Monday 28 March 2016

Module 4: Models of teacher knowledge incorporating ICT pedagogy

I have come across TPACK in numerous educational situations as well numerous other courses for this master. TPACK is a framework that supports the integration of technology for effective classroom teaching. It combines technological, pedagogical and content knowledge as a way of thinking to support teachers in ensuring the use of technology is appropriate, thoughtful and effective during the planning stages (Mishra, & Koehler, 2006). As a technology coach, my expertise lies in technological/pedagogical knowledge (TPK), where I support teachers in integrating technology for their specific content in a specific content. It is also important that I balance when digital technologies are appropriate and maybe not so appropriate to ensure that teachers move beyond just using a tool.
I think TPACK is a good starting point for teachers who are learning and evaluating how they are integrating technology into their classes but it needs to push their thinking even further. Technology should allow new learning opportunities that would not have been possible before (Mishra & Koeler, 2008).
The SAMR model for technology integration to help teachers understand that technology can reach many levels of higher-order thinking and create opportunities for our students to use technology to do things that traditional methods failed to allow for. As technology use moves up the chart, it moves from enhancing the learning experience to truly transforming the experience for students. With the SAMR model, it is understood that the use of technology may vary across all four but it is important for teachers to think about what the real purpose is of the technology. If teachers are only ever using technology for substitution, is this really a good use of technology? Would the students simply be able to not use technology and achieve the same desired learning outcomes? When we move towards modification and redefinition, we are allowing students to develop their critical thinking and creativity skills as they show their learning and understanding in new and complex ways.  
The more we think about technology integration through TPACK and SAMR the more our students will be able to have meaningful learning experiences.TPACK focuses more about planning for technology integration within a context, whereas SAMR focuses on how technology is changing the learning experience. When technology, pedagogy and content knowledge all exist, it is about understanding the balance with the ever changing technology to ensure that best practice of teaching is always being exemplified in the classroom (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
For me, the biggest need for teachers who want to integrate technology is a growth mindset. Teachers need to be willing to learn and make mistakes. It is only from here that we can reflect and move forward to better our teaching practice for our students. We need to be open to new ideas, new ways of doing things and new tools to get the job done. We need to be open to letting our students take the lead and be okay with the role of the teacher adapting with it. With a growth mindset, we can be open to new and exciting opportunities, which includes how we integrate ICT.
References
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Mishra & Koehler (2008). Keynote address [YouTube]. Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iCPLTz7Z-Q

