Monthly Archives: June 2017

Muffoletto (1994) argues that technology is “not a collection of machines and devices, but a way of acting.” As educators, if we are truly aiming to integrate technology as a means of supporting the diverse learning needs of our students, we must address the accompanying skills and attitudes that influence the ways in which our students engage with technology.

Through developing technology enhanced learning experiences, educators should focus their task design, and their corresponding assessments, on creating learning opportunities which emphasize designing (creating things, not just using or interacting with things), personalizing (creating things that are personally meaningful and relevant), collaborating (working with others on creations), and reflecting (reviewing and rethinking one’s creative practices). In order to create a more integrative approach to technology, the shift in approaches to assessment requires an exploration at a fundamental level. Bates’ SECTIONS framework (2014) states that assessment should also be influenced by the knowledge and skills that students need in a digital age, which means focusing as much on assessing skills as knowledge of content. In turn, this encourages the development of authentic skills that require understanding of content, knowledge management, problem solving, collaborative learning, evaluation, creativity and practical outcomes.

References

Bates, J. (2014). Teaching in a digital age, Chapter 8. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Muffoletto, R. (1994). Technology and restructuring education: Constructing a context. Educational Technology, 34(2), 24-28.

I think my definition of technology would connect most closely to Muffoletto (1994) and the idea that technologies are a way of acting. Connecting to the definition of technology that started for me in ETEC 540 and that at a certain point in time a pencil was the current form of technology. The pencil allowed stories and ideas to be recorded. So what is an educational technology tool today may not be the most influential tomorrow but, just at the printing press allowed the spread of information through print, today’s technology is the act of creating and disseminating information and ideas in a faster way.

Keeping that definition in mind, I find myself returning to the visual below when I think of a TELE in my classroom. I think this graphic shows how as our understanding grows we get ready to take the next step and create more authentic use of educational technology in the classroom. Any time I prepare to bring in a technology I ask myself “can I do this with a pencil and paper?” if my answer is yes then I know I am at substitution. While there is a time and place for enhancing learning through technology I think the real value of technology appears when our lessons get into the transformation phase of SAMR.

References:
All Things SAMR Model by Blanca Lemus. (2016). Thinglink.com. Retrieved 29 May 2016, from https://www.thinglink.com/scene/661408904193769474

Muffoletto, R. (1994). Technology and restructuring education: Constructing a context. Educational Technology, 34(2), 24-28.

Jonassen’s (1995) “cognitive affordances” resonated with me.  I like how it frames the technology as a tool that provides opportunities and keeps the learner at the centre of the process.

I think design of learning experiences should be a shared experience between teacher and learner.  Kafia (2006) laments that “In the case of instructional games, a great deal of thought is spent by educational designers on content matters, graphical representations, and instructional venues.  The greatest learning benefit remains reserved for those engage in the design process” (p. 38).  I like this idea that the act of design itself is a great way to organize concepts and “make meaning”.  Shouldn’t we involve our students in this process?

I have found projects to be a great compromise between student/teacher design of a learning experience.  In this ideal model, the teacher is providing the overall structure and scope of the project, while the student(s) are designing the content and purpose.  Our school is currently exploring how to optimize this process, with much help from the Buck Institute for Education (BIE).

Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40-73.

Kafai, Y. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives. Games and Culture. 1(1). 36-40.

David Jonassen’s description of technology as “cognitive affordances” resonated with me most as to how technology should be incorporated into the classroom design (Jonassen, 2000). A technology-enhanced learning environment should connect students in a way traditional classrooms would not be able to achieve, while allowing students to expand their understanding with technology rather than have their learning be dictated by it.

Designers of TELEs should be questioning how the technology that they seek to include can help create meaningful thinking for students, how it can be used as a “Mindtool” (Jonassen, 2000). Jonassen further argues that both teachers and computers are merely the avenue for which students can foster their learning. An ideal design of TELE would include tools at the student’s disposal for them to use to enhance their understanding as well as provide opportunities to share their learning with others. Similar to GLOBE (Butler & MacGregor, 2003), students should have a chance to connect with other like-minded individuals working on the same aspects of learning to build on one another. Therefore, a TELE design can enhance learning through problem-solving, creative collaboration and critical thinking.

References:

Butler, D.M., MacGregor, I.D. (2003). GLOBE: Science and Education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 9-20.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen+mindtools&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

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 have to agree with Chris Dede and his acknowledgement of Trotter’s (1998) statement that the inclusion of technology alone does not equate to better educational outcomes. My ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for math and/or science is exactly that, enhanced. The inclusion of technology into a classroom must enhance and enrich the learning experience. As I have stated before, technology needs to be implemented in a meaningful way that will allow students to better engage and learn the information at hand.

I found this diagram, picture below, that details five different conditions of meaningful learning.

While this particular diagram does not specifically address technology in the classroom, one can certainly see the relatedness of it. Any technology that is incorporated into the classroom should fall into most, if not all, of the following categories: active, constructive, cooperative, authentic, and most importantly in my opinion, intentional. Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELE’s) should be purposeful at their core.

References

(Image)

Meaningful Learning – Education wired up. (2017). Retrieved 9 June 2017, from https://sites.google.com/site/educationwiredup/time-tracker

My definition of technology is similar to David Jonassen (2000) because I believe that students learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities and hands-on learning, which can be fostered through technology. “Nothing can be taught unless it has the potential of making sense to the learner, and learning itself is nothing but the endeavor to make sense” (Frank Smith, 1978). Technology can take the form of anything that enhances student learning, provides students the opportunity to develop skills that will empower them, or allows students to share evidence of their learning.

My ideal pedagogical design of an elementary TELE centres around meeting learners needs to support differentiation, enrich learning intentions, and to transform teaching and learning. Technology needs to be viewed as a tool that provides deeper context, creative outlets, and opportunities where students take ownership over their learning. For a science curriculum, the TELE could provide virtual field trips, 3D exploration, and ePortfolio’s to post and reflect on their learning journey. Technology should provide a learning environment that supports inquiry, problem-solving, and thinking in meaningful ways, that a standard classroom could not fulfil.

References:
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

Smith, Frank. 1978. Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.