What the Tech?

Working through questions about technology and education

Category: EdTech Research

The Marriage

November 11, 2019 / / 0 Comments

A friend of mine is getting married this weekend. It makes me think about a traditional rhyme.

Something old,

Something new,

Something borrowed,

Something blue.

Our most recent readings offer something along these lines while considering the marriage of education and technology.

One of the readings this week originated back in 1983, another in 1986. What could these decades old papers possibly offer to the Educational Technology union? If we are to use technology successfully in strategies such as cooperative collaboration and inquiry-based learning, it may be important to keep the basics in mind. Of course, educators have to plan for the “free riders” discussed in the article by Kerr and Bruun (1983). One of the most important reasons educators are turning to technology is because it has the potential to increase engagement and motivation. I doubt there are any teachers unaware of the potential pitfalls of group dynamics but some might still be working on ways to counteract them.

The 1986 article by L.Cuban is interesting because it is an old article discussing the cycle of new technology and educational innovations that educators are encouraged to embrace and then fall to the wayside as administrative support wains or moves on to the next new thing. For me, this is exemplified by my district’s financial decision to switch to the open-source software, LibreOffice. We were all forced to switch as this was the only offering on our school computers. Now, with a change in district administration, we have turned back to Microsoft Word. This is a problem for me because most of my files are now .odt files and the formatting is affected when I open them in Word. It puts me in the position of having to guess what the future will bring. Should I switch or should I continue using LibreOffice in anticipation of its possible return? This is why many are hesitant to jump on the FreshGrade bandwagon in my district. How long will it be before this initiative fizzles out now that its district champion has moved on into a new job? The turnover in district initiatives is something educators have experienced repeatedly as the migration of teacher training and Next-New-Thing-Fatigue impedes the adoption of something new. This is something that was mentioned with regard to the article by Whitelock and Bektik (2018).

With technology, there’s always something new. That said, with the pace of publication, it might be old by the time we see the research on it; research is not keeping pace with innovation. This was mentioned in regard to the article by Webb and Ifenthaler (2018). If the educator is keen and brings technology in when it is still new, it could be a while before someone’s research indicates whether or not it is truly beneficial. It is suggested that an educator or researcher’s best chance of finding timely research is to access conferences, conventions and student theses. In the meantime, many teachers are content to borrow from other teachers.

In the application of educational technology in elementary schools, educators are more likely to borrow something from other teachers rather than track down relevant, current research. This might be through colleagues within the school but is increasingly through sources such as online professional blogs, apps such as Pinterest, and social media such as Twitter. Many of the teachers I know would rather pick up an idea from somewhere, assess it alongside their experience, try it out in class, decide whether or not it was successful, and then share it out among their colleagues. This is where leadership becomes important.

Teachers are very good at focussing on what works. In general, we are eager to try new things as long as they are truly better and not a change for change’s sake. The exception to this is often technology which many teachers find intimidating. The role of school leadership is then to convince teachers that a particular application of technology is worth the time and effort to learn and implement it. They must excite and motivate their staff (Tschannen-Moran & Hofer, 2018). Once the ball is rolling, leaders must ensure the training results in a positive experience. This will require a flexible, accessible, and personalized approach (Howard, Curwood, & McGraw, 2018). Leadership must also ensure this technology continues to be supported until it is adopted into teacher practice and isn’t simply cast aside for the next big thing.

What is it about the next big thing can make educators blue, sad, need to be cautious? Teachers need to be careful that our foray into new technology results in positive outcomes and do everything possible to protect learners. Care needs to be taken to ensure there is equity for all learners. Consideration needs to be given to respect students of differing genders, social economic statuses, cultures, and individual learning needs. These considerations need to be real, not just tokens of inclusion, but genuine and sensitive inclusion. I have this idea. Now that I know how to turn a slideshow into a movie, I want to take a W̱SÁNEĆ based book I use regularly in my class and have an authentic SENĆOŦEN speaker read it to ensure the correct pronunciations of SENĆOŦEN words. Before I go ahead with my idea, I need to make sure I am not stepping on any cultural toes. I have to ask, “How will the implementation of this idea be received by those who are most affected by it?” The potential for positive impacts is great but educators in the mainstream demographic need to be careful.

