This week’s bundle of reading seem to be centered around more projections of what future EdTech would look like. For instance, Siemens raised points such as “New forms of digital in/exclusion” and “Reimaging forms of EdTech suitable for an age of Climate Change”. My opinion on these articles has remained the same since embarking on my journey in this M.Ed course, and that is these articles are simply good banter material during coffee break, but far too theoretical and limited in use to be of worthwhile consideration. The idea of new forms of in/exclusion online calls on researchers to address “links between developments in technology, inequality and education”, and design education that is more accessible to all. My response is that while commendable, it is near-impossible to implement a catch-all approach given that actual state of public (or private) education. Social constraints will be a far greater barrier as those who are not “well-resourced” would prioritize financial stability over education; no amount of accessible education or technology can immediately put food on the table like an actual job. Thus the onus should be on policy makers to change their mindset that higher education leads to higher income. If the economy is floundering, then those high income jobs simply are not available (or only available to those at the highest education level, which defeats the whole purpose of education equality).
On the idea of sustainable and environmentally-friendly EdTech innovations, this is absolutely counterproductive. To make clear, I am not against those concepts nor the need to have technology which aligns with them. The issue is posing constraints early on would only seek to hamper innovation – optimization should come afterwards, not before. His statement that this should be “priority for everyone working in the area of education and technology” is also laughable as those IN education and technology are and well aware of sustainability issues; it’s the population that is ignorant or malicious (ie. those rolling back environmental protection) which is having a greater strain on everyone’s limited resources.
Using bigger/faster(?) buckets to drain water from a sinking boat will lose out to the guy drilling holes in it. Everytime.
I feel this week’s article “When inclusion excludes: A counter narrative of open online education. Learning, Media and Technology” raised the most questions and concerns. It discusses all the ideal benefits which open education has been touted to have, and in particular, its inclusive and collaborative nature. What resonated with me the most is how the article provides counter arguments against these ideals and even points out the implicit negative consequences these approaches have. These overlooked reasons are why initiatives to implement open education in schools are often unsuccessful, as they are less manageable when placed in actual practice. For example, the idea that students engaged in discussion forums (after being introduced to ‘netiquette’) would be a more democratic method of learning as the environment is ‘safe’ and ‘open’, thus allowing for more diverse conversation. I would argue strongly against this concept for several reasons: 1) it’s highly unrealistic to ask students, especially online-only students, to openly share their opinions when they’re unsure how others would react to it. There’s also the lack of communication cues such as tone or posture to help elicit humor like sarcasm, making students (ought to) think twice before commenting. 2) The idea that learning from a crowd is a good thing – most social media sites are struggling to keep the influx of hate speech and misinformation from spreading. It’s also due to this ‘wisdom of the crowd’ that gave rise to anti-vaccination movement and climate change denial. Some topics are just not up for debate as one side is fueled by ignorance and aversion of factual knowledge. 3) Moderation of discussion content may seem beneficial, however it has the potential to turn it into an echo chamber of only positive statements or ones that align with the majority of the crowd; hence shutting down diversity as counterarguments would invite risk onto oneself.
While I support the movement towards open access and open education, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The concepts and current structures in place are still not well researched, given the required time to conduct analysis and scope in the field of education. Educators should refrain from jumping into full implementation without laying the groundwork such as establishing a classroom community or having the technological & pedagogical competency to guide open access learning.
An interesting point was brought up during the video conference this week about who is responsible for teaching digital citizenship. With the prevalence of the internet and social media platforms, it’s not difficult to find an individual’s information such as hobbies, interests, recent likes, etc. What’s concerning is the oversight of how posting such information can be detrimental to their themselves. Recent news reported how an employee lost their job over posting a complaint about their company, through their “anonymous” Twitter account. Growing up, we’re often told the same piece of advice: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything”; which seems to have gone out the window as the plethora of stories about people getting fired over posts continues to grow. Which brings us back to the question of who should be responsible to introduce, remind, and outline online expectations. Being a more recent graduate from the Professional Development Program (PDP), I recall we had several workshops on professional conduct which touched upon the issue of social media presence, as well as further class discussions around concerns over past / present / future social media use. In addition, we were also taught (and repeatedly reminded by the district) that simple things such as photographs with students for yearbook, newsletters, or social media need to be treated carefully due to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA). In summary, teacher training and school districts have taken some of the responsibility in preparing teachers to recognize (and perhaps demonstrate) digital citizenship. But the next step would be whether it’s a responsibility of the teachers or parents or both to teach students about their digital footprint.