Module 3- Pedagogy, Change and ICT Integration

Webb and Cox (2004) highlight that teachers need to think critically about their pedagogy and how ICT can be integrated into it. ICT is not an afterthought, rather part of the planning process. As teachers are planning, they need to think about what they hope to achieve. From there, they can think about the pedagogy and strategies that will work best and the tools and their affordances they require to make it a reality. ICT cannot be seen as separate from good practice and planning, rather, seamlessly integrated.
Do all teachers use this complex pedagogical reasoning in my organisation? No. But I think the more technology is seen as just one of many resources rather than something that should be used, we see more and more teachers shifting their ideas of technology integration.
I love watching the teachers teach who understand technology integration though. It is as if the technology is just an extension of their normal classroom practice and the students don’t see it as anything else either. It is used when appropriate, and when it’s not appropriate, it isn’t used, allowing both teachers and students to leverage their devices in effective ways. Our school and administration have put a lot of time, money and resources in supporting teachers in getting to this level. While not everyone is there yet, it is the direction we are moving as a school with more and more teachers having a deeper understanding of appropriate and effective technology integration each day.
Teachers need to be willing to not be at the centre of the classroom. This is a huge pedagogical shift from ‘traditional teaching’. As mentioned in Somekh (2008) in the various examples, the roles of teachers and students had to change and become co-constructed. Teachers are no longer the sole expert and need to take on the role of being more of a facilitator and supporter. The students have greater access to information through technology which allows the way they learn and what they learn to become more flexible and varied. Through effective technology integration, students can develop transdisciplinary skills rather than just technology skills that can benefit them throughout their life (ie: collaboration, time management, creating, investigating, etc.).
In order for this shift to be successful, teachers need to feel supported in a safe environment where it is okay for them to try things and make mistakes. Teachers should receive professional development in a variety of forms to support technology integration into their classroom. This is often best done with a technology coach who can guide them through effective practice.
This year, I had to work with all teachers in teachers in the early years to implement our new e-Portfolio programme for students, teachers and parents. In the past, the teachers were responsible for continually upkeep paper portfolios with comments the children said about pieces of work that the teachers wanted the parents to see. There was a huge shift to making it all online and having the students drive the reflections, making it more authentic for the students. In doing this, teachers had to change what they thought portfolios were and how reflections were meant to be recorded and used. This was done by starting small and growing the successes to other classes. Teachers received professional development not only on the specific application and the technical components of doing the e-Portfolio but also professional development on how this could look and work within the classroom. I worked with the teachers and co-taught at times, worked with small groups of students and met one-on-one for additional support. Students were choosing the work they wanted to share by the end of the integration. The students would document their work using photographs or video. They could then create audio or written reflections (depending on their development levels and personal choice) that would be shared online. The teacher allowed for a time within centres throughout the week for students to use the iPads to add to their e-Portfolios. Student motivation and engagement went up as they were in control of the learning and that they had an authentic audience (their parents) that would immediately see their work online. For teachers, the time and effort they needed to maintain the portfolio drastically went down, allowing them to reallocate that time to focus on student learning.  
References
Section 5.3 of: Somekh, B. (2008). Factors Affecting Teachers' Pedagogical Adoption of ICT. International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. J. Voogt and G. Knezek, Springer US. 20: 449-460.


Webb, M. and M. Cox (2004). "A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology." Technology, Pedagogy and Education 13(3): 235-286.
http://ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200183

Saturday 19 March 2016

Module 2 Post 2: Impact of ICT in Education

Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck  (2001) suggested that the majority of teachers in US are not computer users. If teachers aren’t using the tools, then the impact on teaching and learning is not present. In my international school setting, this is not the case at all. All of our teachers are provided with a laptop when they begin with our school and receive training on them. There is an expectation that attendance, grading, reports, planning are all on our LMS systems. Thus, technology use is not an option rather a mandate as part of being an employee at the school. In terms of teaching and learning, much of this is also done digitally, however, not mandated in the same way. That being said, with digital resources for classes, teaching teams can share the workload easily by sharing resources with a click of a button. Teachers can view student work using tools such as Teacher Dashboard easily to support them with their work without having to take bags of workbooks home to review.
Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck  (2001) suggested we need to know more than how often students are turning on computers but rather what students are doing with them while they are on. If it is simple drill and kill practice all of the time, the impact on learning will be minimal as they are not developing skills that are transferable in other scenarios.
As I was reading about Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck  (2001) study, I felt our school had much more access to technology than the schools in the study who had computer labs. With a 1-to-1 programme at our school, each student has access to connectivity and software at all times whether at home or school, thus, increasing the use of computers. Teachers do not have to worry about booking the lab or if the internet connection will be working. This allows for technology to be used at a moment’s notice in class or left to the side of the table when not needed. The 1-to-1 programme allows for technology to just be another tool for students to use if deemed necessary.
Somekh (2004) outlines 4 examples of institutional resistance to change in the article. ICT is often seen as a separate subject rather than being integrated into every subject. Teachers often use one-size fits all, a linear model where they start from scratch and teach all the skills rather than differentiating for the needs of the students who are well advanced. Access to technology is compounded by the kinds of ICT use. Finally schools restrict access to a number of websites out of fear of the unknown and need to be extra cautious in schools. What we have learnt is, that in order for technology to be effective, it needs to become a part of the human activity (p. 177).