Digital Equity is also a question of access. Not all learners have the same access to digital technologies. For me, this makes digital education in kindergarten more important. By the time they start kindergarten, some children have been immersed in technology and some have not. Some have been deliberately sheltered from it and some have had no access for financial or geographic reasons. If we want students to have equitable access to digital literacy, this should happen sooner rather than later. The digital divide will increase as time goes by. In addition, students’ exposure to technology does not mean they are competent (Kumpulainen, Mikkola, and Rajala, 2018). As we embed digital literacies into learning activities, teachers may be able to counteract some of the bad habits they pick up from home. For example, one of the first lessons I teach alongside learning the camera on an iPad is that students should ask before they capture a person’s photo. Issues of online privacy are just beginning to gain consideration in mainstream use by many adults. Let’s make sure children are aware of digital literacy and ideals as soon as possible.

The last point that makes me blue is technology-enhanced assessment. I agree that automated assessment needs educator influence to be successful. The question is, will automated assessment ever be as valuable and personalized as a teacher’s and do we really want it to be? Are we being asked to oversee our own demise? How will the data produced be used or abused by those outside the classroom? I’m thinking about the foundation skills assessment. and American-style standardized assessment.

Education and technology, I wish you a long, happy, and fruitful life together. Cheers!

 

Battle of the Acronyms

September 28, 2019 / / 0 Comments

T. Westwood

This week’s readings asked us to examine two models for integrating technology into our classrooms: the TPACK Framework and the SAMR Model.   The TPACK Framework refers to the interrelation between Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge, while The SAMR Model seeks to classify and evaluate learning activities based on a hierarchy.

I find the notion of putting a model in front of a teacher and saying, “Here, use this.” is a funny one.  I have yet to find a teacher that will take any sort of model and use it exclusively all the time.  There’s simply too much good stuff out there.  So what’s good with these two models?

Fig”File:Tpack.jpg” by Llennon~commonswiki is licensed under CC BY 3.0.

The TPACK Framework makes sense.  Most of us teachers understand how Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Knowledge are pretty much Teaching 101.  The addition of Technological Knowledge is a new sphere to overlay that many teachers have yet to fully understand.  Some teachers actively fear and avoid it.  It takes a lot of time and effort to learn this new piece for themselves, building their own Technological Content Knowledge and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge.  I agree that, “…TPK requires a forward-looking, creative, and open-minded seeking of technology use, not for its own sake but for the sake of advancing student learning and understanding.” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009 p. 66).  With some teachers resistant to this big change, technology needs at least one champion in every school.  In many schools, there is no greater champion than the teacher-librarian.  In our elementary school, many of our teachers are using collaborations with the teacher librarian to introduce technology into the classroom.

For me, the greatest obstacle is time.  I need time to explore more ideas and apps to integrate into my teaching but I am well ahead of many of my colleagues because I do not fear digital technology.  I feel like the SAMR Model offers me the next step to consider.

The SAMR Model classifies technology use for learning activities into a hierarchy with Substitution and Augmentation at the  bottom, capable of enhancing learning, while Modification and Redefinition are at the top of the hierarchy, transforming learning.

Puentedura’s (2006) Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model (retrieved from http://www.happasus.com/rrpweblog/)

Puentedura’s model poses that the goal for teachers should be to create learning activities that can be classified higher up the hierarchy. The higher one can classify their teaching, the better.  When I first read the article by Romrell et al (2014), I was a little alarmed at the notion that we should all be striving to create “previously inconceivable” tasks because I thought they were ignoring the value and/or necessity of the lower rungs.  The more I think about it, I agree with Hamilton (2016).  Teachers should plan learning activities that integrate meaningful technology-based learning experiences, rather than focusing on redefining learning and teaching (Hamilton, 2016, p. 438).  This harkens back to the Clark-Kozma debate. I should be able to consider what I want my students to learn and then choose the rung on the ladder that best accomplishes that outcome.  Maybe I need to design lessons that allow different children to use different rungs.