The answer isn’t straightforward as differing opinions or approaches between teachers and parents, combined with some teens’ aversion to risk assessment, results in efforts being non-productive or counter-productive. For example, parents may wish to prevent their children from accessing the internet, which would make it difficult for teachers who wish to introduce them to good practices. Parents (and teachers!) who make an effort to teach about digital literacy can sometimes be counterproductive as the other party does not practice what they preach, or make an effort to remind students to exercise good judgement before making a statement online. There’s also the belief that they cannot be identified, held accountable for their messages, or care enough about the consequences of their actions. All together, it makes the idea of “teaching” digital citizenship similar to teaching math: I can show you all these fancy symbols and numbers… but how likely will you remember any of it?
Classmate mentioned how the article, Pedagogical Models for E-Learning: A Theory-Based Design Framework, seems to suggest pedagogy for online education that are techniques which teachers at brick-and-mortar schools use in their regular class. While I agree this may seem redundant, as responsible educators would include checks and balances of student learning in online course much like the traditional face-to-face classroom, it should not be taken for granted. At the post-secondary level, the course designer and lecturer may be different individuals which would cause the latter to have minimal control over course design; preventing them from adding or editing tasks to provide synchronous meetings or asynchronous discussions. Furthermore, post-secondary lecturers are generally specialists in their field and have not been exposed to teacher training programs to have the background in any pedagogy. Therefore articles such as Dabbagh (2005) helps provide some of these tips and tricks used by every day teachers.
It was also mentioned how online and face-to-face teaching are not that different if we can simply adapt in-person pedagogy into the online platform. As an online and blended teacher, I would have to disagree with this idea for a multitude of reasons:
The most imperative difference is that online teacher has very limited options to prove who is doing the work. While there is always a mandated in-person assessment, they are far and few in-between. Evidence of learning is a simply an assignment submission with a name on it. I find quizzes are the worst indicators of learning (as a quick self-assessment & feedback) since students can guess their way through, or receive outside help as they’re doing it (speaking from experience as a tutor with 5+ years of experience).
It’s difficult to build a class relations between students-students and student-teacher. Synchronous meetings often works at the post-secondary given the population is self-motivated and is shouldering the cost of education. However, the same cannot be applied to high school or elementary. Often times online students will be cross enrolled or have scheduling conflicts which prevent synchronous meetings, or ignore these opportunities given their lack of motivation and inability to see it’s immediate benefits. With this lack of connection, dialogue between students or with the teacher becomes artificial, and usually devolves into simple completion task.
Some activities are highly difficult to replicate virtually, ie. Labs. While virtual labs are fairly prevalent and the majority are free, their design often follows a pre-determined sequence where students can succeed as long as they follow each step. There is no chance of failure, reflection on sources of error, or at times, consideration of the concept at work in this lab. Another important aspect is the lack of core competencies such as collaboration, personal responsibility (in group work), or social awareness that would be present in a traditional lab activity.
Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) becomes trickier navigate, in addition to course settings such as progression roadblocks. The student may not have access for support (or perhaps too much, see #1), or the course isn’t user-friendly to those who need scribes or readers. Then there’s the challenge of providing opportunities for (re)assessment when students repeatedly do not show up at arranged times due to health or other reasons. We also have no control over learning environments (or breaks) outside of school that would help improve students learning when they’re studying.
I find myself quite humbled by the amount of behind-the-scenes work and planning that online/blended teachers need to do in order to have a “successful” course. Even having gone through PDP and learning about different pedagogy and learning theories, much of it is inapplicable (ie. class management) or difficult to effectively transfer into an online setting (formative assessment). An instructor who is inexperienced with teaching or has only seen (poor) examples of online courses would certainly benefit from articles like Dabbagh (2005).
Open Educational Resources (OER) from prestigious institutions have better chance of sustaining itself for various reasons. First, it is much easier to publish their materials and have the public subscribe to it using their brand name. Comparatively, smaller institutions and start-ups would struggle with getting recognized, or even just being discovered, given their relative obscurity. Next, they would have a larger (possibly funded!) staff to develop and organize their content on a consistent basis, whereas smaller organizations may be updated less regularly due to work-hobby conflicts. A third point, also related to funding, is that larger corporations can channel funds from other avenues to help sustain operation costs of the OER such as the server equipment or buying materials/content rights.