I think there will always be resistance to new technologies entering into the educational realm. Geoffrey Moore’s book ‘Crossing the Chasm’ (2001) outlines that there is always going to be a bell curve when it comes to technology starting from technology enthusiasts who are willing to try anything as soon as it is available to the sceptics who are the last to give in to technology initiatives if ever. I actually think this is a good thing. It is good to have a variety of perspectives and varying adopting times. It gives the visionaries time to try it out and imagine where it can go which convinces the pragmatists and conservatives to make the transition once there is some proof it will work.  When I run trials with new technology tools, this is exactly how I approach it. I access those most willing to try, see what the results are, reflect and analyse if this is the best move forward as a school and use this data to help move the school forward.  
In my school, technology is not just the responsibility of one teacher. Rather it is the expectation that all teachers teach ICT within their classrooms. As the Technology Coach, I support teachers in doing this but at the end of the day, we all need to weave ICT into our lessons when appropriate. This takes the ownership of ICT off just a single specialist, just like we are all language teachers to an extent. Integration of subjects has become the norm not that anomaly. As a school who uses a transdisciplinary approach to learning through the IB framework, students have all subjects being intertwined.
As I am reading the articles by Somekh (2004), I wonder what his findings would be today 12 years later. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001)’s article is now about 15 years after it was written. What are the more recent studies arguing about the impact or lack thereof with technology? Is there really as much discrepancy between home and school? When my students were doing something at home (ie 3D printing), we found a way to bring it into the classroom. I let the students drive their own learning and incorporated the tools they wanted to use. I use Edmodo to mimic Facebook for privacy, age restrictions and safety but still allowing them the social aspect of media. With a student who struggled with creating content and developing his e-Portfolio, I used a mobile device with Blogger to mimic what he was doing with Instagram on his own time. Are these the same tools they are using at home - no. But they are replicating their uses at home in an appropriate and safe way for educational purposes. Because I was making the effort for them, they were also making the effort and I saw improved work quality and quantity. Technology can have a positive impact on learning, community and teaching if used in authentic, meaningful and innovative ways.
References
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. New York, N.Y.: HarperBusiness.

Somekh, B. (2004). Taking the sociological imagination to school: an analysis of the (lack of) impact of information and communication technologies on education systems. Technology, pedagogy and education, 13(2), 163-179.

Assumptions & Debates in ICT

As I was reading Wellington’s article (2005), I couldn’t help but think that these are the questions that we constantly asking in our office when it comes to using technology in the classroom.
From a vocational standpoint, Wellington (2005) suggests that we need to be teaching students transferable skills for the workplace (p.29). This is something I really try to get across to teachers. Teaching them a specific tool that will be outdated within a few months or years is not helpful for our students, rather they need to understand the process of planning, implementing and revising. For example, students creating movies need to understand building scripts and storyboards, different film shots, etc. From there whether it is iMovie or another video editing software it doesn’t matter because the skills are at the core. There are a ton of tools to foster collaboration but it is more important for students to understand how to collaborate rather than what tool to collaborate with. These are the types of skills that can be transferred to any discipline or workplace not just restricted to a school setting.
I am constantly asking teachers if the use of technology is adding value to their learning. If they simple are replacing one tool for a technology tool, it isn’t transforming the learning. We need to push the integration further to make it have a purpose to change how students experience learning.
I am currently looking at how we can measure the impact of iPads and technology in general in our early years. Does it make a difference? Is it necessary? Just because we have technology doesn’t mean that we need to use it if it doesn’t enhance our pedagogy. Teachers need to understand how to choose the right context for technology integration in order for it to really add value to the learning (Wellington, 2005, p. 32).
From a societal point of view (Wellington, 2005, p. 26), it is interesting to look at how formal learning of ICT impacts ICT at home and vice versa. Are teachers really using the tools kids want to use? Does it make sense to use those tools? What about just choosing aspects of those tools? Our students are well versed in technology but it doesn’t eliminate the need to still facilitate learning as home and school ICT use often are quite different.
A number of the faulty assumptions about ICT are ones that still have relevance in my own school setting. Teachers do not change their teaching just because they have technology (Bain & Weston, 2012, 7). It is difficult for teachers to unlearn and relearn how to teach using technology in meaningful ways. Similarly, as students have more technology, it doesn’t meant they will be better at technology or achieve higher results (Bain & Weston, 2012, 8). Rather, students with technology just have a greater variety of tools to show their learning and understanding. Sometimes technology can help them share their voice more effectively, this showing the learning in more apparent ways.
References
Bain, A. & Weston, M.E. (2012). The Learning Edge: What Technology Can Do to Educate All Children.  New York: Teacher's College Press.

