Most recent public comments by Adam Hain https://nowcomment.com/users/41055 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050103 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050103 As I read the article, what stood out to me most was the connection to Mishra and his discussion of 21st Century Learning Skills. While Mishra's model is a bit broader in scope, the theme of connectivity is similarly present. I think Ito's descriptions of "horizontal" connectivity really expresses this. A key difference I would point out is that Mishra's model does not focus as much on communication and collaboration. While it is present in the model, it id not emphasized as much as is in this article. I was also reminded of the section from last semester on new literacies, which I thought was uniquely interesting. While I had imagined this to be a topic more narrowly focused on writing and social media. I found it broadly focused on the same ideas of social constructivism and this article is clearly influenced by those same perspectives. I think it is exciting to see academic research begin to focus on the lived experience of the learner and attribute merit to that authentic experience. Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:42:30 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050102 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050102 I think the idea of harnessing informal learning through MOOCs, micro-credentials and various other badging systems has received a lot of attention in the last few years, but I don't think any one platform has emerged with a system that is really effective. Experiments are still underway and I have seen this with Coursera moving further into the degree space. Overall, I think we are talking about valid pieces of a portfolio. A degree and various credentials are part of that, but actual projects are desired too. So I see the resume or CV as a piece of a larger whole that considers a potential employees true competencies. I think overall it's a positive development because individuals can develop a portfolio alongside or prior to the credential portions of that evidence. As far as connected learning, I agree this is really important and truly valuable, but we should use a little caution in going overboard. True learning needs to occur internally as well and those times when learners learn collaboratively should best happen organically and authentically develop from personal interest and not be assigned for just a group work exercise. Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:03:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050101 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050101 My impression of this statement is that yes it is true that in the information age, we all have access to far more media and content than we formerly did. Not long ago a school library might be the only place to access particular books, magazines and varied media. For that matter, I remember community college being the only place I could access the media tools needed for creation and manipulation of images, video and audio. Now access to many of those tools and that content is free. However, the content knowledge of a mentor or teacher in this setting becomes even more crucial because there are so many sources of information. A developing learner will have a much harder time parsing the information that to abundant. So overall I agree, but I think to some extent this has always been the case. Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:35:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050098 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106535?scroll_to=1050098 I think the fundamental assumption about about how young people might learn is different between Ito and her daughter. Ito assumes her daughter would need the guidance of traditional teacher at least at the initial stages of learning the instrument. Her daughter has found a more direct form of learning through youtube. Ironically, Ito herself seems to research in a similar self-directed manner online. Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:03:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048938 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048938 I agree that action research is an feasible option and a great way to evaluate procesess quickly. I don't know a great deal about it but I am interested in further investigation of the topic. I am also interested in diving into design research, which I learned about last semester. They could both be applied to PD. Sun, 22 Jul 2018 22:31:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048937 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048937 Agreed, I have mostly seen these same formats. In conferences I have been a part of discussions searching for better data. I think it's difficult unless there is a "carrot" in terms of P&T or even some type of validated certification like CME/CE credits. Fri, 20 Jul 2018 19:50:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048229 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048229 So first, I really like the model. I even sent the doc over to my previous department. Like most PD programs, we operated exclusively at level 1. Suggestions for level 2 include more rigorous approaches like pre-post testing and separate instruments to assess learning. I think these interventions are possible but again it's hard to gauge what faculty to submit to. That said, if they know the participation will contribute to the institution overall, they are usually more open to submitting to tests like these. I think in higher ed what we really need though is for PD to be part of the service requirement. Level 3 requires a longitudinal component, which I actually think is realistic. In my experience, a faculty member would love to have an ID come in and support a class longitudinally. So instead of labeling it assessment, you might get faculty on board by calling it support. I'm also coming from the experience of supporting Health Professions faculty, so K-12 and undergrad might be wholly different. As far as level 4, this is more of a 'wicked problem'. There are so many confounding factors that, this level becomes very messy and hard to assess. At this level, a program might first look at qualitative methods to find clarity on questions to address before tackling quantitative assessment. Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:18:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048214 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048214 There are a few issues I would mention. First, sample sizes are often low and commitment is also mixed. Faculty are very busy and PD is not generally rewarded or required. Second, PD staff in my experience many times do not have the resources or experience to conduct valid well-designed research. In my former department, when we did pursue research it was usually an intervention that involved students. So we would help a faculty member set up an technology intervention and measure the results with students. Another problem is that it is difficult to measure development in a legitimate way while controlling for confounding variables. PD session are usually pretty general in terms of topics so it's hard to measure that a session had an impact in a measurable way. Wed, 18 Jul 2018 09:49:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048198 https://nowcomment.com/documents/106299?scroll_to=1048198 This is a topic that is very relevant to me as it's exactly what I did for 3 years. We planned and delivered several workshops a month and evaluated them using Likert surveys. I would watch the faculty circle 5 for every response to be nice to the presenter and move on. I think the workshops were useful but the assessment was less so. I've thought about differnt forms of practical assessment, like a multi week project based workshop but commitment level is a real issue here. Wed, 18 Jul 2018 09:38:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1038520 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1038520 Hi John, Thanks so much for providing that site. I wasn't aware that there was such an office. This is an interesting site to explore. Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:12:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1038519 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1038519 Yes the demands are distributed, but you're correct, they do fall on the teacher most of all. This has led to frustration as teachers have many other demands besides technology integration. Providing centralized support is very important to aid teacher in becoming successful. Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:09:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1038518 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1038518 Hi John, I agree I think research it the key to distinguishing what technologies and practices are worth pursuing. Otherwise schools are just spending money based on hunches. Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:56:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1038343 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1038343 This was a very inspiring conclusion to the keynote. I had never considered the prospect of 'product-oriented' learning. More so I think the idea of utilizing technology to encourage creativity and growth instead of reinforce the current paradigm is powerful. This made me think of the Web 2.0 concept of the consumer as the producer and how we might encourage that mindset in schools. In terms of the 11 items I might consider Compatibility between teacher pedagogical beliefs and the technology. For item 1, a teacher would have to believe in the power of personalized learning. I think a powerful way to introduce this concept is to explain that this does not necessarily entail isolation of students but can still include collaboration. For item 2, teacher would need to also adopt the belief that project/product based learning is valuable, and abandoning didactic methodologies can be advantages to student learning and creativity. Item 3 might not directly correlate to a specific pedagogical belief as well. However, there are amazing examples of courses that have been created where students communicate directly with students of other cultures. By doing so students can think outside of the cultural paradigm in the US surrounding education. For all three, by seeing examples of success, teacher may more likely change their pedagogical belief systems. Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:43:10 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1038340 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1038340 I teach a class in the Educational Multimedia program at Cal Poly. In this program there are many K-12 teachers and nearly all the assignments are project-based and very loosely structured. There are also courses in graphic design and video editing. This allows the graduate students in the program to be very free to explore their creativity. This is also the case with the research that they explore. I think this is a very effective approach to stimulating creativity in teachers and my hope is that it will translate to encouraging creativity in students as well. I think most teachers have the potential to creativity integrate technology into their classes , but primarily need to be given the support time and opportunity to do so. Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:24:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1038339 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1038339 This section really spoke to me because I had the same experience on graduating form undergrad. I went to school for TV and film and moved to LA thinking I would be ok finding work and be able to join a union where the pay was pretty decent as an editor. However, at that time in 2008, shifts in technology had made the need for assistant editors less prominent. Editing has essentially became easier to do requiring less people to accomplish. This was quite a exciting development to the side of me that wanted to make documentaries and could do so myself, but no so great for finding work. This combined with the economy in 2008 led to me staying at Trader Joes long after I graduated, freelancing and not finding steady work in post until much later. In this case the tools taught in college were relevant, but the technology had advanced eliminating, essentially automating, many editing tasks. This has continued to the point that I finally left the field - for the better, gladly. This poses a challenge for educators, to incorporate tools that are relevant but also to be aware of where an industry is and where it is going. If I had been aware of the state of the industry beforehand I likely would have picked a different major. No one has a crystal ball, and I value the experience I had working in film, but the degree was not of excessive use. In contrast, the master I finished a few years ago changed my life for the better almost immediately. The skills and technologies I learned were relevant and employable in the field. Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:11:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1038329 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1038329 I found this statement interesting too, and didn't exactly know what to make of it when he said it. I think what he is referring to is the tendency of technology functionality to enforce pre-existing notions of what schools look like and how they function. So if we imagine drill and practice as a modality we reinforce that with technology. What I also found interesting was the almost negative connotation associated with teaching and learning, which I haven't heard before. However, I think in context, what he is saying is we need to look holistically at education and it's goals. For example he questions whether getting into college is a valid goal. This may be accomplished by teaching and learning, but need not necessarily define education Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:57:23 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1037967 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105128?scroll_to=1037967 After reading the article in the other forum and taking a look at the website, I would predict that Dr Zhao would describe technology and education as fraught with challenges and opportunity - a "wicked" problem. He might also contrast Chinese and American schools as some of his work seems focused on that topic. Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:00:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037894 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037894 The theme that had the most profound impression on me was the the social context becoming a barrier. I usually refer to these as institutional barriers as well. While we would like to imagine all institutions as cultivating innovation and supporting it, in reality most institutions are highly political places and success can depend on ones ability to navigate this social environment and its contexts. This problem is very much present today in my experience and from others I have spoken with. A second area I found interesting was the intersection of the the three major themes of the paper. This clearly has similarities to TPACK and Mishra ideas on new literacies. Although they are very different in context, they look at the intersection of related themes, much the way Shulman originally looked at pedagogy and content knowledge. In this way we see more current research still observing how pedagogical elements relate to other fields. Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:56:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037892 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037892 I found these two spectrums to be informative to describe challenges to the integrations. Earlier in the article we see that teacher who are less social had more problems. This was exasperated by projects with more dependent factors. I have seen this in my experience as well. We have had faculty that we see as early adopters or innovators using technologies in new and creative ways. I would agree that most of these individuals are more social and seek out the help of our department and attend the workshops. This adds to their success. Additionally a more social individual might get more resources from administration. Distance is also a valid description. Faculty at times need to have their expectations tempered since they might attempt to create a project outside the scope of what they and the support staff might be able to accomplish. I don't think we can demand innovation from teachers, but we can expect participation in collaborative initiatives, to participate in joint efforts. If technology is not their thing, they might participate in other ways, but still contribute. Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:34:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037889 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037889 The example in the the article of the successful teacher is illustrative. This individual previously possessed the knowledge skills and dispositions to be successful at using the technology. For this reason he likely experienced higher self-efficacy as well. In contrast, those with less prior knowledge likely were at a disadvantage. This makes me think that the grant might have been more effective with some type of coaching mechanism to guide teacher in using the funds to avoid opportunity costs described in the less successful cases. This coaching could be written or interpersonal guidance from an expert. Knowledge and skills can easily be changed. Dispositions are a bit more rigid, but I think these are most likely to change through vicarious experience - through witnessing success. Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:08:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037888 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037888 This is an interesting question and I had to re-read the passage to catch the part you're referring to. The authors discuss the impractically broad criticisms of technology integrations in the previous paragraph. Rather, than addressing them, or some small subset of them, I think they chose to focus on looking at what might work instead of fixing what doesn't. By looking at what techniques engender innovation, the broad imprecise critical elements may become irrelevant. That said, they do mention they will look at the hindrances to integration as well. I would guess that this might take place in a more focused manner, looking at possibly refining what they find does work. Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:42:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037887 https://nowcomment.com/documents/105125?scroll_to=1037887 I would predict faculty development would be one of these factors. This relates to Ertmer's research into encouraging teachers' pedagogical beliefs in technology integration. Development in using a tool is important, but I think more important is development in the nature of a pedagogical implementation. For example, I think that development in Classroom Assessment Techniques via Angelo and Cross would be more effective that training in using poll everywhere. While this may seem intuitive, the latter is more common. I'd also predict institutional barriers as a factor, mismanagement of funding, lack of time, and poor vendor support. Third I might predict that the lack of a community of practice might pose a barrier. As teachers see other colleagues embrace technology they might be more inclined to do the same, but the opposite is also true. Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:32:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037715 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037715 I think an interesting portion of this section is the discussion of innovation in the US. When framed by the policy conversation, we see that policy can stifle and misunderstand how innovation will happen. As Popovic mentions, policy cannot predict innovation, but our leaders can work more diligently to understand it. It is a delicate balance. While I would not want the federal government dictating archaic policy for the entire country, I think some states need to be brought into line with, well, reality. For example, climate change should be taught based on scientific fact, not on the majority political leaning in a municipality. This discussion of policy and innovation is also difficult. Small pockets of innovation are great but that innovation should be able tp propagate as policy throughout the country. Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:17:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037711 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037711 I found this comment interesting as well. I actually was not aware that these virtual schools were so prevalent in K-12 before starting this program. I think it is important to have standardization that enables this flexibility for parents. While I understand that states and localities may want to have differentiated policies I think kids in all states should have the same opportunities. Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:07:31 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037709 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037709 When I think of the key elements of the a digital learning environment, I immediately think of the NGDLE from educause. I know I have brought this up a few times, but I have seen no better blueprint for a flexible vision of the features a digital learning environment should contain. I find this to be a very exciting prospect. Personalization is also a key component of the NGDLE. Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:59:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037708 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037708 I think Zolt wisely spends this portion discussing collaboration in various formats. This is a topic that doesn't occur to me right off when I consider personalized learning. I think of it more as individualized, however the multi-layered considerations of having a platform be both personal and group-centric, while adapting content is a unique challenge. She also discusses open APIs I think this is important to begin to harness the creativity of small developers around the globe. Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:55:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037704 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037704 Popovic's argument is that game-based learning will be more engaging than traditional modalities. Therefore, since students are more engaged, they will spend more time in the learning environment. His next argument is that since there will be so many students spending so much time in the platform, researcher will have more data to draw from. The second argument I found more interesting and have not heard before. I think that these are valid arguments, if you truly have a game that engages students. Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:37:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037702 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037702 I was really interested at the idea of a gaming platform providing more data for research. This is effect makes research more valid as the sample size would be so much larger. This would be a great thing if you had a game that was truly engaging and used by large numbers of students. In my experience, this is hard to do though. We a have a team of two developers at my institution and they work on developing game-based education apps. These are very time consuming to develop and have not ended up having the reach many had hoped. So while the idea is that the popularity of these games might make research more scalable, the creation of games is not something that is easy to do in my opinion. It's great in theory, but I have not seen it happen in practice. Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:31:13 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037701 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037701 There are a few ways that I think government can support personalized learning. The first is to support research initiatives that look at the results of current integrations. This is discussed in the talk and the mention of turning the government into an engine of innovation is novel. Also mentioned in the video is standards. I think this is a critical component of developing personalized learning. No it might not be sexy but protocols like SCORM and Tin Can API have been around for a long time and aren't cutting it in many ways. LTI integrations are more popular at this time but need further government support to really drive adoption. Last, I would love to see government support open source initiatives to drive an adaptive or personalized project. All current systems that I have seen are proprietary. For a system to scale, open source may be the way to develop a freely available platform. Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:19:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037700 I think the point they are discussing here is that since no two learners are the same, the educational experience should be differentiated as well. This may have been a mute point in previous generations where an individual teacher managed a classroom in the traditional way. However, we are reaching a point with technology where this personalization is possible. Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:07:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037137 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104917?scroll_to=1037137 I find that vendors from private companies are very interested in personalized learning. There are not many, but smart sparrow and realizeit are key vendors that communicate with the LMS via LTI protocols. Additionally, LMS vendors are starting to adopt adaptive technologies. Desire2 Learn I know has been at the forefront of this as an LMS. As the video mentions, assessment is a key point for these systems to function effectively. If the learner is not assessed accurately, the content cannot be personalized in a meaningful way. On the ground, this is challenging though, because faculty members need to create assessments that meaningfully judge the level of understanding in a universal way. Sun, 10 Jun 2018 21:24:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104693?scroll_to=1036702 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104693?scroll_to=1036702 Thanks for mentioning the ability to create and implement button in the HyperCard platform. This takes the platform from being a note-taking tools to also functioning as a simple authoring platform. I use current authoring systems like Articulate and Captivate to create elearning modules, so this system could have functioned similarly to these to convey information to learners, but also allowing for constructivist style exploration of content. Surprisingly, the HyperCard system has some features that still are not present in these modern authoring tools. For example, scripting is somewhat limited. While JavaScript can be integrated, it’s more of an add-on than part of the tools. HyperCard has scripting built-in. This shows that the ideas are out there to improve interactivity in these elearning modules, including integrating more 2-way communication. In fact the technology is also there, as evidenced by numerous Web 2.0 tools over the past 15 years. However, for some reason there is a gap in the development of 2-way interactivity in these modern authoring tools. Wed, 06 Jun 2018 19:30:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104693?scroll_to=1036681 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104693?scroll_to=1036681 This is one of the things that attracted me to the program- that it is so unique. I looked at several EdDs and this program had everything I was looking for while being unique. Online and blended learning has progressed so much in the last 5 years. As we look back at videos like this we see that in some ways technology is just catching up with ideas that may have been around for quite some time. This was also apparent as we read Clark and Kozma last semester. I am happy to have the chance to look back at where EdTech was 20 years ago to inform where we are going. Wed, 06 Jun 2018 16:48:29 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104693?scroll_to=1036680 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104693?scroll_to=1036680 I think (as was mentioned) Apple retains a portion of the agency here. The design the platform and its affordances. I am not sure, pre-internet, if there is any communication with apple servers via a modem, but that would allow apple to have power and agency over user data. However, I think this system is a surprisingly advanced application of features of Web 2.0 that were developed much later. Users can create, share and organize small bit of information and media. This puts the power