This Final Synthesis provides a reflective overview of my learning and experiences throughout the last 13 weeks in ETEC 565A. The initial Flight Path assignment required me to detail my professional background and experiences with educational technologies, as well as to set some overall goals for the course. The Final Synthesis assignment serves to provide reflective analysis of those goals and other learning connections that have occurred throughout this course. I will conclude with descriptions of my new personal goals as I graduate from MET program this spring.
Flight Path Précis
I have been a Grade 3/4 Teacher & Technology Coach for 2 years, modelling pedagogical practice and technology integration for my staff while supporting them in those areas. Over the past year, I have worked to expand my technological repertoire through my enrollment in MET, engaging with my PLN on Twitter, and attending conferences and institutes. The professional growth that I experienced led to an abundance of technology-enhanced classroom projects and web publications by my students. As such, when measuring myself against the ISTE Standards for Students (2008), one of the standards that I prize myself most on is inspiring student learning and creativity in the classroom.
At the outset of ETEC 565A, I aimed to improve my understandings in three areas throughout the course:
- Strengthening my understanding of LMS systems and best practices with their application
- Balancing and improving assessment practice, including qualitative and quantitative methods and cyclical feedback, and
- Better utilizing the available supports and stakeholders in K-12 districts to prevent teachers from needing to be a “Jack of All Trades” to effectively integrate technology into their practice (Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens, 2010, p.240).
Over the past 13 weeks, these goals were explored through my interactions with the course content, assignments, and peer discussions in ETEC 565A. This Final Synthesis Assignment will detail a thorough reflection of my experiences and learning throughout this course.
Module 1 – Theoretical Frameworks for Selecting and Using learning Technologies
Module 1 was a bit of refresher for me, as I had plenty of prior experience in using and applying the ISTE Standards for Students and Teachers (2008). Readings like Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens (2010) and Bates (2014) led to early considerations for my course goal that included stakeholder empathy and understanding across educational technology decision-making. However, most of the scenarios included in these readings were based on scenarios in higher education settings where personnel and IT support were portrayed as always readily available to instructors. While this may be true in an ideal system, it does not align with the realities of K-12 districts. For example, my district of 1800+ teachers could not possibly collaborate with the single district digital literacy teacher in order to make positive changes in their technological pedagogies. Of course, efforts are made in other ways to mitigate these differences, such as focus groups, site-based digital literacy coaches for local support, and other professional learning opportunities.
Bates (2014) SECTIONS model was a revisitation for me as well. I had originally explored it as Bates & Poole’s (2003) original publication in two earlier MET courses, so it was refreshing to see changes made that reflected modern shifts in the technological landscape. Additionally, I began to see patterns emerge in this literatures that were present other MET courses, namely, that all technological decisions come with benefits and drawbacks; there are no silver bullets.
This module reaffirmed my need for professional play when choosing and applying educational technologies. Learning the affordances and constraints of technologies will impact perceived understandings of how technologies can be applied (Norman, 1999). Professionals who interact with technologies can and will make connections with future opportunities for application. Stakeholders across educational settings need to gain understandings of purview of the others in order to make the most informed decisions about widespread technological roll-outs.
Module 2 – Presentation Tools: Spaces, Places, and Platforms for Learning
Module 2 introduced us to Coates, James, & Baldwin (2005) who critically examined LMS platforms and the implications of their widespread application in institutional settings like universities and colleges. This reading would provide a sound basis for reaffirming my understandings of instructional design coming before technology selection as well as providing me with a more detailed outlook on the intricacies of selecting mandated technologies, particularly their widespread impact and consequences for different stakeholders across educational systems. Coates, James, & Baldwin’s (2005) writings would also provide me with a critical overview of LMS platforms, pointing me to the benefits and drawbacks that I ought to look for as I began to develop my ETEC 565A course assignments.
This module also introduced case-based discussions in small peer groups, a pedagogical strategy which I later connected to Garrison, Anderson, & Archer’s (1999) article, “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment.” These cases often portrayed a problem that had some easily-identifiable solutions, but also some that were more convoluted in nature, causing cognitive dissonance in my understandings of technology selection. Particularly, with the little knowledge I had with development of online curriculum, I struggled to make estimates of the time frames in which an average person could fill out a course shell, or create a website resource when there were other technological obstacles in the way. In the end, many of these cases called for purposeful goal-setting and streamlining learner tasks with clear pedagogical decision-making that aligns with those goals.
