Hi all,
For my final project, I have chosen to focus on technology, creativity and the conceptualization of classroom quality. My reflection and video are below. I hope you find what I have produced to be of professional value!
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebpjKRTOejs&feature=youtu.be
TECHNOLOGY, CREATIVITY, AND THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CLASSROOM QUALITY
Despite the truly innovative theories and valuable applications this course has offered, and the dialogue generated among this academic community, I have struggled to reconcile current methodology regarding the integration of technology in pedagogy with the rapidly changing landscape of technology itself. While human innovation has been a constant throughout history, the rate at which technology advances is not congruent with the gradual innovation characteristic of most domains. As technological landscapes shift, seemingly beneath educators’ feet and just as they establish an oftentimes superficial semblance of understanding, educators grapple with both effectively implementing an entity that constantly morphs and the practical challenge of regularly restructuring curricula as technology invariably shifts. For example, how long do technological strategies remain viable in classrooms following real-world advancements? And considering the transience of technology and its related educational strategies, how could the necessary regular and fundamental revisions to curricula impact its quality and the quality of instruction? As 21st century learning involves digital technologies, how can these technologies positively impact instructional decisions and student engagement?
In my interrogation of these issues, I discovered a line of research that asserted that technology must be integrated creatively and systematically. Mishra, Koehler and Henriksen argue that technology and creativity must intersect in the 21st century classroom, and its integration “must be grounded in a creative mindset that embraces openness for the new and intellectual risk-taking” (Mishra et al., 2011). The relevance of creativity in this discussion is its essential importance as a 21st century capacity, both in the classroom and beyond. In a globalized workplace, knowledge and its basic application have become increasingly insufficient to deal with complex, interdependent problems. Recent research indicates critical, innovative and creative qualities enable individuals to flourish in the modern workplace, and simultaneously distinguish those who succeed from those who struggle (Pink, 2015). The field of education, then, must consider how to integrate creativity in instructional practice, and technology provides opportunities to do precisely that. Recognizing that technology is constantly evolving, focusing on the “affordances of [technological] tools” establishes creativity as a “driver for good teaching with technology” (Henriksen, 2016). As it pertains to curriculum design, this methodology mimics the concepts of backwards design as educators identify content standards or goals and proceed to consider innovative and compelling ways technology might allow students to learn content. Furthermore, technology produces opportunities for students to engage in the process of creating knowledge and meaning. However, in both curriculum design and student learning, creativity must be understood in a systematic manner. In Mihaly Csikszentimihalyi’s book, “Creativity Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention,” he states that creativity is a result of a dynamic interaction between the domain, the individual and the field (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Creativity is often simplified as an individual’s genius, but according to Csikszentmihalyi, for creative discovery to occur, there must be a dynamic interaction between the individual, prior knowledge (domain) and social and academic networks (field) (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). The pedagogical and classroom applications and implications of this system could potentially impact curriculum design, instructional practices, and assessment. If employed in curriculum design, the systematic interaction of the individual, field and domain presents a multitude of creative entry points into content to secure and maximize student engagement; educators may consider these elements to determine both the points of entry and emphasis (Henriksen, 2016). The intersection of this scope of creativity with technology in the classroom facilitates student discovery, innovative learning and the creation of content and knowledge. Digital technologies allow educators to be creative in presenting content and implementing a cross-curricular focus. Engaging students in digital domains and literacies allows students to be creative in turn by transforming content into diverse forms and participating in contributive and constructive relationships with their peers. Creativity, in this context, encourages diversity and innovation in pedagogical approaches among educators while stimulating multiliteracy, collaboration, and creative competencies among students.
Technology and creativity in curriculum design also enable a movement away from the pressure of high-stakes accountability and standardized testing, which research has identified to be detrimental to classroom quality and student achievement (Plank & Condliffe, 2013). In fact, according to Plank and Condliffe ‘s study, implementing high-stakes accountability “unintentionally [encourages] educators to use more teacher-centered pedagogical style and do not reward higher-order thinking” (Plank & Condliffe, 2013). Traditional teaching methods that rely on direct instruction and information recollection strategies dampen creativity both in curriculum design and student learning; furthermore, these strategies disadvantage children with creative or practical capacities as they are “almost never taught or assessed in a way that matches their pattern of abilities” (Henriksen, 2016). 21st century literacies, conversely, alleviate the pressures of high-stake accountability that undermine authentic learning by offering technology-rich contexts wherein students learn to process and critically interpret information while supporting the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. While the debate regarding the degree to which curricula should prepare students for the workplace continues, 21st century literacies do encourage the development of applicable academic, social and creative skills.
Historically, human creativity has driven technological advancements. As literacy experiences a redefinition in this digital era, a creative approach to curriculum design allows for a retooling of traditional literacies with 21st century literacies and competencies. A systematic understanding of creativity as an approach to technology integration in curriculum design minimizes the intimidation inspired in educators by the changing technological landscape and better equips them to design innovative curricula. As it pertains to curriculum design, creativity and technology are reciprocal elements, and this connection must be emphasized in instructional practices, assessment and student learning (Henriksen, 2016)
References
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 6-7.
Henriksen, D., Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2011). The Seven trans-disciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 51(2), 22-28. Retrieved August 5, 2018, from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/44429913
Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing Creativity and Technology in 21st Century Education: A Systemic View for Change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 28-36. Retrieved August 5, 2018, from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.19.3.27.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:c2bcc8d037bee9ae69019a2602ca867a.
Pink, D. H. (2006). A Whole new mind. New York, NY: Penguin Group, 3-4.
Plank, S. B., & Condliffe, A. F. (2013). Pressures of the Season: An Examination of Classroom Quality and High-Stakes Accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1152-1182. Retrieved August 5, 2018, from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/23526126?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