Another issue with OERs that was mentioned in our discussion was suggested by Michael, where the material carries institutionalized colonial-era ideologies; that most of it was created by the global north and applied to countries in the global south (Paskevicius, 2019). This poses the issue whereby First Nation’s perspectives and traditions are being minimized while students study content from a settler’s viewpoint instead.
An interesting point which was brought up was how an OER could potentially begin is by local teachers pooling resources that they use to create a database within the school. It then grows into multi-school program through collaboration and contribution inside the district network infrastructure, and then eventually become a fully public OER. While this wouldn’t solve the issue of First Nation’s knowledge being specific to place (ie, the local environment), it would at least recognize their ways of knowing as it should be embedded within active teachers’ pedagogy.
Weller, M. (2018). Twenty Years of Edtech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/7/twenty-years-of-edtech
This article provides a summary of main innovations in Educational Technology (EdTech) starting from Wikipedia in the 1990’s to Blockchains in 2017. The list can be thought of as potential tools for educators looking for to support online / blended classrooms, or to incorporate technology into traditional classrooms in meaningful ways. For instance, Open Education Resources (OER) or Web 2.0 would be a means to provide students with curricular material instead of print-based items which are easily forgotten or damaged. What’s interesting to note are the more recent (within last 5 years) technology such as learning analytics (collection of student data to supplement learning or intervention), digital badges (which students can accrue as evidence of informal learning), and artificial intelligence (potential tutoring system). An important caveat to the innovations in the article is that their full adoption and integration into education is still a work in progress. In addition, their usefulness in the classroom is also open to debate.
What? What happened? What did you learn? What did you do? What did you expect? What was different? What was your reaction?
The article lists advances in technology over the last two decades which have the potential to be used for educational purposes. It was interesting to read through some of them and learn about newer ones like AI and Blockchain.
RSS: aware of its existence, but never tried to utilize it. Seems to be another well-intentioned, poorly executed idea that died off before it took off.
Blogs: seems to be the most popular option for post-secondary assessment or reading. It’s understandable as they tend to be more readable (less jargon or use excessive academic language), engaging (use of graphics or other media), or relate-able (use of humor, sarcasm, case-studies, etc).
LMS: utilized of platforms such as Blackboard, Canvas, and EBUS as a leaner. Yet never realized how much work is involved in the creation and operation of the LMS. For example, creating content such as quizzes, tests, rubrics, or lessons, as well as ensuring file cater to software (.pages or .word) or hardware (PC or Mac). I agree with how LMS have become the industry standard of well-executed distance learning format. a properly constructed, user-friendly system can make or break a course. Alternatives such as emailing assignments or reading instructions off a blog feels clunky, and has too many separate pieces which requires users to search high and low for information or documents.
“The Moodle sign” by 4nitsirk is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Twitter & Social Media: while it seems to be more “open” in terms of accessibility and interactivity, much of it is still a toxic cesspool which demotivates individuals from participating (constructively).
“Never argue with an idiot. -George Carlin” by deeplifequotes is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
So What? Why does it matter? What are the consequences and meanings of your experiences? How do your experiences link to your academic, professional and/or personal development?
The summary of currently available tools and helps me identify which pieces are present or absent in my current practice. Since I use the LMS of Moodle to teach blended /online classrooms, it comes equipped with open textbook, digital badges, and learning analytic tools that were mentioned in the reading. To improve my practice, I should try to learn and experiment with these tools as mentioned in the readings. First and foremost would be paying more attention to the learning analytical tools, such as tracking students’ time spent on the course; where are they spending the most time and what is it about those tasks that require so much of their attention and reflection.
“Head Experiment” by Kollage Kid is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Now What? What are you going to do as a result of your experiences? What will you do differently? How will you apply what you have learned?
The take-away from this article is to re-examine my classes to see what aspects I can include or exclude. This is especially true of tools that I’ve avoided (ie. synchronous online meetings?) as I didn’t quite understand what how they are useful for student learning.
After three blogs and a video project, all that’s left is our nascent literature review before I begin embarking on that happy journey. With that in mind, where shall the destination of my research project be?
There it i-… oh.
