Category Archives: B. Design of TELEs

Rocket Fuel for Potential

Design of TELEs

The idea of technology as a carpenter’s tools meshes very well with my ideas of what technology is. I envision a world where getting a master’s in Educational Technology would sound as silly as getting a master’s in “Writing Implements.” They are both tools that are useful for inspiring ways of thinking of and for recording the thoughts, plans, and dreams of students. The largest difference is that educational technology has the ability to expand a student’s potential and allows them to accomplish things that they before could only think about doing.

For these reasons, if I were to make my own analogy for technology, it would be something along the lines of supercharged fuel. It works in the same types of systems, but it pushes the potential of what is possible and unlocks the true potential that was always there. This definition of technology also is broad enough to include whatever is used to help the students to reach their potential. This distinction of keeping the focus on the students is vital to me, as it continues to keep all instruction and efforts student focuses and centric.

As designers of learning environments, it is our job to continue to expand what students believe they are capable of. I believe that we do our students a disservice when we simply teach the same way we always have been taught. Rather than push the agenda of standards, we would better serve our students if we focused on skills. Skills are the pieces that can be applied to any project and make for success in the future. Technology is one way in which those skills can be utilized, but the emphasis should be on the cultivation of talents and mechanisms that set students up for success. A student who knows how to communicate, collaborate, think critically, and be creative is going to go much further in a rapidly progressing world than one who simply can get correct answers. Learning environments need to adapt more to accommodate and recognize this type of learning if our students are to see the true potential that they each have, and how that intelligence multiplies when they rely on their collective intelligence.

-Jonathan-

From Compliant to Impassioned

Muffoletto (1994) emphasizes that “technology is not a collection of machines and devices, but a way of acting.” Currently, there is no shortage of technology enhanced learning experiences (TELEs) that help to engage students in different ways of acting. As Trotter (1998) argues, the presence of technology does not automatically create better educational outcomes, it depends on how we engage students with technology. There are a number of frameworks for technology integration and learning objectives, but not many on student engagement. Teachers often identify student excitement with effective engagement, unfortunately that assumption can be misguided. Perhaps a better way forward is to attempt to create a framework for engagement. Below is a visualization of a framework adapted from Beairsto (2010) that attempts to identify engagement as a continuum:

In relation to technology, an “interested” level of engagement is characteristic of many game-based technologies that simply turn learning into a consumption event. At a higher “impassioned” level of engagement, student learning is transformative, self-driven and self-sustaining; this level is characteristic of many cases were students turn class projects into successful companies.

This may sound crazy, but if I were to design a technology enhanced learning experience, I would aim to challenge the student(s) with a real world problem of personal importance. The “way of acting” would employ any technology tool that helps the student solve the problem, and include a goal for the solution to be widely used beyond the school environment.

Beairsto, B. (2010). Engagement in learning: Finding the depth beyond diligence. Retrieved from https://tc2.ca/uploads/PDFs/Critical%20Discussions/engagement_in_learning.pdf.

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

Trotter, A. (Ed.) (1998). Technology counts 1998: Putting school technology to the test (special report). Education Week, 18(5).

Ideal Definitions & Reality-Based Designs

My most appealing technology metaphors from the list are Jonassen’s idea of technology being something students learn with rather than from. His concept of “Mindtools” as a category of technology which supports this meaning-making truly resonated with me. My unspoken definition of “technology” places an emphasis on the rich potential of the tool to enhance student exploration, creation, communication, and collaboration in our perpetual quest for deeply connected “learning”. Dede’s notion that technology includes interactive media which are “tools in service of richer curricula…” accurately describes many of the examples I would have chosen to illustrate what pedagogically-minded technologies might look like.

Ideally, the designers of the learning experience should also be the deliverers of those very same experiences, so that their TELEs can be crafted to cater to the unique (and changing!) affordances and constraints of a real group of children in a real place, rather than a one-size-fits-all plan or program. When otherwise, designers should be required to pilot their designs as the only adult in actual classrooms from several different socioeconomic neighbourhoods before marketing their products or handing down their initiatives. In other words, how would I design a TELE? It depends!

