Developing targeted digital resources for teaching, learning & assessment
Using Google Maps, Google Earth, and ESGS Earthquakes
provided an immersive, interactive approach for exploring the complexities of
earthquake activity and its social impacts, rooted in geographical contexts.
These digital tools enabled students to visualize seismic patterns, understand
real-world consequences, and engage critically with both data and human
narratives. To consolidate this learning, CK‑12 was employed for developing a
worksheet quiz, reinforcing key concepts and extending assessment.
The 60-minute lesson was divided into clear phases to
maximize engagement and manage transitions efficiently: introduction (10 mins): Overview
of earthquake data sources and relevance to human contexts. Data exploration
(20 mins): Students used ESGS Earthquakes to filter live data by
magnitude, depth, and region. Mapping and analysis (20 mins). Pairs worked in
Google Maps and Google Earth to visualise spatial patterns and human impacts. Reflection
and consolidation (10 mins): CK‑12 quiz and group discussion to connect
findings to geographical theory.
This pacing maintained focus and allowed time for technical
setup, task explanation, and troubleshooting without losing inquiry momentum. Given
varied digital fluency levels and mixed device access, grouping was intentional.
Pairs and trios shared devices to promote collaboration and peer
scaffolding. More confident users acted as “digital navigators” supporting
peers less familiar with mapping tools. Differentiation included tiered
questioning and scaffolds: some students analysed global distributions, while
others interpreted more complex case studies overlaying demographic data. Extension
prompts invited higher-ability learners to evaluate response strategies or
compare social vulnerability in multiple locations. Differentiation also
extended to CK‑12 quizzes through adaptive question settings, enabling learners
to receive customized support and feedback.
Given limited school devices, booking portable trolley sets
ahead of the lesson was essential. Groups were pre-assigned to ensure equitable
access. If connectivity issues arose, printed map extracts and screenshots from
ESGS Earthquakes and Google Earth served as backups for annotation tasks. This
flexible structure maintained learning objectives across digital and
non-digital modes. To support the students I provided a brief tutorials on
navigating Google Earth layers and interpreting seismic data, visual exemplars
of mapped data to model expectations. Teacher-led questioning to guide
connections between data, geography, and social consequences. I also circulated
to provide individual help, especially during data interpretation and link‑making
to case studies.
The integration of digital tools strengthened engagement,
particularly where visual and spatial learning were central (Jeffrey &
Kelly, 2011; List, 2019). Google Earth’s immersive visualization helped
lower-ability students grasp abstract tectonic processes, while CK‑12’s
immediate feedback supported formative assessment. However, technical
constraints, such as limited devices and variable Wi-Fi—disrupted momentum for
some groups, highlighting the need for clearer rotation structures or offline
resources. Time management also proved challenging: students with
less digital confidence needed extra setup time, reducing the depth of final
discussion. Strengths included the authenticity of real-time data and the
strong alignment with enquiry-based pedagogy. Limitations stemmed from
infrastructure and uneven digital literacy levels. The experience highlighted
that meaningful digital learning depends not only on access to tools but also
on pedagogical planning, backup measures, and reflective iteration based
on school-specific realities.
Overall, this lesson demonstrated that integrating
technologies deepens conceptual understanding when supported by structured
timing, collaborative scaffolds, and adaptive differentiation. Future
iterations would benefit from more digital training as well as more preplanning
for any issues that may arise to ensure all students benefit from the lesson.
References:
- Jeffrey,
L. and Kelly, O. (2011), ‘Developing Digital Information Literacy in
Higher Education’. Presented at LILAC Conference, UCL, London 4th June,
2011, pp. 21-30.
- List,
A. (2019). Digital literacy instruction and teachers’ attitudes towards
technology in the classroom. Frontiers in Education.
- Bravo,
T. and Hubenthal, M. (2016). Earthquake Teachable Moments on Google
Earth. IRIS Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology.
- Floyd,
J. (2022). Padlet: Enhancing Collaboration with Adult Learners. Proliteracy.org.
Comments
Post a Comment