Now, we would like you to conduct an initial assessment of the context in which you have experience as a teacher. You can use either the Seven Principles, SECTIONS or Nel, Dreyer and Carstens’ division into primary or secondary criteria for this analysis. Use whichever framework “speaks to you” more. “Speaks to you” here means whichever framework created a stronger reaction within you.
Choose one or two elements and briefly describe how your context looks in relation to the questions and issues raised by the framework or approach. Pick elements that are most meaningful to you (you don’t need to be comprehensive). Some of the elements in the frameworks focus on pedagogical/academic issues and some focus on organizational/environmental issues. Both types of issues have some bearing on the type of success people have in implementing learning technologies.
For this initial assessment of my experiences of as a teacher, Bates’ SECTIONS model resonated more with me. I have been a Visual Arts teacher for the past 14 years and have worked at making my curriculum relevant to the experiences my students would have in both a post-secondary education and in a work-place environment. To that end I have integrated various technologies into my learning to give my students experience using these technologies, but I have also attempted to model how these technologies can be used through my own teaching and learning.
More recently, my career has turned toward Ed. Tech on a school level and I have worked at integrating technology on a school-wide level. To this end, I have developed P.D. sessions for teachers and students and created a 1:1 iPad program for our junior school. As a result of these newer experiences, the Bates’ SECTIONS framework speaks to me differently then it would have a few years ago. My experiences working with teachers, budgets, administration and parents have made me think about which pieces of technology are a benefit to learning and how that technology should be introduced into a learning environment.
Ease of Use:
When considering the integration of educational technology into the classroom our focus is typically on the end user – the student. We focus on questions like: Will our students have access? What are the expectations of student use? What types of students do we teach? What sometimes gets overlooked is the types of teachers we have. What is the culture of the school? Is it an environment that promote learning within its teachers – does it support these types of initiatives by offering PD sessions and opportunities to work hands-on with the technology before integration. IS the opinion of staff valued? Are all staff included or just a select few?
Through various MET courses and my own experiences I have come to realize that the appropriate educational technology for a school is very dependent on the culture of a school and its teachers. Ease of Use can be one of the factors that influences a teachers reaction to a piece of technology. Many teachers assume (rightly or wrongly) that their students are more familiar/comfortable with technology then they are. This can create an atmosphere of apprehension amongst staff that are unfamiliar with technology. Ease of use and reliability go a long way in relaxing staff that have technology issues. In addition, there is a section of staff that do not see the value in educational technology (I have come to learn that this has nothing to do with age). It is imperative to the success of an integration that these staff members feel included and that they feel their concerns have been taken into consideration.
Teaching Functions
Before I took on a leadership role at my school with regards to Ed. Tech., my school invested tens of thousands of dollars in SMART Boards and Smart software products. Administration was convinced that the SMART Board was a piece of technology that every teacher wanted and should have. The result of this venture, the removal of most boards after a 3 year period. While the interactive whiteboard is a great product and has a lot of educational value, what administration failed to understand is that it ran contrary to the way that most of the staff teaches. It was not an easy piece of technology to navigate (required its own software to run properly, etc.) and seems to work better for small group instruction rather then large classroom scenarios. To this end, we have a small portion of our staff who use interactive whiteboards, while a vast majority have asked that the boards be removed from the classroom.
Understanding the pedagogical affordances of the media is of paramount importance when considering any piece of technology. As previously mentioned, I have started a 1:1 iPad program for our grade 7 and 8 students. When considering the iPad we went through a two year trial period where we first demoed 3 different devices and then a full academic year pilot with one specific group of students. Then entire time we were developing curriculum and policies and assessing whether or not the iPad met our academic and pedagogical goals. Meetings were held with students, teachers, administrators and parents to discuss the program, the intended goals of the program and why the iPad was the best piece of technology to meet those goals. The time taken has resulted in a very successful program which just began its 4th year. Currently we have 250 students using iPads and all staff have since been given a device as well. Currently I am in the process of beginning a similar program for our senior school students. This time the focus has been on a laptop (more of a BYOD style program with very specific requirements).