Yes to be literate in this century does require an expanded skill set from the last century. However I think as educators we need
to pause and ponder, what is school for? Why
should we be literate? And goodness, what is technology and what is your philosophy of it all? Most schools I have had to good fortune to work in have had an intertwined philosophy of both education and technology. Sometimes we need students to simply practice
skills by rote. In some cases content is, dare I say, “covered”. Sometimes in a grade
one classroom we need to train students to remember how to spell “cat” and how
to tell the difference between 6 and 9. However mostly we want schools to teach
students how to think deeply and how to live well with each other. Most skilled teachers that
I have known flip back and forth between instruction and construction but always with a focus on designing good tasks that allows
students to have choice in how they approach the task. It is easy to get lost
in the razzle-dazzle of a new technology, but good teaching and learning isn’t
about technology. Teaching and learning is a process, learning is negotiation
and it can be messy. How can we really learn without a little confusion. We need to be curious
rather than certain! I believe we learn “with” technology not because of it. If we want
our schools to foster meaningful learning, Howland, Jonassen, and Marra (2012) argue that teachers must treat technology as a partner in the
learning process. I say Technology can be a pathway to understanding. In this light, technology is more than a device. It has the
potential to broaden our human capacity to learn not because it has some
magical power. As an intellectual partner, technology can support us in reflecting and processing the confusion between what we think, we perceive and what we think we know as a meaning-making event.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Monday, May 12, 2014
A Framework of Enablers for Architects of Learning
Canadian Network for Innovation and Education
A Presentation for CNIE 2014
May 15, 2014
Dr. Nancy Stuewe
University of Calgary
Alberta Canada
nmstuewe@gmail.com
Abstract: Concerns about the slow adoption of technology by
teachers is not new and rapid technological changes have increased the
likelihood that teachers will have to grapple with unfamiliar technology. This
paper highlights a framework of enablers for teachers to make sense of their
experience with new and emerging technology. It is taken from the study,
Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning: A Case Study. This
framework outlines characteristics of internal affordance (teacher capacity),
external affordances including dynamic professional development experiences, a collaborative
culture of lifelong learning and inevitable constraints with something new. Constraints
were not seen as barriers in opposition of the enablers. The study found limitations
of time, infrastructure, and opportunities for teacher learning challenged the
teachers to engage with unfamiliar technology. The data also revealed a personal
capacity to be open to the possibility that a new technology might present and a
strong supportive ecosystem had a powerful impact in facilitating the process
of sense making. A constructivist teaching and learning environment invited
teachers as participants in the process of learning. As participants the
teachers had the capacity to act within their environment, thus the weight of
the constraints was diminished. The study also concluded, teachers who do not
have the opportunity to see themselves, as learners will find it more and more
difficult to cope with the endlessly changing landscape influenced by
educational technology. Teachers will benefit from participating in building
personal pathways for sense making of new and emerging technology.
Introduction
It has been suggested that the role of teachers be reworked
“from knowledge authority to an architect of learning - one who plans, designs
and oversees learning activities” (Government of
Alberta, 2010b)
while at the same time there has been a call for teachers to use technology
differently to support a constructivist approach (Glassett &
Schrum, 2009; Howland, Jonassen, & Marra, 2012). Educational technology
research has also identified many barriers for teachers to integrate new and
emerging technology in their teaching and learning environments (Allen, 2008; Ertmer,
2005; Glassett & Schrum, 2009; Olsen, Recker, Robertshaw, Sellers, &
Walker, 2011; Schoepp, 2004). The architect of learning is a metaphor used to
describe the role and context of teachers within a constructivist approach to
teaching and learning. An architect designs the plans from which others will
build (Shepherd, 2011;
Stuewe, 2013a).
A teacher/architect oversees learning and is mindful of an interior and
exterior view. They design and plan activities that maximize internal
personalized learning experiences while directing their students outward to
scan the horizon for connections with others and prior life experiences. In this role the teacher uses “new
technologies as designers and creators of knowledge” (Government of
Alberta, 2010b).
A challenge for teachers as UNESCO (2008) has reported is that our relationship
with digital technology is dramatically transforming the way we live in the
world. The rise of the knowledge economy, as well the rapid technological
changes have also increased the likelihood that both new and experienced
teachers will regularly come in contact with new and emerging [unfamiliar]
technology (Willis, 2001). The architect role also
reflects the notion that, “technology makes things possible, people make things
happen” (Government of
Alberta, 2010a).
The task for teachers is to provide enriched learning experiences in a
responsive environment where the learning need drives the use and choice of
technology. This role also incorporates the idea that if the changing nature of
technology is to be beneficial, new and emerging (unfamiliar) technologies will
have to be explored by teachers.
This paper reports on key findings taken from, Unfamiliar
Technology and the Architect of Learning: A Case Study. Findings revealed that
the role of teachers within a constructivist teaching and learning environment
was like an architect of learning. This paper will highlight the attributes of
this role and the environment that supported the teacher participants in the
descriptive case study. It will also propose an interconnected responsibility
to bolster teacher capacity to become architects of learning.
Literature Review
The study Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning:
A Case Study was situated within a constructivist framework. Constructivism
proposes that learning is a complex process that is influenced by the learner’s
needs and desires. The role of the teacher is like an architect of learning. Concerns
about the slow adoption of technology by teachers are not new and sense making
of new technology is an active process for teachers. This process is based on
their own knowledge, beliefs, experiences and the social situation in which
they find themselves (Stuewe, 2013b). Given this, I present, based on the review of
the literature, a framework of enablers aiming to highlight pathways for
teachers to make sense of innovation. This framework outlines characteristics
of internal affordance (teacher capacity), external affordances including
effective professional development, and potential constraints.
Teacher capacity
Studies have also shown that teachers who experienced agency
within their work can become active performers. According to Ketelaar,
Beijaard, Boshuizen, and Den Brok (2012) teachers can feel in control
of the choices they make based upon personal goals, interests, and motivations.
In their multiple method study of sense making and agency, teachers as
individuals “need to experience a certain amount of autonomy and room for
negotiation within their school” (p. 275). In addition, Duffy and
Cunningham (1996) stated that the constructivist environment affords students
and teachers opportunities to participate in purposeful choices within their
community of learning. Intrinsic motivation to attempt the unfamiliar is
bolstered as a result of providing a certain amount of personal agency. Zhao,
Frank, and Ellefson (2006) added that capacity is a
collection of knowledge, belief, and skills. For a teacher using unfamiliar
technology this includes knowledge of: technology as a solution to problems,
including beliefs, skills, and attitude toward technology; enabling conditions
of technology use; and convenient access to support.
In addition, Schrum, Shelly,
and Miller (2008)
with a mixed method approach sought to examine how teachers who are already
tech-savvy acquired the knowledge and skill they have to use the technology that
was available to them. Teachers overcame challenges, and recognized the unique
attributes of their personal or professional practice. The tech-savvy teachers’
willingness to utilize technology was demonstrated through a sacrifice of
personal resources. They made considerable effort to learn about, acquire, and
use technology with no support. They were confident enough to overcome a fear
of failure in using technology in front of increasingly tech-savvy students.
The teachers also valued learning ahead of their personal pride or egos. Schrum
et al. found that tech-savvy teachers had a strong desire for continued or
life-long learning. These teachers felt that using technology had risks that
would cost some class time but that the rewards outweighed the risks.
Schrum et al. (2008) concluded from the study that time and
funding were a significant personal and professional constraint to the goal of
implementing technology in the classroom. Yet even when time and funding were
not provided, many of these tech-savvy teachers sacrificed their own resources
so they could continue to teach with technology. They reported that it was
clear to them that teachers who are not “tech-savvy” have a need for assistance
when dealing with unfamiliar technology. What emerged from the review of this
study is an understanding of a need for teachers to develop a capacity to
entertain unfamiliar technology. It is important to note, with a new
understanding of knowledge, that no technology by itself will promote
significant pedagogical change without a willingness to embrace this change.
Are we asking all teachers to become tech-savvy in order to adopt innovation?
This highlights a need to support teachers to develop willingness to try and
envision change.
