Category Archives: B. Design of TELEs

The introduction to Module B defines technology as tools that are means to an end, the end being thinking in students, thinking by doing activities that are designed using those said tools.  Technology-enhanced spaces are defined as classrooms that make use of tools to help design interesting activities for students so they can think, understand, create, and learn.

An ideal pedagogical design then is one where:

1. tools meant to be used to design activities are easy to use, easy to access, and easy to afford
2. activities using these tools that are engaging, interesting, and thought provoking
3. the goals of the design are for students to perform activities by co-operation and teamwork; fostering skills necessary for success after school.

Of the various descriptions of technology and its impacts on learning, I found Chris Dede’s comments in Robert Kozma’s book (2003) to resonate with my views.  He noted that technology’s mere presence and availability in schools does not immediately or automatically produce better learning environments.  Instead they are tools that facilitate a myriad of new possibilities from ones that directly impact individual learning (empowerment of disenfranchised learners), classroom environments (richer curricula and enhanced pedagogies), and the larger learning community (stronger links between school and society).  This very neatly supports Jonassen’s (2000) assertion that “[S]tudents learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers.”  In total, technology provides stronger, more interactive, more meaningful, and more engaging learning opportunities which in turn provides students with a deeper and more connected understanding.

To me, a technology enhanced learning experience is one that uses technology to bridge the needs and desires of both students and teachers in order to provide a more meaningful and effective learning environment.  For students, this would mean that technology offers them more stimulating and engaging activities, an adaptable pace for individualized learning, and ways to explore and connect their curiousity.  On the other side of the classroom, technology would provide teachers with automation of menial tasks for time efficiency, dynamic but focused learning activities, and opportunities for students to create and formulate their own knowledge.

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

Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective, (A report of the Second Information Technology in Education Study, Module 2). Eugene, OR: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, ISTE Publications.

I define technology as any digital tool (computer, iPad, mobile device), as well as the tools that you would use them with (internet, programs, social media).  Combined, these help to create my ideal pedagogical design of an enhanced learning experience.  I think that designers of learning experiences must be creative to ensure that their spaces are educational, captivating as well as encourage critical thinking among their users.  I would ensure that there are various forms of media available, such as videos containing information, but there can also be videos of the instructor delivering information.  This would give a face to face feel.  For the various types of learners, I would include, podcasts, visuals schemas.  There would have to be a discussion section, that were asynchronous as well as synchronous.  I also like the idea of frequent short assessments.  I know that this seems over ambitious but these are elements that I myself are found of in TELEs.

Jonassen’s (2000) comments on learning with technologies were a great reminder of how to use technology in the classroom and reconfirming, for myself, many of the topics raised so far in the course. As educators, effective student learning should always be the primary goal we are trying to accomplish. As Jonassen discusses, this is accomplished by “thinking in meaningful ways.”   As a result, engaging students with activities and meaningful lessons, which may or may not involve technology, should accomplish that primary goal of thinking and learning in the classroom. In terms of design, educators need to utilize and implement technology to enhance or support their lessons. Roblyer (201) discusses these pedagogical goals and how it relates to theories of learning, students abilities, curricula etc. In attempting to develop a technology-enhanced learning experience for my own classes, first and foremost I have to consider what subject or topic is currently being taught. The activities come after and hopefully, an online resource or other equipment are able to support that learning and allow students to produce understanding and meaning for themselves. The activity needs to provide a learning experience that allows students to simultaneously question their current understanding of concepts and develop an appropriate and better understanding of a topic.

The definition of technology I found myself connecting with was Jonassen’s (2000) idea that “[S]tudents learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers.” This definition addresses the fact that it is learning that is the outcome, not simply the use of technology in the classroom. Digital technology can and should be used, but its incorporation must enhance student learning. This is an essential part of designing a technology-enhanced learning experience; digital technology cannot be used simply because students enjoy using it, or because we feel pressured to include it within our classrooms.

Jonassen’s definition made me think of maker spaces, coding, STEM activities and other constructivist learning strategies within the classroom. Ideally, I see a technology-enhanced learning experience being one that encourages innovative thinking and collaboration between peers, motivates students to take risks and engages students in unexpected problem solving. It must also involve students in a learning process that leads to a deeper understanding of concepts presented. Kafai and Peppler (2011) state that “To be a full member in today’s participatory culture should mean much more than knowing how to play video games, for example; it should also mean knowing how to design video games” (p. 113). Students should not walk away with surface knowledge of what we teach, but of an understanding of the concept and how to connect it and apply it to their own lives.

