Category: TIEgrad

Photo by Christopher Sardegna on Unsplash

Introduction and My Connection:

I enjoyed learning from everyone’s videos and print material.  Each presentation highlighted information that I found interesting and very valid, including but not limited to; equity, access, digital citizenship, open access, improving analytics to assist in assessment processes, distance education, issues of cognitive overload, and attention splitting. Again all topics I could identify with, and caused me to think more about. Personally, I connected to Emily Miller’s and Trevor Hood’s presentation. Their article The Role of Leadership for Information Technology in Education, discussed the importance of educators taking a leadership role in implementing technology into one’s teaching practice; and the importance of maintaining a learning environment that is both flexible and personalized for learners.  This particular article intrigued me as I am personally grappling with trying to incorporate more technology-based activities into my teaching practice, while at the same time trying to build a learning environment that supports flexibility and personalized learning, thereby recognizing the individual needs and interests of my students, which is not always easy.

What Intrigued Me:  

Incorporating information technology into the classroom, is an ongoing learning process for me as I gain new technology skills and confidence in the technology I am using, develop new ideas around how to teach curriculum, and gain an insight into the best practices I should implement, to meet the diverse needs of my learners. I agree with Emily’s and Trevor’s point that teachers’ values and beliefs are significant factors in whether technology integration is successful. Their inclusion of the quote “Educational change initiatives, requiring new teaching strategies must fit with teachers existing conceptions of students learning” (Tondeur et. al., 2017), stands out to me, as an educator, implementing technology into my practice. For example, when adding any particular item or structure, to assist in the learning process, in this case technology, I must develop the skills and confidence needed to use the technology itself, and portray an attitude demonstrating that I believe in this process, thereby facilitating in authentic learning. Furthermore, although I believe that technology can assist in the learning process, I have a responsibility to choose programs, or allow projects that integrate technology, which will support my students’ needs and benefit their learning journey.

Regarding establishing an environment that supports flexible and personalized learning, as outlined in the presentation, I am a supporter of this process. In my teaching practice, which includes both History and Career Life Connections, I adopt a guided inquiry style of learning. Following this method, students choose an area, within a given topic, that they would like to explore in greater detail, while at the same time working to meet specific course criteria. As suggested in Emily’s and Trevor’s article, this style of learning promotes an opportunity for learners to share their interests and strengths, and showcase what they have learned through a product, or activity, of some kind. When technology is incorporated into this style of learning process, students can create a variety of products to demonstrate their discovery, growth, and success. Additionally, I appreciated the five guiding principles of inquiry that was included in the write-up, including: focusing on what works, keeping students motivated about their learning process, providing questions that support creativity, facilitating in students working towards their (end) goal, and fostering the notion of possibilities in students as they undertake their inquiry. These points are important to consider, not only while involved in the inquiry process, but also to reflect upon while teaching in general.

Masters Final Project & Connection with Presented Topic:

Lastly, my group’s Master’s final project follows the essence of Emily’s and Trevor’s presentation and article – leadership in technology in education. Our project will be focusing on technology-based, collaborative, inquiry in our school. This process follows the WHAT, HOW and WHY approach of inquiry presented in Emily’s and Trevor’s article; and it will provide flexible learning opportunities, and the incorporation of computer technology and carpentry skills into the creation of a final project. This process of learning will draw on many learning styles and processes, thereby providing learners with the opportunity to pursue an interest within a particular subject and be creative. As educators, developing our Masters’ project, cross-curricular, will enable us to focus on, and share, our strengths and skills through collaboration. We can discuss possibilities and routes of change that may need to occur, while at the same time promote creativity, facilitate students in their learning, and take the steps to complete the process.

 Thank all of you for sharing your knowledge in both video and print formats. It was very interesting (and entertaining) to see how each group presented their information, and from which to learn. It is not easy putting yourself on video, and even harder to watch yourself. Thank you! 

“Sharing knowledge occurs when people are genuinely interested in helping one another develop new capacities for action; it is about creating learning processes.” – Peter Senge 

By: D. Houghton

Photo by Ian Schneider on Unsplash

Introduction:

Reading about the Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model, and the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model, both as frameworks for incorporating technology into the classroom, gave me cause to pause and reflect on my teaching practices. I thought about how I am implementing technology to enhance students’ learning experiences, while meeting their needs and challenging their skills. Although I could identify with both models, TPACK resonated with me more so than the SAMR model. I see the TPACK model as being more encompassing of students’ learning processes, of my teaching and assessment practices, and of the context in which all of this is occurring. The SAMR model focused more on the final product or outcome, and the different technologies a teacher could use, rather than student learning processes. 

