Educational Technology

Starting another journey

Tag: #edci571assignment

Totally Batty

October 12, 2019 /

Photo by Geoff Brooks on Unsplash

No, this picture is not because of the upcoming holiday. This is a reflection of what I become after reading academic articles discussing trends or studies in educational technology. Reading published articles which were three years in the making that just confirm what I have already experienced as a professional and which do not provide any potential solutions or concrete ideas on how to move forwards, drives me batty.

Faune, Leanne and Rochelle read articles on curricular challenges of the twenty-first century from the “Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education”. What struck me the most about their written presentation is the twitter feed information on their report and the teacher “strike” in their video. Teachers are looking for help, are overwhelmed, and their best resources include tweets and blogs by other educators. These resources cannot be organized in a easily searchable manner. Yes, Tweetdeck and Feedly will organize it somewhat, but there is no “bookmarking” or search engine other than scrolling through masses of information to find the kernels that will suit your situation. A great project would be to spend hours collecting a resource list on a particular area (and I think this is where many of us will be going) to share out to teachers. Part of the problem with this type of resource is the continued availability of the site or the technology that will support the exercise, as I have already found out.

“error 404”by Magnet 4 Marketing dot Net is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

 

Heidi, Lawrence, RenĂ© and Dale looked at the section on The Learner and the Learner Process. “Deep, dive into the obvious” for professionals for sure! I have no idea how Heidi, Lawrence, RenĂ© and Dale managed to force themselves to read their articles because I had difficulty just making myself read their summaries. If their plan for their video was already in place, that would have been a good motivator– some good entertainment value and some points to note. Even though I think the articles were basically useless, the researchers are obviously respected as they have continued to publish and their articles have been cited many times.

Emily and Trevor presented on the section about The Role of Leadership for Information Technology in Education. Again, the articles presented ideas I was familiar with, though the naming of the Appreciative Inquiry five guiding principles could be somewhat helpful if I was going back into a school-based leadership role. I already have these ideas imbedded in how I present my workshops on inquiry-based education.

I had high hopes for the section Ben, Heather and I read on Using Information Technology for Assessment: Issues and Opportunities. But alas, nothing unexpected other than the current call for sharing of information in Open Educational Resources so that maybe we can actually get somewhere.We are on the cutting edge of this technology and teachers need to get involved in developing games and programs that can be used for formative and summative assessment on more than just knowledge and understanding, but also the development of skills and using skills and knowledge in real-life situations.For those of us researching, we need to be reading items that are being presented at conferences and workshops because they are current. Although they haven’t had the chance to go through the vetting process for publication, that process makes them ancient by the time they are published due to quickly developing technology. Just like the bag cell phone we had when we lived in Northern Saskatchewan, which was out of date by the time we bought it, but was useful because it had the furthest coverage when you were far from a tower.

Flexible, Distance, and Open Learning in the Twenty-First Century was the section presented by Rhyanon and Jerry, both distance educators with limited teaching experience. Their articles recognized that distance learning, virtual school, open education and online learning platforms are evolving and transitioning as more research takes place. They did learn that it would be useful to vary their learning experiences in the online portion of their courses, to try include authentic experiences, and to provide their learning motivation to work collaboratively. As I am a more experienced educator, this was not news to me.

The Game and Simulation-Based Learning and Teaching section presented by Tracy and Mackenzie. Their first article stated that there are six game elements to consider when choosing a game: motivation, fun and engagement, social interactions, problem-solving, story and games as systems and tools. Guiding questions listed included what are the goals, who is the audience, what is the context for the game, what are the practical and technological considerations, what are the curricular consideration, what about assessment and evaluation, and what about balancing needs and perspectives? Again, everything presented is automatically considered by an experienced educator when considering whether to use a game for learning. The second article focused on imaginative instruction games called maker spaces. Again, no real surprise that motivation, resiliency and problem-solving skills were developed while working in these low threshold/high ceiling learning opportunities, although knowledge was not increased.

Nicole, Joanna and Hayley presented on the section on Issues and Challenges Related to Digital Equity. Exactly what I have experienced and well said by the group. There are two sides and both are authentically real.

Sean, Jeremy and Clay looked at the section on Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning from the Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Their principles were interestingly named, but also something as an educator, particularly in the workshops I present where I have to use a powerpoint prepared by someone else, of which I am very aware. Planning a workbook so you avoid the split-attention principle, presenting and avoiding the redundancy principle by having people read slides instead of me reading, and using the modality principle when available, are all elements of teaching I have learned through experience. Yet, I did learn names for principles I know . . .