Design of TELEs and Flexible Seating

According to David Jonassen (2000), “students [do not] learn from computers or teachers-which has been a traditional assumption of most schooling… students learn from thinking in meaningful ways.” This idea supports the new BC curriculum that encourages teachers to provide students with opportunities to creatively and critically think, as well as to collaborate and communicate with their peers. Our math and science (actually ALL!) learning spaces need to provide students with a variety of areas that contain flexible seating, as well as tools that encourage students to think critically. The reason for providing choice is because not all students learn in the same way. Some students would prefer to stand, others sitting on the floor, others need to fidget and still some of our learners prefer desks and chairs. Students should have the freedom to move between these workstations freely (as long as they can handle this responsibility). Since many teachers are moving away from doing whole class lessons, students need areas to work on exploratory activities in small groups. The designer of these spaces should ensure that they contain a variety of technology tools (VR, iPads, laptops, 3D printers, etc.) and seating choices (hokki stools, tables, couches, rugs, standing desks, etc.). All of the materials, tools and furniture in the room should moveable so that it’s easy to create different learning areas, depending on the activities the students are engaging in.

This is would be the ideal classroom that I would teach in. I could change the room around based on my students’ needs, learning styles and curriculum activities. The problem is that many districts do not have a large budget for furniture and/or technology. How do we convince our districts of the importance of flexible seating and variety of technology tools?

Can we design learning spaces like playgrounds?

“Technology is us” (Roblyer, 2012) – this is a definition I find provoking, yet also inspiring. Technology is not just a tool separate from me, where I can decide to use I or not. Instead, technology is an inherent part of my acting as a teacher.

I agree that there is no inherent value in technology itself. Instead, the value of technology lays in enhancing teaching (Lapowski, 2015). The AECT definition on educational technology confirms that technology is not just a tool, but “practice”: “Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Hlynka, 2009).

We are teachers, thus we are designers of learning experiences. In this role, we design learning opportunities that facilitate student learning. From a constructivist point of view, we have to construct learning spaces that allow students to construct new knowledge. So a double constructivism here!

For me, design of learning spaces is like designing a playground: A playground offers a lot of opportunities of running, climbing, playing, sitting … the kid can choose which tool they want to play with and with whom, they know best which tool is challenging for them and which tool would be boring. The idea came to me when looking out of my window – there is a new and wonderful playground there, and I found it quite fascinating to think about learning opportunities in comparison to this playground.

Technology-enhanced learning spaces should be like that – rich, motivating, challenging, engaging, colorful, social, collaborative, adaptive – and fun.

P.S. The idea of “digital playground” has been also expressed by others, e.g. (Chen, 2012) wrote that it is possible to “create a playground with digital technology beneficial for learning”. So it is not solely my idea J

Who else thought about learning opportunities as “playgrounds”?

Image: Learning spaces should be like playgrounds:
http://www.creativerec.com/our-products/playground-equipment/

References:

Chen, G.W., Chuang, C.-K., Liu, T.-C. When a Classroom Is Not Just a Classroom: Building Digital Playgrounds in the Classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, v11 n1 p202-211 Jan 2012

Hlynka, D. & Jacobsen, M. (2009). What is educational technology, anyway? A commentary on the new AECT definition of the field. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 35(2). https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26395/19577

Lapowski, I. (2015). Inside the School Silicon Valley Thinks Will Save Education. https://www.wired.com/2015/05/altschool/

Roblyer, M.D. & Doering, A. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching, (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Begin with the end in mind

Intellectual engagement asks what cognitive task students are engaged in, what are they thinking about while completing the work? I identified with Jonassen who states that students should be creating with technology rather than consuming from it (p41). I think that digital tools allow for cognitive engagement beyond the mechanics of completing the task. Designing learning experiences with the end in mind is essential when developing technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs). If the teacher begins with the outcomes in mind and has a clear idea of how the task will move students toward achieving the learning outcome then the learning experience should be successful.

I think in an ideal learning environment, each learner is working independently towards their own learning goals where the learning of math and science goes beyond the memorization of fact to the application of the learning to a context. Students are provided with feedback related to their learning in short cycles to ensure students are developing accurate conceptions. Learners in technology-supported learning environments work collaboratively to construct understanding together that is greater than the sum of all the parts.

Teachers and learners must plan with the learning goals in mind and be able to identify success criteria.

I think that a TELE allows the learner to become a little bit “untethered” from the instructor a little in that they have the ability to move more at their own pace as the classroom becomes more dynamic. In a traditional classroom the learner is reliant on the teacher for knowledge but I think a technology-enhanced environment allows students more agency in their learning.

