Category Archives: Uncategorized

Design of TELEs

An ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience should be framed within discipline-specific pedagogy and a model for selecting and applying appropriate technology. I’d use the SECTIONS framework as informed by TPCK and the ADDIE model.

SECTIONS: Students, Ease of use, Cost, Teaching/Learning, Interactivity, Organization, Networking, Security/Privacy

Analysis:

Teaching/Learning – What are the learning outcomes and skills students need to demonstrate? Based on the discipline, what are the conventions and challenges that novices experience? This analysis should be framed within learning theories (e.g., behaviourist, cognitivist, constructivist, developmental) and the philosophy of learning as dictated by the discipline

Students – Identify their preconceptions, prior knowledge/skills, preferences, and readiness.

Interactivity – Given the instructional goals and student assessment, how might assessment and technology be used for interaction between teachers, students, and content? Determine how learning will look in terms of a blended or fully online model.

Ease of Use – Given student and teacher readiness and technological proficiency, what orientation and transition is required?

Cost – Consider the accessibility of the technological implementation in terms of money and time.

Design:

Teaching/Learning/Students/Interactivity/Ease of use – Create a learner journey based on the student profiles. Populate the journey with assessment and interactions with others and content. Identify areas where there may be more challenges, populate with resources/interventions and alternate paths.

Networking – Consider the role of external resources and other experts. How might these individuals offer opportunity for collaboration and mentorship?

Organization – What resources within the institution are available to support the development and design of TELEs?

Security/Privacy – Review the security and privacy of the selected technology

Development:

Organization – Connect with colleagues and formatively assess progress

Implementation:

Launch the TELE

Evaluation:

Collect learner feedback (perceptions of learning, actual learning) and teacher feedback (ease of use, perception of learning, challenges). Iterate upon the design.

End of Week 2: Unpacking Assumptions

This discussion seemed a bit weaker than the Conceptual Challenges thread. The challenge with online forums is that I never know if people aren’t commenting because they agree with the post, if they have nothing to say, or they cannot relate to the post.

From re-reading everyone’s posts, I noticed the following trends:

  • Technology’s primary perceived uses are tied to teacher-content and student-content interactions: Although there were posts that mentioned how technology could be used to get students to work together, this was not as well explored. Technology, in the form of AR/VR and animations was suggested as a way to present content and allow students to explore phenomena. Although there is the potential for inquiry, there is an underlying tone of individuals as independent observers. The perception here could be that science is something that is observed primarily by the individual, but potentially in conjunction with others.
  • The inclusion or integration of technology is weighed to be pragmatic: The selection and application of technology depends on the cost (monetary and time), ease of use, and student needs. If the benefits do not outweigh the cost, technology is not used.
  • Technology plays an important role in multiple representations of content: This can be very useful in highlighting alternate conceptions.
  • Technology can motivate students: This was an interesting point. It was suggested that technology could be used sparingly or in specific contexts to engage students. I don’t know how I feel about this, but I know it would depend on the individual’s classroom and students. However, I think the use of technology in multiple representations and ability to connect to inquiry and doing, can facilitate active learning.
  • Teachers may feel resistance to using technology: Since technology can be used to support inquiry and independent learning, the role of the teacher changes. This may cause discomfort for both teachers and students. Teachers may not be used to not knowing the content/applications as well. Students may not like the added responsibility of independent learning and perceive having to take the initiative with less support from the teacher as not learning. These feelings of teaching and learning will need to be addressed.

Overall, I’m wondering if our assumptions about the use of technology in math and science classrooms comes from the disciplines themselves. Of course we are not dealing with just content misconceptions, but misconceptions about teaching and learning.