These students developed personal visions, the ability to explain and defend their vision, and experience in choosing and using technologies in line with their vision, all of which provides the foundation of technology integrationists.
When offering scaffolded connections, the instructor or facilitator should choose ideas that match the professional maturity level of the participants. The connections need to be understood by the participants. If a group of preservice teachers begin learning about technology prior to taking methods courses or subject-specific courses, the instructor may need to spend much more time describing the subject matter or pedagogical aspects in order for the preservice teachers to truly understand the educational concepts with which the technology connects.
The scaffold is not meant to serve as a permanent crutch; therefore, guidance and opportunity to reflect and self-identify these connections should be encouraged during learning experiences. Doering et al. However, when asked for examples of integrating technology in education, the students repeated the examples the scaffold provided in their classes. After the student teaching experience, only one participant was able to generate a new technology integration idea.
Preservice teachers need to be enabled to identify connections as they leave initial licensure programs and enter the teaching profession, much like what Jacobsen et al. To accomplish this, a program might build a field-based activity in which preservice teachers either a identify how technologies they have learned in coursework might serve specific educational aims in the field context or b identify specific educational goals that can be supported by new technologies they have learned about in the field.
Given the rate of technological innovation, these novice teachers will need the experience to self-identify connections as they learn new technologies. Experienced teachers may also be susceptible to a lack of facility to self-identify connections after learning experiences.
Due to time constraints, practicing teachers may rely on the connections offered during in-service or by colleagues as their main source of ideas for using technology. Again, due to innovation, practicing teachers also need the experience of identifying connections for themselves.
Alternatively, experienced teachers may feel limited, constrained, or distracted by the scaffolded connections presented in learning situations. Scaffolded connections are still an important aspect of the learning experience in order to provide a foundation, but the instructors or facilitators should encourage all teachers to identify connections between a technology and their own professional knowledge. Teachers know a lot about how technology can support general pedagogy.
For example, they may use grading programs that allow students and parents access to up-to-date information; they use PowerPoint or other presentation tools to provide visual supports for lectures; they use word processors to write tests or create handouts. Pedagogical uses of technology have been well-established because general pedagogical knowledge is accessible to preservice, novice, and practicing teachers.
Therefore, in learning experiences that cluster diverse teachers together, the only common knowledge shared by these teachers is general pedagogy. Thus, technologies taught have been connected with general pedagogical knowledge, and subsequent pedagogical technology use has not dramatically changed our schools Cuban, However, Hargrave and Hsu noted a shift in instructional technology courses that focus less on the general pedagogy like teacher productivity and more on curriculum integration and content emphasis.
Subject-specific, preservice principles also illustrate this shift. Mason et al. Teachers know much less about how technology can support subject matter learning and instruction of students in learning subject matter pedagogical content knowledge. Yet, it is this kind of activity that will potentially strengthen educational technology uses in schools. Therefore, connections between technology and subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge must be prioritized and privileged during learning experiences for teachers, which requires focused discussion of subject matter and instructional approaches to teaching that subject matter.
Further, they noted that these moments facilitate opportunities to discuss and contrast different teaching and learning methods. Browning and Klespis emphasized that preservice teachers may need more than simulated technology-supported K content and instruction. Subject matter focused technology learning experiences such as these may be crucial, for many practicing and some preservice teachers have not personally experienced technology-supported content learning during precollegiate and collegiate schooling.
Privileging subject matter and pedagogical content connections is essential during initial licensure and undergraduate education in order to enable preservice teachers to see and use technologies for more than general pedagogical purposes. Yet, practicing teachers, even with years of experience teaching their subject area, also need these focused subject matter and pedagogical content connections, because the immediate and easy implementation of the technology is likely to be pedagogical.
It does not necessitate changing the content or approach to teaching that content. By prioritizing and privileging connections between technology and subject matter and pedagogical content, preservice, novice, and experienced teachers will be better prepared to identify technological uses across their profession, including use of technology by the children they are teaching.