The module ended with an exploration of Ciampa’s (2013) study of student motivation in elementary mobile environments. I had a lot of experience with this particular study in MET as I used it to write a paper in ETEC 511 that explored elementary mobile environments. It was also a primary study model for the development of my research proposal for ETEC 500. The discussion during this week of the course called for us to reflect on our own teaching and learning environments and how mobile technologies weaved into them. Despite having written these papers and research proposals that were set to explore other examples of mobile environments, I had never really shared about my own. This was a positive opportunity to share how my school site is changing the typical model of a schedule-based mobile technology cart that provides 1:1 access to classes only at specific times, and instead, how we provide project-based pods of devices that allow access at all times in all classrooms, despite not being 1:1 on a regular basis. This has promoted small group engagement in a number of activities that are synchronously occurring, many of which that are student-led rather than teacher-directed. A key component of this structure is that teachers are provided with abundant technical support and professional development opportunities much like the primary subject in Ciampa’s (2013) study.
Overall, this module pushed me to reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of LMS environments as well as my own environments and experiences as a teacher of blended learners. I consider myself technologically savvy and I prize myself on efficiency, so I often underestimated the time it might take to develop online learning environments and student tasks when considering the case-based discussions. I would also say that being absent from the classroom this year has also impeded my sense of need for time. Now, later in the course, I would offer more time in these cases to reflect and make changes for pedagogical and assessment quality and consistency throughout online course structures.
Module 3 – Interaction and Assessment Tools
This module introduced us to the idea of online interactions, community building, and assessment practices, particularly in computer-mediated learning spaces. Garrison, Anderson, & Archer (1999) outline a model of critical inquiry in text-based environments that feature cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. I hadn’t considered simplification of my online learning experience to components such as these, but each of them are very important to facilitation of a quality learning experience. First, cognitive presence is created through interaction with readings and course materials and the communication of thinking associated with them. Second, social presence builds a community for the purpose of both scholarly and affective goals; sociality in a learning setting brings joy to the experience. Lastly, teaching presence is pivotal as instructors dictate the design of online courses, which in turn allows for the prior two components of Garrison, Anderson, & Archer’s (1999) model to flourish. This model was a major consideration while I developed Assignments #1 and #2, the introductory module and content module, respectively.
Meanwhile, our small groups were exploring the pros and cons of asynchronous and synchronous communications through our shared Google Docs. This activity got me considering the balance of these communications types within my own classroom and even how I interacted with my MET peers and groups I’ve worked with in the past. While I appreciate the space and time that asynchronous communications have provided me throughout the last 3 years of learning online, there is something to be said for the camaraderie and “realness” of a cohort of students experiencing learning in the same physical room. This activity also made me consider the balance of communication types and styles as I developed my ETEC 565A course assignments.
As we moved further into this module, I revisited Anderson’s (2008) “Towards a theory of online learning”, where another model outlines learner-, knowledge-, community-, assessment-centred experiences when learning online. This article re-immersed me in the considerations of each stakeholder in the education system, and that we shouldn’t lose sight of academic goals in favour of student comforts:
““we must be careful to recognize that learner-centred contexts must also meet the needs of the teacher, the institution, and of the larger society that provides support for the student… For this reason, I have argued […] that this attribute may be more accurately labelled as learning-centred, as opposed to learner-centred.” (Anderson, 2008, p.47)
It is good to step outside of your comfort zone and understand a topic from another lens, much like I have been doing in this course. I may never teach online, but at least I have developed an understanding of online pedagogical designs and how they differ from a synchronous classroom experience.
This portion of the module was also a great step into the assessment of learning, as assessment is a primary driver of student motivation and engagement (Bates, 2014; Gibbs & Simpson 2005). Gibbs & Simpson (2005) assert that “students work out for themselves what counts — or at least what they think counts, and orient their effort accordingly” (p.6). I absolutely believe that this is true; you see students cut corners all the time, especially when there isn’t emphasis on a particular criteria or process in a classroom space. When I return to the classroom, I want to focus more on the development of learning skills – particularly soft skills like creativity, collaboration, and communication – so that my students will be able to adapt to different types of challenges through academic content.
Module 4 – Social Media
This module was right up my alley because I’ve used social media for professional networking and learning for almost 3 years. The power of social media – in my case, at least – cannot be overstated. It has provided me with ample professional opportunities including exposure to the MET graduate program, involvement as a session facilitator in conferences, and opportunities to become a part of groups like Google Certified Innovators and Apple Distinguished Educators. Twitter was the tool that brought me all of these opportunities so I related well with November’s (2012) blog post on the topic.
