A Bumpy Road Ahead

Yeung et al.’s (2012) research shows that having a mandatory requirement for the use of technology will not work as a stimulus to increase applications of technology in meaningful ways; instead, it will likely push teachers away from using it, or -- perhaps more sinister -- lead to them ‘pretending’ to use it so as to placate management into thinking that it is being utilised.  This ‘technology trap’ as I like to call it can lull management into thinking technology is being used effectively, or give them ammunition to say that it is, when teachers -- and likely their students -- know that it isn’t.  Yeung et al. (2012) argues that we need to reconsider our training approaches which develop teachers professionally in this area, strive to create a teaching culture that values the use of digital technology in education, and provide opportunities for teachers to experience success (and perhaps failure) in order to shift perceptions around the effectiveness and ease with which technology might infiltrate practice.  This suggests a bumpy road ahead for people such as myself responsible for the professional development of teachers who may already be disengaged from the process, and many of whom might even be quite hostile towards someone who they perceive might wish to force their hand.

To overcome the potential risk of either disengaging teachers from the process, or angering those who are already disengaged, a careful approach must be taken to get them on-side and viewing development in a positive way.  Focusing on specific competencies identified as crucial for developing confidence with technology across six key domains (Guzman & Nussbaum, 2009) will allow them to see their development across a range of areas, including pedagogical, rather than just focused on the technological.  I will also employ the E-Learning Planning Framework (Ministry of Education, 2014) to develop a robust programme of self-reflection and inquiry which will help move the school from its current ‘emerging’ phase to higher levels.

References:

Guzman, A. A., & Nussbaum, M. M. (2009). Teaching Competencies for Technology Integration in the Classroom. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 453-469.

Ministry of Education (2014). The e-Learning Planning Framework (revised edition). Retrieved 15/06/2014 from: http://elearning.tki.org.nz/content/download/2013/16775/file/eLPF%20REVISED%20VERSION_Jan2014.pdf

Yeung, A., Taylor, P. G., Hui, C., Lam-Chiang, A., & Low, E. (2012). Mandatory use of technology in teaching: Who cares and so what? British Journal Of Educational Technology, 43(6), 859-870.

Developing Effective Blended Learning in My Context

In my context as a year 8 homeroom teacher and as an e-learning coordinator, I need to assist my school to shift towards more of a blended learning approach to teaching and learning, to take advantage of opportunities for more independent learning, development of student (and teacher) ICT skills, increased flexibility and student choice, more opportunities for interaction, increased student motivation and engagement and encouraged parental involvement (Zaka, 2013).  This desire to help my school has been influenced by the readings and activities I have undertaken as part of this course.  To manage this process effectively, I must work towards assisting my school escape the ‘technology trap’ in which I feel we are currently caught, where we display a facade of effective e-learning, when the reality is quite the opposite.  Teachers are not using the technology made available by students bringing their own devices as part of our BYOD policy in an effective manner, yet we tout ourselves as effective users of technology. Smoke and mirrors. I’ve worked with many teachers who are enthusiastic about technology yet lack the knowledge of how to use it effectively; students appear “busy” with technology, but are under-utilising its potential.  This ‘technology trap’, as I describe it, is a dangerous situation which can lull a school into a false sense of security with their use of technology.  What might on the surface look to be effective e-learning is merely the haphazard application of a few ideas, rather than a coordinated strategy to transform learning.  I explain it as emerging from a lack of support and professional development, which if delivered at an appropriate time could be saving my school time and frustration later in our e-learning journey.

Most often, I see teachers using new technology to do the same old things they’ve done before; however, to harness the full potential of technology, teachers must do new things with it as well.  As McLoughlin & Lee (2008) explain, attempting these new strategies relies on teachers developing their understanding of not just new technologies, but new pedagogies as well.  Referred to as pedagogy 2.0, this new theoretical framework -- strongly supported by evidence and research -- is not just a buzz-word bandied about by educational enthusiasts; rather it’s a method us teachers should embrace to open new doors in our students’ education, breaking down the walls of the classroom and creating truly personalised learning experiences.  Pedagogy 2.0 views students as ‘prosumers’: digital citizens who use new and emerging cloud-based technologies to both consume digital content and produce it as well.  The benefits of employing a pedagogy 2.0 approach are obvious: students are the ones sharing online; they’re the ones who are teaching each other; they’re the ones who are communicating and collaborating around making meaning of their world.  That’s how learning happens -- allowing students the opportunity to change their world, and hence their perception of it.