Wellington, J. (2005). Has ICT come of age? Recurring debates on the role of ICT in education, 1982-2004. Research In Science & Technological Education,23(1), 25-39.

Wednesday 16 March 2016

Affordances & Justifications

I think the affordances of technology often are dependent on the tool, the person and the context but technology provides us with so many affordances in educational settings. My school context has a BYOD Macbook school from Year 7 and above. This allows students to have the affordance to access information from their personal laptop from both home and school (Conole and Dyke, 2004). However, our Year 3 to Year 6 students have a class set of laptops that remain at school. This makes it challenging when students don’t automatically have the affordance to access their work from the same device and rely on cloud-based sharing to be able to access their work from a home device. There is the assumption that students have the affordance of accessibility at home sometimes in these grades to continue work even.

One of the technology resources our school uses is Google Apps for Education. This suite of applications provide us with so affordances. Gmail provides us with the ability to communicate quickly, easily and in an organised manner. Though because of this, I find myself often checking to make sure I don’t have any messages and respond promptly when I can (This leads to both positive and negative connotations as mentioned in Conole & Dyke, 2004). The Google Docs and Presentations provide students with the ability to create and the affordance to collaborate. They can access so much information for their presentations and work through online that students become curators in addition to consumers and creators.

With so many digital tools, my students are constantly creating multimodal presentations to showcase their understanding. App-smashing and digital storytelling have become a way of developing high-order thinking as students create, evaluate and reflect.

While our school has access to quite a substantial amount of technology, it does not mean everyone is using it as effectively as possible. In terms of technology usage, our school emphasises it be used only when it is authentic and enhances the student learning experience. However, with the rate of changes in technologies, it is hard for teachers to stay current at all times and feel confident using unfamiliar tools.

The policy document for our international school covering ICT is called "ICT, phone and social media". This document covers the main campus K-12 school, east campus K-6 school and two local kindergartens. This purpose of the policy is “to ensure the effective and proper usage of the computer systems within the school and protect employees and school from litigation associated with inappropriate use of ICT, phone and social media.” (School policy, 2015).

The policy focuses more on operational expectations of teachers while use technology in education settings. In addition, we have an acceptable use policy for teachers, students and parents to further explain the expectations of each stakeholder for technology used for the purpose of learning. The policy outlines provides a framework of expectations. Within that, hardware and software are purchased, implemented and maintained for the benefit of student learning.

Technology has numerous advantages that extends beyond just student learning in an educational setting. The policy clearly states that ICT resources are provided to staff in order to support the teaching, learning, research, administrative and business activities of the school. The usage of ICT in teaching and learning provides the students with a 21st-century approach to learning.

I was surprised when I read back that it focused so heavily on the guidelines and boundaries of using ICT instead of how to use it for teaching and learning. However, once those are in place, the ability to explore technology integration within the framework becomes more manageable for students and teachers.

One thing I really appreciate about our school’s approach to technology integration is that there is no one person who has a say of what resources get implemented. There are tools such as ManageBac, PowerSchool and Google Apps that have been implemented on a whole school scale and mandated but to get to that point, there was a lot of input and research to make those decisions. Similarly, when staff want to purchase software, there is a process of bringing it to the IT committee composed of administration from all divisions, Head of School, Director of Administration as well as our 2 IT staff and 2 EdTech teachers. This helps to ensure that various perspectives are seen and discussed before a discussion is made to see if the new software is the best fit for existing systems and for student learning. The committee meets biweekly for the entire morning.