Denning and
Dunham (2010)
have stated, “anything we do in the world is enabled by our embodied capacity
for action” (p. 80). A powerful learning cycle they believe is a continuing
cycle of practice and reflection. Simply put during practice we engage in
action with others. Then during reflection we step back and in a sense become
observers of our actions. To complete the cycle of learning we then plan for
the next round of action. To entertain an unfamiliar technology is to keep an
open mind about its potential, examine it use, question its value, and consider
its place in the classroom. This process suggests a complex quality or
capability connected to the individual teacher. As Schrum et al. (2008)
suggested teacher capacity is more than just skill. It is an intrinsic,
internal capability. It is being open to possibilities; and a commitment to
life-long learning. It is a willingness that pulls these attributes together
with agency that reported as a playful nature. It is an attitude of continual
learning and risk-taking and a curiosity to build, explore, and learn with
their students. Included is judgment— “the capacity not merely to respond
passively to events but to make decisions actively in different contexts” (Derry, 2008,
p.508).
Levin and Wadmany (2008) have suggested that one size will
not fit all when looking to develop teacher capacity to work in
technology-based environments. Levin and Wadmany highlight teachers’ learning
of technology should be conceived as part of a culture of life-long learning,
knowledge sharing, and peer interaction. “Asking teachers to share their
stories and reflect on their ICT integration experiences is another potential
method for highlighting, understanding, and appropriately shaping personal
beliefs regarding desired ICT practices” (p. 257).
External affordance
According to Ackermann (2004) if we believe, as
constructivists do, that we learn by relating to others and acting in the
world, then our capacity for action is not reliant solely on an internal
capability. With this approach to learning, external affordances can be thought
of as qualities in the teaching and learning environment, not what the
environment controls, but what the environment might invite an individual’s
capacity to act. These affordances are not seen as intrinsic, but rather as
intentional affordances in the environment. According to (Zhang &
Patel, 2006)
the environment is not limited to the terrain, but also includes objects and
structures within it. Affordances in the environment are what it offers, what
it provides, what it furnishes, and what it invites. We must not only examine
the individual teacher but also the interactions with the whole teaching and
learning environment.
In addition Zhao, Frank, and Ellefson (2006) in a study of meaningful
teaching and learning with technology found that affordances within the school
environment could enable teacher capacity for experimentation with technology.
Zhao et al. highlighted a need to provide teachers not only with access to
technology, but also with time to play while developing a culture of
collaborative learning communities and ensuring on-site mentors. Further, professional
development opportunities they believed should be conducted in settings that
are similar to the classroom context of teachers.
The age-old strategy for helping teachers to adjust to new
priorities has been teacher professional development (PD) (Cunningham &
Allen, 2010).
Yet given new findings from the learning sciences about the nature of
knowledge, teacher learning should be based on transformation of the individual
rather than transmission of knowledge (Edwards, 2012). “The teacher who steadily
learns from and about the work becomes, in time, a learned being” (Hansen &
Laverty, 2010).
This notion of teachers as participants in learning rather than as passive
receivers of knowledge rests in a constructivist framework (Duffy &
Cunningham, 1996).
How we invite teachers to participate in change and professional learning could
enable them to be more prepared to entertain unfamiliar technology.
Borko (2004) has found that professional
development can help teachers construct understanding of content knowledge and
change their instructional practice (p. 5). Contemporary reform according to Wood (2007), expands professional
development and calls for teacher professional learning communities to build on
the idea of “knowledge-of-practice” (p. 284). Teacher learning communities then
take on more constructivist principles that encompass the perspective of the
learner in the form of professional networks, critical friends, study groups,
and teacher-researcher collaborations. Teachers need these opportunities to
collaborate in order to build on what they perceive to be their own needs. Wood
notes that professional learning communities may promote deep and sustained
thinking and analysis about education and offer opportunities to tap into tacit
knowledge. Hargreaves (2003) also noted that professional learning communities
seem to work best with high-capacity teachers in high-capacity systems.
The implication of this section of the literature review is
that helpful elements of teacher professional development with unfamiliar
technology are similar to meaningful learning with technology rooted in the
constructivist tradition of education. This suggests that the constructivist
approach to learning is not only applicable to students but to teachers as
well. Both learning events work best when situated in relevant context with a
focus on subject matter and involve hands-on experiences that engage, such as
solving real problems. Both involve reflection, support, and strong
collaborative learning communities.
Exploring constraints
Any discussion of technology adoption must also consider
constraints (Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012).
Educational technology research has identified potential barriers to the
successful integration of technology (Allen, 2008;
Ertmer, 2005; Glassett & Schrum, 2009; Olsen et al., 2011; Schoepp, 2004). Some research has focused on
internal individual characteristics of teachers, other research on external
environmental barriers. As has been widely documented, teachers often lack the
time and technology skills for effective technology integration. Ertmer (2005)
suggested that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs may be at work. However according
to Allen (2008) research that focused on barriers has failed “to offer insight
into the learning experience that invites practicing teachers, situated within
their classrooms, to transform their frames of reference on practice” (p. 23).
In their conceptual exploration of distributed cognition,
representation, and affordances Zhang and Patel (2006) described attributes of
the environment as being coupled with the capacity of an individual that
provides them with facility to act. Constraints are just part of the teaching
and learning environment; they are the conditions and relationships amongst the
attributes that make up the choices to act. Kennewell (2001) also pointed out
that constraints are not the opposite of affordance. They are just painted lines
on the road that both restrict and guide us. Kennewell described the
relationship between affordances and constraints as didactical, “goal-directed
actions in relation to tasks which have been designed to bring about learning”
(p. 105). In this framework, learning is an active process that involves a
change in abilities. A classroom teacher may design learning tasks with both
affordances and constraints. To achieve learning, effort is required. If the
task is too easy or too hard, little learning will occur and
affordances-constraints then need to be adjusted. The teacher’s role is to
adjust constraints and provide support in making learning possible, but not to
trivialize the experience.
Zhang and Patel (2006) have suggested that constraints can
be a natural part of a distributed framework of affordances between: a)
external structures--information in the environment; b) internal perception of
the situation--the decision-making abilities of the individual and ability
(capacity) to act; and c) constraints. It is a relationship that generates
action as it extends across the external environment (school) and the internal
organism (teacher). Affordances and constraints should be considered in
relation to the abilities of teachers and their ease or freedom in using
technology in their classrooms. If there are simple constraints such as a
program or application crashing and the teacher feels confident to trouble
shoot, use a different program, or do an unplanned activity, then the teacher
has what Zhang and Patel have called allowable action. If however there are the
constraints in the environment that are outside the teacher’s control, skill,
or understanding, then allowable action is diminished. Perhaps the teacher has
planned to show a video but cannot without upgrading to a newer version of the software
to play it. The teacher with no administrator privileges to upgrade the
software has no facility to overcome the constraint. In this case the teacher
is likely frustrated while waiting for outside help to control the constraint. Zhang
and Patel explained that affordances can be seen as distributed, guided, and
constrained by the physical, cultural, and social contexts in which they are
situated. Allowable actions can be negotiated if a teacher has facility, power,
or understanding to address the constraints. The implication is to find ways of
minimizing constraints in the environment and to increase the teacher’s
capacity for action.
Research Design
Given the complexity of human behaviours, attitudes, and
beliefs, the study was designed to utilize a descriptive case study
methodology. This approach was an effective strategy to capture the openness of
experience in its natural setting. What came from getting to know the case was,
an enhanced understanding of the capacity of teachers to be like architects of
learning. The case provided a rich description of the three teachers’ capacity
to use unfamiliar technology within a framework of enablers.
The descriptive case study, Unfamiliar Technology and the
Architect of Learning (Stuewe, 2013b) was designed to explore two
main questions: 1) How do teachers make sense of new and emerging technology to
enhance teaching and learning? 2) How might these teachers’ insights inform
strategies to support the implementation of a new technology in teaching and
learning? The methods of data collection used to address these questions were
interview, observation, and informal dialogue. The study was concerned with
teacher experience with unfamiliar technology as a process. Underpinning this
approach was a constructivist theoretical framework: that knowledge is a social
and interpretive process. From this perspective the study was “without
expectation of causal explanation” (Stake, 1995).
