Category Archives: B. Design of TELEs

The definition of technology provided by Roblyer (2012) resonated with me the most.  Technology is defined as “us- our tools, our methods, and our creative attempts to solve problems in our environment”.  It is the tools that we use to engage our students and enhance their learning experiences.  Technology is more than just a computer, ipad or other digital tools; it is also a pencil, blocks and other tangible items that students use to solve a problem.  At times, these methods and the necessary tool are obvious (a calculator for a math problem) and other times it requires the imagination of our students (creating a raft out of pipe cleaners, popsicle sticks and clay).

As educators, our role is to provide students with the tools and background knowledge necessary for them to utilize these tools.  It is then the student’s responsibility to take the tool, information and connect this with their learned experiences to solve a presented problem.  This is accomplished through student-centered, project based, collaborative learning opportunities where students are engaged and passionate about the learning. Furthermore, technology is best utilized when it allows students to explore questions beyond the walls of the classroom and they are able to apply real life skills to a problem.

Shayla

Overclocking Learning 

Of the different definitions we looked at, the one that I could connect with the most was Chris Dede as he agreed with Trotter (1988).

Chris Dede, in his forward to Robert Kozma (2003) agrees with Trotter (1998) that technology is not a “vitamin” whose mere presence in schools catalyzes better educational outcomes; nor are new media just another subject in the curriculum, suited primarily for teaching technical literacy….Instead, 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).

I find this to be an accurate and spot-on definition largely based on my experience with teaching. I started teaching right after our district got Smartboards in all of their classrooms. I have always been interested in computers and enjoy figuring them out, so I found that my way of doing things easily embraced the Smartboard. However, a number of teachers that I worked with really struggled with the transition. The talk in the staffroom was often “these new whiteboard things are useless. My kids grades aren’t going up at all and they still need to be erased.”  

Some of these teachers had misunderstood the purpose of these boards. They thought they were going to magically improve student achievement, almost like a plug-and-play grades-improver. When Chris Dede emphasized that they aren’t just some vitamin, I get that. He goes on to explain how technology provides the opportunity for deeper, enhanced learning opportunities. 

I completely agree with this, and see it very similar to overclocking a computer. For the unfamiliar, overclocking is when you make a computer processor run at a faster speed than originally intended. This would be somewhat similar to putting an aftermarket exhaust on a car. In making the processor run faster you are able to more quickly run programs, and often you are able to run new programs that your computer previously couldn’t handle. By enhancing a learning environment with technology, we should be able to communicate complicated concepts more quickly and effectively. Ultimately, achieving more meaningful or deeper levels of learning. 

Take the example of teaching about the atom. For many years it was merely a picture on a piece of paper. Today you can easily throw a 3d interactive model up and lets students move throughout an atom. Looking at the nucleus from afar, and then zooming in on the nucleus and watching the electrons orbit around. 

What once took a significant amount of time for students to picture in their mind is now done almost instantly, and rather painlessly. Much akin to overclocking a computer, previous ways of learning can be done faster, more complicated concepts can be tackled, but the learning environment is not turned completely upside down. ​

Feenburg’s definition of technology is what resonated the most with me. I think calling technology “the medium of daily life in modern societies” is the most appropriate definition of technology since technology really is the medium of our daily lives. From the moment, we wake up in the morning with an alarm clock or phone ringing by our bedside to the time we go to bed at night reading a book on our iPad or replying to emails on our computer, technology has become the medium of our daily lives. For an educator, technology is the “future” that has become the “present” for us. Both of my parents being educators, I always overheard things such as, “I wish we could keep a record of each step a student takes to get to the solution without having to do one-on-one interviews with them”. And then they would say to each other, “maybe in the “future” when there is better technology”. Now is the “future” they all had been waiting for. A student can be a part of an online workplace where they will have to justify each step they take in order to get to the solution that the teacher will have access to. Technology has done groundbreaking work when it comes to teachers being able to read a child’s mind and see where the learning gaps are. Therefore, technology is not only “the medium of daily life” but it is the irreplaceable medium of daily life in modern societies.

Designers of learning experiences should first of all be aware of what do students struggle with the most in a classroom. Students that struggle with staying focused on a task in a classroom will have a different design of TELE whereas; if a class is full of well-behaved students and requires help with students being able to get a deeper understanding of concepts, that will require a different design of TELE. My design of TELE would include testing students’ ability to use the given technology and only if all students are comfortable, then adding that to my design of TELE. I would also make sure that my design of TELE is not being forced on each student. Every student learns in a different way and perhaps the technology-enhanced learning experience may not be the best way to learn a concept for every student. My design for TELE will include an option where students are given the choice to either use TELE or learn the way they feel that is most useful for them.