References

Conole, G. and M. Dyke (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies?ALT-J 12(2): 113-124.

School Policy (2015). QP64 - ICT, Phone and Social Media. [internal document]

Saturday 12 March 2016

Web 2.0 Technologies

Piktochart
Piktochart is an online tool to create visually appealing posters, infographics and presentations from scratch or using one of the templates. There are many features such as drag and drop, tons of images as well as Google Sheets integration to create dynamic charts.

Available at: http://piktochart.com/

Kahoot
Kahoot is a online digital formative assessment tool where the teacher can ask questions and have all students participate  in responding to multiple choice questions in a game-like format through their individual devices.

Available at: https://kahoot.it/#/

Kiddle
Kiddle is a search engine for kids powered by Google Search with additional safe features as well as images to make it a visual search engine with more age-appropriate content.

Available at: http://www.kiddle.co/


Blogger
Blogger is a blogging platform that is linked to students Google accounts (if they are a GAFE school). It is a good online tool for ongoing reflections, project progress or e-Portfolios.

Available at: http://www.blogger.com


Padlet
Padlet is an wall for posting ideas, videos or images. It is a digital bulletin board that can be set up by the teacher for students to post ideas, questions, plan and share resources in a classroom setting.
Available at:https://padlet.com/

Context & Rationale Digital Natives & 21st Century Learners

Growth Mindset Needed, Not Digital Natives
According to Prensky, digital natives are “native speakers of digital language”, while a digital immigrant is defined as those who didn’t grow up with technology and had to learn/adapt along the way (2001a). But are these terms still relevant with the constantly changing and evolving uses of technology in the classroom? Technology has become an expected area of understanding for teachers as part of the overall best practice, similar to good classroom management being expected in all classes. While I would be more considered a digital native by Prensky's terms, I know people from all ages who are very competent using technology.


I believe the idea of digital natives and digital immigrants is very outdated in my international context. If we consider our students to be digital immigrants now, what will our students be in 50 or 100 years? Are these terms even necessary?  Our school is a 1 to 1 laptop school for both teachers and students. It is essential that all students and teachers embrace the use of technology when appropriate for teaching and learning.  The idea of digital natives and digital immigrants is erased and replaced with terms such as growth mindset and fixed mindset becoming more relevant for integrating technology. In a previous post, I focused on the importance of expanding our knowledge by problem solving, resiliency and pushing boundaries of personal understanding with an emphasis on growth mindset and not labelling individuals as digital natives or immigrants (MacLean, 2015). For further reading of my ideas of the importance of a growth mindset, please read here.


We should be encouraging our teachers and students to be open-minded and willing to learn regardless of the medium. We should be encouraging our students to be risk-takers, to make mistakes and to learn from them. Having a growth mindset, allows us to be open to new challenges (which could be technology for some).


Our current school policies do not lend themselves to the terms digital natives or digital immigrants. Rather, again, there is an expectation of teachers using technology only when appropriate for best practice and students using technology as a resource only when it enhances their learning.


21st Century Learner Or Just a Learner
As a teacher, it is my role to facilitate learning for students by helping them develop skills and conceptual understandings that can be transdisciplinary and transferred into any avenue for their future. Students need to learn to be good communicators, creative and critical thinkers, collaborative, with an ability to be self-managed, engaged and passionate about learning. These skills can be developed through a multitude of learning experiences in both formal and informal settings. In addition, being reflective needs to be combined into this learning process as well.


Again, I truly believe that the label of a 21st century learner is now irrelevant. To me, it is just being a learner. We want our students to develop skills to be lifelong learners, now and always. It is not something that is restricted to only the 21st century and many educators understood the importance of teaching transdisciplinary skills before the 21st century and will continue to after the 21st century.