As the researcher, I focused on the interactions between the
other available technology, the teaching and learning process and the process
of sense making not just for the individual but also in the social context. I
designed the study to capture happenings, expand knowledge, and inform broader
understanding beyond the case It had several synergetic goals: a) to describe
teacher experience with unfamiliar technology and the context of their
experience; b) to explore possible motivations, tensions, and affordances to
entertain unfamiliar technology; and c) to interpret these events as lessons
learned in order to develop ideas for support and further study. Evidence was
collected from a range of sources: face-to-face interviews; participant-observation;
documents; and artifacts of both digital and hardcopy classroom documents.
The data were collected from three different teachers in two
different schools in a Western Canadian city over a four-month period. In
School One two teachers taught in grade 3-4 classrooms and in School Two the
teacher taught grade 7. At the time of the study, iPads were completely new to
the teaching and learning environment as they were first available in Canada
only in the Spring of 2010.
Findings
Through analysis of the interview and observation data,
three factors emerged. First, the teachers’ capacity as architects was seen as
a key enabler. The attributes of this capacity that emerged were seen as an
internal quality that enabled the teachers to entertain unfamiliar technology.
Each of the three teachers had an individual capacity to be open to the
possibilities the iPad might present. They chose to learn about the iPad in
their own time as well as with and in front of their students. They reported
believing that technology could support their students in becoming life-long
learners. All three teachers expressed that learning came first and that they
valued technology as a tool for learning. They believed that providing their
students with choice of technology would lead to a deeper understanding of its
power. The three teachers had a collaborative spirit not just with their
colleagues but also with their students. They also demonstrated flexibility and
judgement. The architect of learning role opens teachers to be participants in
the teaching and learning environment. As learners the three teachers took time
to play with the iPad as a personal device in an informal learning environment
prior to its introduction at their schools. This gave the three teachers an
opportunity to form a positive relationship with the iPad before bringing it to
the students. Further, the three teachers seemed to see the real potential of
the iPad by adding it to the classroom collection of digital devices and
letting their students decide for themselves what technology was the right
choice to serve their needs.
The teachers’ sense making did not occur in isolation. A
second enabling factor was that the role of architect of learning embodies a
constructivist foundation. In this role the three teachers made sense of the
iPad with their students as intellectual partners, not by making the iPad the
centre of their teaching. Contextual factors in the school environment also
facilitated the teachers’ capacity to try out new things. In both schools a
structure was in place to support a collaborative culture. The three teachers
had professional learning opportunities within a reflective collaborative
culture. They had administrative allowances for flexibility and support from
the school district. The IT technicians kept software up-to-date. The teachers
had a choice of technology and to some degree the school district supplied
teacher-learning support.
A third factor that emerged was while constraints of time,
infrastructure, and limited opportunities for teacher learning challenged the
teachers to engage with unfamiliar technology. It was apparent that external
and internal enablers had a more positive impact in facilitating the process of
sense making than the constraints had on limiting it. In other words, for the
teachers in the study, the constraints were not seen as barriers to making
sense of unfamiliar technology.
The findings suggested that the architect of learning role
within a constructivist framework supported the teachers to make sense of an
unfamiliar technology. In an effort to highlight the attributes of the
architect of learning the discussion will focus on the teachers role and their
responsibilities in their teaching and learning environment.
Concluding Remarks
A key lesson taken from this study is that, it is unlikely
that the implementation of any new technology will be successful without,
first, a willingness on the part of the teacher to entertain unfamiliar technology.
The greater educational community can support the implementation of new and
emerging technology by bolstering teachers’ capacity to deal with it. A second
lesson recognizes that teachers (not the technology) are agents of change in
practice. It is essential to invite teacher participation into the
implementation process and to listen to their concerns. A third lesson
acknowledges implementation is a learning process. One size will not fit all;
as learners, teachers need to personalize their approach to unfamiliar
technology. Teachers will need ways of understanding and addressing the
constraints that new and emerging technology generally bring with it.
The three teachers, each in their own way, made sense of the
iPad as architects within a similar collection of internal and external
enablers. While constraints were seen as frustrating, the data suggested the
three teachers had an internal quality (teacher capacity) to over look the
constraints and successfully use unfamiliar technology. They did so mainly
through their own determinations, as they were more than willing to spend the
extra effort to learn and use the iPad. The three teachers were committed to
life-long learning; they had skills, knowledge and experience teaching with
technology. They had a belief in the value of technology. They were flexible
towards diversity and change and they had a collaborative spirit. The three
teachers were willing to entertain unfamiliar technology; they even referred to
it as fun. In a role of architect of learning, the task for teachers is to
design enriched learning experiences within a responsive environment where the
learning need drives the use and choice of technology. This role incorporates
the idea that if the changing nature of technology is to be beneficial, new and
emerging (unfamiliar) technologies will have to be explored by teachers.
The study revealed an enhanced understanding of the
potential of the capacity of teachers as architects. In this role, the value of
the iPad did not drive its use in the classroom. Rather, it was the pursuit of
knowledge that determined how and why the iPad was used. The implication for
teachers is a commitment to life-long learning, a willingness to act, and openness
to possibilities. Teachers who do not have the opportunity to see themselves as
learners will find it more and more difficult to cope with the ever-changing
landscape influenced by educational technology. Therefore, a need is revealed
to empower teachers with dynamic professional development experiences that are
personally meaningful as well as connected in a collaborative culture of
lifelong learning.
The observation and interview data also revealed that the
three teachers made sense of unfamiliar technology within a constructivist
teaching and learning environment that reinforced their beliefs about teaching
and learning. The three teachers made sense of the iPad with their students as
intellectual partners. They also participated in a supportive collaborative
culture. An implication of this suggests it is not enough to focus only on the
device when making sense of unfamiliar technology and putting new technology in
classrooms will not automatically lead to meaningful use. The study also
underlines the importance of teachers’ participation in the process of teaching
and learning. However tempting it might be to focus on the hype and glamour of
new gadgets, the focus should remain on the constructivist process of teaching
and learning.
How then might we bolster every teacher’s capacity to become
architects of learning? School districts, school administrators and teachers
each need to approach this issue as an interconnected responsibility to nourish
the development of this role. The process of bolstering teacher capacity will
benefit first, if teachers can build personal pathways for sense making of
unfamiliar technology. Teachers can think of themselves as participants in the
learning of their classroom. Consider how you are committed to life-long
learning and how this might reveal itself in your teaching. As a teacher what
opportunities can you create to learn in front of their students. How can you
to take advantage of their experience and demonstrate how to grapple with
unfamiliar technology? Teachers also need to experience the same affordances
that they themselves provide for their students by following constructivist
learning principles in their professional development. School administrators
can consider how their current teaching and learning environment invites the
development of teacher/architect. How are your teachers able to personalize
their own learning? While technological change continues to accelerate and
takes a broader role in our classrooms, how can you provided time for teachers
and make it fun for them to make sense of unfamiliar technology within their workday?
School districts can also consider how the jurisdictions’ human and technology
infrastructure is flexible enough to cope with new and emerging
technology. How are teachers allowed to
grapple with constraints within their teaching and learning environment?
Dewey (1916) noted that in a democratic society we should
make provision for participation. Education, Dewey envisioned, should give
individuals a personal interest in social relationships and control. As society
adopts new technologies, teachers have an obligation to bring them into their
classrooms. While the three teachers were provided with affordances for
learning, most importantly they saw themselves capable of it and jumped at the
opportunity to learn.
References
Allen, G. (2008). Practicing
teachers and Web 2.0 technologies: Possibilities for transformative learning.
Columbia University, New York.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher
learning : Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8),
3–15.
Cunningham, C., & Allen, B. (2010). Philosophical
questions about learning technologies. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D. Carr, &
C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp. 481–502). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Denning, P. J., & Dunham, R. (2010). The innovator’s
way: Essential practices for successful innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Derry, J. (2008). Technology-Enhanced learning: A question
of knowledge. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 505–519.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996).
Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.
H. Jonassen (Ed.), (pp. 170–198). New York: McMillan.
Edwards, A. (2012). New technology and education. New York,
NY: Bloomsbury.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final
frontier in our quest for techno. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53(2), 25–39.
Glassett, K., & Schrum, L. (2009). Teacher beliefs and
student achievement in technology-rich classroom environments. International
Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 138–153.
Government of Alberta. (2010a). Inspiring action on
education: A discussion paper. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from
http://engage.education.alberta.ca/uploads/1006/20100621inspiringact86934.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2010b). Inspiring education: A
dialogue with Albertans. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from
http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/inspiringeducation.aspx
Hansen, D. T., & Laverty, M. J. (2010). Teaching and
pedagogy. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D. Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp.
223–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Howland, J., Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningful
learning with technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC
horizon report: 2012 K-12 edition. Austin, TX.
Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Den
Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers’ positioning towards an educational innovation in
the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28(2), 273–282.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on
factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the
classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2),
233–263.
Olsen, J., Recker, M., Robertshaw, B., Sellers, L., &
Walker, A. (2011). Designing for problem based learning: A comparative study of
technology professional development. The Instructional Architect Research Group,
(Paper 7). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/iagroup/7
Schoepp, K. (2004). Technology integration barriers in a
technology-rich environment: A CBAM perspective. University of Calgary,
Calgary, AB.
Schrum, L., Shelly, G., & Miller, R. (2008).
Understanding tech-savvy teachers: Identifying their characteristics,
motivation and challenges. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and
Learning, 4(1), 1–20.
Shepherd, C. (2011). The new learning architect. Amazon
Digital Services, Inc.: Onlignment.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Stuewe, N. (2013a). The Architect of Learning. In World
Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher
Education (Vol. 2013, pp. 2117–2124). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/115192/
Stuewe, N. (2013b). Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect
of Learning. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Retrieved from
http://theses.ucalgary.ca/handle/11023/612?mode=full&submit_simple=Show+full+item+record
Willis, J. (2001). Foundational assumptions for information
technology and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education [Online Serial], 1(3), 305–320.
Wood, D. R. (2007). Professional learning communities:
Teachers, knowledge, and knowing. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 281–290.
Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed cognition,
representation, and affordance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 333.
Zhao, Y., Frank, K., & Ellefson, N. (2006). Fostering
meaningful teaching and learning with technology: Characteristics of effective
professional development. In E. A. Ashburn & R. F. Floden (Eds.), (pp.
161–179). New York: Teachers College Press.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Defining Technology in a New Culture of Learning
A Paper published for
Canadian Scholarly Literature and Research
Regarding School Libraries in Canada
for the TMC symposium held in Victoria, British Columbia on May 29-31, 2014
by Dr. Nancy Stuewe
Abstract:
Governments have called for teachers to adopt a new role as architects of
learning and use technology differently to support a constructivist approach to
teaching and learning. Likewise schools are being challenged to harness exciting,
yet unfamiliar information and communication technology. This paper is a segment
of a literature review taken from, Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of
Learning: A Case Study (Stuewe, 2013b). It
is intended to highlight the complex perspectives of how innovation is perceived
and adopted in technology-enhanced learning environments such as the Learning
Commons. This literature review contains a broad definition of technology
followed by a brief exploration of three different traditions of education. It
is important to note that there are many layers of traditions of education and
many perspectives of technology all interconnected. This exploration focuses on
the relationship between the role of the teacher, the beliefs in a teaching and
learning environment, and how technology might be employed to support these
beliefs.
Introduction
There is a new
culture of learning (Calgary Board of Education, 2013; Thomas & Brown, 2011). Governments have called for teachers to adopt a new role as architects
of learning and use technology differently to support a constructivist approach
to teaching and learning (Government of Alberta, 2010). The architect of learning is a metaphor used to describe the role
and context of teachers within a constructivist approach to teaching and
learning. An architect designs the plans from which others will build (Shepherd, 2011; Stuewe, 2013a). The new learner depends
heavily on technology to keep in touch, entertain, as well as obtain and share
information. “Today’s learners cannot
imagine life without the Internet and supporting technology” (Calgary Board of Education, 2013, p. 2). Yet, “they need to be
taught how these tools can be used in learning and critical thought” (Ontario School Library Association, 2010, p. 7). According to Sawyer (2006)
studies of knowledge workers show that teachers apply their expertise in
complex settings with a wide array of teaching tools from emerging technology
to pencil and paper. Schrum, Shelly, and Miller (2008) reported that enormous funds have been devoted toward encouraging
teachers to adopt new and emerging technology, yet not much has changed in
spite of this expense and effort. Loertscher, Koechlin, and Zwaan (2008) also argue that in the New Learning Commons, teachers need to view
technology as an extension of themselves and “not equipment or networks to
battle” (p.46). This paper is intended to highlight these many complex
perspectives of how technology is perceived and adopted in technology-enhanced
learning environments such as the Learning Commons. I begin this literature
review with a broad definition of technology followed by a brief exploration of
three different traditions of education. This exploration focuses on the
relationship between the role of the teacher, the beliefs in a teaching and
learning environment, and how technology might be employed to support these
beliefs.
Defining Technology for Education
Amiel and Reeves
(2008) noted
a need for educators to become more philosophical about their view of
technology and the value it holds to support learning. Ihde (2004)
related that a conservative interpretation of technology is “simply as a human
invention[s] which get used in good or bad ways” (p. 99). Ihde pointed out that
a tool perspective of technology could take on a value-neutral or a value-laden
role. Cuban (2001) suggested that policymakers as well as teachers expressed a
value-neutral view of technology in his study. However his observations
suggested something different. Cuban (2001) stated, “wiring schools, purchasing
computers, networking machines, and using the machines themselves are hardly
value-free behaviours” (p. 164). The using and choosing of technology for a
purpose is a specific value choice in itself (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). Ihde (1993)
described this dualistic view as utopia versus dystopia. A double-edged sword
metaphor can be used to support this view. However technology is not just
objects we handle and as Ihde remarked, dualism, “makes for great difficulty in
a careful, balanced, and critical analysis” (p. 62).
A double-edged
sword metaphor of technology limits our understanding to good or bad in how it
functions or as skill we can master. Alternately, a ground-map metaphor may
permit us to be open to more complexity and to pay particular attention to the
process as well as the many activities, regions, resources, and boundaries of
technology use (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). Ihde (2004) stated that John Dewey was concerned with “developing
a primacy of praxis orientation to philosophy” (p. 96). Hickman (2002) in
reviving Dewey’s pragmatism described technology as a complex process that
includes not only the device but also the thoughtful use of it with a goal to
resolve issues. Amiel and Reeves (2008) have also stated, “technology is much
more than hardware. It is a process that involves the complex interactions of
human, social, and cultural factors as well as the technical aspects” (p. 31).
This birds-eye perspective of technology allows us to expand the boundaries
around its use and to see technology as a tool to engage in work and at the same
time a skill that we can learn to master. However, Dewey (1938) might
tell us skill involves experience; to polish a skill requires know-how that
includes a process of teaching and learning. Amiel and Reeves (2008) have
stated “Technology is not a product and instead is a process: tools are merely
a product of a technological system” (p. 32). As a process, technology is not just a means
to an end, but ends and means all bound up interactively in practice (Hickman, 1992). It
may also be seen as a means through which we might relate, communicate, and
participate with the world. Looking at technology as a means to an end, one
might think of technology as a catalyst for higher student achievement. However
with a process view, technology is part of the interaction of learning that,
“generates new knowledge that challenges, adds to, or deepens the learner’s
existing framework of knowledge” (Burns, 2013, p. 39).
Technology in this light becomes an intellectual partner (Howland, Jonassen, & Marra, 2012).
Neither
technology nor education is value free. Branch and Deissler (2008) have
described education also as a process, a series of purposeful actions and
operations. They have suggested the process of education can be supported with
the use of technology. To expand the boundaries of technology’s definition
further, Internet-based learning management systems, such as Desire2Learn™ or
Blackboard Learning System allow teachers to consider technology also as an
environment, as a contained place to design, work, interact, and collaborate
within. Feenberg (2002) suggested that a new metaphor for technology might be a
house, not just a device but an “extremely rich and meaningful life environment”
(p. xi).