and agency in the hands of the user. In an educational setting, this power translates to the learners and the instructor nicely. An instructor can create and assign cards. Additionally the instructor could collaborate with the learners in the creating of knowledge structures built wit these cards. Last learners could work in groups to build these stacks to digest and elaborate on them. Overall I think power rests more with the users. Wed, 06 Jun 2018 16:42:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104693?scroll_to=1036679 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104693?scroll_to=1036679 I found this video quite surprising and really relevant to my research in this class. I am looking at linking, notation systems and web annotation. While this system predates the Internet, there are numerous affordances that enable users to keep, share and link information. This system has essentially many of the same features as something like Evernote or OneNote. The modular system appears to make the platform very flexible and powerful. I was especially impressed with two features: the linking capability and the ability to share with other users. These features and the eas e of UI presented in the video were surprisingly advanced for the time. I think the linking capabilities could be utilized by todays note taking platforms! Additionally the WYSIWYG editor that auto converts to scripts is pretty amazing too. In short Im’; surprised this didn’t catch on. In terms of uses, I think research (especially collaborative research) could be enabled with this system. Additionally a module or lesson could be created by an instructor and distributed to students. Since the cards are so adaptable, the instructor haas the opportunity to design knowledge structures as they like. Wed, 06 Jun 2018 16:33:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035834 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035834 Ryan, this is a great idea and I thought the emphasis on professional development was a strong point in the article as well. This also reflects the modern view the authors adopt. It would be difficult to argue that laptop integration alone would improve outcomes. Taking the Clark perspective definitely challenges the authors to distinguish between integration and pedagogy. Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:41:30 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035833 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035833 Fortunately costs are coming down and hardware is less of a driving factor. Much technology can be accessed in the browser. Moving forward, hopefully hardware will become cheaper and more accessible. That said tablets are still fairly expensive and many web-based platforms require per user subscriptions. This SAAS model can be very costly for districts and higher ed. Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:36:58 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035831 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035831 I thought that this article took a balanced and critical view of technology integration. The authors mention that buying laptops is only part of the solution. This is characteristic of the authors' acknowledging the complexity of the research problem. Despite finding positive results, they shy away from giving these results too much weight. I also think the emphasis on the importance of professional development in technology is wise. You can really sense that this article is much newer than the others. As we move forward we see a more even handed approach to technology integration. Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:31:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035830 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035830 The research design is well documented in this study. The experimental design is explained thoroughly and the research questions are clearly stated. I also found it interesting that the author mentioned that the research design actually distinguished their research from previous literature. Another aspect I found interesting was the use of a school as a participant. This level of participant is less used than the student level. Comparing schools in this way allowed the research to have more macro view of the research questions. Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:26:06 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035825 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035825 I think this was a great summary description. Aside from the technology, the authors were attempting to create an authentic experience based on their rich knowledge of the subject matter. Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:12:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035824 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035824 This is an interesting topic that you both address. Simply creating an interactive multimedia module likely will not change outcomes by nature. It's the pedagogical approach underpinning the module that that will truly have that effect. Utilizing good pedagogy will combined with creative technology use is a richer intervention. Measuring both at the same time might be a challenge though. Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:05:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035822 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035822 I think the creative use of the GALT instrument was a strong feature of this study. I also applaud the effort to integrate an interactive module into a course, especially at this early stage of the internet. However, I do think that there is a bit of bias in the writing. This might be improved by changing a few passages. The tone suggests that they believe they created a great module and set out to prove that it improved outcomes. I don't question the findings at all, just think that when research has a pre-conceived mission, it can lose credibility. That said, the module clearly increased logical thinking in the treatment group, so the authors have a right to be excited to share the findings. Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:59:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035821 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035821 I thought this design was interesting since, I believe it looked at both achievement and the correlation between this achievement and logical thinking. The quasi-experimental design likely resulted from having the participants at hand. On first read it appeared both groups took pre and post tests on the subject matter and also completed the GALT instrument. This would have provided the researchers plenty of data to work with and test the intervention- the interactive media program. This design would also be superior to simply pre-post achievement measurements because it would also utilize an instrument that is pre-existing in the literature. However, after looking a bit closer, it appears that the GALT instrument is actually the pre-post measurement. While this is still a solid design, I think comparing test scores between control and treatment groups would be a nice addition. Instead, they report achievement in course grade. This, combined with GALT scores provided a few different ways to look at the correlation of various data. Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:10:26 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035746 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035746 Susan, this is a really interesting point. I agree that elaborative rehearsal would be positive from a constructivist standpoint. However, I also think cognitivists would viewed rehearsal similarly. At least in terms of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, new knowledge is integrated into prior knowledge in the process of moving to long term memory. However, I think if you are referring to rote memorization, then moving to long term memory might just last though a testing period. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:50:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035742 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035742 Thanks for including the link to the original article. Since we have created modules on heart anatomy, this might be one to add to our lit review! Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:45:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035741 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035741 In taking a quick look at quasi-experimental design. I found that it does not contain random selection. I also had thought along with Susan that quasi-experimental meant subjects were randomly selected from a specific set of groups. I will have to research the difference a bit to be sure I have it down. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:43:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035740 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035740 I feel the technology interventions are well described in the article sampling. These interventions reminded me of much of the work that Richard Mayer and colleagues have done on the effects of multimedia on learning. The results of their reseach has led to the creation of 12 Principles of Multimedia Learning. One of these principles is that people learn better from words and pictures than from words alone. This research (while conducted earlier) supports Mayer's findings. Additionally, an explanation for the two strategies not working as well in concert might be explained by cognitive overload, a principle Mayer based these principles on. I think the study does well providing further evidence of these principles. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:40:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035735 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104690?scroll_to=1035735 HI everyone, sorry for showing up late to the discussion. There has been some discussion of the population and sampling methods used in the design, so I won't address that. I was interested in this excerpt because the researchers were measuring achievement in regard to heart anatomy. We ran a similar study looking at EKG analysis. While it does not go into great detail here I would be interested to see how the achievement was measured. It says there were five tests, but I'd be interested in knowing what the test consisted of - multiple choice, vocab, etc. We ran a fifteen question pre-post test that was the same both times. The control was 50 students who experienced the lecture traditionally. Another 50 students experienced an elearning module with the same content. After both groups met for an active learning portion. We found that there was no significant difference in modality. We viewed this as overall positive since the elearning module offered more flexibility for the instructor, since they did not need to lecture. Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:33:37 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033226 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033226 It's interesting that you both looked at the numbers with different interpretations! Faculty interest has been very strong in my experience. However in reading the article it was very interesting to observe how we have the same faculty reservations at work currently Mon, 28 May 2018 00:56:13 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1033225 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1033225 This was the main idea that I disagreed with as well. The reality she describes is undesirable, but I don't think that is what has happened. Technology has greatly improved communication among students in my experience. Mon, 28 May 2018 00:51:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1033224 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1033224 I totally agree. The skeptics will have valid arguments that deserve consideration. It's important to remember that advances in technology are not by default positive. Mon, 28 May 2018 00:48:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1033042 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1033042 Being in higher ed, I don’t know a great deal about charter schools. I do have a good friend that was an teacher and later an administrator at a charter school. That particular school seemed a bit elitist in my opinion. That said, I’m not necessarily against charter schools, I would just want to be sure the systems to not jeopardize the quality of the public school system in general. If charter schools provide innovation and access I think that is great. Overall, I think having school funding based on property taxes reinforces income inequality. If charter schools can somehow be leveraged to aid in this problem, that would be exciting. Sat, 26 May 2018 16:20:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1033041 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1033041 I love that prospect. I think that these critical voices are important to consider in offering a warning and a word of caution. However, there is great potential in individual self directed learning enables by adaptive systems. It seems they are wholly dismissed here. Mon, 28 May 2018 17:25:31 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033040 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033040 Standard 4 has been discussed a bit here but I want to continue the conversation a bit. We conduct collaborative workshops where I might demo a technology or a piece of software. With this method, I’m not sure faculty learn the software effectively. I personally find it much easier to learn software independently from a video and experimentation. But, in looking at Ertmer and the discussion of changing beliefs, I can relate that these group collaboration sessions are more effective in changing belifs of technology than actually training. The power of seeing faculty members share stories of success in person important in shifting these perceptions. Mostly faculty members believe a technology would be useful but don’t feel like they have the time to integrate it. Seeing a colleague use it successfully lead to change in the group’s beliefs. This is what it is sometimes better to have a faculty member present on a tool than have me do it - however, this has changed since I have also been teaching. The ability to say “this is what I do in my class” gives me a bit more credibility in faculty perceptions. This relates to the “vicarious experience” concept. I can offer my own experience as a model of what to (and what not to) do. Sat, 26 May 2018 16:09:10 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033039 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033039 I found the discussion on paragraph 42 interesting. While Ertmer does not discuss this concept in great detail, it is a consideration for all survey research. In my experience, I have found that it’s not a matter of participants mis-representing their skills and interest in technology, but more a result of faulty perceptions related to self efficacy. For example, one of our biggest technology users amongst faculty believes she is not very good at using technology. This can also work the other way as well. So the instruments we are using to measure belifs may be valid, but the results might still be incorrect because the actual underlying beliefs are inaccurate. Sat, 26 May 2018 15:50:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033038 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033038 This is a great observation. I’d agree that it can be ill advised to choose a technology and then try to find a use for it. I have actually seen this happen quite a bit at my institution. This has been really detrimental to our tech integrations. While outside my specific department, these decisions have had a real impact on our efforts at faculty development with technology. In terms of teacher beliefs, this seems to also have a negative effect, reinforcing the idea that technology looks great but doesn’t fit well in the actual curriculum. I’ve also seen this have an effect on teacher perceptions as technology being more trouble than it is worth. Sat, 26 May 2018 15:33:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033037 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104452?scroll_to=1033037 I think modeling is a strong influence as well. The Bandura references speak to this. I have also seen this from my personal experience trying to get faculty to adopt technology. We have several individuals who start using technologies early. We call them our early adopters. They model the use and are usually followed by more hesitant colleagues. Sat, 26 May 2018 15:27:11 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1031781 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1031781 Erickson's arguments here I believe are valid. She mentions teachers not being able to use technology in new and creative ways and being forced to adopt technology in rigid formats. This is definitely a problem. In honesty it's not one I see in higher ed a lot since there are fewer standards like common core. However in medical education, we do see a similar trend of teaching directly for the boards. Faculty resist technology because they feel they need to get through all the material and don't have time to experiment. I live in LA right now and remember the iPad debacle that Erickson mentions. LAUSD is a really big deal here and I have several friends that work in the district. So the underlying implication of EdTech companies taking advantage of districts is a valid concern. Likewise the digital divide mentioned is troubling. For the parents in Peru to spend 1/4 of their income on grade school is not sustainable. This seems elitist and is a poor distribution of the advantages possible with technology. Also mentioned is the fact that this practice will further stratify these children into homogeneous groups. ISTE standard 7A "Students use digital tools to connect with learners from a variety of backgrounds and cultures, engaging with them in ways that broaden mutual understanding and learning." clearly addresses this concern. The system mentioned in Peru does not promote this standard and further enforces a social order based on income. Wed, 23 May 2018 00:32:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1031780 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104455?scroll_to=1031780 Erickson makes several comparisons between personalized learning systems and Skinner. Her primary argument is that these systems isolate the learner, making them disconnected to each other and do not encourage collaboration. First, while I understand the argument she is making, I feel it is a bit one-dimensional. Yes, if students were exclusively working alone for days on end, with only a algorithm to teach them, it would be characteristic of some dystopian future. But that isn't the case - or at least shouldn't be - and isn't the intention. Technology like Khan Academy should be used in conjunction with collaborative active learning. Her argument is like saying we shouldn't use books to teach math because then students will be isolated reading and working alone. I see personalized and adaptive learning systems as a more advanced textbook. It should be one part of the experience. Second, her assumption is that technology can not be used to enable collaboration and communication, only isolated rote learning. There are many examples (including the platform we're in now) that show the possibilities of web-based collaboration. This first argument is against isolating students; I can agree with that, but I don't this technology is the threat. Teaching methods with promote better communication and collaboration. In terms of the ISTE standards, personalized learning is most aligned with Standard 1, Empowered Learner. Specifically 1A and 1D. These systems aid in transfer of fundamental concepts (1D) and aid learners in the learning process (1A). I would actually take the opposite position from Erickson, that personalized learning systems can provide the opportunity for more classroom collaboration. With these ISTE standards met outside the classroom, independently, there is more time in the classroom for rich communication - modeled the flipped classroom. Mon, 28 May 2018 17:27:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1031581 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1031581 This is the impression that I got as well. TPACK is great and is very focused on faculty development and technology integration. TDT is much more inclusive model. That said, TPACK is also trans-disciplinary - combining 3 specific disciplines. It is just more narrow in overall scope. Tue, 22 May 2018 10:53:58 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1031580 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1031580 Thanks, yes I almost felt it was a little too varied! I wanted to dive a little deeper in some areas - I guess that's why I'm here! Tue, 22 May 2018 10:51:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1031579 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1031579 Hi Ryan, That's a great perspective, and almost the opposite of the one I took. I saw TPACK as more narrow than the newer model described in the video, with TPACK being a rough component of it. I'll have to go back look at the model and think about it a bit! Tue, 22 May 2018 10:49:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104243?scroll_to=1031578 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104243?scroll_to=1031578 Having assessment built in to the model is an interesting idea as well. This makes me think of the popular ADDIE model in instructional design, with Evaluation as the final phase. I believe there are a couple of instruments that have been developed, to assess TPACK usage, but assessment is not in the current model overall. Great idea. Tue, 22 May 2018 10:46:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104243?scroll_to=1031577 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104243?scroll_to=1031577 Hi Ryan, I like the idea of incorporating TD in to the model. This is distinct but related to content knowledge. Perhaps there is a way to expand the construct of content knowledge to include TD. That way, the Venn diagram would not be so complex! Tue, 22 May 2018 10:43:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104243?scroll_to=1030413 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104243?scroll_to=1030413 It’s quite a task provide writing feedback for such a popular model, but I will try. Since the focus of the model is differing forms of teacher knowledge, one might address if there are differing forms of knowledge that have developed or should be included as part of 21st century literacies. As I mentioned in the discussion of the presentation by Dr. Mishra, the elements of TPACK fit somewhat nicely in in one section of their new model. So, if there was an effort to broaden the model, this was achieved. However there are two things I might incorporate in the original model. The visual representation of the TPACK model did not originally include the ‘Context’ circle. This was added a few years later. To this construct, I might suggest adding the learning environment. The NMC report mentions the Next Generation Digital Learning Environment (NGDLE), which I have been following for a while. I think this construct, while related to pedagogy goes beyond that and could be further developed in the model. Second, I think the symbiotic relationship between the student and teacher could be developed. The model discusses teacher knowledge, but communication skills in teachers is a competence that is essential as well. I think there should be mention of how the learners interface with these 3 TPACK intelligences and affect them dynamically. Moore’s Interaction Equivalent model mention 3 types of interaction: Student-Student, Student-Teacher and Student-Content. I would be interested to understand how the three elements of TPACK influence these relationships, since teachers are often seen as co-learners in modern learning environments. Thu, 24 May 2018 11:05:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1030160 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1030160 I just realized I didn't open up the question to see the full text... TPACK is trans-disciplinary in nature as well. Content especially can be from any discipline, so the model is something of a template that can be applied to any discipline. In the same way differing pedagogies would be employed and are also content specific. In this way I think it's a model that enables trans-disciplinary thinking. Fri, 18 May 2018 16:12:30 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1030159 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1030159 In undergrad I focused on documentary film. We had several guest filmmakers come in, but remember one guest telling us that the best way to become a documentary filmmaker is to not take so many film classes, to focus on literature science and other disciplines. A video I recently watched from Khan Academy talks about the great thing about math is that it can be used to describe all other fields. I am trying to keep this mindset as we go through quantitative research. I am getting more excited about developing the tools to understand technology usage. I'm also lucky to be in the field of instructional design, which mixes ed psych, programing, media, and graphic design traditionally, so the classes for my Masters were all over the place. I think this develops trans-disciplinary thinking, something that I hadn't really developed before. It the developing the skill to make connections. Misha gave some great examples and I am a full advocate of the 'A' in STEAM. Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:48 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1028859 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1028859 Sometimes when we run workshops, new faculty want us to just tell them how to use a technology or a pedagogical technique. This is one of the reasons TPACK is so useful. It helps us explain why we can't do that. Without the content knowledge and expertise, we can't easily apply the technology or pedagogy for them. They need to, now after learning about TPACK, combine it with the content knowledge. The intersection in the TPACK model is where creativity really flourishes. But it must do so on an individual level. TPACK is not really effective unless the faculty member applies their own creativity to meld the content with the technology and pedagogical knowledge. We can provide those in workshops, but it's when the faculty integrates it with content that it becomes useful. Sun, 27 May 2018 11:53:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1028858 https://nowcomment.com/documents/104242?scroll_to=1028858 In the diagram presented, the top construct looks like it relates most to TPACK. ICT Literacy is related to technology knowledge. On the top, content knowledge directly relates to content knowledge in TPACK. Pedegogical knowledge in TPACK might also relate loosely to to the cross-disciplinary knowledge shown here. However the cross-disciplinary construct described here overall is much more broad than pedagogical knowledge. This holds true for this model in general. TPACK is very specific to teacher knowledge. While it is versatile, it's scope is much more narrow than this. This model examines the metacognitve factors foundational in understanding new literacies, but also it looks at the skills possibly needed to navigate the knowledge economy as a whole. With that said, this model is intended for a much broader audience. These skills are aimed beyond teachers and/or students specifically but instead to all learners - essentially everyone. Wed, 23 May 2018 21:42:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1028219 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1028219 This is a great use of lecture capture, which we had never considered. We don't typically have the students use the system. However, I'm sure we could utilize the technology for student and group presentations. Mon, 14 May 2018 17:42:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1028218 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1028218 Thanks Ryan. That's a great idea. I think that the idea of them being two different groups might form a false dichotomy. They might just be participants in a different potion of the workshop. We do use Zoom for the face to face portions but we don't have an asynchronous chat component. That would be great to set up! Mon, 14 May 2018 17:40:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103413?scroll_to=1028216 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103413?scroll_to=1028216 Hi Ryan, Right now most of the VR is demos. However we have a great deal of 3D embedded in curriculum. We have an Anatamage table, Z space and several purchased ipad apps that we use extensively to teach anatomy. Tue, 15 May 2018 12:51:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1027737 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1027737 Awesome! I have always wanted to create