To privilege these kinds of connections, the most productive learning situation is a subject-specific learning opportunity. Novice and practicing teachers need subject-specific educational technology in-service opportunities. The need for subject-specificity may introduce significant additional expense, especially at the in-service level. Large initial licensure programs may have enough students to create subject-specific educational technology courses. However, most P schools do not have enough duplicative grades to create groups of subject-specific teachers by grade levels.
A solution could be to group schools together for in-service training to share resources and create groups of subject-specific teachers at certain grade levels.
Another solution could be to create subject-specificity but broaden the grade levels of a group. In any case, facilitating the subject-specific consideration of technology, as described in this section, will require some expense and certainly some creativity in design of the learning experience. The first two principles emphasize the need to connect technologies with the professional knowledge of teachers.
The two principles aim to increase the likelihood of technology integration by helping teachers become aware of ways technology connects with their professional activities and knowledge, but these connections may not necessarily represent advancements in pedagogy and subject matter. In practice, the students may merely type up their final writing assignments in the computer lab after they have written them by hand during or outside of class. In the literature, educational technology is touted as a change agent e.
Yet, the addition of technology into a classroom or school does not inherently nor naturally reform teaching or learning Dede, ; Wiske, If and how teachers adopt technology determines if change in teaching or learning occurs. Although learning technology does not inherently change teaching, instructors or facilitators can use technology to leverage teacher reflection that may possibly lead to reform over time.
For example, Mason et al. Cullin and Crawford used this principle when preparing an intervention for preservice science teachers. This principle seems applicable for preservice or novice teachers who are just beginning to learn about current approaches to curriculum, instruction, and student learning.
Many novice teachers have developed assumptions about teaching and learning based on their own experiences as learners that do not reflect the current practices in the field Lortie, Technological innovations that are used to exemplify current educational theories and practice may begin conversations and reflection that spur eventual changes in knowledge and practice. This shifted the technology from teacher to student. Likewise, Howard et al. Activities built upon this principle also provide practicing teachers the luxury of considering new developments in instruction, learning, and subject matter that they may not have had time to explore or discover outside of their daily teaching responsibilities.
However, this principle, as the research literature indicates, has been used to reform teaching. Established teachers may be less able or less inclined to face the challenges to their established practices and beliefs presented through this strategy.
For teachers who do question their teaching beliefs, any subsequent change in beliefs and practice will take time to emerge. Furthermore, to really produce change, the learning experience needs to be sustained over time. Ongoing discussions and consideration are necessary, as was illustrated in the multiyear intervention that Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow ACOT orchestrated and researched Sandholtz et al.
The researchers suggested that more exposure to these modeling concepts and experiences, such as in science content courses, might have been beneficial. Their finding of limited development of particular science and pedagogical content reflects the lengthy process required for change in knowledge, beliefs, and practice.
The final principle emphasizes the need to teach about many different technologies. To do this, teachers ultimately must understand how the technology fits within their professional knowledge and activities.
Therefore, to increase the likelihood that teachers may identify technologies that fit their needs, technology-learning opportunities must include many technologies. Flores et al. Hunter described a wide-range of technology applications put into use with students through the TAP professional development investigations. Too many times decisions to adopt technologies are made at either the district or school-levels without consultation with teachers. The technologies chosen are usually targeted at administrative purposes, such as grading or attendance, rather than technologies that are put into the hands of students for learning purposes.
Certainly, limitations related to adoption and purchases of software and hardware exist in schools and districts. Some teachers may find valuable tools in the mix, yet other teachers will not. It needs to be emphasized that teachers may not find a valuable tool — not due to lack of interest in technology but due the limited technology options. Reprimanding or penalizing these teachers is unwarranted; they actually may be extremely thoughtful about their adoption and use of technology for their students and themselves.
Offering a larger pool of technology options may support these teachers in identifying tools that may fit their needs.
Clearly, offering more technology options for teachers to investigate will increase the likelihood that they will find a tool that supports their professional activities. By examining a range of technologies, preservice, novice, and experienced teachers will understand the wide-ranging possibilities of the role for technology in education.