Within this complex view, people and not the device have volition. Teachers
have the opportunity to use technology with knowledge, action, and to make
connections with ideas and others. The Learning Commons might become an
expanded physical and virtual learning place or experience. New information and
communication technologies allow classrooms to connect with individual access
and also with participatory knowledge-building capabilities (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). Wikis, blogs, Google Docs, and collaborative mind-mapping tools under
the direction of an Architect of learning, allow participants to critique and
potentially build on each other’s ideas. Amiel and Reeves (2008) raises concern
for teachers in that these new information and communication technologies
greatly increase the complexity of the integration of technology into
educational environments. Derry (2008) has cautioned, “even though recent work
has concentrated on more detailed questions of learning and pedagogy, the
question of knowledge has been neglected” (p. 509). Derry reminds us not to
downplay the human dimension of the nature of knowledge while at the same time do
not give into the glamour and hype of technology.
Traditions in Education
According to Sawyer (2006) much
of society is unaware of important discoveries emerging from the learning
sciences regarding how people learn and how technology can assist in the
process in education. Sawyer has suggested that most parents and policy makers
remember a focus on instruction and memorization of facts. Teachers also have
either spent a career learning the skills to manage an instructionist classroom
or have strong memories of being students in such classrooms. As schools move
from teacher directed learning towards process and knowledge building we find many
interconnected perspectives of knowledge exist in education. Teachers in
general find themselves in the midst of many philosophical and ideological
traditions (Barrow, 2010; Sawyer, 2006, 2008). Molenda (2008) noted
that how and if a technology is considered at all will depend on the beliefs of
teachers in a teaching and learning environment. Can the same be said for how a
learning space is utilized? The following is a brief exploration of the
relationship between the role of teachers, their beliefs in a teaching and
learning environment, and how technology is employed to support these beliefs
in three different traditions in education; instructionist, humanist, and
constructivist.
Instructionist
In an
instructionist tradition of education, knowledge may be considered acquired, gained
and measured in steps. Cunningham and Allen (2010) described unified standards
by age, content, and performance. Accountability systems may be structured by a
hierarchical approach for improving achievement in teaching and learning. The
role of the teacher may be seen as a knowledge authority to prioritize the
standards and find a way to measure progress. “The route to better learning
must be the improvement of instruction” (Papert, 1993, p. 139). The decisions teachers make are data driven. The teacher looks for
objective evidence of what is working or not in order to make appropriate
adjustments (McNeil, 2009). Educational research is utilized to assist teachers in achieving the curriculum
objectives not in participating in its creation (Sawyer, 2006). It stands to
reason that a learning space would also be organized and accessed to serve
these beliefs.
According to
Duffy and Cunningham (1996)
technology is adopted by instructionist teachers as a teaching or delivery tool
to “provide more effective and efficient delivery of instruction and hence more
effective and efficient learning” (p. 18). McNeil (2009) also noted that
technology is regarded as an instructional intervention in this systemic
curriculum. Technology becomes an efficient way to achieve knowledge
acquisition and proof of conceptual understanding (p. 161). The tool of choice
for the teacher with these objectives might be one that will help students add
to their knowledge store, such as word processing, CD-ROMs, PowerPoint, and
drill and practice websites.
Humanist
In contrast to
instructionist McNeil (2009) sees, a humanistic teaching and learning tradition
as concerned with self-understanding while fostering emotional and physical
growth. The goal of a humanist tradition might be to promote intellectual
skills necessary for independent judgement. Its purpose is to provide the
learner with intrinsic rewarding experiences that contribute to personal
liberation. The role of the teacher is to provide a warm and trusting
environment as well as to function as a facilitator while providing challenging
learning opportunities. In a humanist tradition, the learning focus is on
knowledge gained through personal concerns and self-expression. (Underhill, 1989)
described humanist education as a process of life-long learning. The job of a
teacher-facilitator is not to decide what the students should learn but rather
to identify and create the ingredients of a climate that helps free them to
learn and grow. Reflective discussion is a key ingredient for negotiation and
choice in matters of authority and responsibility in the classroom. Autonomous
and authoritative power is in continuous flux. Classroom decision-making
continuously shifts back and forth. A learning space might reflect this by
providing comfortable furnishings, plants and pleasant colours.
McNeil (2009)
highlighted the idea that technology opens many possibilities of exploration in
humanist education for teachers and students. However, its use focuses on
learning and meeting the needs of people. In the humanist tradition, technology
assists in finding the answers to personal questions, connecting people to each
other, and helping people to make decisions.
Constructivist
In a constructivist perspective, learning is a
complex process that is primarily under the control of learners. It occurs under
the teacher’s guidance within the context of the teaching and learning
environment (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Molenda, Rezabek, & Robinson,
2008). The focus is on a
process for learners to make connections in a whole world of meaning. The role
of the teacher is like an architect of learning, “one who plans, designs and
oversees learning activities (Government of Alberta, 2010). Teachers “strive to create environments where learners actively
participate in the environment in ways that are intended to help them construct
their own knowledge” (Jonassen, 2009).
Duffy and Cunningham (1996) stated that “learning is seen to occur when the
learner’s expectations are not met, and he or she must resolve the discrepancy
between what was expected and what was actually encountered” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Constructivists stress the importance of self-awareness of
learning and knowing. Duffy and Cunningham preferred the term reflexivity. It
is a process of construction in which conflict of understanding leads to
puzzlement and questions. These questions, McKenzie (2000) has related, help us
to make sense of the world. McKenzie also explained that in the constructivist
tradition, questions might be our “most powerful tools when it comes to making
decisions and solving problems, for inventing, changing and improving our
lives” (p. 1).
According to
Koechlin, Rosenfeld and Loertscher (2011) the
Learning Commons is student centred and looks like a multi-functional place
that allows for creativity as well as reflect the communities learning needs. The
Learning Commons approach emphasises individual and collective knowledge
construction and contains a collaborative learning model for both students and
teachers as learners (Koechlin, Rosenfeld, & Loertscher, 2010). This new culture of learning views learning as experimental,
inquiry based, collaborative, social and technology rich (Calgary Board of Education, 2013, p. 3).
Within the
constructivist tradition Howland, Jonassen, and Marra (2012) have used the term
meaningful learning to describe a process of learning through inquiry. With its
interrelated, interactive, and interdependent characteristics, meaningful
learning, they say, is active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and
collaborative. In this way Howland et al. have related that technology becomes
a “partner in the learning process” (Howland et al., 2012). Meaningful learning happens with technology, not because of
technology. They suggest technology can be thought of as an intellectual
partner in the learning process. Derry (2008) also
believes that the principle of design of technology-enhanced learning
environments should have a learning-driven focus and not a technocentric one.
Learning should drive the use of technology, not the other way around. In a
constructivist tradition, technology can be viewed as a pathway for learning,
not a delivery vehicle. Teachers do not need to become experts with technology to
support learners and learning; they only need a working knowledge and a
willingness to try.
Technology
becomes a complex notion of devices, process, and practice that also includes
methods of fruitful questioning. The implications of learning with technology
in a constructivist perspective are that teaching and learning becomes linked
in a process. Instruction may spark curiosity and questions can motivate
intelligent action that in turn may lead to an accumulation of experience.
Together instruction, questions, and technology could mediate the teaching and
learning process. Jonassen, Carr and Yueh (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998) have used the term “mind tools” to describe the process in which
learning with technology becomes an “intellectual partnership” (p. 31).
Conclusion
There is a need
for educators to become more philosophical about their view of technology and
the value it holds to support learning. The instructionist tradition of
education suggests knowledge is scarce and reality is objective; technology
then may be accessed as a neutral tool to support the efficient collection of
data and improve delivery of instruction (McNeil, 2009). However
in a constructivist tradition technology becomes a process or a networked
activity. Teachers look for more pragmatic evidence of projects completed (Howland et al., 2012). Truth is socially negotiated (Crotty, 1998). Learning
spaces would foster collaboration and the personal management of collective knowledge.