There is one absolute that we can all agree upon in education, that we as educators are in the business of preparing students for their future. There is also one absolute that we all disagree on, what exactly that future is and what students will need to know. The scary part of this entire debate is that our reality is preparing students for a future that is in motion using curriculum and pedagogy frozen in time. We have to realize that we are living in a “postFordism” world where we have to examine our responsibility as educators to consider the implications of what we do in our classrooms to ensure our students are adequately prepared for a productive life (The New London Group, 1996). We need to look at the design of our learning environments and ask ourselves if we are creating a space that is for student centered creativity.

A technology enhanced learning environment allows for a individualized and flexible learning experience. It is essential that in our design we break down the faceless learning machine to have a personalized approach that is built upon the students as individuals. More than students consuming content that was created for a “one size fits all” learning environment, technology allows for learning to become co-created, interactive, and flexible to the current ability, reality, and context of the student. Instead of planning tasks that are simply technological extensions of everyday traditional paper and pencil teaching, we can swim into the deep end of SAMR with a redefinition of what the students are doing and why. Learning that is purposeful, creative, and fits into the real lives of the students. This notion of technology enhanced learning reflects what Jonassen described in his definition of students learning WITH not FROM technology (2000).

My image I created reflects the 4 key areas of my TELE with the balled up paper in the center to represent going back to the drawing board of what we know about learning then…to what we know about learning now.

References

Burvall, A., & Ryder, D. (2017). Intention: Critical Creativity in the Classroom. EdTechTeam Press.

Keeler, A., Herrington, D., & Boaler, J. (2017). Teaching Math with Google apps: 50 g suite activities. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting.

Learning with Technology  |  Overview. (2015, September 23). Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/learning-with-technology/overview/

Puentedura, R. (2018). SAMR and TPCK: A Hands-On Approach to Classroom Practice. [online] Ruben R. Puentedura’s Weblog. Available at: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/12/11/SAMRandTPCK_HandsOnApproachClassroomPractice.pdf [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

The New London Group. (1996) “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies:Designing Social Futures.”  Harvard Educational Review 66(1), pp. 60-92.

Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2016). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. NY, NY: Penguin Books.

Syvertsen, J., & Pigozzi, A. O. D. W. (2010). The third teacher: 79 ways you can use design to transform teaching & learning. Abrams.

I see technology, from an educational perspective, as a set of tools to enhance the learning experience of students. When used properly it can literally transform thinking in meaningful ways. It provides an opportunity to view a problem or product in a variety of ways that can promote deeper thinking.

Jonassen (2000) used the term “mind tools” to refer to tools that construct knowledge, rather than just disseminate information to individuals. To me, this is idea is crucial to creating the ideal Technology-enhanced Learning experience

When any teacher seeks to use technology I would argue they must do so with the purpose of creating opportunities for growth in students. The act of creating can have profound impacts on a learner and this is no different when we talk about technology. Transformation occurs when creation occurs because of the personal meaning attached to the product created. When designing a teacher must prioritize having the most engaging physical space and environment possible to facilitate such opportunities. Proper use of technology moves beyond interaction to a role far more important and impactful on the learner. 

I would also say that to achieve the goal of facilitating creators through technology we need to constantly evaluate the needs of teachers in professional development and ensure these opportunities are being given.

The definition of technology that stood out for me was Jonassen (2000) definition. Specifically, these parts:

” [S]tudents learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers. He believes that technology can support meaning making by students and that this happens when students learn with rather than from technology.”

“Mindtools include digital tools that support knowledge construction, exploration, learning by doing, learning by conversing, and learning by reflecting.”

I believe that students need to collaborate and explore to construct meaning. Experiences should be connected to real world issues and be meaningful to the students. I also see technology being used a tool to assist students with their learning and it should enhance their overall learning experience. Science can be explored through using virtual reality (VR) environments to learn about various units. For example, if the Science unit was on Body Systems, students would be able to virtually explore the systems and have real-life experiences by using a VR system. This enhances the students overall learning experience rather than looking at the body systems in a textbook.  It provides them with a visual learning experience where they can explore, inquire and ask questions, which is great for all learners as sometimes opportunities of going into a lab is not available at elementary level. It’s also important to provide students opportunities to explore their own inquiries and collaborate with their peers. Passion-based learning would be part of this as it allows students to be critical thinkers, engage with one another and ask questions.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85. doi:10.1007/BF02300500

I am currently finished revising my resume and cover letter, which includes my teaching philosophy. Moreover, it includes my technology philosophy, as there are countless reasons why technology is a key aspect of learning in today’s schools. I found that David Jonassen definition of technology to be similar to my own philosophy, where teachers should focus on being a facilitator of knowledge, and the technology helps the educator to specialize individual instruction. Furthermore, I believe technology will allow the learner to be involved in student-centred and project-based learning, which contributes to students to apply problem-solving and critical thinking skills.