TPACK vs. SAMR:

The TPACK model used to  integrate technology into the classroom, focuses on three main areas, including the integration of teacher pedagogy, content knowledge and technology. TPACK identifies the importance of educators using a sound teaching pedagogy and solid knowledge of the content they are teaching. The TPACK model embodies the addition of technology as a supplementary tool, to enhance or compliment students’ learning. TPACK is a model I can see implementing as a method of guidance in my teaching practice. I see this particular model being more holistic, than the SAMR model, as it considers important factors that assist in student success, including the necessity of the educator’s knowledge of the content being taught, the significance of teaching pedagogy that consider a range of student learning processes, and the provision of technology tools to provide support and learning enrichment.  TPACK also accounts for the context in which the teaching and learning is occurring. Koehler and Mishra’s article state that TPACK is a “complex interaction among…content, pedagogy and technology [and it is this interaction] that produces the types of flexible learning needed to successfully integrate technology use into teaching” (Koehler, Matthew J. and Mishra P., P.60). Indeed, the “flexible learning”, appeals to me, as it provides room for options when considering the diverse needs of my learners, and my accessibility to resources. Furthermore, TPACK supports me in outlining my teaching strengths and content knowledge within my teaching area. Following the TPACK model will assist me in defining the best teaching methods for my students, the type of assessments I will choose, and the technology tools to facilitate in students’ growth and understanding of the content area. Lastly, the TPACK model, takes into account students’ learning processes, which I believe is important to examine while assessing students’ learning.  

The SAMR model follows a linear or hierarchical path where students move through levels from a beginning or enhancement point, to a higher level of learning, or a transformation stage. I agree with the concept that technology can improve and enhance student learning, as the SAMR model suggests, and the ease of access that technology provides to students, as was demonstrated in the article mLearning by Danae Romrell, Lisa C. Kidder and Emma Wood. However, I do not find the SAMR model as flexible or comprehensive as the TPACK model.  SAMR focuses heavily on student product or output, rather than processes made which are an integral part of learning and important to observe. Hamilton’s article states “technology and other instructional tools are intended to play supporting roles in the learning process” (Hamilton et. al., P. 438), which doesn’t seem to be the case in the SAMR model, as there is a push to implement more and more technology to reach a final project. I further agree with Hamilton’s argument that the SAMR model, “underemphasize[s] the  multifaceted and complex nature of teaching and learning with technology [and] instead emphasizes the types of technology teachers should use to move themselves up… the [levels of the model] giving primacy to technology rather than good teaching (Hamilton et. al., P. 439). The SAMR model’s simple, hierarchical, design is too simplistic and it does not consider that learning is not a simple process for all learners. Furthermore, this model does not consider outlying factors that can influence students’ learning; whereas the TPACK model does, including teacher’s knowledge of content, their implementation of a sound pedagogy and their access to technology resources. In spite of my dislike for the SAMR model, an area that did stand out for me was the implementation of augmentation. This level is important, and could be used to incorporate different types of available technology, to assist in meeting students’ specific needs. Since I support the TPACK model, this augmentation step could be incorporated within the intersection between Pedagogy and Technology, otherwise known as the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge intersection. 

My Implementation of the TPACK Model:

Adopting the TPACK model to integrate technology, is a step I am interested in following. As a Social Studies teacher, I have enjoyed teaching a wide variety of content, specific to grades 10 and 11; and I am comfortable with my knowledge of the content. However, I do collaborate with others in my department to get new ideas or answers to questions. In terms of pedagogy, I always examine what will work best for my class.  I recognize, what may have worked for one class may not work for another group of learners in terms of teaching methods and assessment. When working on a project, I may get students to work independently, with a partner or in small groups to research a specific topic, depending on their skill set. Upon finishing their research, students will choose from a variety of options that incorporate technology and take their interests and skills into account, and which further enables them to demonstrate their learning. Presentations of student learning may be represented in various ways, including the development of  a web page that can serve as a resource, a video news report, a Prezi with the addition of artifacts or characters created from a 3D printer. Of course there will be criteria that students must meet to demonstrate and evaluate their learning processes along the way, in addition to my own.

Conclusion:

As educators, we face many challenges in our classrooms, including, but not limited to,  available resources, learners with diverse needs, and our own knowledge of specific content. I see the overlapping and interconnections, of the three main areas that comprise the TPACK model, supportive of both learning flexibility and teaching.  It is this flexibility that supports students in taking pathways to develop their skills and understanding of a concept, and for teachers to choose the best pedagogy to teach specific content. Furthermore, the TPACK model assists educators in identifying and implementing the use of technological tools that best fit with their knowledge, pedagogical practices, and facilitate in students’ learning processes. 

