Education reform Innovation diffusion Scale and sustainability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this publication is based on the work supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) and eduLab, Singapore under Grant (NRF2013-EDU002-STUDY01). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NRF or NIE Singapore. The authors are grateful to the participating schools for collaborating with us on this research.

References

  1. Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2012). Innovating teaching and learning practices: Key elements for developing creative classrooms in Europe. eLearning Papers, 30, 1–13.Google Scholar
  2. Buzhardt, J., Greenwood, C. R., Abbott, M., & Tapia, Y. (2006). Research on scaling up evidence-based instructional practice: Developing a sensitive measure of the rate of implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(5), 467–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chua, P. (2014). Centralized-decentralization emerging in Singapore. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://internationalednews.com/2014/03/25/centralized-decentralization-emerging-in-singapore/.
  4. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Educational innovation and the problem of scale. In B. Schneider & S. McDonald (Eds.), Scale-up in education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  5. Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2003). Continuity and change in conceptual orientations for teacher preparation in Singapore: Challenging teacher preparation as training. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deng, Z., Gopinathan, S., & Lee, C. K. E. (Eds.). (2013). Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom. Singapore: Springer Education Innovation Book Series.Google Scholar
  7. eduLab. (2015). eduLab funding programme. Retrieved April 9, 2015 from http://www.nie.edu.sg/edulab-funding-programme.
  8. Fishman, B., & Krajcik, J. (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science curriculum innovations? Science Education, 87(4), 564–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2008). The role of assessment within the RTI framework. In D. Fuchs, L. S. Fuchs, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators (pp. 27–49). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  10. Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. In Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking, Singapore.Google Scholar
  12. Gopinathan, S., & Mardiana, A. B. (2013). Globalization, the state and curricular reform. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C. K. E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom (pp. 15–32). Singapore: Springer Education Innovation Book Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hallinger, P. (2010). Making education reform happen: Is there an ‘Asian’ way? School Leadership and Management, 30(5), 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hogan, D., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). Knowledge management, sustainable innovation, and pre-service teacher education in Singapore. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hung, D., Jamaludin, A., & Toh, Y. (2015). Apprenticeship, epistemic learning, and diffusion of innovations in education. Educational Technology, 55(4), 20–26.Google Scholar
  17. Jamaludin, A., & Hung, W. L. D. (2013). Rhizomatic experiencing: Game play and 21st century competencies. Paper presented at the international symposium on education, psychology, and social sciences (ISEPSS), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  18. Kampylis, P., Law, N., & Punie, Y. (Eds.). (2013). ICT-enabled innovation for learning in Europe and Asia: Exploring conditions for sustainability, scalability and impact at system level. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  19. Koh, A. (2013). A vision of schooling for the 21st century: Thinking schools learning nation. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C. K. E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom (pp. 49–63). Singapore: Springer Education Innovation Book Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McLaughlin, M., & Mitra, D. L. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 3(1), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ministry of Education. (2008). MOE launches third Masterplan for ICT (MP3) in education. Retrieved January 10, 2015 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2008/08/moe-launches-third-masterplan.php.
  22. Ministry of Education. (2015). Schools division. Retrieved February 20, 2015 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/about/org-structure/sd/.
  23. Ministry of Trade and Industry. (1986). Report of the Economic Committee of the Singapore Economy: New directions. Retrieved March 25, 2015 from https://www.mti.gov.sg/ResearchRoom/Documents/app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/885/doc/econ.pdf.
  24. Ministry of Trade and Industry. (1991). The strategic economic plan: Towards a developed nation. Retrieved March 25, 2015 from https://www.mti.gov.sg/ResearchRoom/Pages/The%20Strategic%20Economic%20Plan%20-%20Towards%20a%20Developed%20Nation%20(1991).aspx.
  25. Ministry of Education. (2002). New Autonomous School. Retrieved 28 July, 2016 from https://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2002/pr30072002.htm
  26. Ng, E. H. (2008). Opening address at the international conference on teaching and learning with technology (iCTLT). Suntec: Singapore.Google Scholar
  27. Ng, E. H. (2009). Seizing opportunities to build a world class education system. Financial year 2009 Committee Supply Debate: 1st reply by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister of Education.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2010). Singapore: Rapid improvement followed by strong performance. Retrieved June 30, 2016 from https://www.oecd.org/countries/singapore/46581101.pdf
  29. Peurach, D. J., & Glazer, J. L. (2011). Reconsidering replication: New perspectives on large-scale school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 13(2), 155–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rockmoon, P. L. (2015). Trail shuttle: Location-based mlearning. Retrieved December 31, 2015 from http://www.rockmoon.sg/products.html.
  31. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Barnes, C. (2004). Benefiting from comprehensive school reform: A review of research on CSR implementation. In C. Cross (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research (pp. 1–52). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.Google Scholar
  32. Sannino, A. (2010a). The predictable failure of sustainable innovations in school? From warrants to actions and back to the future. In K. Yamazumi (Ed.), Activity theory and fostering learning: Developmental interventions in education and work (pp. 61–85). Osaka: Kansai University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sannino, A. (2010b). Breaking out of professional abstraction: The pupil as materialized object for teacher trainees. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development: Learning teaching. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Saranson, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. Can we change course before it’s too late?. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Tan, Y. H., Tan, T. Y., & Lim, E. (2011). Digital learning trails: Harnessing ICT to facilitate inquiry-based learning. Paper presented at the eLearing Forum Asia, Singapore.Google Scholar
  36. Tay, G. P. L., & Lee, T. T. K. (2014). Designing of authentic learning mediated by mobile technology for primary school learners. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 18(1), 42–52.Google Scholar
  37. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options