I chose to analyze video cases 5 and 8. I chose these two cases because they were from elementary environments and compared the experience and perspectives of technology integration from a master teacher, a new teacher, a retiring teacher, and from pre-service teachers. As well the students could be observed and heard from as well. What was striking in in watching these videos is how perfectly they captured the reality and discourse that I have experienced and observed regarding technology integration in classrooms here in my own district.
There are three key issues that arise in all of the videos:
Time
Teacher Mindset
Student Centered Learning
Time
In the videos you could observe learning environments that were noisy, boisterous, and moving. Students were working in multiple areas of the classroom with a variety of materials including a blend of no-tech and high-tech. In case study 5 the teacher described a very flexible, risk taking environment where multiple outcomes and curricular areas needed to be included in these projects to make them worth the time. The students of case study 5 spoke to the degree that they were invested in the project and how much time they took. This time was seen as valuable, worthwhile and effective to the student learning having impacted understanding. There is no one right way to integrate technology into curriculum, technology is best suited to be creatively designed into subject matter and classroom contexts as could be observed in case study 5 (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013).
On the other side of the coin in case study 8 the pre-service teachers unanimously described the immense amount of time the stop motion project was taking to which all of them agreed that even if the technology was readily available to them in their classrooms they would not use it. Both the retired teacher and the new teacher from case study 5 described the reason for not integrating technology as being a lack of time both in the classroom as far as time for student learning, and out of the classroom for their own learning.
These observations about time left me with these questions:
What is a reasonable amount of time for teachers to engage in professional development for learning a new technology? Should self directed learning be expected?
By what measure are teachers determining they do have time for paper and pencil (or any other traditional tool), but do not have time for technology? If the outcomes or task haven’t changed, how can we base time on the tool we are using?
How can we effectively help teachers reframe or re-plan the task to allow for the time needed for technology integration?
Teacher Mindset
This was a clear theme in the videos. In all of the scenarios the classrooms had a similar make up of student demographic including large populations of ELL students. The teachers all have access to technology with no lack tangible resources or infrastructure (despite this being the case in many other school scenarios). The interviewer at one point asked the pre-service teachers in case study 8 if they would integrate technology if they had no limitations to access…they awkwardly responded no. What is surprising (or perhaps not so surprising) is that the retired teacher, and the new, and pre-service teachers all had similar mindsets. They were rigid in their thinking that they could not integrate technology. This decision was made with themselves in mind with no reference made to the needs of students. The teachers in these case studies spoke of lack of understanding due to professional development opportunities and teacher preparation courses. If we take the time to understand the constraints of how these technologies influence what teachers do or do not do in their classrooms we have the opportunity to rethink teacher education and teacher professional development. If we fail to do this we run the risk of teachers having and inadequate experience with technology for teaching and learning (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). Many teachers having not been educated in a digitally rich environment do not feel they are sufficiently prepared and do not appreciate or value technology as relevant to teaching and learning (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). We are battling the changing of mindsets instead of changing technology.
These observations about time left me with these questions:
Can teachers continue to claim that technology is optional?
What does effective professional learning look like for teachers who need to learn about technology integration in a classroom context?
Student Centered Learning
In the case 5 video with the master teacher she uses an excited and descriptive language regarding technology in her classroom that has very little to do with her or the technology itself. She speaks about student learning, the impact on engagement, and the positive effects in the classroom. The chaos, noise, time, failures and frustrations are all described as worth it. The teacher speaks of the student needs in their language acquisition and the opportunity to level the playing field of learning with their peers. In case study 8 the teacher share similar sentiments and extends this to the practicality of technology being able to extend the learning and do what the textbook could not. The learning. Plain and simple. The Learning and Technology Policy Framework from Alberta Education puts at the heart of the framework goal number one for technology integration and this is Student Centered Learning.
“Technology is used to support student-centred, personalized, authentic learning for all students” (Learning with Technology, 2015).
These observations about time left me with these questions:
How can we ensure that technology decisions are made based on student learning needs? Who should make these decisions?
How can we plan cross curricular activities that are authentic and use technology to enhance student learning?
How do we support the needs of the individual learner with technology?
Observing these case studies has inspired a direction for my own area of professional need and expertise focusing in teacher professional development to affect student centered learning.
References
Learning with Technology | Overview. (2015, September 23). Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/learning-with-technology/overview/
Koehler, M.J., Cain, W., & Mishra, P. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?
TPACK 101. (2014, July 14). Retrieved from http://www.matt-koehler.com/tpack-101/
Hi Trisha,
Thanks for a very insightful and in-depth analysis of the time, teacher mindset, and student-centred learning focus of the case studies. I was particularly interested in your questions regarding student-centred learning when I read your posts. Regarding question #2:
How can we plan cross curricular activities that are authentic and use technology to enhance student learning?
As elementary teachers, I think that we have an easier time of this, being responsible for all of the core subjects in homeroom. Collaboration with a team (at the same grade level or otherwise) is important for balancing new ideas and brainstorming, however we are the fortunate ones in this equation. I find that this can be an obstacle for many high school teachers, as they are often already under such pressure to deliver content and have their students ‘perform’, that it becomes difficult to think about effective ways to grasp concepts across subjects. This is what I hear from my colleagues, in any case. I think that regardless of the level you teach though, the issue you articulated at the beginning of your post (time) is key. Schools need to provide time for collaboration and brainstorming across curricula, so that these important ideas can become reality. Without time to explore and engage with colleagues, teachers will see this as an additional burden, which is such a shame.
Thanks again for your thoughts!
Amanda