Given that my current employment is at a school offering distance & blended learning, my colleagues and I were aiming aiming to examine a topic that is more relevant to us than for traditional brick-and-mortar schools. I had chosen the chapter on Flexible, Open, and Distance Learning because it sounded interesting and highly relevant to my practices. Unfortunately, my partner and I discovered that most of the content in the article to be fairly predictable, which is a given as we either implement those practices already or have already encountered those issues. In design a blended course for instance, we have long since realized that merely transforming the course content into a digital format was not effective for students to successfully engage with it. Furthermore, we still occasionally face the constraints of technology such as the learning management system (LMS) lacking a user-friendly interface or input for assessments (or students ‘forgetting’ how to use the LMS).
I was pleasantly surprised that Pratt and Kovacheva (2018) mentioned the issue of current research on distance or blended learning being largely at the post-secondary level, with limited information from applications at the secondary or elementary level. This was something my colleagues and I were wondering during on first semester when reading the comparative study by Yen et al (2018), where they compared traditional, online, and blended modals of the same university course, and found that there were no significant differences in learning between the three. For the high school population, I doubt that the same results would be reproduced as the students are generally not as self-motivated or responsible for their own learning; which is understandable as there is a trove of information on children’s brain development being woefully incomplete at that age (and for some adults, never seem to have finished). With that said, what are some suggestions for designing a successful blended or online course? Oliver and Stalling (2014) had a suggestion that was highly reminiscent of the TPACK model, whereby teachers needed to be possess subject/content competency, pedagogical competency, technological competency, and teacher competency. While this was not new information, I was glad to see different researchers promoting the same model (and not that silly SAMR one). There was one interesting point that was mentioned, which is that teachers need access to on-going professional development (Powell et al, 2015; Vanderlinde, Aesaert, & Van Braak, 2004; and mentioned in handout summaries of other projects with no source cited). I fully agree with this suggestion as a new teacher, but I’ve noticed that none of the district workshops or Professional Development (Pro-D) seem to offer anything regarding this. My colleagues have explained that there is only the Canadian e-Learning conference once a year, and even that is mostly about pushing product services than structuring or framing online learning. So rather than focus on theoretical approaches / guidelines / suggested practices, as present throughout everyone’s presentations (teachers and students should be motivated to learn, build on strengths, understand technology, collaborate, bla-bla-blah), I’m far more interested in Pro-D workshop with practical applications. For example, here is the LMS called Moodle, here are some tools (assessments, textbook content, discussions forums, anonymous feedback), here are some ways we have used or re-purposed these tools for demonstrating Communication, Thinking, and Personal & Social Competencies. The biggest struggle I predict teachers have when deciding to tackle online or blended learning is the sheer amount of time needed to become familiar with the intricacies of the online system. More often than not, we use pre-published lessons as a way to quickly have a functional course and delve right into managing the class and assessing the students (your Honor, I plead guilty). It’s only a matter of time before this spirals into the “it works, why bother changing it”; hallmark of decrepit teachers who are well past their expiration date and you’re even wondering how they even stand upright.
THIS is a tablet.
In taking leadership to create a workshop, we would save individual teachers the time and effort needed to learn the basic foundations of the system by themselves, and re-invest that time into investigating more efficient, effective, or even innovative ways to use the same tools. This opens up more opportunities for richer collaboration, as the community have all moved past the hurdle of how do I use X tool? This leads us to the next step: how DO we create a professional workshop for online and blended learning, and what are the main topics that makes it appealing?
Since I dug my grave supporting Richard
Clark’s view that media offers “no learning
benefits” (1994) in my previous blog, it’s
only natural that I continue to furnish my
new home with more debate-related decor.
This week we have the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition (SAMR) model versus the Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. The former, by Romrell, Kidder, and Wood (2014), sees four different levels of integration of technology into mobile learning. The simplest of which is Substitution, whereby an educator merely replaces the medium of how the content is provided; such as a digital copy instead of print. Next is Augmentation, where some form of functional improvement has been added on. An example they provided was using SMS text message instead of flashcards in reviewing medical information for nursing students (Chuang and Tsao, 2013). Modification seems to be where the activity has been significantly re-designed using technology (Puentedura, 2006), such as learning from interactive computer simulations instead of textbook diagrams. At the apex, we have Redefinition, where technology has allowed for realization of a novel task; like seeing real-time translations with real-time smartphone translations (Liu and Tsai, 2013).
