Though anchored instruction and its embodiment Jasper Woodbury Series (JWS), was one of the early explorations within ETEC 533, and mobile learning platforms were one of the last things we examined, the two represent the changes in my thinking throughout the course. As a proponent of technology-mediated education I came into ETEC 533 with the idea that there is a place and potential for technology to improve the learning process, and also realized that it meant a shift in how teachers taught and learners had engaged with learning up to now. I also understood that technology itself would not result in a de facto improvement in learning, but I still approached the course with a mindset for the practical application of the theories and concepts. Questions focused on the what, why, and in which ways could particular tasks and tools be used as illustrated by my fellow learner.
DW "We must plan to use these technological tools in meaningful ways, applying the best pedagogical approach to maximize the learning potential of the tool."
The questions were couched within three separate, but connected concepts:
- students are digital natives who expect to use technology
- supports and planning are needed to facilitate effective student driven inquiry
- few teachers are proponents of technology and thus they too need support to create and use technology in the learning process.
These therefore will form the lens for analyzing sections of the portfolio and growth in ETEC-533.
Student centered learning facilitated with technology to support inquiry, development and learning to meet the needs of digital natives:
This is perhaps the most obvious idea when considering modern learners and very little shift in perspective occurred here as I am already a proponent of using technology in the learning process. This move for inclusion is in line with Milne’s (2007) discussion of the Interaction age, where in information is seen as something which can be interacted with and around. The learners are bringing digital resources with them to the spaces they occupy and therefore we need to design to accommodate this. Physical evidence is easily observed when students are inseparable from cellphones, and also quite likely have an iPad or a laptop in their possession as well. In classroom situations it’s possible to watch and see their eyes glaze over after reams of transmissive notes on disconnected content. As I investigated each technology I sought to find ways to incorporate the underlying ideas or even the tools themselves into the learning process. I also analyzed their usefulness in terms of how students would use them or not use them. It may be that today’s student may find the Jasper videos outdated, but the concept of authentic exploration itself would be a more satisfactory approach. Anchored instruction and knowledge integration can easily occur through technology and also place a greater emphasis on the students themselves making and creating connections to and between concepts. WISE, GLOBE, and Whyville all presented opportunities for networking and learning communities so rather than assessing usefulness as independent factors I have now focused on drawing upon multiple tools at one time.
Supports and planning are key to promoting effective student driven inquiry:
While I have sought to incorporate technology use in the classroom and learning process, I wasn’t always sure of how to create an effective student-centered approach. But I knew from previous courses and from my investigation of the affordances of technology that the effectiveness of a particular technology depended upon how it was used, the degree of student involvement, and why it was used.
Having had the opportunity now to try a number of the approaches and tools (PHeT, Chemland, GEM) discussed in the course in my own classroom, I have seen the increased student participation and progress, as well as the floundering that students encountered with a new approach. What I realized most crucial about the idea of needing to create a framework is planning how the integration of the approach is going to happen and in what phases, and that initial scaffoldings are necessary for students to build confidence.
Another issue regarding the use of technology, which I had not considered previously, was student connection between concepts in the real world and concepts in the digital world. Srinivasan, et al. (2006) had a strong concern about students not making the connection between digital simulations and real principles. These therefore have led to a shift to consider not only how to create supporting networks and scaffolding for the learning and inquiry, but also how to create an effective blended approach so that students are better able to connect ideas in tangible manners so that learning occurs.
SR: "Technology distractions or not, students need to be continually engaged in their own learning."
Teachers also need supports and structures to facilitate the effective inclusion of technology in learning:
A component of my new position at work is that I am responsible for not only my development and progression, but also for the development and increase in technological proficiency and inclusion of teachers. My exploration and considerations throughout this and other MET courses then has been on how to execute this and why. My perceptions have also been influenced by the ideas that:
- today’s students think and process information differently and most of the teachers are digital immigrants, who speak a different language, and this interferes with the learning Prenksy (2001)
- it’s important to help teachers realize that a shift in position in the classroom doesn’t mean a decrease in their importance or value as an educator, which had otherwise resulted in resistance and negative perceptions towards the inclusion of technology in the learning process (Kimber, Pillay, & Richards 2002)
So, I initially focused on why and how I could use technology from the viewpoint that I needed to convince the other teachers at school in the value of teaching with technology and convince them that they needed to learn a new language. As I looked at the affordances during my framing paper or assessed other tools and approaches (WISEweb, LfU, Mobile learning), the purpose was for “selling teachers” and helping them find reasons for the extra effort and to achieve teacher buy-in.