One of the main impediments to enacting this principle in technology-learning opportunities is financial constraint. The resources required to offer teachers hands-on access to a variety of technologies include both human and financial capital. A technology learning lab where demonstration or single copies of software and hardware can be compiled may benefit more than one school. Schools, universities, community organizations, and vendors could share the cost of a learning lab.
Being able to preview and examine technologies prior to adoption could reduce the expenditures toward unused technologies that exist in schools today. A disadvantage to this shared resource center is that it may be offsite for teachers.
It would be valuable to be able to check out software and hardware for examination and experimentation onsite. Another limitation to this strategy is a possible reduction in the amount of time teachers spend learning each technology. If instructors or facilitators implement this principle, they should be aware that teachers might not learn all technologies equally well. In fact, it might be counterproductive to require teachers to learn all the technologies.
In a university situation, instructors may need to shift their assumptions that all teacher-learners will learn all the technologies. In addition, as instructors grant teacher-learners more flexibility in focusing on certain technologies, the need for additional instructional and facilitation assistance may increase to serve all the learning needs during the learning experience.
To facilitate learning situations at the preservice and in-service levels that optimize the development of teachers as technology integrationists, a set of guiding principles were described that can be considered when evaluating, constructing, or redeveloping technology learning opportunities.
Neither of these technology-learning approaches adequately implement the four principles described in this article. Single courses and workshops that involve cross-disciplinary and cross-grade level teachers, due to their diversity of participants, often focus on pedagogical issues rather than solid treatment of subject matter topics.
A lack of focus on subject matter limits the enactment of Principles 1, 2 and 3, and the technologies taught would be limited to general pedagogical tools e. Alternative learning approaches that make more use of these technology learning principles need to be developed and established.
Some subject-specific university courses and long-term technology in-service initiatives can and do implement many of these principles. Initial licensure and professional development programs are beginning to establish cohort models in which students enroll in subject-specific instructional technology courses e.
Alternatively, initial licensure programs are considering the elimination of instructional technology courses and including technology instruction within content and methods courses e. Overall, these recent developments in educational technology instruction hold promise for implementing the technology learning principles and developing technology integrationists. Another learning approach — collaborative inquiry groups, involving small groups of teachers who collectively investigate pedagogical and content issues Crockett, — has emerged as an even more promising practice that implements all four technology learning principles simultaneously and meets the vision set forth in this paper.
Subject-specific, technology inquiry groups e. During group meetings, teachers can discuss issues within their teaching to identify problems-of-practice that determine future inquiries into technology Principle 1 and 2. Alternatively, group members can demonstrate new technologies and propose possible integrated uses Principle 1 or allow the technology to inspire discussion into contemporary issues within teaching and learning Principle 3.
Finally, teachers need access to technology Principle 4 to facilitate their inquiries into problems-of-practice, to examine as possible solutions, and to spur discussion about theory and practice.
Swan et al. The success demonstrated when technology inquiry groups are used with in-service teachers indicates that content-focused technology inquiry may be beneficial for preservice teachers as well, especially since the technology learning principles have been shown to be similar across preservice and in-service teachers. Partnerships among preservice and veteran teachers e. This field is seasoned for the development of other innovative learning approaches that integrate these principles, affording teachers engaging learning opportunities that, ultimately, will allow students to use technology for deep subject-matter learning.
Beckett, E. Devise strategies for devising, reusing, and recycling waste caused from the creation and use of technology. Evaluate trade-offs based on vrious perspectives as part of a decision process that recognizes the need for careful comprimises among competing factors.
Engage in a research and development process to simulate how inventions and innovations have evolved through systematic tests and refinements. Relate how technological development has been evolutionary, often the result of a series of refinements to basic inventions or technological knowledge. Verify that the evolution of civilization has been directly affected by, and has in turn affected, the development and use of tools, materials and processes.
Evaluate how technology has been a powerful force in reshaping the social, cultural, political, and economic landscapes throughout history. Teaching technology and engineering concepts in education. Developing problem-solving skills by tackling technological and engineering problems. Course Outcomes:. Explain how the world around them guides technological development and engineering design.