To combat the technology trap and help my teachers develop their understanding of pedagogy 2.0, I will follow a six-step approach to blended learning which I have devised after undertaking various course readings, including in previous Massey papers such as Instructional Design for e-Learning.  Of course, this will also draw on my experience as a classroom teacher and e-learning coordinator. The six steps I will employ are:

Step 1:  Visualise

Develop a clear, well-thought-out, adaptable vision

Step 2:  Connect

Connect learners, teachers, whanau and community through online tools and suitable hardware such as chromebooks

Step 3:  Design and Align

Design a blended learning framework and align suitable online activities which improve educational outcomes

Step 4:  Trial

Trial the activities in a scalable fashion to ensure manageable change

Step 5:  Evaluate

Evaluate the effectiveness of the trialled activities

Re-vision, re-design and re-align where necessary.

Through following these steps in my context, I hope to see truly engaged, enhanced, excited learning -- all the things e-learning stands for.”

References:

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three P's of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27

Zaka, P. (2013). A case study of blended teaching and learning in a New Zealand secondary school, using an ecological framework. Journal of Open, Distance and Flexible Learning, 17(1), 24-40.

In my context as a year 8 Homeroom teacher, the aspect of meaningful learning most relevant to me is the cooperative (collaborative/conversational) one (Howland, Joanssen & Marra, 2012).  Cooperative, collaborative, conversational learning is well accompanied and supported by the modern technologies available to my learners, so I try to use technology so that it is ubiquitous not only physically in the room through the presence of devices but also virtually, embedded in the pedagogy of the activities that students are carrying out. I attempt to develop and run activities where students are learning ‘with’ the technology, rather than merely ‘from’ it.  That is, students may be using the technology as part of an activity with a pedagogical foundation stemming from collaboration; constructing knowledge and developing communities of practice.

Howland, Joanssen and Marra (2012) point out that a person’s natural inclination is to work collaboratively to solve problems, utilising shared knowledge and skills to find solutions more effectively than people attempting it alone. They argue that schools force individualisation into the learning process when that is an unnatural approach and may even go so far as to punish students when they collaborate, labelling them as cheating when in fact they may have only been following their natural inclination.  This natural inclination can be seen thriving in many progressive workplaces, yet for students in many schools it is oppressed.  I seek to bring collaboration to the fore in my classroom, and utilise technology to help achieve this.

References:

Howland, J. L., Jonassen, D., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Goal of Technology Integration: Meaningful Learning. In Meaningful Learning with Technology (4th ed., pp. 131-159). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Task 1.4: Formal Reflection

The Impact of E-Learning on My Teaching – Evolution, Revolution or Status Quo?

The adoption of e-learning tools and strategies implies more a modification of my current teaching practices (i.e., an evolution) rather than an extreme change in my teaching (revolution) or merely practising more of what I already do (status quo).  I consider myself to already employ a range of e-learning strategies in my day-to-day teaching to increase achievement, although I recognise that I still have a considerable journey before I fully realise the potential of the technology available.  Therefore, it is not so much a revolution as an evolution from a solid standpoint now - where I consider myself to utilise technology in a variety of interesting, effective ways - towards a future where technology and e-learning strategies are more well integrated into my practice, improving the impact learning has on my students as the efficiency and effectiveness of their learning experiences improve. 