This lens and thinking I believe has undergone the most radical change of the three framing themes. As I explored different tasks from video case studies of technology used in classes to various specific examples of technologies and underlying theories which could be used in the learning process, there was a subtle shift in my thinking, observations, and questioning. I still focused on practical outcomes and applications, but I began to look at tools, and the theories they were associated with to see how they could be incorporated into a larger overarching theme and design, which could facilitate a shift in educator role and a shift in the degree of self-inquiry which the learner was responsible for. So, rather than thinking about why technology can be used in education from a justification standpoint, I shifted to how technology can be used to create student-centered learning, thereby providing teachers with a sense of possibility. The knowledge of the theories and principles behind them are important, allowing us to explain rationale and also providing a means for adapting our approaches for different scenarios, learners, and educators. But the how provides possibility.
The effective use of Smartboards at our school is often a topic of great discourse and discord. Too often the use of these interactive tools occurs as nothing more than a glorified whiteboard, well below their capacity and doesn’t help the learner at face value. However, many of our students happen to have learning difficulties like dyslexia, dysgraphia, or slower processing speeds. All of the notes produced on the Smartboard can be saved to a school server, which students can access. As such many of our students don’t write notes in class, but instead listen, and participate in the discussions and questions knowing that they can get accurate copies of the notes later. So like a novice user carpenter with a hammer, some productivity is achieved. However if the educator is provided with sample models of how to create interactive-dynamic lessons then student engagement and content retention and mastery are even higher; a better product.
Questions and Considerations:
While I can see a shift in approach and thought considerations regarding technology inclusion for students and teacher development there are still a number of questions and ideas which need to be explored. Some answers I am sure will only come through trial, error, and revision, whereas others have questions before they begin. As illustrated by a fellow learner’s perspective on GEM and LfU frameworks, which we know work and can lead to better student understanding and engagement with the concepts.
MA "I find when I try this approach, I have a lot of success, but it takes so much longer and I revert back to my old habits as I run out of time."
Questions then are what strategies and supports are needed to help educators make use of these models and effectively complete curricula? Are current curricular goals to large? How much training and support are needed, even when the educators have seen how a model can be used and been provided with starting resources? How many initial resources do educators need to have a positive experience? What tools (physical & mental) do students bring with them and how can these be folded into the learning process effectively? As well, questions about the overall design of a TELE and program need to be addressed, such as what assessments will need to be developed to determine if the implementation of technology mediated learning is being successful and meeting the goals outlined? What will the criteria of those assessments be and a how long should a plan extend for?
Conclusion:
Anchored instruction as embodied by JWS was an early attempt to remedy the de-contextualization of learning from the environment the principles operated in. Even though it is almost 20 years old there is still, if not more, a need to push for authentic learning environments with inquiry-based learning, a response to the why questions and a nod to the digital natives. As progression occurred though, and we explored concepts like SKI, LfU, and T-GEM, I began to focus more on how to use technology to facilitate inquiry learning and a more student-centered approach. With each new exploration I visualized designing and implementing lessons that integrated various components. These models then would not only help the students in a learning context, but then also serve as a starting point and exemplars for other teachers. So, rather than leading by rationale I could lead by modeling. Smart-mobile technology on the other side of the progression, offers the capacity to get there, as they are foremost portable, user owned, capable of capturing and collecting digital artifacts, access the net, and yield user generated outputs. Thus mobile technology offers opportunities for both digital and physical interactions.
In fact we are going to capitalize on the hows and affordances of mobile technology as we have just recently received approval to create a one-to-one iPad program for our senior students next year. With this plan we consider the digital natives need for learning for the future, their need for structure and support during inquiry, and the needs and development of educators, as all three of these themes and factors are integral components of learning.
References:
Kimber, K., Pillay, H., & Richards, C. (2002) Reclaiming teacher agency in a student-centred digital world. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2),155-167.
Milne, A. (2007). Entering the Interaction Age Today. Educause January/February 2007. Vol. 42, 1, 12-31.
Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-10.
Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (2), 1-5.