My definition of technology aligns with Jonassen’s. I understand his analogy of a carpenter with tools as it relates the construction and creation of meaning making. It is not by using the tools that students learn; rather the tools support the creation of new: understanding, ideas, and creations. Technology in its many forms: audio, visual, digital, or physical tools (e.g., a pencil), etc.. can support opportunities to inform, become informed, create, explore and plan. Technology is diverse and has a range affordances. For example, instead of using a word processor to type an essay, the same information can be shown by the use of an app to create a mind map. Similarly, learners can use social media to explore ideas and collaborate to form new ones. In the same way, a carpenter has a range of tools, technology affords learners an assortment of opportunities for learning to occur.

I believe that one of the biggest challenges in designing a TELE is deciding how to capture and consolidate the best design options. Ideally, the environment would be learner focused and address different learning styles. The construction would reflect aims to elicit deep learning and connect to higher order thinking skills. Performance activities would be scaffolded to support learning, allow for creative and flexible representation of ideas, and also allow for collaboration and reflection. I would also include structures or activities that provide students with different types of feedback.

To begin this process I think it is important to have a design framework. My framework would consist of instructional strategies; resource strategies; teaching strategies; subject or content related goals and objectives.

I recently had the opportunity in ETEC 565, I worked toward designing a blended learning environment to teach reading strategies to grade 4 students. I have included a link to one of my plan boards, which provides a visual of my growing understanding of how to design a TELE.

My Plan Board For Designing A Blended Learning Environment For Grade 4 Students

As an elementary school teacher, I am required to create a learning space that allows my students to become fluent grade level readers and writers. However, expectations around number fluency (the deployment of basic math skills) seem to be more ambiguous. Over the past several years, I have witnessed an ongoing debate among teachers, parents, and administrators concerning computational fluency. There are those that believe that number fluency is a fundamental math skill that needs to be more prominently addressed in elementary classrooms. Meanwhile, there is another camp of mathematical thinkers that place a high regard on conceptual understanding of mathematics. This involves operations in mathematics through problem-solving, communication, and exploration but does not necessarily require students to be fluent with basic math facts.

Cathy Fosnot, one of the leaders in Mathematical educations offers an interesting perspective in this debate. Cathy Fosnot was a professor at City College of New York. She founded the Mathematics in the City, authored various books and articles on mathematics education. In this video clip, she is discussing her views and sheds light on what she calls a “False Dichotomy”.

Here is an interesting website that outlines the landscape of Mathematics in Ontario’s educations system. It paints an interesting picture of current concerns and explores specific strategies aimed to improve student math achievement. There is a lot of very valuable information from a range of experts in mathematics who have joined the conversation to share their views, understandings, and ideas.
Ontario’s Renewed Mathematics Strategy