To justify my consideration of my teaching as an evolution, I will draw upon the concepts of blended learning.  I am steadily improving my use of technology as I gradually develop the blended learning approach which I employ in my programmes, currently involving a variety of face-to-face tasks supported by many effective online resources and activities.  Garrison and Anderson (2003) describe blended learning as “the full integration of face-to-face and online activities” (p. 75-76) so as to improve the learning outcomes above and beyond what might be achieved from employing a non-blended approach (i.e. a single element – face-to-face or online – rather than both).  Although I would not consider my current teaching to be fully integrated blended learning, in my opinion it does involve enough of an online component to be considered blended.  As Garrison and Anderson (2003) see it, blended learning does not involved a perfect prescribed percentage of online time vs. face-to face for all situations, but rather a carefully considered proportional allotment such that educational outcomes for learners is maximised.  In this way, blended learning approaches can be seen to be as individual as snowflakes, with instructors experimenting with proportional allocations depending on numerous factors that may affect educational outcomes.  As a homeroom teacher of year 8 students in a state school, I’m well aware of just how many variables play into the planning and delivery of a programme, such that the mode of teaching a programme one year might be markedly different to how it is delivered in the next.  Technology is a major factor in this and as the year progresses I find myself modifying my pedagogical approach with regards to e-learning as a result of situational changes which might include, amongst other things, an increase in the presence of hardware at school; improvements in networking technology, broadband speed etc.; the discovery of highly useful digital resources; and improvements in my own understanding of how to utilise e-learning in my practice.

The evolution of my teaching is, in a similar way to Darwinian evolution, a process of change as a result of selection acting on my teaching approach, modifying it in sometimes subtle but ultimately profound ways as I attempt to fulfil my niche in my teaching environment.  This adaptation relies on me increasing my digital arsenal which I can utilise in a blended learning approach.  As I modify and improve this arsenal, the way I interact with my teaching environment changes too, refining and redefining my role in it.  However, as my teaching environment constantly changes – gradually perhaps, but inexorably – so too must I constantly evolve.  Adapt, or die – that’s evolution.

References:

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century : a framework for research and practice: London ; New York : RoutledgeFalmer, 2003.

How do I define ‘learning’?

What an interesting question to consider - especially after being a teacher for over a decade! Perhaps more interesting though is that even after that length of time supposedly teaching people, I struggle to define the very term that I’m trying to accomplish in others. Fascinating.

Reading the quotes in the Module One Notes certainly stimulated my thinking and, perhaps typically in postgraduate studies, resonated deeply and tantalisingly with my inner conceptions of what learning is, although I seem to find it quite difficult to say in my own words.  Again, as with many activities and readings I’ve undertaken recently, an example of reflection that every teacher and trainee in the country should carry out - regularly!

The quote which resonated the most with me from the notes was that of Senge (1990, p. 13-14) which describes the effect of learning as enabling people to do something that previously they were never able to do (or in some cases, not do very well), allowing us to “re-perceive the world and our relationship to it” (p. 14).  As an adult learner, I realise how important understanding this fundamental truth is. Only through learning can I better understand the world in which I operate! These postgraduate studies I’m undertaking will allow me to be a better teacher, which is the career which I’m sure will largely define my pathway through life, and therefore - to a large extent - who I am.

Do I make this fundamental truth clear to my students? Or rather, do I overload and perhaps obfuscate this simple, yet profound axiom that all learners should know with a raft of sometimes seemingly meaningless (to the learner anyway) objectives, ad infinitum, ad nauseum? Finally, I can say, “This is why you’re doing it!”  Obviously, objectives are important. But to be able to identify and vocalise the root reason - priceless!

Over the course of my teaching career I’ve had two distinctive pathways: first I was a Science (and Biology) teacher, followed by my most recent path which is primarily teaching year 8 students English, Social Studies, Health and PE. It’s mainly in this latter phase that I find myself questioning the intent of my teaching; initially, as a young Science and Biology teacher, I felt burdened (perhaps unconsciously) by the need to get students through exams. In hindsight I feel this may have actually hindered the learning process, in that students may have missed the big picture - developing a desire to learn.  In many ways I feel I did this rather blindly, rarely if ever questioning the purpose of the learning. On the other hand, in my current practice I am asking myself more and more “Why? Why are we doing this? What is the real reason/purpose/big objective? Why should they (the learner) actually care?”  This critical thinking has been a response to the readings and writings I’m undertaking as part of this course.  I’m learning.