From an ICT integration standpoint, I use the 6 ICT in PYP skills as a way to fuse effective technology implementation into the curriculum where necessary. These include: creating, collaborating, organising, communicating, investigating and developing a digital citizen (The role of ICT in PYP, 2011). In order to be effective using any technology tool, students need to develop  the finer skills associated with these to be successful. There are so many collaborative tools that exist, but it is more important for students to understand how to use group roles, taking turns, respectfully disagreeing and having healthy debates than how to use Padlet or Google Docs. Students need to learn how to build on others ideas while giving credit and not feel that someone is stealing their idea. These skills can be taken out of the technology world and applied into other real world experiences, which makes the learning meaningful and longlasting.


Through an inquiry-based, constructivist teaching model, students can develop their curiosity for learning and learn the skills to find the answers to what they want to learn. When passion and enthusiasm is involved as a learner, the learning really is limitless.


References


The role of ICT in PYP. (2011). International Baccalaureate. UK: IB.


MacLean, E. (2015, November 20). Digital Immigrant or Native? Growth Mindset More Important [Blog]. Retrieved from http://emilymacleanmed.blogspot.sg/2015/11/digital-immigrant-or-native-growth.html


Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).

Exploring Kathy Schrock's Resources

I spent some time looking around Kathy's website. I've used her site before as she has a ton of great resources. 
A new web tool I came across was ABCya animate. It's an easy to use animation tool with a tutorial to get you started. I liked how kid friendly it was. The downside is that it only saves as a .gif file and is limited to 100 slides. However, this is a great introduction for kids about animations. From there, kids could move into using Keynote as a similar tool to create animations. 
Other animations tools my kids love are PowToon as well as ToonTastic and PuppetPals apps on the iPad. 
I'm curious to know what other animation tools teachers are using with students.

Monday 7 March 2016

TPACK & SAMR - Technology Integration Frameworks

TPACK is a framework that supports the integration of technology for effective classroom teaching. It combines technological, pedagogical and content knowledge as a way of thinking to support teachers in ensuring the use of technology is appropriate, thoughtful and effective during the planning stages. As a technology coach, my expertise lies in technological/pedagogical knowledge, where I support teachers in integrating technology for their specific  content in a specific content. It is also important that I balance when digital technologies are appropriate and maybe not so appropriate to ensure that teachers move beyond just using a tool.  

It is not enough for teachers to use technology for the sake of using technology; rather, technology should allow new learning opportunities that would not have been possible before (Mishra & Koeler, 2008).This makes me think of the SAMR model.
SAMR
Image from:  http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/


Dr. Ruben Puentedura created this idea of SAMR model for technology integration to help teachers understand that technology can reach many levels of higher-order thinking and create opportunities for our students to use technology to do things that traditional methods failed to allow for. As technology use moves up the chart, it moves from enhancing the learning experience to truly transforming the experience for students. This is where we allow students to really push their thinking and abilities through the use of technology.

Some examples of each of the components of this model are listed below:

Substitution
  1. typing a story in a word document
  2. complete an online task, print it and submit to the teacher
Augmentation
  1. Using Padlet as a wonder wall with students including images to enhance
  2. text-to-speech function for students writing a paper
Modification
  1. Screencasting on the iPad to explain a mathematical concept
  2. Students use Edmodo to communicate online at home and at school
Redefinition
  1. Students bring their stories to life by animating and recording voices
  2. Students create an e-Portfolio full of videos, web 2.0 tools and documentation of experiences with reflections by self, peers, teachers and parents

For the SAMR model, it is understood that the use of technology may vary across all four but it is important for teachers to think about what the real purpose is of the technology. If teachers are only ever using technology for substitution, is this really a good use of technology? Would the students simply be able to not use technology and achieve the same desired learning outcomes? When we move towards modification and redefinition, we are allowing students to develop their critical thinking and creativity skills as they show their learning and understanding in new and complex ways.  The more we think about technology integration through TPACK and SAMR the more our students will be able to have meaningful learning experiences.

When technology, pedagogy and content knowledge all exist, it is about understanding the balance with the ever changing technology to ensure that best practice of teaching is always being exemplified in the classroom (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).


Resources
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70.

Mishra & Koehler (2008). Keynote address [YouTube]. Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iCPLTz7Z-Q