Jonassen, D. (1995). Computers as Cognitive Tools/ Learning with Technology Not From Technoloy. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. Vol 6(2) 40-73

Clarity and Cohesion

Designers of learning experiences should be examining what the overall objective(s) of that learning experience is supposed to be. Then determine what is the best way (depending on the audience, amount of time, budget, etc) to assess the learners achievement of that objective(s). Once appropriate assessment has been designed then the collection of resources, materials, activities, etc should be collected and presented to learners in a way that they can logically work through the material AND see the connection to the overall goal. Designing in this way is called backward design and is informed by understanding by design theory and focuses on learner outcomes first (Wiggins, 2005). This methodology is particularly good in TELE’s as it helps the designer ignore technology tools that are all flash and no substance and rather identify the technologies that will help students achieve the outcomes successfully.

I apply this methodology when working with faculty in the design of their online courses. We focus on the outcomes and how we can measure their achievement first before looking at what technology will be used to support the learning. I found that this has helped to keep the student at the centre of the the learning design. When I find a tech tool that I like the look of I first examine my learning objectives (LO’s) to see if it makes sense to employ this tool in my design.

Excellent description and example of backward design

Wiggins, G, McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding By Design 2nd Expanded Edition. ASCD. Alexandria, VA.

Transdisciplinary approaches

Jonassen’s (2000) definition appealed to me the most, because it reiterates the role of the teacher as the facilitator, and the students as the enablers of their own learning experiences. Student agency and collaborative constructivist experiences are at the core of his ideal classroom setting, and I tend to agree with that approach. He writes that, “[S]tudents learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers”. The conceptual knowledge facilitated by technology that would otherwise be unattainable or difficult to visualize is the catalyst for project-based inquiries to explore; thinking and learning from the modelling, processing, refining, and iteration involved in TELEs are what make the experience enriching.

Designers should create spaces with the idea of flexible learning spaces in mind. Though maths and science are typically thought of as specific subjects with specific content knowledge, flexible environments and transdisciplinary approaches (like STEM/STEAM) help students see connections across the curriculum and more importantly, as problems to solve in the real world. Change should always be anticipated, and opportunities to work across traditional ‘subjects’ should be welcomed as a transformation that allows students to see math and science as more than concepts in neat boxes, where they are applications to real world issues.

A way of acting

Technology definition

I immediately connected with Robert Muffoletto’s definition of technology. A common misconception is that technology is simply machines and that the latest gadgets will themselves reform education. Instead, I like his idea that technology is a “way of acting.” Technology is not just one thing but a combination of solving problems through all the tools that we are able to use. Sometimes, this means using the most current tools. The most modern technology is not, however, always the answer. I like how Muffoletto’s definition of technology thinks about the processes involved with finding solutions to educational needs.

Technology-enhanced learning experience

Before one can design a technology-enhanced learning experience (TELE) one must understand what the end goal is. Is it specific content knowledge? Is it a particular skill set? Or is it a combination of the two? You can’t effectively design a TELE until you have defined specific goals. I also believe one of the main benefits of a TELE is the collaboration opportunities and would therefore make this high on my priority list when designing. Additionally, I would hope to be able to design with more differentiation and individualized learning paths in mind.

Layers of Opportunities

One of my favourite quotes is from John Dewey in 1915. He said “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow”. This idea has been true since the early 1900s and it continues to resonate in the design of learning experiences. When I think about designing learning experiences for all learners, what do I envision? I created a word cloud that helped me begin.

I believe that TELEs should foster learning and growth of new content and tools. Learners should be questioning, collaborating, evaluating, and building their skillset. It must be around a topic/content that they value or believe is important so that they are actively engaged. Lee and Choi’s (2017) research on higher-order thinking in technology enhanced learning environments helped develop my thinking and understanding of what I truly value. One of their ideas adds another dimension to TELEs to strengthen the experience; Lee and Choi explain that synthesizing information to arrive at multiple solutions is a critical component of higher-order thinking (Lee & Choi, 2017, p. 144). Technology-enhanced learning experiences should be layered with many opportunities that require learners to develop their skills and build knowledge in authentic contexts.

Lee, J., & Choi, H. (2017). What affects learner’s higher-order thinking in technology-enhanced learning environments? The effects of learner factors. Computers & Education, 115, 143-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.015