So if critical thinking has been a crucial part of my learning, then it must be a crucial part for my students too.  Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) point out that reflecting on our experiences and reasoning is an essential component of the learning process. It allows us to knowingly revel in the learning process, reinforcing the desire to do it again. Undoubtedly endorphins are involved there somewhere, feeding the desire to do it again. Consequently, in my opinion any definition of learning needs to include something about developing the desire and passion to wantto learn, and I see this as only achievable through critical reflection on the learning process itself.

References:

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

What are the similarities and differences between my views of teaching and my teaching practice?

I view teaching as the process and practice of assisting the development of skills and knowledge in learners so that the development is as effective and efficient as possible given the context and environment in which it is occurring.  As a teacher, I do not see myself as the “knowledge holder” who must fill the empty vessel with my knowledge; rather, given the age of technology in which we live, as teacher I view my main role in the teaching and learning process as facilitating knowledge and skill development, guiding learners through the education landscape in a way that is most efficient and develops the learner to their greatest potential.  I am there to help “frame” the learning experience and sometimes to realign the learner with the objectives of the learning experience.

Referring to Pratt’s five perspectives on teaching (Pratt, 1998), I consider that my main perspective on teaching is a nurturing one.  That is, I strongly believe that students must feel confident in their learning in order to be engaged by it to the fullest extent and must also be able to be fairly autonomous in their learning if they wish to move into higher education, where the ability to be autonomous is crucial.  In order to achieve this, I place a strong emphasis on having regular learning conversations with each of my students where we discuss how their learning is going, where they see their strengths residing and where their key areas of focus are.  Because I teach younger students, I try to have these conversations as frequently as possible, as in my experience having goals that are short- to mid-term in length are more achievable for less developed learners.

As well as a nurturing perspective, I believe that I maintain a strong developmental perspective in my teaching.  I feel that the developmental perspective is closely aligned to the nurturing perspective in the goal of developing autonomy and critical thinking in learners.  And with the vast wealth of knowledge accessible to learners in the digital age, teaching them to ask questions and guide their own learning is, in my opinion, an essential undertaking.

The conclusion that these two perspectives form the foundation of my practice grows out of the my success criteria for my teaching.  If I am successful, learners will leave my supervision equipped with the skills necessary to contribute meaningfully to society and live happy and fulfilling lives, while being critical and questioning of the world around them and their place in it, so as to make their world a better place for them and others.  They will not be automatons, but rather will be critical-thinkers who question the status quo and stand up for what they believe in (which hopefully is right and just).

Because the context in which I am teaching shifts so dramatically throughout the year (eg just last week I was on a Marae for a Maori cultural two-night camp, whereas the week before we were mainly in the classroom learning about World War I) the perspective from which I view my teaching often shifts dramatically as well.  The reality of being a homeroom teacher (in my school at least) is that you are constantly coming at the learning process from a different angle and therefore may need to shift your perspective accordingly.  On the aforementioned camping trip, I was largely nurturing students by helping them be independent and develop appropriate behaviours while in that sort of a situation.  However, at times it was necessary for me to take a social reform perspective, as I wanted the learners to think about the challenges New Zealand faces as we still seek to form an identity that incorporates all the many cultures which reside in the country.  In this way, my perspective on my role shifted as the “educational terrain” varied as well.

Of course, the reality of the modern learning environment is that there are so many variables in the process often unseen and usually beyond our control that can negatively impact the learning experience.  These can come from the learners own background/home environment (eg poorly nourished, unhealthy family relationships) as well as the educational environment in which they are taking part (eg poorly managed school resources, learning plans etc).  Therefore, part of the effectiveness and efficiency with which I guide the learner depends on my ability to respond to these powerful and often random perturbations in the learning environment within which each learner exists - this is no mean feat and one which I think becomes considerably easier with experience, possible due to the realisation that some situations are just beyond our control and that’s all there is to it.  There’s only so much we can do/give.  Hence why I feel that at times I do not always teach from my preferred perspectives, but often become ‘transmissive’ when it may not be the most effective viewpoint to be coming from.

