Rounding Up

As the end of EDPROFST 714 approaches I thought I'd reflect on some of the learning I've gained from the study.

1. This is the first fully online course I have done and I have to say I have missed the human contact. It's notable that some of the most enjoyable aspects of the course have been the professional dialogues, either through the Moodle forums or through this and other blogs. When I compare this rich dialogue to that which I've experienced on face-to-face courses the sad truth is that it has been limited by the asynchronous nature of this technology. I am hopeful that as synchronous online communication becomes more easily and universally accessible this may change. However, call me a digital immigrant if you like, but there's nothing like the whole human package - body language, gesture, intonation as well as words, make so much difference in our ways of relating. Perhaps blended learning is the answer.
2. Getting a sense of the historical evolution of elearning has been very valuable. It's often thought of as a very new thing, and to some extent, the explosion in web 2.0 and broadband access has revolutionised the possibilities of elearning. However, there is a rich history of successful and failed policy and practice from which we can learn and use to avoid making the same mistakes again (although with the current focus on national standards and the "3 R's" I do wonder about educationalists ever learning from past mistakes... but that another blog and a rather political one at that!). So the history aspect of this course was very helpful.
3. As a result of studying wider policy and strategy around elearning I have been able to think more widely about elearning implications for my school. Where I was bogged down with my own practice, the software I was using in class and my desire to "teach" others how to use it, I am now thinking much more strategically about how to create the conditions for teachers to initiate and take control of their own change.
4. It has been very valuable to make connections with professionals across the elearning communities of this country for two reasons: firstly these personal connections can and will be built upon to facilitate more professional discussion. Secondly, it has opened my eyes to the wealth of interest and experience in elearning and helped me to feel more positive that the changes which technology will force education to make will be well steered and accommodated by those pioneers who first bring them to pass.

This blog has been a very useful vehicle for shaping my thoughts and feelings around the various aspects of elearning encountered. I hope it has also been of use to others as they grapple with the ever changing landscape in which we live.

TPACK - theory into practice

Having read around the TPACK framework (Harris & Hofer, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006, 2009a, 2009b) I have very mixed feelings about the model. Sure, it is a very good perspective from which to analyse how well a teacher may be successfully integrating technology with the content and pedagogy they are engaged with. It certainly breaks down the component parts of teacher knowledge which together contribute to successful elearning and eteaching (is that a term or did I just make it up? Anyway, I think you get my meaning...). However, the key word there is ANALYSE. I feel that where this framework possesses strengths as an evaluation tool, its Achilles heel is the capacity it has to be used for creative purposes, i.e. as a practical framework for informing teaching decisions on the ground whether they be made at the planning stage, in the immediacy of the "teachable moment" or anywhere in between.

The very simple but tangible evidence to back up this belief is the paucity of literature out there which addresses the practical application of TPACK. The main exception is the work being overseen by Judy Harris and Mark Hofer at the School of Education, College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, USA. Much of their work can be accessed at the excellent TPCK.org website. Heads up to Sandy for pointing me to that site :-). They are in the process of developing some practical tools which have the TPACK model as their theoretical backdrop. Arguing that "Teaching with technology is more like jazz improvisation than performing someone else's musical composition" (source this here) the tools are in the form of content-based reference sheets which include correlating examples of technical, pedagogical and content contexts. These can be applied at the planning stage or, once fully taken in and understood by teachers, can be ideally whipped up at any teachable moment - a process they call "planned improvisations".

At this stage, the bulk of their work is based around Social Studies contexts although there are other content areas being developed through a collaborative wiki.

This is a positive development for my school. As the ICT leader I am set with the task of overseeing models for PD next year as we enter the second year of our contract. I would like to use the TPACK framework but don't want to it to be an overwhelmingly abstract tool for teachers - it has to be relevant and practical to their practice. Therefore, I expect I will introduce it as a discussion framework in the context of our professional learning communities out of which, hopefully, the staff will be able to form content specialised groups whose remit will be to produce similar reference sheets which will be highly relevant to our own context/students.

However, this will be a component part of the PD framework which will also encompass some of the Just-in-Time ideas from Jamie McKenzie as well as underlying principles of best practice summarised so well by Helen Timperley and others. Let's hope all the theory creates the possibility for real practical changes made to teachers' classroom practice and therefore, improvements in student outcomes.