Why did I bother explaining each aspect of the model you ask? Because I have difficulty with the rigidity of four level system and how viewing the same task under a different lens could move it up or down hierarchy. Hamilton, Rosenberg, and Akcaoglu made a similar statement where the SAMR model “dismisses the complexity of teaching with technology by defining and organizing teachers’ uses of technology in predefined ways” (2016). Looking at Liu and Tsai’s study where students were shopping with real-time translations of products the text, I would actually categorize this under Substitution where they could do the same activity by simply going to local foreign-goods store. I also question the purpose of this lesson: how accurate are those product translations (as we’ve heard the horrors Google Translate is capable of), and why would students bother learning English when they can just translate everything the other way into Chinese? Results showing gains in student engagement and learning could be due to the novelty of the experience whereby if this practice becomes ubiquitous, the same indicators would drop as it becomes routine and boring. A personal example I’ll share is my current class project of teaching embroidery. I can use virtual reality (VR) goggles as a Substitution method, or introduce 3-D printing technology / automated sewing machinery as a Redefinition of teaching textiles. At the end of the course, what have students learned and is it transferable? Those students will likely never be able to thread an actual needle in practice. So rather than classify technology into some generic classification, it is more important to understand the content we are trying, the most efficient pedagogical approach, and the capabilities of technology to bring our ideas to fruition. Which brings us to Tupac TPACK.
(I wish I could find a copyright-free image of the event)
Part of Dr. Dre’s Ph.D thesis in Educational Technology?
At the 2012 Coachella Valley Music and Art Festival, producer Dr. Dre managed to create a ‘hologram’ of deceased rapper Tupac Amaru Shakur. If we apply a liberal amount of cross-discipline analysis, one can view this ‘innovative technology’ as a Redefinition, or at least, Modification of guest performances at concerts. Yet in actuality, this was a Substitution trick where they applied a 19th century theater projection technique to produce a seemingly next-generation technology to engage the audience. So which SAMR model category should this belong to? Here is where I find the TupacTPACK to a better framework for assessing technology. In the analogy where Dr. Dr is our teacher, he possesses the content knowledge of a music festival (good taste in music?), the pedagogical knowledge (how to make an impact), and the technological knowledge (19th century theatrical tricks), and the ability to combine them all together in order to make an engaging event.
For myself, the TPACK model is a mental checklist in justifying the inclusion or exclusion of activities in my classes. If we re-summon the smartphone translation example and frame it in the context of helping Chinese students learn English, here’s how I would apply TPACK to evaluate the activity:
Technological knowledge of smartphones and apps that allow for real-time translations – Yes, existing technology and can operate it.
Pedagogical knowledge that letting students see the local environment in English helps them learn – No, it’s just a novel experience and is actually counterproductive to the necessity of learning English.
Content knowledge of practical vocabulary list that students will see in stores and the need to learn them – Yes, aware of basic vocabulary they will encounter.
Under TPACK, that activity would fit Technological Content Knowledge, and personally, I would choose to not utilize the smartphone technology because the pedagogical knowledge is undesirable, regardless of how others would brand it as crowning “Redefinition” category under the SAMR model. TPACK also helps me to evaluate my current understanding of the task, in order to select an appropriate technology (or what Clark calls media). Let’s say the context is myself teaching biomolecules (proteins, carbs, fats) in Biology 12, here is sample evaluation before I decide on the design:
Content Knowledge – familiarity with content competencies under the Biology 12 curriculum.
Pedagogical Knowledge – practices to provide meaningful engagement to the targeted class.
Technological Knowledge – list of available tools & my ability to operate them.
A tried-and-true method to teach this would be printing pages of notes and having students memorize 2D structures of biomolecules. This covers the content knowledge and uses simple technology to accomplish, but the lack of pedagogical knowledge of inefficient student learning using this approach. Switching the technology to utilize digital instead of print may make it more accessible, but does not address the issue of pedagogy. Thus, I need to re-evaluate that piece and perhaps teach using physical, interactive models whereby students experience hands-on construction and manipulation of pieces (repeatedly) to internalize the structure of say, fatty acids. The content remains the same while the pedagogy has improved, which leaves me the freedom of selecting an appropriate technology. In a face-to-face classroom, I would opt for traditional ball & stick models as it’s my belief that tactile sensations help improve learning; but I would choose digital simulations for those who are in an online classroom. These decisions are made based on reflecting on all three fields of knowledge, hence I am able to justify my choice of ordering more marshmallows and skewers instead of just doing everything digitally.
It should be clear that I side with Clark in the discussion about effects of media on learning; which feels awkward as I teach blended and online classes. This means I rely heavily on use of media such as videos, animations, and educational websites to deliver content to students while they are outside the classroom.