For a kindergarten teacher, there are many basics to cover to make integrating any sort of technology possible.  We need to spend a lot of time at the substitution and augmentation levels.  They need to learn what a circle is, then how to make a circle with a finger in the air, then make a circle with a finger in sand, then make a circle with a correctly held pencil, and eventually we can learn how to turn on an iPad before we draw a circle with a finger again, but this time, in an app.  Should I skip the pencil and go straight to the iPad after the sand?  Would that be a meaningful technology-based learning experience?  Is there a functional improvement?  If not, is it okay to do it anyway because it’s fun?  It is Kindergarten after all.  What is the role of technology in play-based learning?  Is this the context that Hamilton argues the SAMR ignores?

In the end, I can find value in both models.  I like that TPACK asks us to consider technological knowledge and context.  I can design using TPACK and continue to consider non-digital technology alongside digital technology as I seek to create meaningful learning activities.  I like how SAMR pushes us to find innovative learning tasks. Can I get to Redefinition in Kindergarten?  I think I can and I’m glad to have learned about it so I can use it to push my thinking beyond substitution and augmentation.  Does the model mention context?  No, but I think teachers are smart enough to know they must customize the model for their own learners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clark, Kozma, and Kindergarten

September 17, 2019 / / 2 Comments

“Untitled” by Paul O’Donoghue is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The Clark-Kozma debate is more than 20 years old.  Why are we still talking about it?  Clark seemed to be steering educators away from the use of media largely because it’s so expensive.  This is a genuine concern; money for public education is tight.  I think back in 1983, he had some valid points.  Why should we spend all that extra money on media for things we can successfully teach without media?  That said, it’s 2019, we drank the Kool Aid, technology is in the curriculum; wifi, iPads and Chromebooks are increasingly in schools.  Too bad, so sad, Clark.  Mission failed.  And I’m so glad.

I teach kindergarten and, to be honest, I could teach them entirely without digital media. We have plenty of old fashioned, relatively inexpensive tools such as books, pencils, crayons, markers, erasers, paints, play dough.  We have hands on activities, a multitude of loose parts and art materials, a variety of different ways to express  themselves verbally and physically.  I have a plethora of teaching strategies that make learning engaging.  I can foster curiosity and inquiry with a few magnifying glasses and dead bugs.  Why would I want to dent, actually, wipe out, seven years worth of my glue stick budget to buy an iPad for student use?  I have struggled with it.

The answer for Kindergarten, and I am sure, many elementary school teachers, has to do with the push from administration,  the pervasiveness of consumer technology in homes, and individualized learning.

When I decided I would no longer be taking my four and five year olds to the computer lab, my administrator was concerned and wanted to know why.  I explained that it takes the entire block to get everyone signed on with no time left to do anything on the computer so there was little point.  Some time later, she presented me with a Beebot which I think is great but is it necessary for Kindergarten students to know how to code a robotic bee?  Also, they just think they are playing with it; as I’m sure Clark would agree, without an instructional strategy, they may as well be playing with a remote control car, or a marble on a tipping tray.  They don’t know they are coding unless the teacher helps them reflect and connect, thereby, “(forging) a relationship between media and learning” (Kozma, 1994, p. 8)

I have a learner with special needs in my class.  This student is non-verbal and, in preschool, learned to use an iPad to communicate. The iPad stays on a shelf until needed but the moment it comes out, a little crowd gathers around it.  The children all know what a tablet is and they all associate it with entertainment.  A few parents expose their children to educational games but every child knows what YouTube is.  In fact, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, two children in my 2017 and one child in my 2018 class named “YouTuber”.   This tells me they don’t just know about consuming content, but they are already thinking about creating and sharing it.  I don’t think that was even on Clark’s radar back in 1994 and certainly not in 1983.  If it had, he would have realized that these media tools are coming whether we like it or not and our job as educators would inevitably need to include them at some point despite the expense.  I still hold that I can teach the ground floor of digital citizenship to Kindergarten students without putting an iPad in their hands, but if the schools have to buy them anyway, why would I not use them?

If I have two little people, sitting at a table during choice time, choosing to draw frogs, three days in a row, why wouldn’t I want to pull out an iPad and encourage them to pursue an inquiry about frogs?  And then, why wouldn’t I want to encourage them to record their own frog story?  Or create a stop motion video with play dough frogs?