References

Harris, J. & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE). Retrieved 5 October, 2009, from http://www.editlib.org/p/31425

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009a). Too cool for school? No way! Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009b). About TPCK - Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Retrieved 12 October, 2009, from http://tpck.org/tpck/index.php?title=TPCK_-_Technological_Pedagogical_Content_Knowledge

Effective ICT PD - thoughts

Thumbs up to Sandy for pointing me towards a couple of readings on PD and TPACK - the Schmidt et al (2009) article really fills in part of the gap between theory and practice with regard to TPACK by listing content, pedagogy and elearning approaches to the delivery of literacy activities to K-6 classes. A little young for my own current context but still applicable - especially as I am leading teachers in this age range. It's certainly feasible to ask teachers to incorporate an elearning dimension to much of their planning when resources like this are available - one way I've tried this in my own practice is to include an area for elearning related activities in all of my planning templates - this works well for teachers as a reminder, the danger though is that the activities become tokenistic and are not thought through enough to really enhance student learning (a great exaple is getting kids to brainstorm on something like Inspiration when the brainstorm will not be reused/augmented later in the unit - much better and more effective use of time, to use paper in this case). I've also taken a look at MacKenzie's (1998) "Just-in-time" model and am interested in creating a fusion from the two approaches which are already by no means mutually exclusive. TPACK can provide the framework and a modified (read "financially feasible") version while Just-in-Time can provide the PD delivery model. I've been looking at some of the work by Garet et al (2001) on effective PD models and it seems to align well with my thinking - the main point they make is around the idea that PD should a) focus on of content... this is all very well for subject teachers at secondary but does pose problems for the wearers of many hats that we primary people tend to be. However, the same argument can be applied to TPACK theory in general and for me the answer to it lies in the idea of tinkering, outlined by John Seely Brown which advocates that students (and therefore teachers) try things out to make them their own and then build on that knowledge by reflecting and sharing - to this end, primary teachers could become proficient (knowledgeable) in a technology and its pedagogical application in a specific content area (e.g. a group of kids using google docs for collaborative poetry writing) to be able to APPLY this TPACK to other content areas (e.g. a group of kids using google docs for collating research ideas/notes for an inquiry unit) -a rather simplistic example which doesn't necessarily address the pedagogy but you get the idea...

b) involve active learning - this is very much in line with Mackenzie's Just-in-Time model

c) be coherent (in other words, be easily integrated into the daily life of the school) - or into the daily pedagogy of the teacher. This is an important element - PD can often fail because the teachers feel overwhelmed with too many changes to implement at once. You can't get a teacher to use an IWB if they don't know how to rig up the projector. Thereore, PD must be tailored to individual levels of proficiency to make it "coherent".

The elements of effective PD seem to be well known and researched - it's just that the cost a lots of money and it's cheaper to send someone off to a workshop and tick a box to say they've had their PD. My challenge is to sell a different model of PD to my BoT and do it in a way which does not involve unreasonable extra expenditure.

REFS Garet, M, Porter A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., and Yoon, K. S. (2001). What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38: 915-945

McKenzie Jamie. (1998) Creating Learning Cultures with Just-in-Time Support. Retrieved 26/09/08 http://staffdevelop.org/adult.html

Schmidt, D., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009, February). K-6 literacy learning activity types. Retrieved from College of William
and Mary, School of Education, Learning Activity Types Wiki: http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/K-
6LiteracyLearningATs-Feb09.pdf
K-6 Literacy Learning Activity Types” by Denise A. Schmidt, Judi Harris and Mark Hofer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Dias and ICT integration

I've just read the Dias article* about integration. I have a few thoughts which tie in a little with my PD ideas outlined in an earlier post (particularly the notion of SOUTH). Dias contends that

