The definition of educational technology as Mindtools, used to construct knowledge and make meaning, described by David Jonassen (2000) resonated with me. Designers of technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs) in math and science should create experiences that engage students’ prior knowledge and allow for the exploration of personally meaningful concepts. Ideally, “teams of students are engaged in solving complex, authentic problems that cross disciplinary boundaries” (Kozma, 2003). Designers should include technologies that enhance authentic learning experiences through the facilitation of unique forms creation, problem solving and collaboration. David Jonassen (1995) writes, “control of learner interactions with the computer should be taken away from designers and tutors and transferred to the learners to enable them to represent and express what they know.” Technology should also act as a support and scaffold for students by lowering the barriers to entry by providing a means to participate and contribute understanding in various ways. Designers should utilize technology as “tools in service of richer curricula, enhanced pedagogies, more effective organization structures, stronger links between schools and society, and the empowerment of disenfranchised learners” (Kozma, 2003).
Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as Cognitive Tools: Learning with Technology, Not from Technology, Journal of Computing in Higher Education Spring 1995 Vol. 6(2), 40-73
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen+mindtools&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
Kozma, B. Robert (2003) Technology and Classroom Practices, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2003.10782399
I completely agree with this statement, “Control of learner interactions with the computer should be taken away from designers and tutors and transferred to the learners to enable them to represent and express what they know (David Jonassen, 1995). How empowering to put the control and choice into our learners hands. My favourite quote is: “If you assign a project and get back thirty of the exact same thing, that’s not a project. That’s a recipe” – Chris Lehmann. I am consistently encouraging my students to advocate for their learning needs. If they believe they can share their understanding or evidence of learning in a different way, they need to be provided the opportunity to do that, and feel safe to share their ideas. Thank you for your thoughts.
That is a great quote. I see that thinking in elementary art projects a lot.
I like the fact that you included students’ prior knowledge to help engage learning.
I wonder if technologies could increase barriers for students.
A good next step might be is to include examples of which technologies would enhance authentic learning.
I think that technology integration that doesn’t consider the ability of the learner can definitely act as a barrier. I was using Explain Everything for problem solving this year. One student, who has fine motor difficulties, became very frustrated navigating the app. He asked if he could just use a small whiteboard and tell me what he was thinking. It was a far better tool for lowering barriers than the higher tech. option for that student.