“IMG_2043” by Fatkid32 is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

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 (Clark, 1994, p. 28).

Of course, I could go to the library and get frog books, and get more paper so they could draw pages for their frog story, but let’s face it, these boys would likely have viewed that as work, whereas the iPad would be viewed as entertaining. I’m willing to bet they would tire of colouring long before they would tire of creating on the iPad. Plus, I can’t leave the classroom to go get books for whatever topic might arise.  With an iPad, they have near-instant access to whatever subject catches them.  Yes, I have to teach them about reliable sources but I have found several children’s non-fiction books in our school library that contain inaccurate or outdated information.  Misinformation is everywhere.

What about my builders?  If they have built the same structure repeatedly I could pull out the iPad and find images of real structures inspire them.  Again, I could go get a book but by the time I get back from the library (if I could get out of the room), their structure has fallen down and they have moved on to the  train table.  In addition, they could share an image of their structure with an engineering (my son) or architectural (one of my moms) expert and get some real feedback, possibly in real time.  I guess I could invite them in on his/her day off and make all the children build something that day, but that does not take advantage of the teachable moments.

T. Westwood

What about my timid talkers?  I have had children who do not like to speak in front of me or their peers, but in a private space, with an iPad, they can spin quite a yarn.  Not only that but they will go back and rerecord if they don’t like the first take.  This makes the iPad a tool for meeting the needs of the less confident learners.

I do not think Clark had conceived of these types of interactions back in 1983.  I do think he had it right that the media itself, at that time, would not be effective in improving learning without the instructional design to back it up.  I also believe that the capabilities of media need to be accompanied by effective instruction and/or guidance to result in effective learning. I am glad that we did not give up on educational technology.  I believe that Kozma was right that we can use the capabilities of media to influence learning and that it is the task of the designer to make that happen, giving medium and method a more integral relationship. I also agree with Becker that if we want a stand-alone game that will lead to learning, the designer must have “creativity and a thorough understanding of instructional design” and “a thorough understanding of games AND of game design” (2010, p. 4).  I’m only just beginning to explore instructional games for Kindergarten and I have yet to find one that satisfies me but I have only explored free games so far.  I imagine the good ones come with a bigger price tag.

 

 

The Slow Crawl

September 10, 2019 / / 0 Comments

“Old School” by Taryn Domingos is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

As I made my way through the readings this week, I detected a theme in my thinking; “Not in my school.”  I believe our district would like us to pick up the torch for educational technology but there has been a lack of specific training so our progress has been slow, mostly driven by a few keen individuals.  This could be due to the necessity of implementing other priorities such as BC’s new curriculum.  We have had numerous sessions to get us to understand Core Competencies and Inquiry-Based Learning.

“CUE 2016 – Palm Springs, California – #FreshGrade” by Kris Krug is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The district has been keen to get us to use FreshGrade for reporting for about four or five years so they offered training on our own time; I first tried out the program in 2016 but I had no wi-fi access inside my classroom until 2018.  If I wanted to upload something, I had to leave my classroom and find a sweet spot in the hall.  The wi-fi itself was a long time coming, in part, because our parent community resisted, thinking wi-fi could affect brain development.  Where did the research on that end up, anyway?

We were offered two beginner training sessions for GSuite a couple years ago but it was on our own time and not attended by all.  I still have the odd staff member who comes to me for help to open a Google Doc.  Our IT department has repeatedly asked staff to store more files on Google Drive instead of the local network.  Our new-this-year, younger, administration team is keen to have us use Google for staff collaboration and I believe the intermediate classes have given their students Google accounts but I don’t think every intermediate class uses them.  Still, I guess we can say that the cloud computing trend is hitting here.

With the help of the Parent Advisory Council (PAC), we have worked our way up to two class sets of iPads and a class set of Chromebooks shared by about 340 elementary students.  We still have a computer lab with desktop computers; I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.  Lahullier (2018) mentioned a trend toward 1:1 devices. If he meant everyone in the class would have access to a device for 30 minutes a week, then we are there!  To be honest, I would be happy with three or four iPads in my room at all times for small group sessions.  I cannot manage 20 Kindergarten children, each with a device!