"technology is integrated when it is used in a seamless manner to support and extend curriculum objectives and to engage students in meaningful learning." and "Technology enriches the activity and enables the students to demonstrate what they know in new and creative ways." (p. 11). These definitions are important because there is a wide variation of interpretations of the idea of "integration". At my school, some see it as using a web 2.0 tool like wordle extraneously just to "prove" they've been using technology - at a micro level, this is characteristic of Michael Fullan's ideas about how and why schools adopt innovation, as outlined by Tony in Study Guide 6. These teachers need lots of support in many ways to get them past this entry/adoption stage of learning (see below). According to Dias, the qualities of "learner-centred" classrooms/teachers - which generally refers to those which have (co-) constructivism and perhaps a dash of connectivism at the heart of their pedagogy. This also suggests that some teachers have to change much of their practice to create an environment conducive to ICT integration. thankfully, most teachers at my school operate a classroom/practice based in co-constructivist theory. At a more subtle level though, some teachers may need to change the way they view their role in the class from knowledge provider to context creator.

Dias lists the barriers to integration as time, training, resources and support. In my experience, these all overlap to make a sizeable wall in many cases. For example, even with training given, teachers often need follow up opportunities to tinker with an ICT so that they are sufficiently confident with it, before they can integrate it fully with their students. Where do they get the time to do this? Usually they are expected to do this in their own time and, with little motivation, this will often fall by the wayside making the initial investment in training a waste of money.

Dias categorises the stages of integration as entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation and invention. These stages present another problem: in my school different teachers are at different stages, and with limited time/resources for PD it is very difficult to support each teacher at an appropriate level. We have had to opt for generic training which can leave more advanced teachers frustrated or beginners overwhelmed.

Dias raises some very valuable points and whilst this post may seem a little depressing and pessimistic, the challenges I have outlined here are not necessarily insurmountable. I would like to start to address some of them in subsequent posts in this blog, and in response to some of the frameworks made available to us (e.g. TPACK).

Refs

*Dias, L. B. (1999). Integrating technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3), 11-13, 21

Cloud Computing - some enlightenment

Hmmm... what I thought would be a small white fluffy solitary thing in the sky is turning out to be a complex, brooding all covering cumulo-nimbus!! Cloud computing covers such a range of services (software, platform, infrastructure) and so, for the context of the first assignment, I'll probably focus on SaaS as it's pertinent to my own professional context seeing as our school has just moved over to Google for Educators to host our mail and provide all staff with access to Apps. After reading the Brown (2000) article I did a bit more delving and trawled on to his website. There's an excellent youtube video of a speech he made recently at Indiana University (cited below). A lot of it repeats what he covered in the earlier article but he does clarify some of his ideas with excellent examples (his reference to architecture studio androgogy and the "lurking" which occurs there is particularly helpful). What's all this got to do with Cloud and SaaS I hear you cry... well I feel that a lot of what Brown envisages with regard to "communities of practice" can be played out using software like Google Apps which allows collaboration and participation across borders be they geographical, social or cultural. It all seems to lead towards connectivism (or does connectivism lead to Open Source and cloud? Chicken and egg?) which I'm not yet familiar with - but I need to be wary of jumping onto the bandwagon of a new learning theory, just because it's new. Incidentally, the Brown website also has some pretty scary (to me) working papers on Cloud Computing which others pursuing this area may find useful - I'm afraid there are too many technical acronyms for me to cope with - and I am happy but a little jealous to admit that Brown out-geeks me by far :-) Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education and the ways people learn. Change(March/April), 11-20.

Brown, J.S. (2009) Learning in the Digital Age - speech at Indiana University

Some thoughts on the digital immigrants/natives debate

My principal handed me a copy of the Prensky article last year and I devoured it and with a degree of naivety proclaimed it to be gospel, lamenting the 15 years or so I should have waited before being born. I've now read it with a more critical eye, and the benefit of a few masters papers under my belt (most usefully, one on Gifted Education) and I'm not so sure about the truths it expounds.

My biggest problem with it is the over-generalization of a whole generation. It's the same with critics who claim that boys are better at maths and girls are better at english: well, which boys and which girls? Jamie Mackenzie sums this up nicely here "Real fifteen year old humans are quite different from each other, a fact that Prensky did not take the time to study or notice.”

In my study of gifted education, it's all too clear that learners are (and probably always have been) an incredibly diverse bunch and require differentiated curriculum options to help them progress - this differentiation needs to happen for process, content and product (see Riley, T. (2004b). Qualitative differentiation for gifted and talented students. In McAlpine, D. & Moltzen, R. (Eds.), Gifted and talented. New Zealand perspectives (pp. 345-369). Palmerston North: Massey University for more on this). Moreover Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences would suggest that labelling a whole generation with one identity is somewhat simplistic.

