Most recent public comments by Jeff Cooper https://nowcomment.com/users/37200 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=997187 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=997187 You say curator, I say guide I suspect both of us are using a teacher in either of those roles and I like your description of the process. If we were to have a remote disagreement it might be on when, or how we might measure a learner is "wise" enough to curate their own resources without someone checking behind them. I think that would be a very interesting discussion. Sat, 07 Apr 2018 06:39:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=995678 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=995678 I do think there is a need to leverage the informal with the formal. Hypothetically one might imagine that informal learning should be relatively rich and deep as the motivation is higher for the learner. So, I agree if you could successfully connect the informal with the formal you may be able to make significant gains in learning. Thu, 05 Apr 2018 07:24:48 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=995677 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=995677 Is the area that is changing the fastest. I think the examples listed in the article typical of the "new" learning that takes place. However, "new" is just new in acquiring the knowledge through technology leverage. In the past the same people would have went to the library or watched a skilled tradesperson. Are the tools changing the nature and types of learning? Viewing learning as a process I don't think the nature of learning itself changes it is just lending itself to less structured more informal learning. Regarding types of learning I think this changes only in that an individual can select from a nearly limitless set of choices what they desire to learn and again , it is informal. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=991523 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=991523 Reading this paragraph through about paragraph 22 I see the intent of connected learning as not so much about improving learning as it is about driving social change and pushing a global ideology. So, I am probably not as keen on this viewing, as the authors say, defined by "a set of values , an orientation to social change" "efforts that value and elevate the culture and identity of non-dominate youth", "culturally relevant education", "seeking to build new forms of value..." This should not be for young minds. It appears they have a bias against the current structure of western society home,school and church are obviously the basis of most of our problems and children who are malleable need to be given over to this philosophy of education to be trained and bring about a just and equitable society. These folks would control the content and thus the messaging, diverse opinions need not apply, disagreement with the collective will not be tolerated. This actually looks worse and worse to me as their apparent agenda is revealed. Sorry, guess I shouldn't have read this far. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=991522 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=991522 Her example of Flipped Techniques is an acceptable idea of separating content from instruction setting. I think the credentialing part is the most difficult to unpack. I would be interested in hearing more about the Competency Based measures largely because I think it would be highly unlikely that a one size fits all competency model could be developed that would have applicability to all employers for any one job function/role. Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:36:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=991521 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=991521 Her opening statement I agree with paraphrased "content is free and abundant, they need to connect content with meaningful context of application, to real projects, to solve problems" I think the hardest part of this however is the idea of who controls the content. In the past those who wanted to control ideas/thought literally burned books. Today, the content can be controlled without literally burning books but by just writing code to not allow access to certain items or writing code in such a away that preferred references of those who control the code appear first in search engines.I think this could be diabolically abused and "absolute power corrupts absolutely". If this can be done, it will be done (and I trust Google, NOT) so, that's my scary point for this posting. No, it is not enough that people have access to content nor do I agree they don't require a base of knowledge. Foundational Knowledge with an experienced guide (Teacher) is critical through adolescents. For guys this may be longer based on slower frontal lobe development. We might need this until about 25. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=991519 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100538?scroll_to=991519 I think what I see is my own change in thinking regarding formal structured learning. I don't necessarily agree with everything she is saying (I'm slow to drink Kool-Aid no matter where it comes from)yet, I spent a life-time in formal educational processes and would stay strongly in the camp of those processes being effective and efficient for the majority of learners particularly foundational knowledge, children ( I would love to put an age on this, they seem to put 12 and above as their break-point), skills training, and those task that are highly Kinesthetic. So, I don't see as much utility to "Connected learning" for these instances. At the same time I think Connected Learning learning has potential particularly in the ill-defined domains and where a great deal of synthesis is required. A technology that has changed our traditional notions, I think the ability to meet via skype, zoom, GoTomeeting etc... has changed what it means to be in a classroom and to socially interact with peers/classmates. I think its appeal is largely a convenience appeal. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991518 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991518 Level 2 is typically measured through pre and post-tests. Level 3 I think is best measured using a competency based model that clearly indicates behavioral levels of competency. Then using the device for self and supervisor or even 360 degree assessment of performance until desired or expected levels of demonstrated competency are achieved. Level 4 is either using a measuring instrument of student outcomes or measuring against readiness for workforce entry using employer data. Sat, 31 Mar 2018 08:19:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991517 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991517 I think the answer is embedded in the method of action research itself as it is cyclical and ongoing, commencing with a problem, making a plan and acting (the action) on it then ending in reflection and restarting the process. I think the iterative nature which is very similar to In Process/Progress Reviews from Quality improvement processes and the richness of data collection through observations, recordings, interviews, maybe photography and field notes. Could be useful to informing the profession regarding the perceptions of participants and those of observers as to elements of the PD intervention that worked well vs. those that didn't. This could serve to strengthen or weaken arguments of observed quantitative analysis particularly those of a corollary nature. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991516 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991516 Yes, a randomized controlled trial would be nearly impossible just on the basis of maintaining appropriate following of subjects over time much less the randomization and allocation to treatments. That seems nearly impossible. Quasi -experimental is also nearly impossible. It is much as Todd explained about "controlled" These forms look for or at least attempt to look for causation. With the numerous variables, identifying correlations is about the best we can hope for. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991515 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991515 Todd, I think that is a very worthy endeavor. When I have conversations with the bulk of the class it seems (and I may be mistaken) that the assumption is that because someone has completed their undergrad or grad work that we can build a PD without truly assessing individual skill gaps. I see this approach in business just related to other subjects/domains. Usually someone sees a symptom but does not dig deep enough to figure root causes. There is no identification of a gap but a learning solution is determined as necessary and wouldn't you know, that individual knows exactly what will work. So, we do what we're asked provide a learning solution that is one-size fits all then wonder what happened? It didn't solve the problem. Your idea of inquiring with teachers is particularly valuable however, it should likely be used by selecting the best teachers. Those whose actions /behaviors you would want others to model. Sat, 31 Mar 2018 06:51:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991514 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991514 Yes, I think this is an accurate depiction of what must occur before establish the curriculum. I would use dumb corporate learning speak to say something like identify the competencies necessary and what right looks like to be a stellar performer then conduct both self-assessments and supervisor assessments to determine where people are against the competencies. This identifies your skills gaps and allows us to target (personalize) learning to individual skill gaps necessary to achieve organizational objectives. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991513 https://nowcomment.com/documents/100529?scroll_to=991513 Typically, end of session surveys are at Kirkpatrick's Level 1 assessment, Reaction. At this level there is no intent to measure deeper learning. So, they don't measure the deeper impact of the learning. Staying with Kirkpatrick, we would be looking for level 3 and 4 assessments of behavior and ROI respectfully. Without behavioral change among participants, particularly in a PD then, I would be bold enough to say the program was ineffective. Level 4 in an educational setting K-12 or Higher Ed (of which my experience is limited) would likely have to be measured against either a testing instrument or something even harder to assess related to workforce preparedness. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97748?scroll_to=964140 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97748?scroll_to=964140 I listened to this whole segment and really what I took away was his deconstruction of common core which, was probably the best set of arguments against common core I had heard. I also enjoyed how he argued that education follows technology and typically is applying principles and practice to education that will not be relevant when the learners leave the institutions of learning. In the U.S. Army, since its inception it nearly always trained soldiers to fight the last war not the next war. One of the few exceptions was the Gulf-War in Iraq. I am trying to bring myself back to your questions. I think technologies entice us to be innovators in adapting the technologies to uses other than those intended by the designer/developer of the technology. Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:50:11 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97748?scroll_to=964119 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97748?scroll_to=964119 In his comments it appears that he is saying these technologies are very good at producing homogeneous results among learners but that this might not be "education" per-Se. When used as described it may be useful for delivering some of the Foundational Knowledge as described by Mishra previously but would not contribute to the To Act Knowledge as described by Mishra. I think the bottom line is that it is not a complete education as currently utilized. Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:17:43 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97748?scroll_to=964113 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97748?scroll_to=964113 I must have once again missed something, I went to the link there must be access to 20+ articles and blogs. So, predicting what you're thinking based on that might be a little tough. : ) I'm sure I missed the article somewhere else and will run across it as I am working this weekend. It is very unlike you to ask, "Hey, so what am I thinking right now?". Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:58:20 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964108 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964108 Ashley, How come I can't come up with a nice list like that? Anyway, apologies for leaving you hanging, I have been swamped and finally got to this. Coop Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:53:11 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964105 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964105 Taking your first part (1) what they enter with....I imagine they enter with a lot of these capabilities however, their training/education to become a teacher doesn't emphasize these things because there is a base of knowledge required to complete the General Education or specific field of study they have gone through to become a teacher and it doesn't necessarily concentrate on this. (2) what ways can they learn....I there are a number of approaches that can be effective Ashley's recommendation is very good and practical, another would be adopting PD's that engage in the small incremental steps toward technology use in the classroom, another would be developing a few teachers as technology Champions (in the sense of (Innovation Adoption) Early adopters then use these teachers methods as role models allowing others to visit their classes and see first hand how someone else has integrated the technology components in a meaningful way. Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:49:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964101 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964101 Ashley, I was thoroughly enjoying reading this post. I could really feel the stress that must be on teachers to just get through the day with any remaining sanity they may have much less have someone throw some other expectation on them. I think with my limited understanding your statement, "the best approach is a support person dedicated to sharing, modeling, and guiding teachers through the various ideas..." makes a good deal of sense. Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:40:29 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964097 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964097 It is a nice turn about because, this study may tell practitioners what to do to achieve success rather than what not to do. In terms of driving a car, I guess it is good to tell folks what not to do when they drive. However, telling them what to do may give them a better chance of successfully driving. Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:32:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964095 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964095 I think he is just moving to the other side of a force-field analysis instead of identifying restraining forces or, those forces that can inhibit achieving a desired end state they are looking at the opposite side of that equation and those things that support achieving the desired end state. Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:28:36 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964091 https://nowcomment.com/documents/97744?scroll_to=964091 Not sure where the 11 came from. That is so funny, I was looking for 11 factors in the Ertmer article...now I see them. Vicarious experiences seem like they might be easiest for me to identify and explain. I think for teachers this might be whom they observe or model. If their peers or superiors aren't doing it then, they have no way to observe and and thus opportunities to learn vicariously are limited. The personal experience could be as simple as the learning environment to become a teacher (which I haven't experienced) but I assume is related to the skills and knowledge of classroom management, theories of pedagogy, delivery strategies etc.. necessary for learning and supporting learning for children. If this knowledge is transferred to "would be teachers" then this is their personal experience of "how to". Thus, when confronted with or asked to apply technology to what they were taught as "how to" it is potentially contrary to their experience. Additionally, to make this change you may have to use incremental methods to gain faith by the teachers that the little steps worked so we can build on these successes which become a new set of personal experience. Social-cultural kind of ties the first two together the views of your peers are going to act as either a motivating or restraining force. See, I always feel like I missed the point. Ashley has a nice list! Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:21:09 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=957058 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=957058 I think this is on track when she discusses problem based and authentic learning. I think these are instructional design crossing-over to instructional strategies and cross referenced to technologies that can be used to deliver various aspects of the learning in a more meaningful way. These types are by their nature collaborative and purposeful as she describes. I think it interesting that there is a feeling of need to collaborate with other kids in other countries to improve learning. Do I think it is cool? Yes. Necessary? Probably not. It is often funny to me how as we get access to more information, and we have a history of transferring knowledge (education) that goes back thousands of years that every old idea must have somehow been wrong. Yet, somehow civilization has progressed to this point with those old ideas. I digressed, but funny to me. Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:23:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=957046 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=957046 I always wonder if in the push to "personalize"and "individualize", what will the final impact be on testing/foundational knowledge? Can any test actually be "fair" if everything is individualized /personalized? It's tough to have a standard in the utopian vision for learning. If that vision is so bound-up in individual achievement what is foundational? Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:12:08 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=953459 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=953459 Man, I must have missed the proper start point for this if you got that much out of it regarding private sector. That's funny. Very well written Pam. Wish I had more to offer but apparently I was distracted by something. Coop Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:35:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=948190 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=948190 I thought a couple of her better comments were around the idea of changing the federal role from one of compliance to innovator. I will need to let that concept simmer a bit to see if it really makes sense but right off, I think that may be a better role. Some of her ideas in this were related back to I3, Race to the Top and research grant results needing to be publicly available. Sun, 18 Feb 2018 07:44:37 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=948187 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=948187 I would describe his view as using/leveraging technology to allow individuals to work at their pace to achieve content mastery and to identify individual needs to group students to allow teacher/expert intervention at appropriate points to help those students achieve mastery whether they are behind or further ahead. These interventions, are the place where personalized takes place. I think the values are on students achieving content mastery, making the content scale- able to achieve cost efficiencies, an assumption is that interventions can only be performed by interaction with a content expert, that these solutions can be scale-able. Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:14:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=948185 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96801?scroll_to=948185 Listening to this froom the point of the initial question, the first portion as it relates to private industry has gone unanswered. The personalizing to this point is really a commentary about individualized learning to achieve subject mastery. So, in my estimation the discussion hasn't spoken to private industry and only flirted with personalized learning to the degree that one thinks of personalized learning as similar to individualized learning. Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:04:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96347?scroll_to=945265 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96347?scroll_to=945265 Again, I deal more with adult learners so, I think for adults it is the freedom to explore and make the connections themselves that this system would have allowed. Certainly not an open system, but certainly moving closer. For the teachers the ability to organize information in an interface mechanism that was user friendly for learners with no technical knowledge or certainly lower technical knowledge than was required by their predecessors opens a lot of opportunities also.interactive. Whoops, this comment was supposed to go down a little way as a response to Dr Hicks. Thu, 08 Feb 2018 09:04:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944201 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944201 Regarding attended less frequently. Kind of a learning point. It was important enough to mention but not to suggest a reason? C'mon Tue, 06 Feb 2018 15:27:07 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944200 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944200 Control Groups, Treatment Groups, 21 X 21 w/without laptops. I liked that this was a cohort study and longitudinal. I just like that model seems more interesting and useful than most. I found it interesting that their was no substantial difference in math and reading scores. Tue, 06 Feb 2018 15:25:34 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944164 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944164 I think the reason (in part) of their finding regarding self-paced may not be as effective is that they have an embedded learning strategy within the MCBI. That learning strategy is based in cognitivism (earlier in the article) so it a strategy that is step-by-step in logical sequence as set by the course designer. Thus self-paced through a cognitive construct may not yield the best result. Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:39:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944136 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944136 Control Group, Treatment Groups, Random Assignment. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944117 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944117 I think that is an entirely accurate statement. Very good thoughts. Tue, 06 Feb 2018 14:45:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944116 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944116 IN these paragraphs 27-29 the technology discussion seems to focus on three aspects. Increasing Student interest, using computers to create meaning and interaction, and to knowledge in the field due to a lack of research. I think their focus is the generating interest and motivation through the use of Interactive Multi-Media. In this use they are looking to empower learners more so than teachers. Purpose How does it position Teachers Tue, 06 Feb 2018 14:44:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944099 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96345?scroll_to=944099 You can certainly tell that this is so as the groups are "naturally assembled" they don't state it but one would suppose this is just based upon which class an indiviudla selected. This could impact the study in a number of ways. Maybe these were highly motivated folks that signed up before others for an optimum class time. We can't tell by what is stated about the participants or this portion of the procedure. This "naturally assembled" and recognizing that one group would be selected for the treatment" are strong indications that they have correctly labeled this as quasi experimental. Tue, 06 Feb 2018 14:26:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96347?scroll_to=944062 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96347?scroll_to=944062 This was a fairly significant change to technology capabilities for users at the time. I would think teachers could have developed presentations using it that may not have been the thought of by its developers. Even just linking knowledge bases would have been interesting for teacher sto turn their student loose for a minute Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96347?scroll_to=944060 https://nowcomment.com/documents/96347?scroll_to=944060 That's crazy to look back on this time frame. I remember everything being Dos based. So this appears to be at the time frame right before we had true GUI systems. This looks to be a cross between a data base, gui and maybe something else. Who has the agency is an interesting question, certainly the designers but equally so the users. Sun, 11 Feb 2018 23:44:29 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95752?scroll_to=941894 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95752?scroll_to=941894 Definitely a different way of looking at it. I think what you have explained is (not perfectly mind you) behaviorism and reinforcement of learning through an action. I also think what you have described represents almost, exactly, how I see my children learn best. Tell them, provide some explanation, if it is something to do then, let them do it, rinse and repeat. Sun, 04 Feb 2018 16:32:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95752?scroll_to=941520 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95752?scroll_to=941520 I think that is a good idea also goes along with your study. Just keep in mind the need for adult learners to be able to apply what they've learned close to the training/learning opportunity. So maybe shortly before they return for the beginning of the new school year. I'm sure it will have a positive affect on motivation (sarcasm) when you shorten their summer by a week or two. : ) Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:13:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95752?scroll_to=939675 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95752?scroll_to=939675 I read your comment and two things came to mind, the first is that I'm one of those that wants to know how the technology works as well as be able to integrate it. The second seems to be a continuing theme for me now and it stems from this partial statement of yours "have students use it differently". Fortunately I know you'r edealing with K-12. How far off the mark, do you think I am , based on your experience, in thinking that the technology should support the learning endeavor via the strategies applied by the teacher. I am not convinced that an all out push for constructivism at lower levels (for this discussion let's say K-6) is all that critical. I think it is okay at these levels if technology supports the acquisition of foundational knowledge while also (more invisibly) the learners gain comfort with the use of technology and many of the varying methods an instructor might apply to delivering content via technology as well as gain an ability to respond using the same technology. So, I guess what I am saying is teachers at these lower levels require applicable tools and methods/ideas for delivering their content using technology not necessarily trying to create a constructivist environment for each domain of learning. Support foundational knowledge at this level and possible from 7th-12th Grades move to the "To Act" Collaboration, Communication types of knowledge suggest as the second Framework by Mishra. Anyway, very wordy interested in your thoughts. Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:11:20 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95752?scroll_to=938724 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95752?scroll_to=938724 For both of you Jen and Ashley, don't you think itis more important to work on foundational knowledge in K-12? Again, I am more concerned about K-6. The essence of contructivism is that you have to construct knowledge for yourself, only then is it real knowledge...we could argue about this alone but that is the point. The second point is that learners must organize, motivate and supervise their learning. This really shouldn't play a huge role for children in my opinion. Another more abstract thought on constructivism is if knowledge only comes from what one constructs themselves and all other knowledge is not true knowledge, then what is the purpose of a teacher? If I learn a fact from the TV, a book, or a teacher is that some how less true? Kids at these ages need foundational knowledge much like presented by Mishra. Technology IMO can play an important and supporting role at these younger ages. Just a thought. Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:13:40 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=937720 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=937720 Well, I get to bring in my sociology background. Skinner was a behaviorist and so, obviously the essences of his teaching/learning theory is behaviorism. Skinner's box has much less relevance than his thinking machine which is really just a fore runner to using tablets in classrooms today for that individualized learning we were discussing in our previous post. Though it is individualized I prefer to think of it as lower order learning in relation to Bloom's Taxonomy. Which make individualized as appropriate as several other methods. Anyway, behaviorism does not negate the ability of the teacher /instructor/ trainer whichever to foster interpersonal relationships. One of the methods of instruction in behaviorism is (boiled down) explain, demonstrate, practice, perform. This method is highly interactive particularly with small groups. Other learning methods and strategy's stem from this approach (behaviorism) First Principles, Authentic Learning, Gagnes 9 events and others. Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:04:27 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=937712 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=937712 Jen, so glad you chimed in here. I think in the case of Ms. Erickson that anything that allowed one person to advance more quickly or higher than another it would be a problem. I think for her, collaboration is just Orwellian for an end state of equal outcomes in education. But that is just my take from listening to only two interviews of her and not reading her books. As to your point regarding personalized vs. individualized etc.., It was difficult for me to define what age the students were that were using these tools. My assumption was lower school K-4. At the lower levels, I am not certain how much "collaboration" and development of communication skills is of value. Beyond that, I wonder, if the tools are being used to allow individual progression, then student grouping by ability level, allowing teachers to use small group instructional methods which, by their very nature are more personalized almost a combination of coaching and tutoring combined with discussion. If so, doesn't the tool offer the ability to allow the teacher to achieve your ideal within the smaller groups? Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:22:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=934614 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=934614 At this point I had to go find out a little more about this individual and listened to this interview https://soundcloud.com/deadpundits/ep-13-class-war-in-the-classroom-socialist-education-policy-w-megan-erickson-kilpatrick-kenzo-shibata with her. So largely, she is not going to like skinner's theories or Khan Academy, private schools, one parents ability to by their kid a baby Einstein item over another who can't, or anything that might make a distinction between the ability of students. Everything is class warfare...as a matter of fact that was the interview title I listened to. She is entitled to her opinion but she has such a large bone to pick it is difficult to take her seriously. Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:04:27 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=934598 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=934598 She starts this by saying the adoption rate of technology is low because teachers can't do it basically because of the testing regime then, says well, really the problems was how they implemented the technology, no PD and 40 min lesson on how to use it. After this she talks about the dystopian future as laid out by Skinner and the teaching machine. This is one of the few points with which I agreed with her. She furthers this with the discussion of the need for collaboration and that the use of technology is only marginally personalized in its current use. This would be easier had I picked up on the grade level. But my suspicion is that at lower grade level a non-quantifiable amount "small" is probably acceptable in "personalized"learning for students and probably reduces the instructor burden in order to achieve focused learning for groups appropriate to their ability. I don't see that as so bad. For a brief period of time some kids are in a small group setting with the teacher receiving more personalized attention. Where's the problem? Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:27:08 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=934588 https://nowcomment.com/documents/95760?scroll_to=934588 This was really hard for me to listen to. She had made a couple of points that I thought were reasonable and I could potentially find common ground with but it seemed her outlook overall, held to a view of achieving equal outcomes in education and the division of people by classes most typically a have/have not outlook. So, it just put in the "she has an agenda" mode and was very difficult for me. She finally made this clear in the last few minutes speaking about how the Social Justice Movement being involved will make things better and gave her hope. Don't take any of this as my being offended, I'm not. That was a tough assignment for me Doc. Wed, 31 Jan 2018 02:20:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94520?scroll_to=933731 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94520?scroll_to=933731 Jen, I miss our chats. Maybe the screw driver hasn't been invented yet. The point was the affordances of a hammer don't make it suitable to be a screwdriver and thus the technology of a hammer by and of itself are not neutral. The opposite is true screwdrivers are very useful for driving screw, for prying , you can ,in a pinch use them as a chisel. But their very nature limits them from being a good hammer. The discussion is not about did you grab the right tool, I concede that point to you. This discussion is the nature of the technology/tool in and of itself is not neutral to its use. You actually make a point that supports this argument by saying why would you grab a hammer to drive a screw. In essence arguing the hammer offers no affordances for this work. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:55 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94520?scroll_to=931146 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94520?scroll_to=931146 This might have gone well with the 21st C Literacies to Act (Meta Knowledge). I think the TK, PK and CK fall more in line with the first framework of Foundational Knowledge (to Know). It seems the aspect missing within this article, were we to address it with the author a decade ago would be the third Framework (to Value). Recognizing of course that to state it as "missing" might be a bit strong but certainly it is not a well developed concept at this stage. But, it is certainly a component that is missing that helps explains the degree of effectiveness of one solution over another. Again, I think the authors miss behaviors as a factor. Studies of competence used to tend towards knowledge but as time has passed competence has begun to look more at the intersection of knowledge and skills, with experience and behaviors. The behaviors of the individual are what pulls the knowledge and experiences together to form desirable end states. Anyway, I think a discussion linking various desirable behavioral competencies of teachers to TPACK might be interesting as well as a discussion tying those competencies to the 21st Century Literacies which are in themselves partly lists of overall competencies. As poorly written as that is I am certain no one will understand this. However with little sleep it sounded pretty reasonable to me. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:55 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94520?scroll_to=929593 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94520?scroll_to=929593 Jen, I understand from where you are coming with these thoughts and in the typical definition of bias that we apply in day-to-day conversation I would agree. Certainly from the standpoint of holding a prejudice for or against something or someone, inanimate objects are incapable of this. However, inanimate objects by their very nature offer particular affordances, potential and constraints which is the direction the authors are headed. Certainly, we through our experiences, may also hold a bias for the use of the technology also but I do not think this lessens their argument. A simple example is a hammer this is a simple piece of technology, works great for driving nails, smashing things, pulling nails, but its potential for driving screws is low. So, no matter how imaginative I may be as the hammer operator the tool itself constrains my ability to drive screws. Doesn't mean I can't find a way (I do some cabinetry work as a hobby, I've probably tried) to, just limits the possibilities based on the technology itself. So that is the non-neutral aspect. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:55 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=929346 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=929346 I think he had just finished discussing combinational creativity and the false dichotomy of Foundational vs. Creativity. In his case trans-disciplinary (for this discussion) was about teachers taking their outside interest and who they are outside of teaching and applying it to their discipline iwithin teaching and how this had made them Teachers of the Year. Trans-disciplinary is not equal to TPACK. Again, the content knowledge for the various areas of TPACK may be a necessary ingredient to an individual (in the teaching profession) demonstrating this concept of trans-discipline, but the other aspects of who the individual is and what they know from outside those areas combined is the trans-disciplinary part. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:55 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=929335 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=929335 I think I may have answered this or partly answered this in the last question. There are similarities, the TPACK Knowledges and their interactions with one another and with the experience and behaviors of the teacher. I don't know that it is fair to say that TPACK = Creativity, but I do believe that one having the the knowledge constructs identified within the framework would be important to that individual being creative in the application of technology to learning. Wed, 24 Jan 2018 23:19:39 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=929302 https://nowcomment.com/documents/94518?scroll_to=929302 I'm starting off as non-committal. It is probably due to my not being involved in my career with TPACK. As I recall from previous readings, TPACK was a theoretical framework designed to help integrate technology into classrooms and represented the knowledge necessary to use that technology in classrooms effectively. So, at the top level it is a framework, as described by Mishra, there are three 3 Frameworks that are evident in his meta analysis of 21st Century Literacies. So if nothing else they have the word "framework" in common. As you look further at the 21st C literacies, the three frameworks are subtitled: to Know, to Act, and to Value. I do not think these three overarching frameworks are directly analogous to TPACK wherein we have Content, Pedagogical, and Technological Knowledge respectively CK, PK, and TK. I think these three components fit best into the first framework from 21st Century Literacies, that being Knowledge (to Know). As we dig in a little further we find that the interaction of CK, PK and TK lead to four other areas of knowledge TCK, TPK, PCK, and TPCK (Mishra & Kohler, 2006). This interaction phenomenon does have similarities with the 21st Century literacies in that they do interact, beyond that I do not directly see a relationship particularly with the to Value as described by Mishra. Flat out, I could stretch it and make one for a relationship with Value but I do think it is a stretch. Where I do find a connection to the lecture is between TPACK and the creative process. I believe it is impossible to separate (for one who instructs), the person instructing for 6 hours a day from the person the remaining 18 hours of the day. I think the TPACK construct/framework and the various knowledge areas that it entails combined with the experiences and behaviors of the individual teacher are what will fuel/spark the creative processes that will lead to innovations in the application of the technology to learning strategies and environments. In many cases these innovations will be N.E.W. I remember starting this off as non-committal. I think I'm still 50/50 on this. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:55 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=925273 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=925273 Good heavens no. You'll have to work really hard to offend me. I am all about a free exchange of ideas and after thirty years in the service my callouses have callouses. So, I'm pretty thick skinned. Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:45:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93679?scroll_to=922795 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93679?scroll_to=922795 Ashley, I like all the active learning methods you employ. Have you considered providing the groups with a capstone type project? Wherein, the various groups develop one or more tools that could be (with minor modification) implemented by others in their classrooms. They could share these in a presentation explaining the what it is, how it works, how you might modify, the benefits of the tool and anything else you deem worthy, then share the tool itself. Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:42:49 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93679?scroll_to=922794 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93679?scroll_to=922794 Largely we use technology to substitute and augment current practices. I think we could get to the modification and redefinition but only in our supervisor and management level training where we enter into business, leadership and soft skills subjects. That will probably be a push for us in the next year or so. Much like my comment on the other reading I think that it would be easy to move to the modification or even redefinition in these types of courses. I also believe these courses which are currently delivered as face-to-face could move to blended or synchronous online. This movement alone would easily move us to modification and extending the learning to include group projects related to the topics using technology to allow the collaboration across geographic boundaries and time zones would working actual problems for the organization and presenting those to the executive leadership team would really be a radical change and a redefinition. Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:27:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93676?scroll_to=922758 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93676?scroll_to=922758 I din't see the rules for engagement until the end. Apparently we all pushed your comments to the bottom. IN the future I will look for this first. Fri, 19 Jan 2018 08:32:50 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93676?scroll_to=922757 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93676?scroll_to=922757 I thought this paragraph to be important in this concept and one that I largely agree with. Technology is a "Tool". I find myself remaining in the Clark camp. I find technology to be just medium or media to deliver content. Technology impacts learning when it is integrated into a learning environment through appropriate application of learning theories, instructional strategies and instructional design. So, if you applied a Constructivist approach (theory) with Authentic Learning Strategies and PBL Strategies into a course design for a Blended Learning, Civil Engineering: Road Construction class, the technology doesn't teach it just facilitates the learning because integrated correctly groups can work on problems together, their are multiple methods for providing feedback etc. Technology greatly enhances the capability to deliver learning but doesn't change learning (My next statement will be the most controversial largely because the wording will be imprecise) because, Learning is something that happens within an individual. The mechanism of delivery be it a lecture or a webinar is just a delivery mechanism. Fri, 19 Jan 2018 08:30:14 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93676?scroll_to=922755 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93676?scroll_to=922755 This is an interesting paragraph and I find the concept of authentic learning combined with technolgy and problem based learning to be very interesting and IMHO possibly a great way to effectively incorporate technology. PBL may be advanced for K-12, I am not in that field but conceptually I think this is a good mix to gain the most with technology. Fri, 19 Jan 2018 08:06:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93676?scroll_to=922754 https://nowcomment.com/documents/93676?scroll_to=922754 I thought this whole section from paragraph 12-22 rather than calling these areas of emphasis really is reiterating, or developing if you will a list of principles for the effective application of technology in learning. These principles are the basis of what they have come to value (the three E's) and use as criteria to judge the effectiveness of the application of technology to teaching. It's very interesting, they could have written this much like the Agile Manifesto and said we value Extension, Enhancement, and Engagement and the principles that underlie these values are para 12-22. Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:44:19 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=917922 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=917922 All good questions. I try to figure out what is in the minds of the various administrators at the school and am developing some relationships with those folks. I think they do not have a coherent 10,000 foot view of what they want to accomplish as an overall vision for the use of technology in education. I think a vision statement at a relatively low level (probably lower than city) would be necessary to guide educators and how to prepare educators with methodologies (instructional strategies) that would be applicable to their circumstance. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=917921 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=917921 My view is different than most because it is private sector. Technology is applied to learning solutions in ways that will reduce instructional design, development and delivery costs while still achieving the desired learning outcomes. If blended delivery is most cost effective that's what we will use. The technology doesn't teach anything other than the use of that specific technology. It is the application of instructional theory, instructional strategies and design applied to the capabilities of delivery through various technological vehicles that matters. These vehicles may modify context but not goals. I'm sure I'll be sorry for making such an assertion. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=917920 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=917920 For instance in my work as we make technological improvements to our tools (e.g. use of wireless technology, data streaming from rig to shore, improved software for graphing casing and drill pipe torque) our learning programs for employees are very much related to the application of the technology itself and is along the lines of what is it, how it works, how you uses it, the benefits, any safety considerations, how it benefits the organization. So all very much vocational. The engineers who design these things view technology somewhat analogous to our experience in this program of instruction. They see a technology and devise a way to apply it to what our field hands are doing, or our tools, or our processes and adapt the technology to accomplish something. That is the same for us, for instance here's Twitter, how can you use that as an educational tool? Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914799 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914799 YOur comment "There is the thought that just placing a computer and smart board in the classroom satisfies the need for using technology, but there are various degrees of instructor use—some shown to be very effective." I agree, I think it may have been a discussion last term on TPACK but in essence I believe the point is that the degree of expertise in the domain under consideration, skill and ability with the technology and/or software that will supplement the instructional role and the skill and ability of the instructor in interpersonal communications and relationship building and classroom organization are all drivers to the ability of technology to impact learning outcomes. I made an earlier comment half-joking w/Jen but it really appears to me that the Clark-Kozma debate continues. Wed, 10 Jan 2018 07:52:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92743?scroll_to=914783 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92743?scroll_to=914783 I liked the way that the application provided the "Coaching" mode which gave the teacher the ability to dig into a students data and identify where they were having difficulty, how they'd worked a problem, how many hints etc... I also thought the elaborated feedback (hints) provided in the software was a great way to assist in reducing learner frustration and thus helping to keep them motivated. This particular teachers approach of not only providing feedback through the software in immediate response and elaborated mode but also allowing the learners to interact with peers for assistance was a particularly useful method of reducing overload on the instructor, receiving positive reinforcement (self-perception and motivation) for students who provided assistance to others, and encouraging teamwork and a low threat environment (not embarrassing, thus positive and more motivating) by receiving peer assistance. The software is just the software, how it is applied to the instructional setting and domain of interest and how that fits with the capabilities of the instructor/facilitator in regards to that instructors technical capability in the domain, their knowledge and skill of the software application and their skills and abilities in regards to connecting to their learners and managing a classroom are also key to effective instruction. Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:45:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914170 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914170 Jen, As a general rule I think that is a fair assessment "computers have not taken over ....or replaced teachers". I think that technology supplements and supports the teacher. I think the teachers/designers are learning to strategically utilize technology for the best possible outcome given their particular circumstance. Tue, 09 Jan 2018 14:51:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914155 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914155 Jen, I thought that was good also. I feel like I'm re-arguing Clark v Kozma (Sp) Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914153 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914153 In my own work which is centered on adult learners, and much of which is directed toward the design and delivery of providing vocational skills and knowledge for the performance of specific job roles/functions, I would suggest that we are really leveraging the technology in ways that will; 1) most efficiently utilize the limited resources we have,2) place some of the burden of learning on the individual, 3) reduce as much as practical the need for instructor led classes, 4)achieve the most effective learning practical based on constraints. I believe we are seeing shifts in how we deploy/utilize technology I don't know that it is "significant". To some degree it is putting old wine in new bottles as we use eLearning in some ways similar to how we used to use Training Tapes albeit we can press learners to be responsible for their learning in an eLearning with just a little bit of imagination on the part of the designer/developer. Additionally, we are able to provide immediate feedback in these courses also. In regards to K-12, again, I don't have much perspective on this. I can tell you that my wife who is a very intelligent, educated woman and a petroleum engineer absolutely hates that our children are using computers in the classroom and this is just a gut level thing for her. She is afraid that we'll end up with the typical anti-social teenagers who can't get their head out of their iPhone long enough to say hello to their parents, or even be able to interact with other members of society. I accept these as real concerns. Thus far though I see a general integration of technology in the K-12 program of my children. It seems to be based on the capabilities of the hardware, software and mostly the level of comfort of the teacher with the technology and a pedagogy for how they will implement its use in the instructional design of their particular domain. Of ten it is replacing a role a teacher had. For instance in the past you might have done flashcards as a kid competing against others, acquiring your own self-assessment, a peer assessment (he/she is good) and an assessment of the instructor. Now they may work some problems on the tablet receive immediate feedback and take short quizzes and receive a generated assessment and make their own assessment of themselves. This free the teacher to place them in groups and work according to the ability of the group. Yeah, its old wine new bottles in some instances but by directing some of the time out of the instructors hands for the basics they can focus /tailor to needs according to ability. I think at some point as teachers and administrators become more adept at explaining their construct within a given educational setting (particular K-12 setting) you could begin to merge grade levels in some fashion (I'm not sure how) and base progress on attainment of knowledge, and having learned how to learn. There will always be the caution towards mental and physical maturity in the advancement to levels with older and more mature individuals but within some limits even this would have to give way for the exceptional individual. Anyway, I have written and wandered around this enough. Tue, 09 Jan 2018 14:37:44 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914058 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=914058 I don't work in K-12 so my experience is directly related to what I perceive to be occurring in my children's education. My two oldest children are in 1st and 4th Grade. The fourth grader enters the middle school next year and we were touring it yesterday. So, this is timely. I think the lower school where my girls are currently is in the preservationist scenario as a general rule. However, as I was asking questions of the middle school principal and some of the teachers at the 5th grade, though they would not have articulated it this way the cautious optimists scenario looks to be taking place at the middle school level as they were discussing how they were able to tailor learning to groups based on ability. I asked pointed questions about feedback mechanisms and self-paced learning and was met with how formative assessment are conducted using peer, instructor and self-assessments that some learning was problem based and also discussions of the use of group learning. So, I think both of these scenarios are possible and I think the conditions the author set for each are applicable to the outcomes that I see in my children's school. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=913944 https://nowcomment.com/documents/92739?scroll_to=913944 I found this interesting from the perspective of being an old guy. I started my K-12 experience in 1968. So my experience is interesting in the context of para 28. In about 1972, maybe 1973 our elementary school purchased or was donated several very early computers as I recall essentially we had modum connection to a mainframe, a crt monitor and keyboard. But the purpose was not to have an affect on learning, but was to teach about computers how they worked and very rudimentary programming. So, this was an example of the impulse to be in line with the work place. Also, this mind set/impulse was predominate throughout my K-12 experience. Could be related to the time period or even geography and proximity to industry (Automotive, Steel and Tires). Most of the public schools in that region (N.E. Ohio) were what was considered VOTECH, Vocational and Technical Schools with minimal offerings for College Preparatory Courses but with a strong alignment to the business needs of the area. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:35:52 -0500