Now that we have iPads and wi-fi, apps such as iMovie, Draw and Tell, GreenScreen, PicCollage, and ChatterPix have become popular with a few keen teachers and our teacher-librarian. I think the only game apps we have are Reflex Math, Scratch Jr., and Farm Phonics so we are behind a bit on the gamification trend mentioned by Lahullier (2018), Lambda Solutions (2019), and Holland & Holland (2014).  This is likely because the best games cost money.  Our iPads are controlled at the district level so apps must be requested.

We could say we are working on the coding trend.  We have that Scratch Jr. app, and last year the teacher-librarian convinced the school to purchase a dozen Spheros and a BeeBot.  I think they have been used about a dozen times, mostly in June.

When I read 2019 EdTech Trends You Should Be Excited About (Jarman , 2019), I laughed out loud.  Our PAC purchased a Smartboard for the school I don’t know how many years ago (before I arrived); no one knew how to use it and there was no training so, to my knowledge, it has never been used and I’m told it no longer works.  But Jarman is hopeful that the prices are dropping so maybe some day.

I would like to get excited about augmented and virtual reality but I can’t help thinking we should leave something for the higher grades.  Holland & Holland cited authors Trucano, Hawkins, and Iglesias (2012) with a trend they called “earlier and earlier”.  I agree many technology pieces can and should start as early as Kindergarten but the littles are still excited about learning in their own neighbourhood and getting their hands dirty.  Why not leave voyages to space or the depths of the ocean to the older learners?  As for Global Learning, that’s a tough concept for children who are still learning that they live on Vancouver Island and Grandma lives in Vancouver.

Holland & Holland talked about “Shifting Technologies” and “Instructional Gaps” (2014, p. 16).   The debate about handwriting is an interesting one.  Maybe people do not need to learn cursive writing; perhaps it will become part of the visual arts curriculum or history (so people can read historical documents).  Surely, no one is suggesting children should not learn to print by hand.  How would they play Hangman when the power goes out?   I think it’s always going to be a good idea to put a pencil in the hand of a child.  “Kid writing” is one of the

T. Westwood

most exciting parts of their development!  It is also an important part of developing fine motor skills.  It’s already challenging explaining concepts of money to 5 year olds without pennies; it’s going to be crazy when there is no cash at all!   For elementary school aged kids, there needs to be a balance between basics and technology.

In kindergarten, our big focuses are social/emotional learning, self-regulation, and growth mindset.  They need to play and explore real life and real people but no one can deny that digital technology is engaging for them.  For the littles, the trend is the blend.  Create something and then document it with video or audio.  Create something on a device and then talk about it in front of someone.  Capture something happening in the classroom on video, show it to them, and record their thoughts about it.  Take an iPad outside to explore and record thinking about the big and the small, the sky, the  trees, the spider webs, and the ladybugs.  I will soon be blending classroom citizenship with digital citizenship.  We talk about being kind to each other, their art as intellectual property, and their bodies as their own so it makes sense to talk about saying nice things online, asking permission to post their art, who is allowed to take their picture and so on.

As for teachers, Jobanputra (2018), Jarmin (2019), and Holland & Holland (2014) all mention a trend in Learning Analytics.  I have some more work to do around understanding this topic but if I get the gist, I think the closest we get in BC elementary school is The Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA) and FreshGrade.  The FSA is far from predictive and does nothing in terms of guiding plans for individual learners.  There is a grading and tracking component that goes with FreshGrade but I do not really use it; for me, it is more for communicating with and reporting to parents.  As a Kindergarten teacher, all my data analysis happens in my brain, not in a computer program.

I have had experience with assistive technologies, such as text-to-speech, in past years and trends that help with inclusion will always be welcomed with enthusiasm. I have a non-verbal student this year who uses an iPad to communicate.  I need to learn the capabilities of this tool and the student so I can design lessons that are more universal for the whole class.  If this is not a trend, it should be.

Learning about how to use technology in the classroom has been largely up to each individual.    Do I agree with the trends identified in this week’s readings?  My school seems to be about four years behind but I think most are true.  The pricier ones will not make it to public school anytime soon, but the private schools may see them.  Maybe they already do.

 

 

© 2024 What the Tech?

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