Thinking About How to “Make the PYP Happen” Online

Here we go again! Schools are beginning their 2020-2021 school. For many of us, this is another time at the bat to try on this thing called “online learning”.  Last spring, online was an “emergency” learning situation, but now we must have a more planned approach. Even those schools who are are coming back face-to-face still might see an uptick in numbers of COVID and be forced back into remote learning. Uncertainty is the new normal.

So this means that teachers have to get good at using technology in a thoughtful and intentional way. For our school, we have really been digging into the question of how do you do the PYP online? During our school holiday, I read Teaching and Technology During a Time of Crisis which provided stories about the myriad of approaches to dealing with the sudden shift to online learning. And as I read through these experiences, it got me wondering about how might these experiences be articulated through the lens of “Making the PYP Happen ONLINE”.

Hmmm…

Now that many of our schools get another crack at this, I think we must be truly reflecting on how our PYP students will experience learning differently than in other schools online. What is the difference in our pedagogical approaches?

Well, let’s be clear what online learning is NOT for our students:

It’s rather obvious that we don’t do an inquiry into “worksheets” or stop teaching certain subject areas because it’s too “hard” to do online. It’s not a bunch of choice boards either and calling that “agency”. These things might have been okay during “emergency learning” but now that we face prolonged online learning, we have to be much intentional and develop skillfulness in teaching in this new way.  It’s also not asynchronized lessons only (Google Classroom, SeeSaw, Schoology, etc..) or parking kids in front of a screen and doing synchronized lessons only (Zoom, Google Meets, Microsoft Teams). Why?  Because the heart of who we are as PYP educators is a firm belief in social constructivism.

Social constructivism: pedagogical approach that believes that knowledge is something that a learner ‘constructs’ for themselves, rather than passively absorbs.  Students construct their knowledge through conversation and interaction, with each other and with teachers. In this way, students cultivate a better understanding of concepts when they work together and discuss ideas. (Piaget + Vygotsky)

So, as we develop our online learning plans 2.0 and transition into hybrid learning we must keep in mind that students need time to construct meaning on their own and through group discussion. This is why we need a balance of synchronized and synchronized learning experiences.

So after reflecting on this, I sat down and considered the tech tools that classrooms might use to not only increase student engagement but also provide for social interaction online. This 2×2 matrix represents some of my thinking when it comes purposefully using technology to support the PYP online. I also thought it might help teachers think about what platforms they might need to not only get good at for student engagement but also for developing relationships online. Obviously this doesn’t represent every app out there and there’s a lot of nuances missing in how apps can be used, but I wanted our teachers to be thinking about purposely choosing platforms to support social constructivism, whether it was through a synchronized lesson or through synchronized learning. So let’s take a look at some apps and how they might support social constructivism.

Google Jamboard (Free)

If your school has a Google for Education account, it is typically in your suite of apps and is very easy to use. We use Zoom for our live synchronized lessons but when using the Zoom whiteboard in breakout rooms is really different to save and share work. So, Jamboard really comes in handy to promote small group discussions–whether brainstorming ideas, solving math problems, or doing visible thinking routines–this is a great platform for capturing student thinking.  

Pros: Whether you are using Google Meets (need a chrome extension for Breakout rooms )or Zoom, you can have students using this collaborative whiteboard through synchronized lessons in order to share ideas and develop conceptual understandings. It has basic drawing features, the ability to add images, sticky notes, and a variety of backgrounds to support different kinds of learning. 

Cons: Only provides for 16 “touchpoints”, which means that you can only have 16 persons working on a Jamboard at a time so this makes it tricky for a whole class to work on one Jamboard. No audio or video features so student thinking can only be captured in written form. Thus this wouldn’t be good for asynchonized learning. 

FlipGrid (Free)

For synchronized learning, this is one of the best platforms to have a “conversation” online. Students create video responses in order to discuss a topic or describe how to solve a problem. This has soooo many learning applications, that every teacher really should have this tech tool in their teacher toolbox. I’ve used this from everything like a Reader’s Workshop partner reading to sharing unit projects. How you use this platform is only limited to your imagination. 

Pros: Easy for teachers to create discussion topics and can embed a lot of content from other apps. Students love making and engaging in video responses but have the chance to “cover their face” with an emoji in order to protect privacy. Flipgrid has also added written responses as well for those truly camera shy. Also, has assessment embedded into the platform, making it easy to get feedback and have a well-round academic experience online. 

Cons: App smashing can sometimes be clumsy. For example, when students shared a Google Slide presentation, we had permission issues due to restrictions with our Google admin set up. That was more of a Google hiccup than a FlipGrid one–but you always need to test your boards to see their limitations. Also, since their recent updates, boards aren’t as easy to respond to now with their required email sign-in, making code sharing not as simple as before. If you use this with young ones, consider creating a “private” passcode that is easy enough to type in so that young students can make responses. 

Padlet (Free, but limited)

There are so many ways to use this platform, whether you share a padlet during a live lesson to facilitate a discussion or during an asynchronized lesson.  This also has many learning applications: you can curate resources for students, engage in a discussion, or collaborate on a project. 

Pros:  Super simple to use which makes this good for younger as well as older students. Just click on the page and add your content. As you can see in this image, there is a variety of content that can be shared. 

Cons: Adding content to the board is easy but making comments on this content is very limited, especially in the Free edition. So if you want students to make a comment on something shared, it has to be text-based. If you upgrade and get a paid account, there are a lot more features available but I don’t see how responses can be more versatile in this regard. 

Voice Thread (Paid)

This app makes me wish I was still “in the classroom” and not a dedicated PYP Coordinator. On their website, they claim “VoiceThread is a platform where students develop critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity skills.” After looking at some of the projects on Voice Thread library, I can see how you take a typical video lesson and amplify through creating interaction for students. 

Pros: Teachers can upload, share, and discuss documents, presentations, images, audio files and videos. Over 50 different types of media can be used in a VoiceThread, so you can literally have a discussion ON a particular piece of content. Students can comment using either a microphone, webcam, text, phone, or an audio-file upload.

Cons: For $79 per year or $15 per month, you better be committed to using this or you’re throwing your hard-earned money away. Also, I think teachers would need to spend a weekend, at least, at figuring out how to create and train students at creating responses. It’s a robust platform but may need some time to figure out how to use its bells and whistles. 

Parlay (Paid)

I came across this platform when researching new tech tools for online learning. I really liked its concept of chunking discussion into parts, making this very useful for social constructivism. If you look at how discussions are structured, students are provided a provocation and prompt in which they must reflect on it in written form. Then other students can engage in written discussion and provide peer feedback. Then, in the next phase of the discussion, students go “live” during a “roundtable” on Zoom or another video conferencing platform.

Pros: It has a solid approach to developing deeper learning through a process of critical thinking and discussion. 

Cons: You will notice immediately that this platform is better suited for older students because it relies on discussion forums and it frames discussions around a “course” (seems like the target is high school and college students) so test it out during PLC to have teachers think about how you could approach this with intermediate grade levels. 

Although there are lots of choices out there for apps to increase student online engagement, I hope teachers value interaction as a “must-do” for PYP instruction. Hopefully, this blog post provides some food for thought. 

What apps or platforms might you recommend for cultivating social constructivism through online learning? Please share!