With a process view, technology not only lends itself to the exploration of
questions but also potentially could be used as a pathway to take learners on
an exploration and perhaps a place of learning.
It is important
to note that many layers of traditions and many perspectives of knowledge are
interconnected. As architects of learning, teachers understand that what makes
learning meaningful is a personal exploration of content, a focus on designing
good tasks for exploration, and a willingness to gain enough awareness of
technology to support the process as an intellectual partner. Technology will
be used in the Learning Commons to serve user in the time and place in which
they work. How teachers think of technology within the Learning Commons and how
they create, use, and manage learning resources depends greatly on their
beliefs about how people learn as well as the demands of their job (Molenda et al., 2008).
What has emerged
from the literature is that technology is a complex notion of devices, process,
and practice that also includes methods of fruitful questioning. The
implications of learning with technology in a constructivist perspective are
that teaching and learning becomes linked in a process. With a process view,
technology may be viewed as a place in which we might relate, communicate, and
participate with the world. This view of technology highlights a need to
encourage teachers to develop an awareness of a relationship between learning
and technology. The focus then becomes more on how do we support teachers to
become more like architects and use technology support the human process of
teaching and learning and less on technology as a means to an end and flashy
technocentric thinking.
REFERENCES
Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and
educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational
Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40.
Barrow, R.
(2010). Schools of thought in philosophy of education. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow,
D. Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp. 21–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Branch, R.,
& Deissler, C. (2008). Processes. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda
(Eds.), (pp. 195–211). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burns, M.
(2013). Success , failure or no significant difference : Charting a course for
successful educational technology integration. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(1), 38–45.
Calgary Board of
Education. (2013). Library to learning commons implementation guide (pp. 0–17).
Calgary, AB.
Crotty, M.
(1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process (p. 248). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cunningham, C.,
& Allen, B. (2010). Philosophical questions about learning technologies. In
R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D. Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp. 481–502).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Derry, J.
(2008). Technology-Enhanced learning: A question of knowledge. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 505–519.
Dewey, J.
(1938). Experience and education (p. 91). New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.
Duffy, T. M.,
& Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and
delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), (pp. 170–198). New York:
McMillan.
Feenberg, A.
(2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited (Rev., pp. xi,
218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Government of
Alberta. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Edmonton, AB.
Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/7145083/inspiring education steering
committee report.pdf
Hickman, L.
(1992). John Dewey’s pragmatic technology (p. 234). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Hickman, L.
(2002). Larry Hickman lecture on John Dewey, democracy, and global citizenship.
Retrieved May 12, 2010, from http://www.ikedacenter.org/thinkers-themes/thinkers/lectures-talks/hickman-lecture
Howland, J.,
Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningful learning with technology
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Ihde, D. (1993).
Philosophy of technology: An introduction. New York: Paragon House.
Ihde, D. (2004).
Philosophy of technology. In P. Kemp (Ed.), (pp. 91–108). Printed in the
Netherlands: Springer.
Jonassen, D. H.
(2009). Technology as Cognitive Tools : Learners as Designers, 1–7.
Jonassen, D. H.,
Carr, C., & Yueh, H.-P. (1998). Computers as mind tools for engaging
learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.
Koechlin, C.,
Luhtala, M., & Loertscher, D. V. (2011). Knowledge Building in the Learning
Commons. Teacher Librarian, 38, 20–23,26.
Koechlin, C.,
Rosenfeld, E., & Loertscher, D. V. (2010). Building the learning commons: A
guide for school administrators and learning leadership teams. Salt Lake, UT:
Hi Willow Research & Publishing.
Loertscher, D.
V., Koechlin, C., & Zwaan, S. (2008). The new learning commons: Where
learners win. Salt Lake: Hi Willow Research & Publishing.
McNeil, J. D.
(2009). Contemporary curriculum: In thought and action. University of
California, Los Angeles: John Wiley and Sons.
Molenda, M.
(2008). Using. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), (pp. 141–173). New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Molenda, M.,
Rezabek, L., & Robinson, R. (2008). Facilitating learning. In A.
Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), (pp. 15–47). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ontario School
Library Association. (2010). Together for learning: School libraries and the
emergence of the learning commons. Toronto. Retrieved from
https://www.accessola.org/Documents/OLA/Divisions/OSLA/TogetherforLearning.pdf
Papert, S.
(1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer
(p. 242). New York: Basic Books.
Sawyer, R. K.
(2006). The new science of learning (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sawyer, R. K.
(2008). Optimizing learning: Implications of learning sciences research (pp. 45–62).
Centre for Research and Innovation: OECD Publishing.
Schrum, L.,
Shelly, G., & Miller, R. (2008). Understanding tech-savvy teachers:
Identifying their characteristics, motivation and challenges. International
Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 1–20.
Shepherd, C.
(2011). The new learning architect. Amazon Digital Services, Inc.: Onlignment.
Stuewe, N.
(2013a). The Architect of Learning. In World Conference on E-Learning in
Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2013 (pp. 2117–2124).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Stuewe, N.
(2013b). Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning. University of
Calgary, Calgary, AB. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11023/612
Thomas, D.,
& Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the
imagination for a world of constant change (p. 104). USA: CreateSpace.
Underhill, A.
(1989). Process in humanistic education. ELT Journal, 43(4), 250–260. Retrieved
from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/4/250.short
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
The E-learn Conference 2013
The Architect of Learning
October 23,2013
Las Vegas, Nevada
Nancy Stuewe
University of Calgary
Alberta Canada
Abstract: Governments have called teachers to adopt a new role and use technology differently to support a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. A challenge for teachers is that at the same time rapid technological changes have increased the likelihood that they will have to grapple with unfamiliar technology. This paper reports on key findings taken from, Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning: A Case Study. The findings revealed that the role of teachers was like an architect of learning. This role embodied a constructivist foundation. In this role three teachers made sense of Apple’s iPad (unfamiliar technology). The teachers’ individual capacity to be open to the potential of the iPad and a supportive collaborative culture were key enablers for making this possible. While limitations of time, infrastructure, and opportunities for teacher learning challenged
the teachers to engage with unfamiliar technology, enablers had a more positive impact in facilitating the process of sense making than constraints had on limiting it. In other words, for the teachers in the study, constraints were not seen as barriers to making sense of unfamiliar technology. This paper highlights the role of architect of learning within its constructivist framework and proposes an interconnected responsibility to bolster teacher capacity to become architects of learning in order to grapple with new and emerging technology. Introduction
It has been suggested that the role of teachers be reworked “from knowledge authority to an architect of learning - one who plans, designs and oversees learning activities” (Government of Alberta, 2010a, p. 7) while at the same time there has been a call for teachers to use technology differently to support a constructivist approach (Glassett & Schrum, 2009; Howland, Jonassen, & Marra, 2012). Educational technology research has also identified many barriers for teachers to integrate new and emerging technology in their teaching and learning environments (Allen, 2008; Ertmer, 2005; Glassett & Schrum, 2009; Olsen, Recker, Robertshaw, Sellers, & Walker, 2011; Schoepp, 2004). The architect of learning is a metaphor used to describe the role and context of teachers within a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. An architect designs the plans from which others will build (Shepherd, 2011). A teacher/architect oversees learning and is mindful of an interior and exterior view. They design and plan activities that maximize internal personalized learning experiences while directing their students outward to scan the horizon for connections with others and prior life experiences. In this role the teacher uses “new technologies as designers and creators of knowledge” (Government of Alberta, 2010a, p. 29). A challenge for teachers as UNESCO (2008) has reported is that our relationship with digital technology is dramatically transforming the way we live in the world. The rise of the knowledge economy, as well the rapid technological changes have also increased the likelihood that both new and experienced teachers will regularly come in contact with new and emerging [unfamiliar] technology (Willis, 2001). The architect role also reflects the notion that, “technology makes things possible, people make things happen” (Government of Alberta, 2010b, p. 23). The task for teachers is to provide enriched learning experiences in a responsive environment where the learning need drives the use and choice of technology. This role also incorporates the idea that if the changing nature of technology is to be beneficial, new and emerging (unfamiliar) technologies will have to be explored by teachers.