Deirdre, Gary and Andrew did the following section in the book, Advanced Principles of Multimedia Learning. LOVED the video. I was able to pay attention more because of the multimedia presentation!! It was interesting to put names to principles of learning that I have tried to work with.

It is sad to say that I probably learned just as much from a Facebook post than I did from any of these readings: “Dr. Karyn Purvis of Texas Christian University says, it takes over 400 repetitions to create a synapse in the brain (true learning) without playful engagement OR about 12 repetitions to create a synapse when you use play to teach.” No fault of the presenters – who created great notes and presentations! I am just not excited about academic readings – I am a pragmatic educator that wants ideas or solutions!

Nothing Really New

September 29, 2019 /

I didn’t really learn anything from reading Week Four’s articles – though they did confirm my suspicions and expectations about research on mobile collaborative learning and online learning. I expected the research to be primarily with post-secondary students in the areas of humanities and language acquisition and there to be hardly anything to do with secondary school mathematics. I also expected that the research would increase over time as “mobile collaborative learning is a rapidly growing research field” (Qing-Ke Fu & Hwang, 2018) and information on how to implement it effectively would be deemed important.

The lack of research on wearable technology was also expected as this is such a new area. Twelve years ago, a popular mathematics investigation at my school was the Grade 9 Cell Phone problem, where students inquired into available plans that their family or they themselves could use. The investigating culminated in a persuasive letter to their parents about why they should get a cell phone as a Christmas present, backing up their request with solid mathematics presented in tables, equations, and charts. Many families found they could save money even when adding another cell phone to their plan because of this investigation. We had to drop the assignment about seven years ago as plans had changed and most of our grade 9s already owned a cell phone. Last examination session, we had to ban students from bringing watches into the exam room because of the increase in wearable technology. Do I expect this to become a future trend? Of course, since it can affect the learning environment.

I was also not surprised that “little attention was paid to the issues of higher order skills, learning performance (skillful), self-efficacy, confidence or anticipation performance, cognitive load, and learning anxiety” (Quig-Ke Fu & Hwang, 2018). The easily accessible information is on lower order skills, so those would be the areas explored first.

I did find a couple of interesting tidbits in the Arneson et al article (2019). They really looked at their authorship. There were 57 articles by one person out of 356 articles with a total of 384 distinct authors and 57.3% were written by these top 20 authors. “Given that our initial analysis of the complete set of data was skewed in favor of one author, to gain another perspective we narrowed our scope of authors by limiting them to those who had articles published in journals listed in Scopus. . . Scopus is a more selective database.” This could be useful for me when I am conducting my literature review.

Another item of interest was that “most of the high-volume keywords in abstracts related to the training of teachers or the administration and organization of K-12 online learning, without as much apparent focus on pedagogy and learning issues.” This showed me how important the wording of the abstract is and how it will affect my own research. Knowing that the “number of articles discussing K-12 online learning has been steadily growing” reinforces my decision to only look at articles over the last five years. Also, the technologies available need to be the most current, which is why I planned on focusing on recent articles. I am please that there is a trend in the last five years for more interpretive articles, as that is what I will be needing: “Overall, the most common article classification was theoretical, However, interpretive and inferential articles appear to be growing in frequency, and in the past 5 years, interpretive articles became more common than theoretical articles.”

So although I didn’t learn anything new, it was helpful to have my thoughts and experiences validated by reading these two articles:

  • Qing-Ke Fu, Q-K., & Hwang, G-J. (2018). Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016.  Computers & Education, 119, pp. 129-143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.004
  • Arnesen, K.T., Hveem, J., Short, C.R. West, R.E.  & Barbour, M.K.  (2019) K-12 online learning journal articles: trends from two decades of scholarship, Distance Education, 40(1), 32-53, https://DOI: 1080/01587919.2018.1553566

Choosing Technology for Classroom Use

September 24, 2019 /

Image by Michael Salinger from Pixabay

Readings this week focused on models for incorporating technology into the classroom. The TPACK model refers to technological (knowledge), pedagogical (knowledge), and content knowledge. “At the heart of good teaching with technology are three core components: content, pedagogy, and technology, plus the relationships among and between them” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The SAMR model divides technology integration into four levels – substitution (the technology provides a substitute without functional change and therefore only enhances learning), augmentation (the technology includes functional improvements and therefore enhances learning), modification (the technology allows the learning activity to be redesigned and therefore transforms learning), and redefinition (the technology transforms learning because it allows for the creation of tasks that could not have been done without the use of the technology).