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

Kafai, Y. and Peppler, K. (2011). Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Review of Research in Education, 35, 89-119.

My definition of technology would be a blend of Feenburg’s attribution of social values and Roblyer’s description of technology as our tools, methods, and creative problem solving.  From this, an ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for math includes recognition of the context of scenarios, effective manipulatives and devices, and strategies, and the interconnections between these elements. For example, a word problem describing a photovoltaic cell may be unnecessarily confusing for a student with minimal electrical physics knowledge, who may then be unable to achieve the intended mathematical outcomes due simply to the disconnect between his experience and the question context.  At this point, devices and strategies would likely be ineffective as he would not have enough understanding to adequately apply them.

When designing a technology-enhanced learning experience, I would account for the different backgrounds of the students by attempting to provide a variety of pathways including a variety of technology tools to hopefully engage every student in some way.  Increasing student choice enables them to make the best decisions for their own learning needs, and to find their own connections between their strategies and digital devices.  In my mind, choice is central to growth and learning.

For me, ideal pedagogical design of a technology enhanced learning experience must begin with the end, i.e: backwards design. Primary goals and outcomes must be established.

Following this, we set out how we will know these goals have been met. This may include formal assessments, conversations with students, self reflections etc.

Finally we must select the appropriate tools to develop the students’ understanding. These tools include all different forms of technology including computer software, digital instruments, manual tools (such as microscopes, prisms, models), instructional approaches, and ways of thinking. It is important to consider all types of technology (especially the cognitive/pedagogical ones) so that we do not fixate on the most exciting tool but instead the most effective tool. To select the best tools we will need to consider a number of factors. These include:

• The composition of the class: There interests, beliefs, conceptions/misconceptions, interests, familiarity with the proposed technology, etc.
• Our own abilities with a given technology
• availability of a given technology
• Relationship of the technology to the field/topic (is the technology authentic to this discipline?)

Once the goals, assessment, and tools/methods have been established, we have a sound basis for a technology enhanced learning environment.

Photo by Gerberkun courtesy of Imgur.

In my experience, you can lead an educator to technology however, you can not make them prep.

Technology is most certainly not a “vitamin” that can be consumed with the expectation that benefits will passively and spontaneously appear. I very much align myself with Dede’s view on technology’s purpose within classrooms: “…emerging interactive media are 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)

Designers of technology enhanced learning experiences are best served by staying true to their core pedagogical beliefs. As individual learners are unique, so are educators.  My strengths as an educator will differ from my colleagues, therefore the technology that I utilize may also look different. In math and science, I believe that the best way to utilize technology is to focus on three questions:

1. How can I bring science or math into my classroom in ways that I otherwise could not?
2. How can technology be used to maximize social learning interactions (student-teacher or student-student)?
3. How can technology be used to increase engagement, curiosity, and overall excitement to learn?

Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective, (A report of the Second Information Technology in Education Study, Module 2). Eugene, OR: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, ISTE Publications.

The definition I agree with is Trotter’s (1998) definition in Kozma’s (2003) book that describes 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). It aligns with my teaching philosophy around technology integration in classrooms.

Technology has the ability to enrich the learning outcomes of students because it allows students to connect their knowledge with society given the learning opportunities technology provides. For instance, the Internet can show students current innovations in society that can empower them to be a part of the constantly changing world around them. Furthermore, for teachers, technology opens up new ways to introduce learning concepts and offers teachers different perspectives, making them reflect on their teaching philosophies and styles.  

An ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for science or math education should address how concepts are applicable to real life situations. For instance, how is algebra used practically in life? Also, how was the scientific method used in the process of creating a computer? As a class, students will work collaboratively in these environments to generate answers to these questions and be able to apply what they have learned to real scenarios in society and the world. Connecting the relevance  and applicability to the knowledge will build students’ empowerment because the learning process is authentic.

Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective, (A report of the Second Information Technology in Education Study, Module 2). Eugene, OR: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, ISTE Publications.