This paper reports on key findings taken from, Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning: A Case Study. Findings revealed that the role of teachers within a constructivist teaching and learning environment was like an architect of learning. This paper will highlight the attributes of this role and the environment that supported the teacher participants in the descriptive case study. It will also propose an interconnected responsibility to bolster teacher capacity to become architects of learning.
Literature Review
The study Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning: A Case Study was situated within a constructivist framework. Constructivism proposes that learning is a complex process that is influenced by the learner’s needs and desires. Learning is directed with the teacher’s guidance within the context of the teaching and learning environment. In this environment it is possible for the teacher to participate in the learning process, not just deliver information for the student to consume (Dewey, 1938; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Molenda, Rezabek, & Robinson, 2008). The focus is on a process for learners to make connections in a whole world of meaning. The role of the teacher is like an architect of learning, “one who plans, designs and oversees learning activities (Government of Alberta, 2010a, p. 7). In this role teachers “strive to create environments where learners actively participate in the environment in ways that are intended to help them construct their own knowledge” (Jonassen, 1994, para. 13). Constructivists stress the importance of self-awareness of learning and knowing. It is a process of construction in which conflict of understanding leads to puzzlement and questions. These questions, McKenzie (2000) has related, help us to make sense of the world. McKenzie also explained that in a constructivist tradition, questions might be our “most powerful tools when it comes to making decisions and solving problems, for inventing, changing and improving our lives” (p. 1).
Duffy and Cunningham (1996) have noted that constructivism is an umbrella term for a wide range of ideas. The common elements for education are learning as an active process of construction rather than of acquiring knowledge, and instruction as a process that supports construction, not simply transmission, of knowledge (p. 2). Knowledge is built on a capacity for knowledge construction. The common ground of constructivism invites us to contemplate a world full of meaning to make sense of our experience with it. Constructivism is perhaps best summed up by von Glasersfeld’s (1989) statement that “instead of presupposing knowledge is a representation of what exists, knowledge is a mapping, in the light of human experience, of what is feasible” (p. 134). On this map there is a focus on the whole teaching and learning environment where individuals are to be open to multiple perspectives and interpretation (Jonassen, 1992, p. 137).
Jonassen et al. (2000) stated that meaningful learning in this light follows a process that is experiential and reflective. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) have stated, “we do not assume that we must have a common meaning, but rather we actively seek to understand the different perspectives” (p. 2). For example, in the classroom a teacher might highlight to her class how an individual student’s experience is unique, yet through classroom conversation other students might see connections to their own similar experiences. Through dialogue, students can determine how closely their experiences are shared. Teachers can then challenge student thinking to become sensitive to diverse thought. The teaching and learning process might begin when the teacher designs conditions where questions are addressed. This does not mean that the teacher will hide the answers in the activity where the student can find them like a game of hide and seek. Instead, teachers plan activities where there really is more than one right answer. “Knowledge is not a matter of getting it right but rather acquiring habits of action for coping with reality” (Rorty as cited in Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 1). Duffy and Cunningham (1996) have also related that in this sociocultural approach, learning occurs as people participate in shared endeavours and collective action. As architects of learning, teachers participate in the learning in their classrooms, they do not just interpret the world and have their students repeat back what they have been told. Teaching and learning is a negotiated understanding, that we know what we know with and from each other and the world. Constructivism is built on a sense of individual and social responsibility (Jonassen, Hernadez-Serrano, & Choi, 2000). This suggests that each individual way of making sense of the world is valid but reality is socially constructed (Crotty, 1998; Merriam, 2009). Perhaps the students will uncover a solution that the teacher has not yet thought of. Understanding then is an outcome of the learning process and the teacher is part of the process. Learning is achieved through negotiation within and among the community of learners. The learner questions, seeks different perspectives, judges viability, and comes to a shared understanding from what makes sense.
Howland, Jonassen, and Marra (2012) have used the term meaningful learning to describe a process of learning through inquiry. With its interrelated, interactive, and interdependent characteristics, meaningful learning, they say, is active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and collaborative. In this way Howland et al. have related that technology becomes a “partner in the learning process” (p. 7). Meaningful learning happens with technology, not because of it. They suggest technology can be thought of as an intellectual partner in the learning process. Derry (2008) also believes that the principle of design of technology-enhanced learning environments should have a learning-driven focus and not a technocentric one. Learning should drive the use of technology, not the other way around. The architect of learning might view technology as a pathway for understanding, not a delivery vehicle. The architect of learning promotes meaningful learning with technology by encouraging learning through conversing and collaborating with others (Howland et al., 2012). Howland et al. (2012) redirect the attention of meaningful learning away from the hype of technology and argue that teachers must treat technology as a partner in the learning process. In this light, technology is more than a device. “Technology consists also of the designs and environments that engage learners” (p. 7). As a pathway for understanding, digital media might spark student creativity and action. Technology then has the potential to engage, facilitate, and form a non-linear place to support the teaching and learning process. Using technology in this way then might broaden our human capacity to learn. To the architect an intellectual partner supports an individual in reflecting and processing the dissonance between what they perceive and what they think they know as a meaning-making event. Resolution ensures some ownership of the knowledge constructed. The focus then becomes more on how technology supports the human process of teaching and learning and less on a means to an end and flashy technocentric thinking.
Research Design
Given the complexity of human behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs, the study was designed to utilize a descriptive case study methodology. This approach was an effective strategy to capture the openness of experience in its natural setting. What came from getting to know the case was, an enhanced understanding of the capacity of teachers to be like architects and the potential of the constructivist environment that invited facility. The case provided a rich description of the role and the three teachers’ capacity to use unfamiliar technology. It also provided an awareness of the interconnected responsibilities to bolster teacher capacity.
The descriptive case study, Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning was designed to explore two main questions: 1) How do teachers make sense of new and emerging technology to enhance teaching and learning? 2) How might these teachers’ insights inform strategies to support the implementation of a new technology in teaching and learning? The methods of data collection used to address these questions were interview, observation, and informal dialogue. The study was concerned with teacher experience with unfamiliar technology as a process. Underpinning this approach was a constructivist theoretical framework: that knowledge is a social and interpretive process. From this perspective the study was “without expectation of causal explanation” (Stake, 1995, p. 38). It was not designed to test theory, compare, or measure anything quantitatively (Merriam, 2009). The study recognized that the experience of sense making involved more than teachers simply physically finding room on their shelf for a new technology.
As the researcher, I focused on the interactions between the other available technology, the teaching and learning process and the process of sense making not just for the individual but in the social context. I designed the study to capture happenings, expand knowledge, and inform broader understanding beyond the case (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995). With this pragmatic focus, the research had several synergetic goals: a) to describe teacher experience with unfamiliar technology and the context of their experience; b) to explore possible motivations, tensions, and affordances to entertain unfamiliar technology; and c) to interpret these events as lessons learned in order to develop ideas for support and further study. I was guided by Creswell’s (2009) recommendation to gather data from multiple sources directly in the school environment. Triangulation using multiple sources can also enhance the validity and reliability of the study (Merriam, 2009). Evidence was collected from a range of sources: face-to-face interviews; participant-observation; documents; and artifacts of both digital and hardcopy classroom documents.
The data were collected from three different teachers in two different schools in a Western Canadian city over a four month period. In School One two teachers taught in grade 3-4 classrooms and in School Two the teacher taught grade 7. At the time of the study, iPads were completely new to the teaching and learning environment as they were first available in Canada only in the Spring of 2010.
