Important takeaways from Module B:
- Visualization is seen throughout all 4 TELEs. One of the essential affordances of technology is the ability to use visual images, modeling and simulation to enhance learning. In fact, some aspects of the Bloom’s Taxonomy are included in each of the TELEs which creates differentiated learning environments for students to become independent thinkers.
- All 4 TELEs focus on the importance of “real-life” inquiry. The education ministry in Alberta is redesigning their curricula across the board, as some components date back as far as 1996. There is no doubt the new curricula will include learning outcomes related to digital technologies and a greater focus on student-centred learning. School divisions will need to focus on opportunities for students to practice and apply their knowledge in real-world scenarios, while at the same time using 21st-Century production tools, software and techniques in demonstrating their learning and expressing their ideas.
- Constructivism is built in each of the TELEs. Modern educators today are creating constructivist learning environments where learners are engaged in meaningful interactions. All the while the TELEs use Vygotsky’s theoretical framework and zone of proximal development to construct lessons and activities to meet the specific needs of their students (Vygotsky, L. S. 1980).
- As an elementary teacher, I found most TELEs approaches were more adequate for higher grades. With that being said, there still is a need for younger students to have opportunities to modify and evaluate simulations and technological applications.
In closing, all four TELEs strive to create an environment that promotes learning from an inquiry pedagogical perspective as technology is not a stand-alone commodity. Rather it becomes a meaningful tool to support more profound understanding. More importantly, technology integration should help teachers to prepare their students for the world they live in and to adopt technology-enhanced learning environments that will surely be part of their future world.
References
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning‐for‐use: A framework for the design of technology‐supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Hi Mary!
What a fantastic post and visual to represent all four approaches. I really appreciated how to incorporated the TPACK framework into each approach. I believe that it really depicts how technology is incorporated into each approach; however, there is always a purpose for it. That was something that I appreciated throughout this entire Module was that each set of readings provided an approach that was useable in the classroom and demonstrated technology being used in a way that was beneficial to the students.
As you had also stated, as an elementary teacher a lot of these approaches seemed to fit those in high grades. Is there one in particular that you felt could be easily altered to meet the needs of younger students?
Shayla
Hello Shayla,
I have gravitated to each of your postings because I found the particular approaches did not lend itself to elementary settings. I appreciate your perspectives and I find your thoughts to be insightful and thought-provoking.
I believe Lfu, would be best suited for an elementary setting. As the 3 main principles; motivation, construction of knowledge and refinement of thinking are essential components of any dynamic classroom.
You hit the nail on the head, technology should be used to benefit the learning for the students.
~Mary
Mary,
Your chart is outstanding! I am so impressed and would like to keep it with your permission. As Shayla acknowledged, your inclusion of TPACK characteristics was insightful and helpful. It led me to think about how many decisions teachers are making before the TELE reaches students and without students. How many of these decisions do we make too early? How many should we not be making at all? These questions are somewhat rhetorical but if you are interested in weighing in, please do!
Hello Allison,
I appreciate your positive feedback. I just recently wrote a paper investigating the current theories that support Education Professional “for teachers” in terms of understanding technology integration. Padmavathi, M. (2016) argued that there are “two crucial tasks are ahead for teachers hoping to effectively achieving use TPACK: (a) updating themselves with new technologies, and (b) change in the method of delivering the content with the use of newly emerging technologies” (p. 6). Not sure this answered your questions. If anything, I was captivated by Padmavathi, M. article as it is fairly current, I recommend it.
Padmavathi, M. (2016). Preparing Teachers for Technology Based Teaching-Learning Using TPACK. Journal On School Educational Technology, 12(3), 1-9.
Thanks, Mary! I’ll check it out!