Online activity 3.1

Reading critique of the article by Bonk and Khoo (2014) TEC-Variety framework for motivating online learners

The article by Kahu and Nelson (2018) discusses the ínsertion of an educational interface into
into an existing conceptual framework of student engagement, for higher education institutions. 
Underpinning the educational interface are four specific psychosocial constructs that can
influence a student’s engagement in their learning:  self-efficacy, emotions, belonging and
well-being.  These constructs termed mediating mechanisms, were highlighted to acknowledge
the challenges faced by non-traditional students in the higher education learning institutions
and to provide initiatives to institutions on how they might positively influence student
engagement and therefore success (p. 68).  

My general impression of the article is that it effectively addressed some important
issues that influence student’s engagement and retention in higher education
institutions.  From my personal experiences and relationships with people who
would be classed as ‘non-traditional’ students, it was almost as if they had placed
16 years of attending learning institutions, from early childhood to tertiary, under
a microscope and drawn these conclusions.  I think they have highlighted factors
in the educational interface that are critical to non-traditional students engaging
and remaining in an alienated setting that has its own culture, that is, a certain
way of behaving and thinking.  The references cited in the article allow for a
deeper understanding of the issues raised and I totally agree with the suggestion
by Kahu & Nelson (2108) that “more research is needed on academic
self-efficacy in non-traditional student groups” because “self-efficacy may be one
of the key-mechanisms that could cause non-traditional students to be less
engaged” (p. 65).   The publication of the article in 2018 makes the writing
contemporary, however, I do believe the psychosocial factors underpinning the
educational interface are well and truly timeless when discussing the
inter-relationship between learning institutions and non-traditional students.

The factors discussed in the article that resonated with me were the
psychosocial constructs of the educational interface.  Self-efficacy, an
individual’s belief in the ability to perform a task, defined by Schunk & Pajares
(as cited in Kahu & Nelson, p. 64) I believe is not only influential but critical to
student engagement and success.  When deciding to attend Teachers College,
a higher education learning institution, it was my self-efficacy that enabled me to
apply for teacher training in the first place alongside a determination to break the
cycle.  There was no expectation to discover a sense of belonging or emotional
connection.  It was the belief that in my own capacity to engage, with the help
and support of the teachers and possible peers, that success was going to
occur.  Any emotional rewards, well-being or sense of belonging were expected
to be nurtured either through the success achieved by engaging in the learning,
or building positive social interactions with other teacher trainees.  However,
during the teacher training a sense of belonging and positive emotional
experiences nurtured a sense of well-being and self-efficacy, therefore building
a resistance to disengagement and decision to leave.  Another important factor
that should be taken into consideration is that the educational interface, due to
the social factors that influence engagement and retention, should not only be
adopted by all learning institutions from early childhood to tertiary, but also
implemented into business models.

A number of questions raised from reading the article;

1. What would the statistics look like if this study was done in NZ?

2. Would the refined model look different when taking into consideration the
principals of the Treaty of Waitangi?

3. Would a refined model, representative of students attending institutions in NZ, be
a model that could be applied to schooling from early childhood through to
college?

4. Would the methods used in this study be adaptable to students in NZ attending
tertiary institutions, particularly with Māori and Pasifika students?

Online activity 2.3

What do these theories, frameworks and models say about effective digital teaching?

Goal of Technology Integrations:  Meaningful Learning

Howland, Joanssen and Marra (2012) views on integrating technology is to focus
initially on the kinds of learning, particularly meaningful learning, and then to
identify how technology affords students the opportunities to engage in meaningful
learning.  Meaningful learning takes place when students are engaged in active,
constructive, cooperative, authentic and intentional tasks.  They go on to say that
“technologies can and should become the tools of meaningful learning” (p. 5) when
the students learn with and not from technology.  Focusing on learning and the five
characteristics of meaningful learning suggests that pedagogical content
knowledge takes precedence over technological knowledge which is in contrast to
Koehler and Mishra (2013) TPACK framework.  In my classroom practice the
integration of technology follows the same process as discussed by Howland,
Joanssen and Marra (2012).  Planning is focused on the students needs, which
includes learning outcomes and assessment components.  Technology is then
integrated only if it provides support to the students in meeting the learning
outcomes.