What does the Clark Say?
Richard E. Clark has repeatedly,stated his stance regarding use of media in teaching as “there (are) no learning benefits possible” (1994). He first published this statement from the results of his meta-analysis on decades of research on the influences of media on learning back in 1983. Clark sees media as a means of delivering instruction, using analogies like different delivery services having varying efficiencies, but has the same end result of the item being delivered. A similar analogy was that different forms of medicine, such as tablets, capsules, or liquid, all deliver the same active ingredient into the body. This was similar to Salomon’s (1979) finding that “it was not the medium which influenced learning but instead certain attributes of media that can be modeled by learners and can shape the development of unique ‘cognitive processes'”. I agree with these sentiments because it helps explain why old tried-and-true activities still work today even with our advances in technology such as computer animations or virtual reality. For instance, high school chemistry introduces cyclohexane as a two-dimensional drawing:
Kiddy cyclohexane
In university, we learn that same molecule in all its glory:
Teenage cyclohexane
Traditionally, poor undergrads are expected to derive the three-dimensional configuration from looking at two-dimensional drawing, and then ponder how substituents on the arms would align themselves in space to minimize repulsion for a stable configuration. Innovations in technology has created molecular model kits, or marshmallows and toothpicks, to allows for physical manipulation of an object for visualizing the cyclohexane shape.
Available from Amazon for $26.97Available from grocery stores for… $5?
Further advances in technology have made it possible for anyone at anytime and anywhere to render any molecule online (such as on MolView) for free.
Available for free… if you can build it.
Why did I show all these images? Because according to Clark, the flat textbook picture, the plastic or marshmallow model, and the online tool should be equally effective at helping students learn about the conformations of cyclohexanes. This sounds very counter-intuitive as most would argue the first method would be nowhere near as effective as the latter two methods, due to lack of interaction.
Kozma & Co.
Some opponents of Clark would identify the manipulative aspects of hands-on or digital models to be what Kozma (1994) calls the “processing capabilities” of the medium, whereby it can act upon the symbol system presented. Being able to freely rotate or translate the model allows learners to comprehend the structure when they were unable to do so from a static image. Kozma provided similar arguments through studies using computer-based learning program called ThinkerTools and educational videos called the Jasper Woodbury series, and found that students scored higher subsequent tests compared to the control group who used traditional teaching methods (Kozma, 1994). So this means that media does influence learning and I should re-think my stance right?
“Yo, (Kozma), I’m really happy for you, I’ma let you finish, but (Clark) had one of the best (arguments) of all time!” ~ Kanye West, VMA 2009. Edited for relevance.
I agree with Clark’s (1994) direct rebuttal of Kozma’s findings because the control group did not receive the same scaffolded guidance compared to the experimental groups. Therefore, we have confounding variables affecting the result: was it the presentation of the information through video or simulation that accounted for the difference in assessment results, or was it the different pedagogical approach where one group were taught and practiced applying different skills throughout the problem processes? Using a medical analogy: consider a patient given pills and sent away with written directions, versus another who uses intravenous (IV) drip with round-the-clock care. If the latter shows greater improvements, we cannot conclude the IV treatment is more effective as the lack of care and scrutiny may have had an influences on the final results. My second argument is that in my example with molecular structures, does each method offer a unique attribute which results in acquisition of a unique knowledge? The learning gains from the physical and digital models are most likely due to the aspect of interactivity, whereby students are alleviated from mentally processing an image in their minds and instead focus on visually seeing the manipulation. Presenting the ability for visualization is the key instructional method that Clark defines as “the provision of cognitive processes or strategies that are necessary for learning but which students can not or will not provide for themselves” (1994). The implication from this is that as long as the instructional piece (such as visualization) is provided, learning will occur be it through a series perspective drawings, physical models, imaging software, or virtual reality.
This is crucial to my pedagogy for teaching online and blended classes where I can challenge the preconception that these alternate programs are more, or less, rigorous than full-time classes. If I can identify and present that vital instructional piece, then I will have more flexibility with my choice of media and not worry over how learning didn’t occur because a particular format was not used. This also allows me to keep my options open, that one day virtual or augmented reality that can fully simulate the five sense in order to let students experience a full-on (disastrous) lab experiment.
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), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087
Salomon, G (1979), Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Thanks to our wonderful professor selecting such deliciously bite-sized nuggets of wisdom (truly, I appreciate the gentle start to course readings), I can effortlessly group the first. three. articles. under the banner of “Neat… and?”