Written By: Deirdre Houghton

Photo by 

Tim Mossholder

 on Unsplash

Introduction:

After reading this week’s articles, I chuckled to myself, remembering back to the moment when I was struggling with my UVic email account, needed for our summer courses.  I called the UVic Help Desk, where I was informed that if I was a returning student, I could just use my old UVic email address.  I laughed, stating that, “when I was a student many years ago, I had no UVic email.”  Suddenly the line was silent. The speaker asked how I was able to gain access to the library. I informed them I used the card catalogue system.  “The card what?” was their reply. After a brief discussion, and a few laughs, regarding how technology has advanced since I was a UVic student back in the 90’s, I was well on my way. Upon reflection, this incident demonstrated that technology, as a type of media, has grown drastically. It is a tool that has changed how one, including me, can access information, learn new material and find explanations to quandaries. Identifying this fact, made me, recognize how Richard E. Clark’s paper was outdated. Indeed, the access to knowledge has changed since Clark’s publication. The Clark-Kozma media debate focuses on whether different forms of media, such as technology, play a role in assisting in learning.  As an educator and a current graduate-student, I argue that, yes, it most certainly can!

My Opinion Around “The Debate”:

I believe the teacher plays an essential role in facilitating in students’ learning, as does, Clark. However, I do not support his argument that “media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries” (Clark, P. 22). I recognize there are many challenges and changes that occur while using a variety of media in the classroom to teach material. Nonetheless, there are just as many diverse learners in classrooms, that respond, differently, to types of media depending on their needs, interests and skills. Although Clark would disagree, I believe a “one size fits all” style of teaching does not work, nor is it fair. As educators, it is up to us to provide a wide variety of learning opportunities, methods and experiences to facilitate student learning. By implementing various forms of media in the classroom, teachers can assist in supporting students’ needs, learning processes and their success. Katrin Becker’s article, notes that Clark’s studies and arguments were based on dated material, and in some cases his information was erroneous. I agree with Becker, as she states “[these factors] undermine Clark’s credibility as a qualified critic” (Becker, P. 4) as he argues “[that implementing media in the classroom] has no learning benefits” (Clark,  P. 21). Conversely to Clark’s views, I see incorporating various teaching methods and media essential to teaching and facilitating student learning.  Educators must consider the diversity of their learners, including their learners’ interests, knowledge and abilities in the classroom. By providing various forms of media, and implementing them into one’s teaching practice, educators can support and enhance students’ learning.

I support Robert Kozma’s argument, in his article, that highlights the necessity to integrate different forms of media in the classroom to engage student learning.  His argument, unlike Clarke, suggest that “…learning with media can be thought of as a complementary process …” (Kozma, P. 11), alongside students’ learning processes.  Kozma, considers that students learn from a variety of media and methods. Teachers that provide and use different media in the classroom consider the different learning styles of their students’ including visual, auditory and kinesthetic. Thus, educators who implementing media options, such as technology, provide accessibility, opportunities and learning support to suit students’ diverse needs, abilities and skills.  Unlike Clark, Kozma recognizes the significance in adopting this style or method of teaching.

The Clark-Kozma debate reaffirmed, with me, that there are so many ways of learning. I support Kozma’s idea, that as educators, we should be asking “In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks and situations?” (Kozma, P. 18).  Becker’s article too, suggests that as times have changed, so too has our society; and what we do with the changes in technology and other forms of media that is available to us, is important in how we learn.* In our changing society, it is essential, students are provided with many learning opportunities and exposure to materials that will enhance their educational experience, and develop their skills. Today, teaching and learning, simply, cannot be successful by lecture alone, or by following Clark’s method.

Conclusion:

As I reflect on my school community, I am lucky to work in a school that provides a variety of media to meet our students needs and interests; and therefore, create many learning opportunities. Various forms of media that are available, to enhance students learning, in our school, include: forestry equipment driving simulators, 3-D printer, drones, CNC machine, portable saw mill, pottery wheels, video equipment, treadmills, GPS units, water testing kits, smart boards, computer labs, and a library. These different forms of media are tools in which staff have access to and can use to assist in developing students’ understanding of specific concepts, build upon or develop new skills, and strengthen their educational experience.  Seeing the amazing creations that students develop, present, build or report on, with the assistance from a range of media resources available to them, including technology, demonstrates that the provision of media variance is beneficial to students’ learning.

Written By Deirdre Houghton