In my opinion, both TPACK and SAMR have equal importance as you need to have sound pedagogical knowledge as well as excellent subject knowledge and technical knowledge in order to develop or choose a good experience for your students. Even the SAMR model recognizes that successful exercises must be personalized to the device of the student’s choice so there are no technical issues, they must be situated in the experience and used as assessment, and must have connection to a community of learners while managing individual workload and choice (Romrell, Kidder, & Wood, 2014). If the experience with technology is not at least augmenting the student’s experience, why use it? The rigid boundaries of the SAMR model need some TPACK interpretation. “A teacher’s choice to substitute one tool for another (i.e., the lowest level in the SAMR model) may be the most appropriate choice given the targeted motivational and learning outcomes, the design of the learning environment, and/or the students in the classroom. In this instance, the teacher’s decision reflects the dynamic and fluid nature of teaching and learning” (Hamilton, Rosenberg, Akcaoglu, 2016). If you read my last post, you will understand my reasoning as the use of a Living Book, which is just substitution, really augmented my daughter’s learning. Also, focusing only on the product and not the process as a student learns is important, and this is part of the TPACK model and not the SAMR model.

In planning for my project, I know I have the content and pedagogical knowledge in place. I am now trying to increase my technological knowledge so that I can ensure my project gives the targeted student population the opportunity to augment their knowledge. Although I will be using the SAMR model, I will temper it through my pedagogical and content knowledge. Hopefully, I can find methods that modify or even redefine the learning so students can learn successfully.

Readings:

Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/29544/.

Romrell, D., Kidder, L.C., Wood, E. (2014).The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Online Learning Journal, 18(2).https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1036281.pdf

Hamilton, E.R., Rosenberg, J.M. & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and Suggestions for its Use. TechTrends 60(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Nostalgia

September 16, 2019 /


Personal photo belonging to C. Tradewell

One lesson I learned from our summer classes is to never underestimate the craftiness of a researcher. The chapter we read from Chet Bowers’ Ideological, Cultural, and Linguistic Roots of Educational Reforms to Address the Ecological Crisis annoyed me and I forgave it because he was writing from the viewpoint of an elderly person, so I thought. Later, we found out that he wrote in a manner to instigate debate. It was another example of the importance of researching the researcher or writer. Although I adhere to the International Baccalaureate’s mission statement which recognizes “that other people, with their differences, can also be right”, an opinion drastically different from what I find reasonable is still annoying. Finding the historical and socioeconomic situation under which articles are written is as valuable as understanding the viewpoint of a historical text.

The Clark-Kozma media debate originated in the early 1980s and the articles assigned were published in the early 1990s. During this time, I was in my early years of my teaching career and computers were being introduced into schools. To frame the time period for younger readers, in the mid 1980s, I crashed our home computer with a fourteen-page document. (Luckily, I had printed it out before saving so then I typed it back in, separating it into two files.) Our daughter was born in 1992 and by the age of 3 was manipulating the mouse on our home computer to play McGee and read Mercer Mayer’s Just Grandma and Me through Living Books. Her fascination with our book reading had already resulted in us making alphabet flashcards for her (since it gave her something else to play with than just the opening page spread of alphabet in Dr. Seuss’s ABC). The Living Books series helped her learn sight words and phonetics, though we also had access to series of books for emergent readers and an extensive library of children’s books at home. Yes, she could have learned to read just through the static media, but the interactivity of the computer games motivated her to focus as we limited her computer time. Thus she learned quickly. Oh, and we also limited her time on static media as we wanted her to spend time physically playing with people as well as with physical objects. Clark’s summation in his 1994 article does not take into consideration the cost of the time spent to use the simpler, less expensive media:

 “Whenever you have found a medium or set of media attributes which you believe will cause learning for some learners on a given task, ask yourself if another (similar) set of attributes would lead to the same learning result. If you suspect that there may be an alternative set or mix of media that would give similar results, ask yourself what is causing these similar results. It is likely that when different media treatments of the same informational content to the same students yield similar learning results, the cause of the results can be found in a method which the two treatments share in common. . . . . requires that you choose the least expensive solution and give up your enthusiasm for the belief that media attributes cause learning.” (Clark, 1994).