an elearning version of the OSCE, and we have some crude ones with branching but incorporating a physically dummy would made is more legitimate I think. Sat, 12 May 2018 16:11:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1027267 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1027267 Michelle, This application of technology sounds really great! We still have the dummys that you first referred to. I find that the child ones are pretty inauthentic. You have to press really hard to get the clicking feedback. So they do have a bit of immediate feedback but it is pretty basic. Your example is a good one demonstrating modification. While the task is basically the same. I would say the amount of feedback and the mobile app might take this beyond the augmentation level. This would be especially true if the app could run different medical scenrios and even be part of an OSCE! Sat, 12 May 2018 16:11:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1027266 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103416?scroll_to=1027266 I will use faculty development as an example. Right now we have workshops that are Face-to-Face with some content push and an application activity. So this might be something like “ Apply Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction to a course module”. These activities allow the participants to apply the content we have just discussed. The whole workshop will typically last an hour. During this process I might also use poll everywhere or just ask the room for feedback on the content and their experience. We want to create online versions of the workshops as well. We already record and post them using lecture capture software. A better way to do this is to use Articulate Storyline to post the content with some interactive elements. We can still present the activities for download for the online user. In these ways we are replicating the f2f experience and adding some basic interactivity. This would be augmentation. What I would like to do is get to the modification and redefinition levels for the online users of the workshops. I have developed ways to include asynchronous polling. I have also considered adding social elements like Twitter, WordPress discussions or Yammer. I think there might be an opportunity for collaboration software here too. So participants might work online together to build and improve course module collaboratively, creating authentic work products. However, to be honest I am open to ideas. I want to have the online users not only have and equal experience, but also have the online experience add value. I would love to use technology to get to those higher levels for these asynchronous users! Mon, 14 May 2018 17:40:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1026538 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1026538 Sorry about that! Here’s another link: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/whats-next-for-the-lms Thu, 10 May 2018 00:48:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103413?scroll_to=1026534 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103413?scroll_to=1026534 What does framework say about teachers and teaching? I think that this framework, along with SAMR and TPACK, recognizes that technology can truly change the nature of assignments to make them something that would otherwise not be possible without technology. The similarity I see between the three is that the technology integration must be coupled with the teachers unique understanding of the content. From this perspective the tools can really become transformative, but alone the tool is just a tool. It will be engaging at first but not truly enhance assignments. I have personal experience with a director of one of the departments at our institution, who often argues for the purchase of technology solutions without having a problem that is to be solved. I won’t go into too much detail but this is a prime example of technology without pedagogy – and not ideal. This framework assumes that teaching is pedagogically driven and technology is a powerful aid. This framework is also very goal oriented. I think this is powerful in terms of backward design as well. When designing a course or a module I think it is important to begin with the desired goal in mind and then design the instruction, including technology integration based on that. What does framework say about students and learning? It terms of learning, I think it gives learners the credit they deserve. Just because a class session incorporates a technology does not mean it will automatically engage learners. I think as advocates we need to to be careful of automatically making this assumption. For example, I recently created a series interactive case study modules. These labor intensive branching scenarios did have a lot of advantages over paper-based cases. However, the perceptions were more positive toward the content delivery than the interactive elements. We assumed learners would just like an ‘app-like’ interface. What we have actually found is that it is mixed. Our surveys show that many students just want a pdf to print out and read. In this example, the technology delivery might not have added as much value, but the ability to explore different scenarios did. So the technology aiding content delivery was the mix that really worked for learners. We see this at my institution with some of our VR and 3D experiments as well. If they are not embedded in curriculum, they don’t really get used. Both faculty and students think they are impressive but the the technology integrations don’t make an impact because they are isolated. Value-added is a term we use a great deal when discussing proposed integrations, and I see it repeated in this article. Value comes from transforming an assignment, expressing content in new ways and helping learners achieve their goals. Tue, 15 May 2018 12:51:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024284 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024284 Michelle, I see this even in preschool with my 4 year old. The teachers use YouTube to show songs and exercises for the kids to follow. They do yoga even. The teachers are using the technology just because it is so easy to access all of this great content. They can show things from all over the world really easily. I don’t see the kids using technology yet in preschool (although he is pretty good with a tablet). We limit his time on it to an hour a day. That said there are tons of learning apps on the tablets that are really great. So I have him switch between games and learning apps for that hour. Sun, 06 May 2018 22:44:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1024152 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1024152 Ryan, I can agree with the perspective here. One thought that came to mind watching this was that this is still somewhat similar to having students work on problems independently out of a book. Feedback can be obtained by looking at the answers in the back of the book. While Khan is much easier and technologically advanced, I think there are a lot traditional elements still happening here. As we talked about in the other thread, technology needs to be coupled with culture and pedagogical change. TPACK is a great way to envision teachers developing these skills. I think in this video we see this culture shift beginning, but based on traditional structures, as you mentioned. Sun, 06 May 2018 15:54:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1024151 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1024151 Ryan, you have great points here. The speaker mentions that the students are more engaged. This might be anecdotally observed, but is it really true? I think that is a big generalization to make. We should be careful attributing engagement to a platform just because we like it. We should look at the data. So the engagement assumption might be a stretch for the interviewees to claim. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1024149 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1024149 Thanks! Ron Harden says feedback should be FAIR Frequent, Active, Individualized and Relevant. I think Khan in combination with the instructor can achieve this pretty well in this situation. Sun, 06 May 2018 15:44:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1024148 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1024148 Thanks for sending the blog link. I think it will be great to see what Cuban thinks now! As far as what might be lost in the environment shown in this video, I think that the communal conversation in the classroom might potentially suffer. While learning with Khan is really personalized, there is an advantage to a group experiencing learning together. We see this as adults at conferences or in webinars. With every student so independent we might lose some of that shared experience. I do think a blend of lecture and active learning is best. Lecture is an appropriate modality, it just shouldn't be used exclusively. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024147 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024147 Ryan, This is a great point and I think you articulated it well. Even with the declining cost of technology, the culture surrounding teaching and learning need to change. The technology can help but it is only a part of the process. The culture at the institution needs to change as well. We have this issue prevalent at our institution as well. We have a great deal of tools for creating active environments in the classroom, but the instructors are hesitant to use them. So we see the same 4 hour lectures still every year. Sun, 06 May 2018 15:31:31 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024146 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024146 Ryan, great point here. The assignments need to require higher order use of technology. If the only things happening in a class are lectures, then the modality will dictate the technology use. However, if projects and creative synthesis of ideas and multimedia are embedded in an assignments, we see higher order results. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect things like video projects from any student, not just media students. The tools are so easy to use now. Sun, 06 May 2018 15:27:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024145 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024145 Yes I think there is great potential to improve the LMS. I was really excited by the idea of the Next Gen Digital Learning Environment (NGDLE) from educause. Brown, M., Dehoney, J., & Millichap, N. (2015). What’s NEXT for the LMS? Educause Review, 50(4), 40–51. Retrieved from http://proxy.library.cpp.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=aph&AN=108334045&site=ehost-live&scope=site This article gives me hope that we can engineer a better digital learning environment. It's an exciting time as we move beyond the traditional LMS to something more personalized, collaborative, and effective! Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024142 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1024142 Ryan, I totally agree and don't think many expected how ubiquitous technology would become both in the workplace and in our day to day lives. This has happened really quickly. So I would agree this is an essential literacy at this point. I think to ignore this would do a disservice to students. Sun, 06 May 2018 15:17:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1023569 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1023569 I think you could frame this technology use through the lens of any of the three. Preservationist: It is a cost effective way to has on the knowledge of math to all generations (not just kids by the way). It allows for improved teaching and learning. Optimist: This change from passive to active learning has happened slowly and will continue to improve teaching and learning overall. However, I'll argue for the technophile. I think the Khan platform, and others like Duolingo for example, represent a much more profound change in the ways that people learn. These also change the things that people have access to. This democratization of knowledge has the potential to bring some of the best content and teachers to every student globally. This, in addition to the local teacher has the power to change education in ways that other computer-school integrations could not prior to this. Imagine the cost of a platform like Khan (on CD rom) in the ninties. Vendors would price most schools out. Instead the platform is free and available to everyone. For this reason I think we are closer to the vision of the technophile described by Cuban as unlikely as it may have seemed at the time. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:03 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1023538 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1023538 What does this particular use of Khan Academy assume about students and the ways that they learn? This section is talking more about student engagement. I would say first it assumes that success is less a function of aptitude and more based on engagement. Any student can achieve if they are given the correct tools and attention. This section also assumes learners had previously been neglected in the lecture model. In this way they were able to slip through the cracks. This use of Khan prevents that by providing the teacher and student with constant feedback. This was never possible in that lecture model. What does it assume about teachers and the way that they teach? I think this portion acknowledges the fact that the teacher cannot be omnipresent and provide individual feedback at all times to all learners. I think it also assumes that teachers will be open to the active learning and blended styles of teaching. We don't see this as much at my institution because teachers are resistant to all modalities other than lecture. While I think this blended approach is great, it can be an uphill battle with many faculty. Sun, 06 May 2018 21:43:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1023523 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103410?scroll_to=1023523 What does this use of technology assume about students and learning? I think what this technology assumes, and what the teachers are seeing is that self-paced, self regulated learning is more effective than the lecture learner modality. Specifically with math, individual progress and understanding at each step is critical. What has lagged behind is the ability of software to accomplish this effectively. The assumption is that this self-regulated learning environment will provide personalization and increase outcomes. What does this use of technology assume about teachers and teaching? This is a great example of the 'guide on the side'. The teacher is a coach to help individuals through tough spots, but not a fountain of information. The information content is online. The teacher's role is more personalized to each student. The assumption is that active learning is superior to lecture modalities. Fri, 04 May 2018 00:17:41 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1023499 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1023499 I do think the current use of the Web and computers are different than the uses described here. The main reason is that the author does not foresee the rise of the "consumer as producer" phenomenon. I feel the author is envisioning the computer as a one way transmission of information - as more of a tutor. What we see now is learners from K-12 though higher ed creating content that integrates their learning into the material, replies to it and modifies or responds to the original work. I find the integration of computers and Web 2.0 makes the experience of going to school much more enjoyable to be. There are numerous tools online to help me learn and to aid in creativity. The same goes for teaching. These tools are great way to easily see my students are understanding material. Again, I understand the argument and I do think institutions should be wary of large hardware purchases. I think access to the web is the main concern though and most computers - even chromebooks provide this at a reasonable price. I just want to qualify, I am in higher ed so it's just assumed everyone has a laptop, so the argument as to weather computers should be incorporated in learning is null. So are we putting new wine in old bottles - no I don't think so. I think the nature of the bottles has fundamentally changed. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:03 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1023290 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1023290 While the technophile scenario seems less plausible and is a mix of dystopian and utopian imagery, I feel it is not as far off as one might think. The reason is that one of the major preservationist arguments stated is that the monetary investments are wasted and hardware goes obsolete. The other preservationist argument is that schools should socialize norms onto learners. I think even with today's web-based content and technology, hardware is becoming cheap and largely irrelevant. You can access the internet from anywhere with a browser, even your own device. So these investments in hardware will no longer be (as much) of an issue. As web-based technologies advance, we will see the more personalized learning described here. In terms of instilling values, this could still be done in a way that uses the technology for some standardized curricula. This technology integration will also better prepare students for professional life, which now incorporates technology in every facet. We are beginning to use adaptive platforms at our institution. While this is described in authoritarian terms in the article, in practice it seems less so. The teacher's role is even more vital as the students are more prepared, having (ideally) immersed themselves in the basic material. While it's not perfect, I think personalization will be achievable and benefit learning overall. I do hear the argrument against previous tech adoptions, but the Web is a different animal; it has completely changed how the world communicates and operates. Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:36:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1023281 https://nowcomment.com/documents/103406?scroll_to=1023281 I have not been in a k-12 environment in quite a while but I can speak to what was happening at the time and make some correlations to my undergrad experience. Web 1.0 was still what was happening while I was in high school. I remember having free time allotted to explore the internet. This is definitely aligned with the constructivist leanings of impulse 2. I think even earlier this was the common way technology was used - for exploration. As far as undergrad, I went to school for Film and TV. The use of tech there was to get us up to speed with using non-linear editing systems that were common in the field. So this would align with impulse 1. That said we were still encouraged to explore (impulse 2) with the technology. I would say the pervasive use of the LMS in graduate school would align with number 3. This system is really designed to ease clerical work. It is supposed to aid learning, but currently is based around administrative functionality in my opinion. Some LMSs are better than others in this regard. Thu, 03 May 2018 17:34:16 -0400