Differentiate between inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback in technological systems. Create an open-loop system that has no feedback path and requires human intervention. Create a closed-loop system that has a feedback path and requires no human intervention. Predict outcomes of a future product or system at the beginning of the design process. Defend decisions related to a design problem.
Evaluate ways that technology can impact individuals, society, and the environment. Critique whether existing or proposed technologies use resources sustainably. Analyze how an invention or innovation was influenced by its historical context. Scalability must be considered in the technological architecture of all systems, including hardware, networks, software, educational programs, apps and services.
The interoperability benefits can reduce costs, prolong usability, extend usability, and facilitate cooperation. Scalability is also a means by which innovation can be encouraged and enabled. For example, instructional teams can add a software component to a learning management system using the capacities embedded in such systems.
Sharing is a principle based not only in social good and altruism, but also in pragmatism. Education and training providers that learn to share and cooperate can reduce costs and improve quality in a number of technological areas.
Community and cooperation are essential features of the knowledge economy. Online courses are expensive to create. Increasing learner enrolments through partnerships between departments or education and training providers can reduce costs, increase viability, and permit low demand courses to be offered more frequently. Partnerships may be created on any number of fronts, joint programs or services across several education and training providers are examples that enable economies of scale or leverage.
The key to successful partnerships is often in the details: common purpose and values; defined positions and decision-making processes; positive interpersonal relationships and trust; clear goals, roles, responsibilities, and structure; commitment at all levels; flexibility and adaptability; and clear legal and financial liabilities.
Technology in learning, while hardly a new phenomenon, is still in need of evaluation and examination. Individual differences amongst learners, instructors and education and training providers, and within society and the workplace, must be respected. Choices of technologies, for both tools and processes, can support and promote differences.
The responsibilities inherent with choice must be made clear. Diversity must be valued, though balanced with principles of efficiency.
Preference for a single approach e. Evidence-based decisions must drive investment decisions at the education and training provider and policy level. The principle of lifelong learning makes inherent sense to most, yet its practice is challenging. The paradigm for learning as a lifelong endeavour must be built into the structure of education and training providers and the workplace.
Learning and changing must be more highly valued in all we do. Learning must be seen as personal and continuous, not lockstep, institutionalized, and always formalized. We treat change as events, scheduling major overhauls of business processes, government policies, and educational reforms.
For learning to be continuous, we must shift our thinking and our practices on both a personal level and on an education and training provider level, so change is a process, a technology of continuous learning. One of the advantages technologies bring to learning is the ease with which we can customize programs, courses and services to individual learners. Now, with the advent of artificial intelligence and machine learning, we can adapt learning systems to be responsive to both the needs of learners and their performance.
Learners are diverse, with individual needs in terms of their goals, the pace at which they learn, the modes of communication they prefer, their motivations for learning, the stimulations they respond to, the prior learning aptitudes they bring, physical and sensory differences e.
Our learning delivery technologies and our course designs can be customized to meet the needs of individual learners. The needs of individual learners, as well as the diverse needs of individual professions, businesses, industries, cultures and society at large, must be accommodated, as appropriate.
There are limits, in terms of economies, course requirements, time and access, but there is so much more that can be done with the aid of tools and process technologies to improve the quality of education for each learner. The essence of technology must be that it adds value.
This fundamental belief underlies of our principles. These ten guiding principles may help faculty, instructors, learning designers, administrators and funders to develop a comprehensive vision and strategy for technology in learning. They may also be a springboard for reflection and discussion. Skip to main content. June 17, Estimated time to read this post: 10 minutes. Adding Value The choice of any particular technology, be it a tool or a process, must be based on the principle it adds value to the task at hand.
A Pedagogical Focus The primary mandate for technology in learning must be on learning — its content, delivery, support, assessment, interaction and results. Choices of educational technologies must be based on sound principles of learning: Does the online learning environment adapt to a wide variety of pedagogical philosophies and methods?
0コメント