These are some of my postings on this topic:
Posted Date: September 8, 2012 4:54 PM
Mark,
There have been a number of great postings on the readings. Your observation that “What they (teachers) fail to grasp is that the entire process of education has to change to keep up with the world that these students live in.”, helped ignite my response to this week’s readings.
While the pace of technological change may support the notion of Educational Technology as a recent challenge for teachers, my personal experience does not. I started teaching with ditto machines, gesteners, and filmstrip projectors. I wrote my first report cards using AppleWorks; an activity which many of my colleagues considered daring and controversial . Nearly thirty years later, I use a Smartboard, iPads, and the computer lab. Many of my colleagues consider this daring and controversial.
When I enrolled in MET I admit that I was mostly interested in learning about all the great gadgets. This view quickly changed as I came to understand more about the partnership between Educational Technology and other disciplines. It changed as I read more about the dynamic relationship between teaching, learning and technology; each relying on a theoretical framework that exists regardless of how well it is developed or articulated.
I found myself agreeing that the difficulty does not lie inherently with the technology but rather with our ability to address challenge, change, and growth. In short, the difficulty lies in our willingness to modify our role as the expert and to embrace learning.
The notion that Educational Technology has developed out of many disciplines and theoretical frameworks seems analogous to the variety of disciplines, backgrounds and experiences reflected in any group of teachers. There may be common ground, but I doubt there will very be an all-encompassing theory or set of beliefs. It is important to recognize, however, that these theories and sets of belief exist. They affect and are reflected in the way we observe, interact with, and evaluate our world.
Learning is critical to my role as a teacher. My success relies on my ability to develop, test, and re-evaluate my personal theory of learning. As new technologies have become available, my understanding of learning and teaching has also changed. Last year my Kindergarten students successfully completed self-evaluations using a classroom generated rubric and the Smartboard to get around the obstacle of reading. Results which had me questioning the “limits” of self-evaluation in younger students as an artefact of the tools used to complete them.
Which brings me back to your post, Mark. In a system driven by results where manuals, curriculum guides, and administrative initiatives may reflect a theory of learning and technology that is new and foreign, resistance is predictable. Experts hold on to the role of expert. Staying safe with results that are comfortable and predictable makes sense. Add a Smartboard to the mix and, quite frankly, you’re asking for trouble!
Real change requires opportunity, risk, commitment, guidance, and support. New behaviour needs to be modeled and guided before it can be demonstrated independently. This is very basic teaching; a positive attitude towards life-long learning can be taught.
I see this as I begin to lead a team of teachers piloting iPads in their classrooms. The talk is partly about the wonderful gadgets but mostly about learning and teaching. It is about pedagogy, the role of the teacher, the future of teaching and our response to technology. In short, this discussion is about what I am coming to understand is Educational Technology.
Thanks for the spark, Mark. I’ll get down off the soapbox and give someone else a turn. Looking forward to more dialogue…. Fascinating stuff!
Posted Date: September 9, 2012 10:04 AM
Brendan.
Like you, I found the definition supplied in the report of the Presidential Commission on Instructional Technology most helpful (Januszewski, 51). I thought I was getting a handle on things until I read the 1997 AECT definition. Suddenly I was lost again. And then I remembered my Kindergarten students. I have learned that explaining something to a four year old requires clarity and concreteness of thought. When they asked about what I was learning in school, I told them: I am learning how to use things like Smartboards and iPads to improve teaching and learning. I am also learning how to use what we know and learn to improve how we use things like Smartboards and iPads. This might not be the most encompassing or complete definition. It leaves the concepts of teaching, learning, education, knowledge, and technology undefined. But most people have some context for and experience with these terms and it seems to satisfy my four year olds and many of of the adults who ask me about Educational Technology. I think the 1994 definition (Januszewski, 103) was a step back in the right direction.
Posted Date: September 10, 2012 11:16 PM
Danny,
Your point is really well made. I too believe that theory and, as I begin next week’s readings, philosophy drives design. Many times I have put together a lesson or materials, some with tech and some without, only to have my students use or interpret them in a way I did not predict. Our understandings were different. Redesign was required to incorporate my students’ viewpoint so they could use the materials to learn the particular skill or concept. Kindergarten students can see things very differently than the way I do. I am at my best when I remember this, plan for, and respond to it. When I get stuck in a particular form or rigid in the way use a tool, my students and I are bound to fail. Thanks for the reminder. Today was the first full day for Kindergarten and I need to spend some more time thinking like a four year old!
Posted Date: September 12, 2012 10:18 PM
Reiko,
Thanks for the questions, they gave me cause to ponder a bit more.
I think everyone has a different threshold of tolerance for change. I also think that our outlook can change. When I first started teaching, I thought I needed to be the expert on all things. My job was to pass on what I had already mastered to a new generation. What I have come to understand is that this is impossible. Now I find myself learning along side my students (in all areas, not just technology).
This shift is very difficult for some teachers to make. My experience has also taught me that the challenge of any learning (change) can be be understood through the experience of learning to ride a bike. You don’t start by riding a motor bike. You choose a bike that you can handle. You might use training wheels (which might go on and come off several hundred times). You might have someone run beside you and hold on when you lose your balance. It helps if someone praises all of your attempts (even your skinned knees). It helps if every step you take feels like you are riding a bike (tricycle or motorcycle). You don’t learn to ride a bike by listening to a lecture or attending a Powerpoint presentation. You can’t legislate someone into riding a bike. You can’t reward or punish someone into riding a bike. Done right, learning to ride a bike is its own reward. It requires modeling and hours of guided practice before independence is achieved. Now substitute “learning technology” for “learning to ride a bike” and you can see the problem for teachers who believe they have to be the best bike riders and learn to ride in one day. It is even harder when your administrative officer believes this about teachers! Better to refuse than fail. Who wants to ride a bike when you hit the wall every time! As I talk to my colleagues about using technology, I have found that there are often one or two obstacles in their way. Sometimes they don’t seem all that big to me. But when we work together to eliminate them, learning is unlocked and creativity kicks-in. A little support with no pressure or judgment goes a long way. Most teachers are willing to change to help their students, we just need to support them while they learn to ride.
And now, I climb down off my soapbox….