The 5 characteristics of meaningful learning  

1. Active (manipulative/Observant) - Students manipulate objects in the
environment  they are working in and observing the results of their manipulations.  

2. Constructive (Articulative/Reflective) - Students talk about their accomplishments

and reflect on the task and observations.

3. Intentional (Goal-Directed/Regulatory) - Students are actively trying to achieve a

goal which in turn motivates them to think and learn more.

4. Authentic (Complex/Contextual) - Teachers need to provide learning tasks

embedded in real life, useful contexts for learners.

5. Cooperative (Collaborative/Conversational) - Students work together in

communities in order to learn from each other through conversations and

knowledge building by utilising the skills in the group.

A number of the characteristics are integrated into many aspects of my planning,
depending on the task.  The most common characteristics implemented into the
daily tasks are constructive and cooperative with an emphasis on providing an
authentic context.

Implications for teaching

Providing more meaningful learning - 

- Become more mindful of implementing more of the active and intentional
characteristics when planning.

When integrating technology to facilitate meaningful learning we need to think
about how technology - 

- supports knowledge construction
- can act as an information vehicle
- provides an authentic context
- provides a social medium to support conversations
- acts as an intellectual partner

“Technologies should become the tools of meaningful learning and afford students
the opportunities to engage in meaningful learning when they learn with technology,
not from it.” (p. 5)

References

Howland, J. L., Jonassen, D., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningful learning with
technology (4th ed.). Pearson.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303

Online activity 2.2

What is the nature of the relationship between technology and pedagogy and does it favour one

or the other, or are they balanced?

Defining pedagogy and technology

My initial thoughts in regards to the questions asked about the relationship between technology and pedagogy, and whether the research favours one of the other, was going to be a matter of making notes around the balance of technology and pedagogy.  It was clear in my practice when using technology in the classroom, that there needed to be a focus on both technology and pedagogy as a balance, in meeting the needs of the students.  At the start of the readings it became apparent that pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge and technological knowledge were important for a teacher to have, however, technology was a tool that supported and enhanced learning, rather than helped to achieve learning outcomes.  Much to my surprise, technology could also constrain the students in achieving the learning outcomes (Koehler, Mishra and Cain, 2013) when the teacher is not equipped with the deep pedagogical and technological knowledge required to implement this tool effectively.  This misconception raised questions about the definition of pedagogy and technology, and the skills teachers develop over the years, that become a natural part of who we are.  Effective teaching requires pedagogical knowledge about the curriculum, classroom management, how learners learn and best practice in specific content.  For these reasons the focus should be on pedagogy and less on technology. 

What is pedagogy?

Vygotski introduced the Zone of Proximal Development framework, a concept which refers to the

gap between what a learner has mastered and what they can potentially master with the help of a “more knowledgeable other”.  The concept emphasises the social aspects of learning and the important role of teachers in order for learners to reach their full potential (Hickey, 2014).  Teachers require a deep pedagogical knowledge about how students learn, classroom management, lesson planning and assessment (Hamilton, Rosenberg and Akcaoglu, 2016) in order to meet the social and cognitive development of the learners, in a collaborative learning environment. A teacher’s presence and content knowledge allows effective social interaction and dialogue to occur, resulting in students mastering new skills (Cleveland-Innes, Garrison and Vaughan 2019).  

What is technology?

As Koehler, et al. (2013) suggest that technology is a tool that can be used to create, configure,

store, reuse, transmit or modify information which allows for the analysis and adaptation of the intended learning outcomes.  Students are able to develop different ways to meet the learning outcomes that otherwise would not be possible. Technology can also be used anytime and anywhere, allowing students to access the world in real time, bridge the gap between distance learning and provide social contexts in a community of inquiry (Hickey, 2014).