Jamie Mackenzie also makes the valid point that Prensky's ideas have weak academic evidence to support them and I note that his Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2 cites sources such as New York Times and Los Angeles Times which lack perhaps the academic rigour of peer reviewed journals.

My other problem is Prensky's view of "future" content which Mackenzie calls "vacuous". "“Future” content is to a large extent, not surprisingly, digital and technological. But

while it includes software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, etc. it also

includes the ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things that go with them. " So Prensky contends - but what are those ethics and politics? He makes no mention of constructing knowledge (except perhaps his assertion that students should learn on computers they build themselves) and on the collaborative and connected nature of e-learning.

Having said all that, there is a degree to which I accept that today's learners are relating to the world in a different way due to their exposure to technology. I just think it's too early in the piece to make sweeping judgments as to what that new way of relating is.

In my own practice, some of my children certainly seem to be able to pick up new software and run with it relatively quickly. But there are others who need plenty of support to assimilate new ways of working, even with something like the basic word processor contained in Google Docs. Consider this from another DN/DI blog “students don’t really understand the technology any better than most adults, they are just less afraid of making mistakes”.

And what about me? Well, I had my first computer aged 15 (ZX Spectrum) and learned to program in Basic (just twee stuff like drawing random lines on the screen!!) but I still consider myself an immigrant if the term has any value. I prefer however to call myself a "digital open book", keen and ready to learn new ideas and new ways of doing things. I am not frightened of technology (only of the price...) and I believe that not paying attention is only reason to be out of touch with the latest trends and technology, it's got nothing to do with one's age. I am a physical immigrant to New Zealand but in the 10 years I've lived here I seem to have seen a good deal more of the place than many of my Kiwi friends. So maybe there are benefits to being an immigrant - if you have the motivation, perhaps you view the modern technological landscape with a more critical and appreciative eye than a native who may see the ubiquitous fresh and untouched spaces as not worth bothering with.

Come now Selwyn D (2008), don't be too hasty!

Just read the Selwyn* article and have mixed feelings about the views therein. He argues that the only real good to come out of Digital Horizons was mediocre ICT Cluster PD and the development of Cyber-Safety Programmes (p. 33). Whilst I agree that in order to really give e-learning a kickstart we need more radical policy making from central government which "rethinks the structures of schooling (curriculum, assessment as well as structures of time, space and power)" (p. 33), I do feel that Selwyn is being a little pessimistic about things on the ground. The article does briefly mention infrastructure improvements such as wider broadband internet access (Probe Project) and the TELA scheme but, I feel, does not give them enough kudos. The loftiest e-learning goals of any policy maker would not be able to come to fruition without adequate infrastructure and, given the rapidly changing nature of software, operating systems and hardware, I feel it's a little cynical to slam the goals of policy so hard when the goalposts are continually moving.

In applying Selwyn's analysis to the later "E-learning Action Plan" I can see some of the economic discourse coming through in the text. There is still reference to the knowledge economy and to how learners will benefit society and the economy in the future if they have a high level of ICT literacy.

However, there is a distinct flavour of collaboration and connectivity in this later policy. I believe this is due to the influence of the new NZ curriculum and, more specifically, the key competencies therein. The "Elearning action plan" seems to hold these key competencies (especially Participating and Contributing, and Communication) at the core of what it is saying. I think for my assignment I want to explore the key competencies, particularly those two, in greater depth to see how they can drive teachers' ICT use in the right direction.

Finally, I want to say that I feel a policy document like the eLearning Action Plan cannot and should not be critiqued in isolation. It really should be an umbrella document under which a whole host of consequential actions take place (including infrastructure development, rolling out of PD, and development of Professional Learning Communities to foster better "smart" ICT use in the classroom). The activities which arise as a result of the policy are what should be better critiqued and subsequently developed and although Selwyn does this when he reads "with" the document, in my view his analysis was too narrow in places.

*Selwyn, D. (2008). Business as usual? Exploring the continuing (in)significance of e-learning policy drives. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 20(3), 22-34