He also disregards the motivation our daughter experienced by being able to learn and show us what she had accomplished ‘all by self’ through using the technological media.

Thanks to MECC Archive.

To generalize our daughter’s experience, the most common programs used by students in schools in the mid to late 1990s were The Oregon Trail and the Carmen Sandiego programs. Oregon Trail had the player heading westward to homestead and students had to make choices similar to the settlers. The Carmen Sandiego games placed the player as a detective, travelling through the world or through time based on hints to track down thieves and the stolen article. Both games would not have been nearly as enjoyable without the options available through being computer games. As described in the interviews of the creators of Oregon Trail, the plan was to make a board game, but with two roommates that were programmers, the student teachers went way beyond. They were able to incorporate “randomness tied to geography” and the uniqueness of the programming language BASIC (Beginner’s All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code) so that the speed and accuracy of typing ‘BANG’ when hunting affected the success of the hunt. The success of the program was that each time a student played it, they had a different result, based on choices they made. Students were learning about the westward movement AND improving their reading and typing skills as this caused them to be more successful in the game. Playing Carmen Sandiego helped students learn about different countries and historical times as well as learning logic. There were many different computer programs used by teachers in the mid to late 1990s. All were used because of the motivational factors, the opportunity to practice skills that were boring (such as Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing and Number Munchers), and the interactivity that customized learning for each student.

Kozma and Clarke started their debate before there was sufficient development of educational software or software that would benefit education. Companies like Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC), The Learning Co., Humongous Entertainment and Broderbund were just getting going and the impact of their programs was not yet available. Kozma at least saw that there was going to be a huge potential for the media used to affect learning. Many of the companies creating the media were using teachers to help create the programs, so the methodology that concerned Clarke would be integrated into the media. “The “technology” of Educational Technology (i)s vastly different now and discussing the effectiveness of media, potential or otherwise in 2007 using reports from more than ten years ago is like discussing today’s traffic issues using data from 1820.” (Becker, 2010).

Another factor Clarke did not take into consideration is the amount of technology current students are exposed to, so the use of static media does not engage their attention to the extent that it would have in the 1980s. My students will willingly do an extra ten-minute math skill practice through an app or computer game but forget if it is questions from a textbook. Strangely enough, if I upload a picture of the text page to my Google classroom, and they are asked to submit their homework electronically (instead of me doing a homework check) they are more likely to complete the practice and show it through a picture of the work in a notebook, with markers on a table or whiteboard, or chalk on the pavement, or by submitting an electronic document. Engagement with more sophisticated tools motivates current students.

Robert Kozma started his career as an elementary maths teacher whereas Richard E. Clark began his teaching career at Stanford University after completing a bachelor’s degree in political science and history, a master’s degree in mass communication, working as a head of broadcasting and then completing a doctorate in educational technology with a minor in educational psychology. This may be why Clark does not focus on motivational factors. Adults are learning because they are motivated by careers and potential pay increases, but youth are motivated by things that are fun and make them feel good. Technological media, either created with attention to teaching methodology or used with good teaching methodology and considering what motivates certain age groups in their current socioeconomic situation, has a positive impact on learning motivation in youth. The same can be said for adults, but whatever affects the speed in acquiring the knowledge is what I would consider is the motivational factor.

 

Resources:

Background Information on Richard E. Clark: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Robinson7/publication/284019119_An_Interview_with_Richard_E_Clark/links/568befe008ae8445f58dc587/An-Interview-with-Richard-E-Clark.pdf

Background Information on Robert B. Kozma: http://www.debats.cat/en/speaker/robert-b-kozma

Try Oregon Trail: https://adellefrank.com/blog/how-to-play-oregon-trail-game-on-computer

 

Readings:

Becker, K. (2010). The Clark-Kozma Debate in the 21stCentury. Paper presented at the Canadian Network for Innovation in Education 2010 Conference. Published under Creative Commons. (http://mruir.mtroyal.ca:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11205/143/clark_kozma_21century.pdf?sequence=1)

Bowers, C. A. (2018). The Digital Revolution and the Unrecognized Linguistic Colonization. In Ideological, Cultural, and Linguistic Roots of Educational Reforms to Address the Ecological Crisis (pp 192-198). New York, New York:  Routledge.