This module also explored the integration of multimedia with learning tools, including using SECTIONS (Bates, 2014; Bates & Poole, 2003) to evaluate multimedia technologies (Boyes, Dowie, & Rumzan, 2005). This article stood out to me because even though it focused on Flash Media specifically, it served as a fantastic model for other technological analyses and thus, decision-making. In the end, this article helped me to choose VideoScribe as the media for creating my digital story for Assignment #3.
Lastly, this module explored the issues of copyright and digital citizenship, topics which I have visited in other MET courses. This was a timely topic due to the need to use Creative Commons images for our digital stories. Through a little bit of research, I found a resource called The Noun Project (thenounproject.com) that is a Creative Commons-friendly site, allowing artists to upload icons and for users to download them to use with attribution or purchase to use royalty-free. In an added bonus, I shared this on Twitter to our #ETEC_565A hashtag, and another person in our course benefitted from that sharing. Seeing Edwin’s video discussion sharing his reflection from the digital stories was a fitting ending to the social media module.
Module 5 – What’s on the Horizon?
One of my other courses in the MET program, ETEC 522, focused primarily on the “what’s next” aspect of educational technologies, particularly from a venture perspective. Module 5 in ETEC 565A focused on the futuristic aspect of educational technologies from a pedagogical and logistical perspective. For example, Alexander (2014) discusses the nature of ubiquitous access and blended learning across future higher educational institutions. While an uncertain topic in and of itself, scholarly musings may be shaping the future of this field of study. I would love to see the “two cultures” of online and blended learning emerge in higher education as Alexander (2014) outlines them. However, I am uncertain that 10 years will be enough for us to see these changes across whole institutions. While the nature of post-secondary learning is indeed changing, there are still disconnects in programs that should be on the cutting edge of innovation, particularly, teacher education programs. Additionally, the readings in Module 5 fail to address K-12 settings, which may move faster than higher education in some cases, and perhaps provide further influence on future change.
Assignment #1: Online Delivery Platform Evaluation Rubric
This assignment was our first graded project during ETEC 565A. It was a small group, collaborative assignment that was to be completed in a short time frame. We had to assess a specific case and develop a technology platform rubric that would meet the needs of the case. This assignment had both positive and negative challenges. While our group collaborated together well, we struggled with the short time constraint (just over 1.5 weeks to complete the assignment) as well as time zone differences when attempting to set up synchronous meetings. We worked through Google Docs to split up the work and to leave correspondence and feedback for one another when particular sections were completed. The positive challenges included developing the actual content within the rubric, and matching it to the case study’s particular needs. In the end, most of the rubric we developed could be applied to any site’s general LMS selection process, but we could have organized it to fit our specific case more effectively. In the end, this assignment got me thinking about what components one might need to analyze before selecting an institution-wide technology such as an LMS.
Assignment #2: Introductory Module
The Assignment #2 criteria called for the creation of an Introductory Module to a course that would be taught online. Although the course was encouraged to be something that we had taught before, I am currently in a transition from teaching younger students (Grades 1-4) and moving up to Grade 5 or 6 and am looking to develop new curriculum for that age category. I chose to design a unit of study from the Grade 5 science curriculum: simple machines. This turned out to be an ambitious endeavour because I had to develop a unit and adapt it for online consumption for Assignment #2. However, in the process, I collected a number of useful resources, online interactivities, and assessment strategies for both my course and using the unit in my blended classroom.
This assignment was completed primarily through backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). I decided on the outcomes that I wanted my students to achieve through the development of specific assessments and then created a rough skeleton of the progression from little to no background knowledge on the subject to being competent both in discussion and with hands-on, topical tasks. This progression evolved into an overall course schedule which greatly aided in the development of the introductory module as well as the creation of the next ETEC 565A assignment, the content module. I wrote the introductory module to the course as I would like to see it from a student perspective, even though MET courses have been my only reference point for online-only learning.
Another key component of this assignment was learning about the technological environment that I was building the course within: Moodle. I hadn’t used Moodle at all prior to this and I tapped into a number of online tutorials as well as relying on ETEC 565A’s Q&A forum in Connect to solve problems that I ran into. I learned a lot about Moodle in this period of time, and worked to design a cohesive and flowing organization of my content, including progression buttons and a graphic user interface for the front page. Even though the latter was not required for this assignment, it was created in experimentation and I liked the overall look and feel that it provided for my course home page. Choosing a design and layout that provided consistency to the user was important to me at this stage.