Relationship between technology and pedagogy

When integrating technology, its purpose should be to enhance and support student learning

(Hamilton, Rosenberg and Akcaoglu, 2016) rather than improve learning outcomes (Hickey, 2014). Higgins and Roskind (2005) point out that the effective use of technology strongly depends on the nature of the teacher, learner, students and task in order to meet the learning outcomes, rather than on the technology itself (p. 437).  An example would be an integrated social studies, maths and technology lesson that I had taught to Year 6 students in order to develop a collaborative classroom culture.  It was important for me as the teacher to plan a lesson that was engaging and to provide a meaningful context.  So I decided to have the children mark their home address on google maps using a shared document.  The technology and lesson provided a social context for the students to make connections with those who lived on the same street, the distances from each other and how easy it would be to plan play dates.  The dialogue within this social context needed to be facilitated by me in order for the discussions to be inclusive and focused on the learning.   It would have been just as easy to use a local paper map, however, the technology allowed the students to transmit information instantly, create a pin or picture to show where they lived, modify the distances between their friends' houses and analyse the information in order to meet the learning outcomes. It is clear that the implementation of technology in this lesson was more to provide another medium of being able to enhance and support the student’s learning and that the pedagogical and content knowledge needed to be initiated and delivered by me as the teacher.  

What are the implications for teaching?

Teachers need to develop their technological knowledge which requires a deeper understanding of information technology for processing information, communicating and problem solving.  A study by Ertmer et. al, (2012) found that one of the main reasons for teachers not implementing new technology into their teaching was from a lack of professional development.  It is important for teachers to develop a deeper understanding of the technology that is used in the classroom and the software programmes that are constantly on offer. Professional development in the use of technology should be an important staff focus as most classrooms have evolved into one-to-one devices or at least moving towards it.  

Pedagogical and content knowledge requires teachers to understand how students learn, apply classroom management skills, develop lessons that are engaging and assess the student’s progress, in order to meet the social and cognitive development of the learners, in a collaborative learning environment (Cleveland-Innes, Garrison and Vaughan 2019).  

Ertmer et.al, (2012) also found that the skills, attitudes, beliefs and knowledge skills of teachers, who were not confident with technology, was also a major barrier.  Implementing technology is unlikely to occur unless it is consistent with a teacher’s existing pedagogical beliefs (Koehler, Mishra and Cain, 2013).  A teacher’s pedagogical beliefs, that is their teaching philosophy, impacts on how and for what purpose technology is implemented.  It is important for teachers to self reflect and recognise legitimate variations on excellence in teaching.    

References:

Hickey, G. (2014). The importance of learning philosophies on technology selection in education. Journal of Learning Design, 7(3), 16-22.

Hamilton, E., Rosenberg, J., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2019). The community of inquiry theoretical framework: Implications for distance education and beyond. In M. G. Moore & W. Diehl, C. (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp. 67-78). Routledge.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001

Online activity 2.1

Which of the five aspects of meaningful learning is most relevant to my role as a teacher?

Howland, Jonassen and Marra (2012) identify five aspects of meaningful learning as active,

constructive, cooperative, authentic and intentional. The aspect that is most relevant to my
teaching of Year 7/8 students is the cooperative - collaborative, conversational aspects.

The Cooperative aspect of meaningful learning is implemented into my classroom
programme as much as possible. The collaboration of the students within a group setting, to solve problems, requires the conventions of conversing respectfully, negotiating a common

understanding of the task and scaffolding their thinking, in order to reach possible solutions

or complete tasks.  This is also reflective of the developmental perspective where the focus is to provide
learning that cultivate ways of thinking in the students. Although the development of knowledge and skills within communities of

play and work are shared, as outlined in the Active characteristic of meaningful learning, it is

the natural inclinations of learners to seek the opinions and ideas of others, within a

collaborative setting.  Assessing the performance of the group, particularly in maths,

requires me to have content knowledge (Koehler, Mishra, and Cain, 2013, p.14) of

the problem, by recording the solutions and misconceptions students may encounter. 

When recording student’s names against the solutions or misconceptions as they occur,

through the rich conversations observed, this has provided me a deeper pedagogical

knowledge in understanding how students construct knowledge and develop habits of

mind ( p.15).

