Helping me frame my issue?  Ummm…

I approached my interview, to be honest, without a clear issue framed although I was interested in a few areas:

1)     Blended learning (connectivism)

2)    Pre-service teacher training and In-service PD

3)    Personalised learning

4)    Problem Based learning

5)    Visible Learning

As it turns out, these are very similar to the MA:L2 Unpacking Assumptions post I made entitled “5 key characteristics to good use of technology…”.  So to me my issue is that I have too many issues!  I framed my interview questions so that I would have a few directions to chose from- given that my current context is sorely lacking in the realm of modern educational technologies.  My interview questions generated responses that highlighted five areas: Equipment and Resources, Rate of Change, PD-Teacher training, Levelling the Playing Field and Pedagogy.

From this I have evolved my issue into a question:

• Can “Visible Learning” in the 21^st century Science classroom succeed without technology?  

                 OR                      

• Can technology facilitate differentiation effectively?

How is your understanding changing? 

My understanding of this issue is in flux.  Throughout the MET course I have believed that technology has the potential to enhance good teaching but as I near the end of my MET program I have a clearer vision that it can also amplify ‘bad’ teaching.  My interviewees recognized that technology is a tool “if it is used well the students are more focused and learn better, I mean if there is a teacher at the front holding a laptop it isn’t effective but with good and sufficient quantities of hardware/software the potential is huge, students will learn in a more contextual way and the scope is broader and online resources are great motivators”.  The teachers with whom we work have been habituated to teach from a text book and to teach to the test.  As we work to guide them in our education reform project towards a more  constructivist-style approach we identify that this has left them well out of their comfort zone.  They are beginning to plan lessons which include more aspects of constructivism including:  attention to the individual, facilitation of group dialogue, creation of cognitive conflict, provision for self reflection and opportunity to co-construct knowledge (Richardson, 2003).  However, they face huge challenges such as limited access to technology, technology training and quality pedagogical support.  Our daily contact with these educators demonstrates that a teacher’s own technical skills are not enough if the classroom practice does not effectively support meaningful learning based on constructivist theory (Sprague, D., & Dede, C. 1999).

I firmly believe that technology is just a tool to facilitate learning, but it is a powerful tool and it is ever-present in the lives of our students, extending their human capacity.  When technology is integrated effectively and authentically, learners begin to conceptualize knowledge in a different way and teachers supplement their teaching process, especially their metacognitive reflection.  Computer technology supplies learners and educators with unprecedented opportunities to transform the teaching and learning process, from exceptionally simple, common uses like researching to more sophisticated learning opportunities like collaborative Wikis.  Although freeware is minimizing the need for software purchases, internet access remains a threat to integration.  Integration of technology propagates a knowledge building community in the f2f classroom and in blended learning experiences; encouraging learners to collaborate to solve problems and be innovative but this integration requires a structured framework.

My interviewees also recognized that integration of technology is dependent upon the personal dedication of teachers and their ability to apply concrete pedagogical strategies.  As advisors, we are working to ensure that our schools support technology integration by also altering classrooms, upskilling pedagogy and ensuring the leadership team has a shared vision with the staff.  We have worked to provide meaningful integration of technology through provision of in-service days for technology workshops and a support group that includes technology leaders, a technology advisor, ICT teachers and technicians  in line with Keengwe, Pearson & Smart (2009) in order to increase our success rate.  We remain seriously IT deficient.

 

What more would you like to learn or know?

As in ‘what comes first- the chicken or the egg’ I aksed myself- “what comes first, the pedagogy or the technology’?  It is a difficult question to answer.  On the one hand, don’t we need to be good at teaching before we can be good at teaching with technology? (umm, yes!).  But alternatively, how can we become good at teaching with technology without technology to teach with?!  Therefore, the main thing I would like to learn more about is whether visible learning is possible without technology in the 21^st century science classroom?  Is an infused learning approach which would encapsulate the positive attributes of IT integration, progressive pedagogy and student collaboration the right direction?  Does this promote and enhance differentiation opportunities?  Are the benefits of blended learning such as affording synchronous and asynchronous interactions which allow more ‘think time’ and a more student centered approach worth it?

Although John Hattie (2003) who identifies five major dimensions of excellent teachers as being able to:

1. identify essential representations of their subject
2. guide learning through classroom interactions,
3. monitor learning and provide feedback
4. attend to affective attributes
5. influence student outcomes

does not highlight technology, I can see the potential for technology to support each component.  I would like to learn about his and other research on the benefits of ensuring visible learning and how this can enhance teaching/learning in the 21^st century science classroom.  I would also like to know if this supports differentiated learning in the science classroom.  I’d like to have some evidence to support my previous post that “technology is a medium, a tool, a motivator and an enabler for learners at any age level in any subject”.