Throughout the process of completing this assignment, I also relied on an ETEC 565A peer, Randy, as we provided cyclical feedback for one another. It was very helpful to have another set of eyes on my work and to see the progress and shape other courses could take. These types of relationships have been invaluable during my time in MET. They provide informal formative assessments that greatly aid in overall learning. In my case, this feedback informed both the content that I was developing as well as the user-friendliness of the technology itself (Bates, 2014).
Assignment #3: Content Module
Assignment #3 was a natural progression from the creation of the Introductory Module. While the latter was focused on a broad outline of course expectations, the former promoted our pedagogical executions of those plans. Also included in this assignment was the creation of a multimedia production through the integrated Digital Story assignment.
Since the development of our Introductory Modules, I was flip-flopping on which content module to develop within my course, Simple Machines for Science 5. There were many areas of the course that would have been fun to develop! I ended up choosing to develop Module 1, both as a linear progression from the Intro Module but also because my digital story theme fit into that particular module.
When choosing my digital story topic, I reviewed Levine’s “50+ Web Ways to Tell a Story” (2016) and some of the multimedia tools he lists there. For my storyline, I decided on demonstrating how simple machines are used in everyday life, and to outline the 6 basic categories of simple machines through this narrative. I ended up choosing VideoScribe because of the control that it provided with the canvas, slides, text, and images associated with the story. Additionally, it aligned with Boyes, Dowie, & Rumzan’s (2005) assertion that: “Novices in a subject area might have difficulty attending to relevant cues within animations, so text labels and supporting contextual information is critical in designing educational resources” (p.3). The final product of the digital story fit well with Module 1 in my course, as the first week of that module was an introduction to the 6 categories of simple machines.
The development of the entire content module seemed easier than it was to create the introductory module, probably because I opted to create such a detailed schedule of activities for the entirety of the course in that assignment. That intensive scheduling and outlining paid off later, though; I had a list of activities and potential resources for myself to draw from when I began completing the content module. However, my list of “interactivities” (games, challenges, or activities my students would be required to complete online) had to shift due to the fact that some of the original links had been removed. This is something to take heed of in the development of online courses: digital multimedia can be “notoriously unstable, here one day and gone the next” (Hobbs & Jensen, p.6).
While developing the assignment content, I focused on building a high-quality module that would engage Grade 5 students in course readings, viewings, and interactivities while promoting the initiation of peer-to-peer discussion, community-building, and collaboration. I emphasized importance on gradual sequencing, foundational scaffolding, and appropriate communications between the HTML pages that I developed. I also provided consistency of user experiences across the course pages through the inclusion of buttons and the GUI menu, and ensured that outside links would open in new pages so that the user wouldn’t lose their place in the course framework. I also focused on creating interactive components and activities that may promote self-assessment of content understandings (Bates, 2014).
The creation of a fully online course was admittedly artificial to my own use as I will not be teaching primarily online at any time in the near future. However, the skills that I developed may be applied in the future and the content that I created can be transferred to that of a classroom, blended or otherwise. Additionally, I now increasingly empathize with the need for time, maintenance, and support resources for online and blended course development.
Assignment #4: Final Synthesis
The act of completing this assignment and reflecting on the entirety of my experiences in ETEC 565A has been beneficial. Through a thorough analysis of my participation, work, and growth throughout this course, I have drawn further conclusions in my overall learning that I might not have made otherwise. Moon (2001) may categorize this as “dialogic reflection,” where the learner “‘step[s] back’ from the events and actions” resulting in new metacognitive connections with the course materials (p.13).
What’s Next for Me?
Taking this year off from teaching to complete my graduate studies has caused a gap in my usual understandings of current technologies and apps. Being away from the classroom means that I am absent from authentic opportunities for pedagogical applications of the technologies I learn about in MET. With that said, I have also improved my abilities to produce digital multimedia across several courses in the program. As I move forward in my educational technology endeavours, I have 3 goals:
- Continue to engage in the professional networks that I am a part of, including Apple Distinguished Educators, Google Certified Innovators and Trainers, and my Twitter PLN
- Explore new technologies and refresh on ones that are continually updated
- Blog and publish shareable digital resources through my website, techteacheronamission.com
Prior to the MET program, I was highly involved in my Twitter PLN which led me to opportunities to apply to be a part of other networks such as Apple Distinguished Educators and Google Certified Innovators and Education Trainers. Over the past two years, I have worked on these applications and was accepted into each program, admitting me access to an abundance of resources in the form of colleagues and digital teaching and learning materials. Of course, networks such as these are highly valuable, but only when one takes the time to regularly tap into them. I have not been in a position to engage in those communities to the extent that I would like to, partly because of my high involvement in the MET program, but also because my personal life is busy (wedding planning & travels!) at the moment. When I complete this course, and subsequently, the program, I wish to involve myself more highly in these networks to learn from and collaborate with like-minded educators across the globe (Bates, 2014).