Technology is used within these collaborative settings to offer support around creating and

sharing what the students have learnt.  For example when writing reports about the

creatures of Pandora, the students watch a video, which allows them to extract information

at their own pace.  After the learning, students then create a report and include a static image,

to share to an audience.  Technology is used at an entry level by myself as the teacher, by

delivering the curriculum content to the students and then moving onto the adoption

level, that is, creating a report using a procedure.

Online activity 1.2

Does the adoption of digital technologies imply a modification of my teaching

(i.e. evolution), extreme change in my teaching (revolution) or more of what

I already do (status quo)?

The adoption of digital technologies within my classroom does require constant evolution

of my teaching practice.  When integrating technology, its purpose should be to enhance

and support student learning (Hamilton, Rosenberg and Akcaoglu, 2016) rather

than improve learning outcomes (p. 19). 

Technology can constrain the students in achieving the learning outcomes when the teacher is not equipped with the deep pedagogical and technological knowledge required to implement this tool effectively.  The apprenticeship perspective, a dominant teaching perspective I hold according to the TPI tool (figure 1), requires the teacher and content to be fused with the knowledge and values of a specific community. Although we as teachers teach in a highly complex, dynamic classroom setting, it is essential that our understanding of content knowledge, technological knowledge and pedagogical knowledge continues to evolve as outlined in the TPACK framework (figure 2).

Figure 2 - Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model

The learning needs of our students are complex and the affordances or constraints of technology make them more suitable for certain tasks than others. Understanding the impact of technology on content knowledge is important in advancing student learning and understanding (Koehler, Mishra and Cain, 2013).

Figure 1 - Teaching Perspective Inventory tool

A teacher’s pedagogical beliefs, that is their teaching philosophy, also impacts on how and for what purpose technology is implemented.  An assessment of our assumptions about teaching and learning is essential when integrating digital

technologies (Hickey, 2014) The dominant perspective I hold is that of a nurturing perspective, where maintaining a reciprocal relationship of trust and respect is important. The social constructivist methodology of providing learning that is challenging, meaningful and achievable within a collaborative context is also an important component of the nurturing perspective. The adoption of a social constructivist methodology continues with the apprenticeship perspective, another dominant belief I hold. Learning is taught within authentic, meaningful contexts whilst inculturating learners into a specific community, in order to develop a sense of belonging. The implications of using this approach when integrating technology is the provision of endless opportunities to communicate with their peers to create new knowledge that is scaffolded by existing knowledge (p. 19).

The integration of technology, in my role as a teacher of year 7 and 8 students, is implemented

in a meaningful learning environment, at the adoption level according to the Technology

Integration Matrix (figure 3). 

Figure 3 - Technology Integration Matrix

The students actively use technology in conventional ways to

complete tasks with direction from me as the teacher.  The social constructivist approach of meaningful

learning is also implemented into my classroom programme as much as possible. 

The collaboration of the students within a group setting, to solve problems, requires

the conventions of conversing respectfully, negotiating a common understanding

of the task and scaffolding their thinking, in order to reach possible solutions or complete tasks.

Technology is used within these collaborative settings to offer support around creating and sharing what the students have learnt, and providing a social context.  

Improvement in the adoption of technology in my classroom, for students to achieve the

learning outcomes, would require me to gain more technological knowledge.  This would

involve becoming fluent in using the technology and software programmes to establish

how effective they are at information processing, communicating, problem solving and

the different ways the technology can meet the learning outcomes of my students (p. 14). 

Fluency would enable students to accomplish a variety of tasks in different ways, so

it is important for me to understand which technology is best suited for the different

learning outcomes. Also observing best practice modelled by specific teachers and how

they might implement technology, that motivates and engages innovative use of technological tools to encourage high order thinking.  

Teaching requires constant self-reflection and a willingness to modify our practice, that is
to continue evolving. It is important for teachers to recognise legitimate variations on
excellence in teaching, even when these variations challenge our own teaching and
learning beliefs.  Self-reflection and modification of my practice would enable me to gain
a deeper pedagogical and technological knowledge, resulting in better meeting the needs of my students.

References

Hamilton, E., Rosenberg, J., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution augmentation

modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use.

TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303

Hickey, G. (2014). The importance of learning philosophies on technology selection in education. Journal of Learning Design, 7(3), 16-22.