 

 In what ways was your interview unique or similar to others?

My interview questions highlighted five areas which also surfaced in many of our CoLs interviews:

1)     Equipment and Resources

Both my interviewees highlighted that lack of hardware and software limited technology integration:  “Integrating IT is always a challenge, especially with lack of resources but the students enjoy it, they find it active and interactive…most challenges are to do with hardware, one laptop for 30 students just won’t do! and internet access, reliability of internet and also the teacher’s knowledge…” Whereas DP’s interviewee noted  “If I had ready access to all of these there would be so much that I could do in a science class. You know what? We do have most of this stuff. I guess it would be nice to have it here in my room all the time. To have it right here and pull it out when it makes sense to do so.”  Indicating that even when teachers have ‘access’ to the equipment it needs to be convenient in order for them to use it.

2)    Rate of Change

Both of my interviewees were concerned that the rate of change would be too quick ‘”the rate of change is too slow.  We know students learn better because they are more engaged with it… the engagement and the task specific software and the teacher using different programs and putting the preparation in, since that is key to quality teaching’ and “we must be careful not to put the equipment in to quickly with great expectations of integration, the teachers need exploration time and training to feel comfortable.”  Whereas my personal fear is that it is too slow in our schools!  DC’s interviewee expressed “I don’t often have enough time to learn how to use technology in the class, …sometimes, the equipments fail.” indicating that even if the hardware is there, the training and planning requires precious time.

3)    PD-Teacher training

I have always understood that for IT integration to work there needs to be quality in-service.  This is from my own personal experience.  My interviewers also expressed this as an issue “teachers must be trained to integrate” and also postulated that “then we train them up and they move on to another school…”   TW states “Providers of PD must also consider the comfort and skill level of individual instructors to provide meaningful and relevant opportunities:” because his interviewee stated “Like a classroom, everyone comes in with a different set of skills and comfort level…some of the teachers are from the typewriter age, myself included, others are well beyond that”.   Our PD needs to be targeted, personalized and differentiated just like our instruction for the students is required.  Where does that happen?!

4)    Levelling the Playing Field

My Primary advisor interviewee was adamant that technology had the potential to level the playing field when she said “it caters to those who aren’t pen n paper kids and gives them the opportunity to explore a range of different avenues”.  JDR cautions us not “’to throw the baby out with the bath water” to which I responded “As you said we have been using many successful learning strategies that work- and still work so we need to use them all.  I think because technology provides more options of how to learn (process) and how to show learning (product) we can differentiate to meet learning needs using technology and this makes the learning accessible to all students so they can achieve the success criteria.”

5)    Pedagogy

We all believe that effective pedagogical strategies mean lead to good teaching.  My interviewee said “technology has to change the pedagogical approach to teaching because … it is becoming more student centered as the students apply these skills to use the programs”.  I believe she is indicating that the use of technology promotes more learner-centered learning experiences.  ML interviewed “Fred” who said when he “was first asked about how he evaluated the effectiveness of the technology use in his classroom he initially found it difficult to answer. He was reminded he earlier had made a judgment about beginner physics students being better served by traditional technology than electronic gadgets. He said he was really unsure how he decided what was effective and what was not, that sometimes “it just felt right”. He also pointed out he did not have the time to do any comparative research himself on the effectiveness of technology.”  I think Fred’s reflection should cause us all to stop and consider IT integration- how do we know if it is effective or not?

 

References

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference what is the research evidence. Informally published manuscript, University of Auckland, Auckland Australia, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2003_Hattie_TeachersMakeADifference.pdf

Keengwe, J. (2005). Computer technology in the Classroom: Overcoming challenges and enhancing opportunities for successful integration of technology in instruction. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 1438-1441). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Keengwe, J. & Lawson-Body, A. (2009). Technology and Net Generation Students: Creating the Right balance. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 1905-1907). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.  Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/30897.

Keengwe, J., Pearson, D., & Smart, K. (2009).  Technology Integration:  Mobile Devices (iPods), Constructivist Pedagogy, and Student Learning.  AACEJ, 17 (4) pp.333-346.

Mayrberger, K. (2004). ‘New learning’ with ICT in Primary School? – A Constructivist Orientated Learning Environment from a Structuralist Point of View. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004 (pp. 2678-2683). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.  Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/12832.

Richardson, V. (2003).  Constructivist Pedagogy.  Teachers College Record, 105 (9), pp1623-1640.

Sprague, D., & Dede, C. (1999).  Constructivism in the classroom:  If I teach this way, am I doing my job?  Learning and Leading with Technology, 27 (1), 6-9.