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 42 (2),  21-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development. 42 (2), 17-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087

Trend or Common Practice

September 10, 2019 /

Photo by Lucrezia Carnelos on Unsplash

The readings this week articulated trends as though they were not yet common practices in education. In some countries, in some parts of some countries, or in certain educational systems, many of these trends are considered mainstream methods of teaching. Mind you, I do find it interesting that some school systems are just discovering Smartboards whereas others have moved past them into using computers and projectors, which are much more customizable in their use. A Smartboard has proprietary software that continues to support the ‘sage on the stage’ teaching method whereas a projector can allow any student to plug in and access their materials to share what they have discovered with their classmates. School systems that have moved forwards on inquiry-based teaching have moved right past the Smartboard and into technologies that can facilitate more student-centred learning.

The majority of the articles mentioned cloud computing, student-centred learning, augmented reality and learning analytics as current trends. In the workshops I facilitate for the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme, I would say 90% of schools, whether affluent or poor, use some form of cloud computing. Therefore this is no longer a trend but a common practice. Student-centred learning is gaining a following in more curricula across North America. As for augmented reality, teachers that have access to this are definitely taking advantage of it, even if it is something as simple as taking control of the camera at Race Rocks. The same with learning analytics–teachers with access to this are taking advantage of it, so as programs with learning analytics become more available (or programs that can attach learning analytics to documents already created), teachers will use them more frequently.

Most of the articles missed the point of Generation Z being in class. Generation Z is used to utilizing wearable tech and mobile devices. They rely on instant access to information and can manipulate many programs, but they are at the edge of all this access and many are not very aware as digital citizens or how to create through coding or robotics. The students currently in school have had more exposure to coding, robotics, STEAM topics and more of the computational thinking focus. Another point most articles did not address was the concern about digital security, including ransomware, of which Generation Z students do have some awareness. The many recent hacks of financial information (Capital One, Credit Union, Equifax)  are ensuring more and more people are aware of this issue, but this trend was rarely mentioned in the articles.

Considering technology, I think the success of some of the trends is based not necessarily on technical advancement and educational value, but on smart ad campaigns and salespeople. Part of Apple’s early success in the educational market is they did not push programs at schools that were complicated or developed to the point where teacher commitment to learning the program was going to eat up so much time that the teacher would not consider using it. The programs were simple, with the ability for students to learn them independently and the teacher was provided with the type of data they needed to track learning. The learning that took place was not necessarily more efficiently completed or organized in the order that the teacher may have originally chosen, but it was fun for the students and gave the teacher a bit of a break in preparing lessons. This may be part of the success of Smartboards as opposed to 1-1 computer access as Smartboards give the illusion of starting to incorporate inquiry and student-centred learning in the class while still allowing the teacher to be in total control. In my opinion, future winners will be free or cheap programs that are very customizable. As for Canadian use, hosting in Canada and not collecting shareable personal student data will be huge draws for teachers.

The biggest trends in my opinion will be programs and opportunities that give good value and that encourage student-centred learning, particularly with the opportunity to explore more deeply in areas of interest while still ensuring a base of knowledge and skills has been explored and mastered. Cloud computing can no longer be considered a trend – it is an established method. I expect the use of learning analytics to increase as adaptive learning systems improve and the data and the information ‘tested’ becomes more customizable/chosen by the teacher. The use of game-based learning/testing, for both formative and summative assessment will increase, again, as customization becomes simpler. Teachers using augmented reality will increase as the technology develops and becomes cheaper. The awareness of hacking of information will result in the development of sites that do not require personal information sharing so that hacking the site is not profitable. Yet I do not believe total online education without a teacher monitoring will ever take over as a norm. As Holland and Holland state in their article, “With so many tremendous technological shifts happening, we need to be mindful of the missing bits of information, which still need to be taught.”  Even current artificial intelligence is not capable of telling us what we don’t know because we don’t know to ask for it. Humans need human interaction and this is still part of best practice for education.

 

Readings:

https://www.techlearning.com/tl-advisor-blog/top-10-k-12-educational-technology-trends

https://www.iste.org/explore/Education-leadership/The-9-hottest-topics-in-edtech

https://elearningindustry.com/educational-technology-trends-top-right-now

https://blog.lambdasolutions.net/biggest-education-technology-trends-2019

https://tophat.com/blog/technology-in-education-2019/

https://elearningindustry.com/2019-edtech-trends-excited

Holland, J. & Holland, J. (2014). Implications of Shifting Technology in Education. Tech Trends. 58(3), 16-25. http://vincross.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Holland-Holland-2014.pdf

© 2024 Educational Technology

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