In summary, I feel that my perspective on teaching generally is the perspective I would desire it to be, although often constraints and uncontrollable variables that are ubiquitous in learning environments impact me, as they do my colleagues, and prevent this from being the reality.  Regardless of this impact though, I carry on and regain my feet, re-aligning myself to my preffered rose line and setting out again towards the distant escarpment that is educational success.

References:

Pratt, D., & Associates. (1998). Alternative frames of understanding. In Five Perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education (pp. 33-53). Malabar, FL: Kreiger.

After reading Pratt (1998), I find that I choose to be a different teacher and use a different perspective to view the teaching depending on a variety of factors that affect me at the time. For example, the topic that I am teaching may require me to view the teaching from a more transmissive perspective in certain circumstances, whereas at other times the topic I am teaching may allow me (or even require me) to take a social reform perspective. I find this more the case now that I am a homeroom teacher and teach across a larger variety of curriculum strands, compared to when I was a Science and Biology teacher. As a Science and Biology teacher, I still changed my perspective on the teaching depending on the topic that I was covering and the extent of the content that I was “required” to get through in a limited amount of time - many topics allowed for teaching that involved getting the students to think about the status quo, and right and wrong (eg genetics).

Although I feel that I vary the perspective that I look through depending on the context in which I’m teaching, I think I also try to maintain a nurturing perspective and a developmental perspective as much as possible, because I strongly believe that students must feel confident in their learning in order to be engaged by it to the fullest extent and must also be able to be fairly autonomous in their learning if they wish to move into higher education, where the ability to be autonomous is crucial. As an adult male, I also do my best to model appropriate behaviour in a variety of perspectives for the boys that I teach, as for many of them I am the male they spend the most time with in their lives, and for many I am also the first male teacher that they have had; therefore, for many of the boys this is the first year where they regularly have a male in their day-to-day lives. In this way, the apprenticeship perspective is an important lens which I look through as a teacher.

I guess that what my previous musings point out is that although I see Pratt’s five perspectives on teaching as lenses through which I view the educational process I am engaged in, I see those lenses as overlapping in the sense that I may be looking through more than one at one time. This makes me consider whether or not my teaching is grounded; does looking from more than one perspective at one time muddy the waters and at times lead to confusion in my practice? Or does this demonstrate personal and professional growth which exemplifies movement towards becoming a better teacher? I am reminded of teachers I had who seemed able to “get under my skin” and excite me as a learner while also coming across as a role model and social reformer. They were rare, but they were there. These are the teachers that I would consider to be the most influential in my life. How would they view Pratt’s perspectives? I believe in much the same way that I have - that in different situations we wear different hats, and sometimes more than one.

Pratt (1998) provides an activity for exploring one’s personal intentions and beliefs (p. 39) which involves finishing the sentence starter: “I know my teaching has been effective when…” ten times in order to garner a clearer understanding of one’s current perspective on teaching. If I finish the sentence just once, it is to say that I know my teaching has been effective when the student(s) that I am teaching are better able to contribute to the society in which they live. With that in mind, I think the perspective/lens I value the most is that of the social reformer; however, in order to succeed with this perspective the “means” I employ seems to always involve viewing the learning through one or more of the other lenses as well.

I have a set of monocles in my pocket, each one representing one of the five perspectives of learning identified by Pratt. At all times, at least one monocle is in, allowing me to gain perspective on my practice; however, more often than not, other monocles are in as well, refining and refocusing my practice, subtly shifting the perspective I take with my students in order to create the best contributor(s) to society that I can.

References:

Pratt, D., & Associates. (1998). Alternative frames of understanding. In Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education (pp. 33-53). Malabar, FL: Kreiger.