Accurate depiction of knowledge gleaned from articles.
As coffee break reading material, it was mildly interesting to read how random writers are predicting future trends of technology in education, and offering little snippets of vague information about some new technology; but what was the point of the articles? The purpose of this exercise was not clear, thus motivation and interest was practically non-existent and I simply needed grit-my-teeth and quickly skim the articles to understand key terminology like augmented reality (AR), cloud computing, or learning science. This mindset persisted until the Top Hat article, which stated “[their] technology in education 2019 predictions are less about exactly what emerging technologies will be… but how they will be applied.” All of a sudden, I understood the purpose the author had in writing this article, and how their work may potentially be relevant to me. In addition, I found the article to be much more enjoyable as it provides concrete examples such as using AR to practice surgery planning. This was absent in previous articles where they merely spouted some completely generic advertisement like “applications such as HP Reveal have near-limitless uses and could be used in any curricular subject” (Tech & Learning, 2018); something I strongly disagreed with as it’s restricted to well-funded institutions that can afford a class set, and does not alleviate or enhance teaching of mechanical processes like two-digit multiplication. In reflecting upon this, I once again realized that my experiences as a student in this online Masters program is nearly identical to that of my own students in the distance learning courses I teach.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the teacher in us all?
As a learner, I’ve recognized that my own learning is often dependent on knowing the purpose of the material and how it may benefit me in the future. It is from that framework do I maintain consciousness when engaging the literature, and have the mental capacity to find a topic of interest or inquiry to delve into. For example, I really enjoyed the Top Hat article so I began looking into who the writer was, where were the sources he used for the predictions, and more importantly, what other article has he written. This was not done for the any of the earlier articles because I simply could not care enough after having satisfied the expectation of reading the article. What’s worse is that some articles either lacked the references for me to search, or lacked credentials for the article to be considered worthwhile. Case in point: in Lambda Solutions‘ disclaimer, they note that their article was written by some fellow who was “interested in culture, education and fiction” (wait… that last part worries me), which I’m not sure how their opinion can be considered as the “expert insight” that their advertising in the preceding sentence. Furthermore, the writer’s “views and opinions expressed [in the article] belong to the guest blogger alone, and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or opinions of Lambda Solutions.” This is painful for me as I feel the article’s purpose was to provide an expert’s view on educational technology trends and promote the company’s services, which it failed because the expert was not an expert. Knowing my motivators and being able to find them helps me succeed at learning, which becomes my task to inspire the same in those I teach.
As a teacher, my role in student education is to have them understand their own reasons for learning (purpose), recognize what they need to succeed (benefit), and develop a strategy to accomplish that (more benefits). The best method I can think of is to offer my own learning process as a functional example. I need to ensure the purpose of my decisions, activities, or content are visible to the students, and I’m able to justify the benefit of engaging in them. Being a teacher at a distance-learning center, this means I have more flexibility in the sense that I have the option and access to some of the technological trends being mentioned, such as cloud computing, online presence and learning communities, self-paced learning, or access rich multimedia for our diverse learners. With this in mind, the articles I read becomes relevant as I have options under consideration for “meaningful integration of new technologies… aligning to best instructional practices” (Holland and Holland, 2014) into my classes. This simplifies my work down to weighing the pros against the cons of adopting a new piece of technology and whether it provides an authentic, engaging learning experience, or becomes a simple tokenism having cutting-edge technology. This is why that I would need to familiarize and assess for myself with the practicality of those new innovations, or study how other have tried making it relevant in their pedagogy, before agreeing or disagreeing the effectiveness of these trends. For instance, the easiest to implement would be online discussions or debate in forums as opposed to in-class ones. While the benefits include allowing remote learners to participate and letting students contribute at their own pace of learning, one common problem I’ve seen is the misinterpretation of words (due to lack of seeing facial and body cues); or that the discussion peters out due to participants posting at different times thus lacking that immediate consideration of ideas and subsequent feedback. Another example would be using virtual reality (VR) or AR to provide a sense of “hands-on” learning through remote connection or in under-equipped classroom. As a traditional science teacher, I still value and support authentic in-person laboratory experiments simply because I feel the alternatives cannot fully emulate that holistic experience of: the weight and burns from holding a hot beaker, the sight and sounds of the wrong solution being added, or simply experience working with lab partners.