As I move forward in my teaching career, I have witnessed both new technologies emerging and existing, quality technologies constantly updating. The world of technology start-ups feels like a rat race where each company needs to have the newest and coolest features in order to stay on the cutting edge. I want to re-invest some time in screencasting apps like Explain Everything that are updating to include collaborative features. I also want to brush up on my use of Google Classroom, as it was updated heavily this past September. There are some new technological niches I’d like to explore as well, such as makerspaces and 3D printing. I will be exploring the role that each of these technologies might play in elementary learning environments.
Prior to my involvement in MET, I would regularly share and publish digital resources and app overviews to my website, techteacheronamission.com. When I was balancing MET and my regular work schedule, it became too difficult to keep up this aspect of my website. I significantly slowed down the amount I was blogging and sharing resources. The only time I shared my work was through Twitter or by publishing the professional development sessions that I would share at conferences. When I blog and publish my work, I aim to create more high-quality resources that can be used by a broader audience of educators. Particularly, digital peer commentary and collaborative contributions to resource improvement also helps me to grow professionally (Cheng & Ku, 2009). This is something I would like to invest more time into again as soon as I have the time and space to do so.
These goals focus on my continued professional growth through technological exploration and networking. Since I will no longer be involved in the MET program and courses like ETEC 565A which expose me to a broad network of peers and learning technologies content, these goals will keep me current and involved in the field of educational technology.
Concluding Thoughts
At the outset of ETEC 565A, I aimed to improve my understandings in three areas throughout the course:
- Strengthening my understanding of LMS systems and best practices with their application
- Balancing and improving assessment practice, including qualitative and quantitative methods and cyclical feedback, and
- Better utilizing the available supports and stakeholders in K-12 districts to prevent teachers from needing to be a “Jack of All Trades” to effectively integrate technology into their practice (Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens, 2010, p.240).
I believe that I definitely achieved these goals as I feel that I now have a novice understanding of possibilities with Moodle (from a teaching perspective) and Connect (from a student perspective). ETEC 565A used more features from these LMS platforms than any other course that I’ve been a part of so far. I was very open to what ETEC 565A could add to my existing pedagogical and technological toolkit and I learned more about what I would use or not use depending on the context of my teaching (online, blended, or otherwise). While some of the technologies we were required to use do not align with what is available at my school site, there is transferability in some of their affordances that fit with my existing practice as I continue to engage in professional learning in the field of educational technology.
References
Alexander, B. (2014). Higher education in 2014: Glimpsing the future. Educause Review, 4(5). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/higher-education-2024-glimpsing-future?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email+marketing&utm_campaign=EDUCAUSE
Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf
Bates A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). A framework for selecting and using technology. In A.W. Bates & G. Poole, Effective teaching with technology in higher education (pp. 75-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyes, J., Dowie, S., & Rumzan, I. (2005). Using the SECTIONS Framework to Evaluate Flash Media. Using the SECTIONS framework to evaluate flash media, 2(1). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.186.6505&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Cheng, Y. C., & Ku, H. Y. (2009). An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer tutoring. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 40–49. Retrieved from http://ac.els-cdn.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/S074756320800112X/1-s2.0-S074756320800112X-main.pdf?_tid=13b20292-f2d5-11e5-8010-00000aacb362&acdnat=1458943447_a82642cc80f4e6ec6011233f435bdc9c
Chickering, A. W. & Ehrmann, S.C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved from http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm
Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of Learning Management Systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11,(1), 19-36.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved from http://www.anitacrawley.net/Articles/GarrisonAndersonArcher2000.pdf
Hobbs, R. & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of media literacy education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1, 1-11. http://jmle.org/index.php/JMLE/issue/view/1
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). Standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-students
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-teachers
Levine, A. (2016). 50+ Web Ways to Tell a Story. Retrieved from http://50ways.wikispaces.com/
Moon, J. (2001). Reflection in higher education learning. Working Paper 4. York, UK.: The Higher Education Academy.
Nel, C., Dreyer, C., & Carstens, W. A. M. (2010). Educational technologies: A classification and evaluation. Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 35(4), 238-258. Retrieved from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/tvl/article/download/53794/42346
Norman, D.A. (1999). Affordances, Conventions, and Design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=301168
The Noun Project. (2016). The Noun Project. Retrieved from http://nounproject.com
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.