As a special education teacher, Technology-Enhanced Learning Experiences (TELEs) should involve scaffolding knowledge for students with diverse needs and the technology is there to help the students complete tasks and bypass an area of difficulty. For instance, assistive technology tools such as Read&Write for Google empowers students to be more independent learners without the presence of their teacher and enhances the opportunity to be equal contributors with their peers.

Several of the definitions of “Technology” offered to us in Module B resonated with me, with Jonassen‘s perspective being perhaps the one that aligns most strongly with my current views. Specifically, Jonassen’s suggestion that “students learn from thinking in meaningful ways” which is “engaged by activities which can be fostered by computers or teachers”, forms a good foundation for how I would/will approach the design of a TELE.

Math and science should be taught with digital tech tools precisely because these tools allow students learning opportunities that would be otherwise impossible to experience. I suppose I wear some constructivist and collaborative learning ideals on my sleeve here, as I believe knowledge is best constructed from the inside-out, as well as through collaboration with others. Tech incorporated into, say, Project-Based Learning assignments, grounded in real-world issues, could allow STEM topics to extend outside the walls of classrooms and become enhanced by leveraging digital collaboration spaces. Put simply, students could collaborate asynchronously through Google Docs to share ideas. This collaboration could even be extended to schools across the world, with all classrooms working toward a common goal. The point is that students are working together and are engaged in meaning-making. If students are allowed choice in the topic(s) they pursue, and how to pursue them, then that simply adds to the level of “buy-in” of the student.

Other carefully-selected digital tools can, of course, be leveraged by students throughout the project. In this case a particular tool would not be selected with the student being directly taught how to use the tool. Instead, the student would perhaps be given a selection of tools that could be useful for their project, and they would learn to use the tool through practical application towards reaching a project-related goal. For example, if they are trying to solve a tricky problem that naturally involves solving equations, Desmos could be offered as one method of solving their problem. In short, they would “learn with rather than from technology”.

So, to answer this week’s two questions:

1) What do you think designers of learning experiences should do?

Provide students with a chance to engage in meaning-making by:

1. allowing student choice in problems to solve,the approach taken to solve them and the tools used to help them do so,
2. incorporating opportunities for synchronous and/or asynchronous collaboration, and
3. being aware of the context of the learning environment (“know your students”) and design with a goal in mind to allow for more personalized learning experiences based on real-world issues that are meaningful to the student.

I think that basically covers my philosophy… although I’m sure I’ll end up adding to it in the coming weeks 🙂

2) How would you design a technology-enhanced learning experience?

By trying to meet the three standards I set above!

-Scott

I was taken by Muffoletto’s (1994) observation that technology is “not a collection of machines and devices, but a way of acting.”  While I would argue that the collection of machines and devices is one component of technology, two equally important components of technology are the user and the interaction between the user and the device.  I postulate that the design of an effective technology-enhanced learning environment should consider not only what information and applications the technologies offer but also how the user will engage with the educational technology.  

An effective TELE should engage and inspire student learning.  It should rely on a variety of media (text, images, simulations, and video) to convey information in manageable and differentiated chunks of information.  The educational technology should emphasize generative learning by anchoring the information to real-world and meaningful contexts.  The technology should encourage the student to think, argue and reflect by engaging the students with important complex problems.  The student should not be left with the impression that the technology is the bearer of all knowledge of which they, the student, need to somehow absorb.  Rather, the student should feel actively involved in the construction of knowledge and given opportunities to practice expressing and refining their point of view.  Finally, a well designed TELE should support both synchronous and asynchronous collaboration between students so that a rich learning community is established.

Roblyer (2012) argues that each teacher must assume the role of “scriptwriter” and plan for all contingencies.  I worry that this view might limit the potential for learning within a learning environment.  While a teacher should create learning guidelines and behavioral expectations for students to follow, Roblyer’s “script”, in my mind, should not dictate how and exactly what students learn but rather, it should guide students through their learning process.

Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching.

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