Findings
Through analysis of the interview and observation data, three factors emerged. First, the teachers capacity as architects was seen as a key enabler. The attributes of this capacity that emerged were seen as an internal quality that enabled the teachers to entertain unfamiliar technology. Each of the three teachers had an individual capacity to be open to the possibilities the iPad might present. They chose to learn about the iPad in their own time as well as with and in front of their students. They reported believing that technology could support their students in becoming life-long learners. All three teachers expressed that learning came first and that they valued technology as a tool for learning. They believed that providing their students with choice of technology would lead to a deeper understanding of its power. The three teachers had a collaborative spirit not just with their colleagues but also with their students. They also demonstrated flexibility and judgement. The architect of learning role opens teachers to be participants in the teaching and learning environment. As learners the three teachers took time to play with the iPad as a personal device in an informal learning environment prior to its introduction at their schools. This gave the three teachers an opportunity to form a positive relationship with the iPad before bringing it to the students. Further, the three teachers seemed to see the real potential of the iPad by adding it to the classroom collection of digital devices and letting their students decide for themselves what technology was the right choice to serve their needs.
The teachers’ sense making did not occur in isolation. A second enabling factor was that the role of architect of learning embodies a constructivist foundation. In this role the three teachers made sense of the iPad with their students as intellectual partners, not by making the iPad the centre of their teaching. Contextual factors in the school environment also facilitated the teachers’ capacity to try out new things. In both schools a structure was in place to support a collaborative culture. The three teachers had professional learning opportunities within a reflective collaborative culture. They had administrative allowances for flexibility and support from the school district. IT technicians kept software up-to-date. The teachers had a choice of technology and to some degree the school district supplied teacher learning support.
A third factor that emerged was while constraints of time, infrastructure, and limited opportunities for teacher learning challenged the teachers to engage with unfamiliar technology. It was apparent that external and internal enablers had a more positive impact in facilitating the process of sense making than the constraints had on limiting it. In other words, for the teachers in the study, the constraints were not seen as barriers to making sense of unfamiliar technology.
The findings suggested that the architect of learning role within a constructivist framework supported the teachers to make sense of an unfamiliar technology. In an effort to highlight the attributes of the architect of learning the discussion will focus on the teachers role and their responsibilities in their teaching and learning environment.
Discussion
In the role of Architect of Learning the three teachers found the capacity to infuse an unfamiliar technology into their teaching and learning environment. In this role the three teachers expressed the feeling that their function was not to deliver knowledge but to mentor, guide and participate in social knowledge construction in their classrooms. Although conventional responsibilities of teaching were observed, the interview and observation data revealed many new and altered responsibilities for these teachers. The responsibilities are discussed separately but are recognized as inter-related. It is this collection that make up the many attributes of the teacher/architect. They are discussed in order of frequency of observation as follows: (1) personalized learning; (2) collaborative citizenship; (3) life-long learning; (4) multiple literacy; (5) technology as a partner in learning; and (6) critical thinking.
Personalized Learning
In the role of architect of learning, the task for teachers is to provide a student-centred approach to instruction. The most frequent responsibility observed was personalized learning “with flexible timing and pacing through a range of learning environments” (Government of Alberta, 2010b, p. 14). In an attempt to foster a positive classroom climate, the three teachers developed personal relationships with their students. They took time to talk individually to their students about what was important to them. The teachers designed active experiential learning activities with authentic, real problems with real world objects. They designed activities that met the diverse learning needs in their students. One teacher spoke of the importance for his students to have choices in real world activities and to share their discoveries with each other. From the interview and observation data the following attributes emerged regarding this responsibility: the teachers’ (a) honoured student voice in how learning was approached and presented; (b) designed active learning activities that had an element of real life; (c) provided opportunities for self-discovery; (d) organized flexible learning spaces; and (e) responded to multiple forms of feedback.
Collaborative Citizenship
Teachers are tasked to design activities where students worked together to advance classroom community goals (Government of Alberta, 2010b, p. 11). From the interview and observation data, the following attributes emerged with regard to this responsibility: a) teachers designed collaborative activities and work spaces; and b) when appropriate, authority and leadership were shared between students and teachers in the classroom. Students worked with learning partners or in small groups for most activities. The three teachers relinquished some of their conventional authority in the way they taught.
Life-long Learning
In the role of architect of learning, the teacher’s task is to inspire in their students a strong sense of self and confidence to “act autonomously” (Government of Alberta, 2010b, p. 11). From the data, the following attributes emerged with regard to this responsibility: teachers’ (a) managed a self-directed learning environment; (b) provided opportunities for student leadership; (c) held students accountable for responsible choices; and the teachers’ (d) valued self-assessment. The teachers created environments for self-directed learning in which the objectives and strategies were discussed throughout the learning activities. Students were made aware of potential classroom resources, and it was clear that personal devices such as iPod were acceptable. As well, evaluation criteria such as rubrics were crafted with student participation. The teachers fostered a self-directed environment and organized a self-serve classroom with supplies and iPads in convenient locations. They reported seeing themselves as facilitators of the learning experience rather than as information providers. During observation when students did come to the teachers for help in solving problems, they each encouraged student independence. The students needed to grapple with their own learning.
The teachers provided opportunities for students to practice leadership skills, mentoring with reading buddies, student-of-the-week, and they encouraged student participation in decision making. During one of the work sessions a student was playing a game app instead of attending to his role. While he was playing, another student took a leadership role and quietly took his iPad, deleted the app, and confidently returned it to him. She felt it was distracting him from focusing on the group’s task. The game-playing student accepted her intervention with a shrug of his shoulders and returned to work. Student leadership gave students a sense of belonging.
The teachers nurtured student responsibility. I observed the teachers’ usual playful manner swiftly shift to a no nonsense approach when it was required. The teachers took students who were making irresponsible choices aside without humiliation to suggest strategies on how they could work differently. I observed class discussions on respect, global citizenship and wise choices when choosing partners. Students also took a share in the responsibility of managing the charging of iPads which gave them a sense of ownership.
The teachers gained feedback on student progress with a range of assessment tools that included the students’ perspectives. In reporting to parents one teacher included student self-assessment. The students also used graphic organizers to learn about self-assessment and worked through a role-playing exercise to help them prepare for the student-led interviews with their parents.
Multiple Literacies
In the role of architect of learning, a task for teachers is to provide their students with opportunities to read and to express themselves in a variety of contexts including “current and emerging information and communication technologies” (Government of Alberta, 2010b, p. 11). In classroom observations, students worked with text as well as with images and digital media. The teachers gave their students opportunities to work through problems in a visual journal. The visual journal was used in a cross-curricular manner but accessed most often for solving mathematics inquiries. The students used the visual journals for art but also to draw diagrams, make charts, and mind map emerging ideas. One teacher encouraged her students to make personal choices for story planning and story telling supported by a collection of graphic organizers, visual journals, and multimedia tools (e.g., Comic Life, iPhoto, Keynote). Students sampled different tools of expression and worked in a variety of group situations as directed by the teacher. Students used iPads with apps such as Garageband, Doodle Buddy, Toontastic, and Comic Strip to explore literary expression and to develop and produce digital stories. At School Two the teacher created digital content with his colleagues to present historical obstacles. During the student presentation that I observed, some students had made movies, Power Points, and image slideshows to represent their understanding. In other situations I observed students working through mathematics problems in their visual journals. The three teachers not only wanted their students to access various forms of information but also to be creators of and critical thinkers about information by engaging with various forms of communication.
Technology as an Intellectual Partner
In the role of architect of learning, another responsibility is to allow technology to function as a “partner in learning” (Howland et al., 2012, p. 7). From the interview and observation data the following attributes emerged: (a) technology was used to cultivate creative thinking and action, (b) technology supported assessment, (c) technology was accessed to support the process of knowledge construction, and (d) a variety of technological resources were accessible for students to choose from.
The teachers used technology to spark creative action. One teacher projected storybook video from an online collection of animated talking picture books for students to see. Instead of allowing students to be passive listeners, she used the experience to cultivate learning about story elements. She was able to stop the story at various points when she wanted to highlight a literary device or make connections to other stories. This activity sparked dialogue. Further she collected student-generated ideas on chart paper. The students were able to use these ideas to create their own story plans with their learning partners. Another teacher presented a science concept with a YouTube video. The students’ task was to write a hypothesis of what they saw. The students were free to talk to each other and ask questions. The teacher guided the students by stopping and starting the video while narrating using the vocabulary he wanted them to use in their writing. The teachers also used technology to balance performance assessment for grading. One teacher used her iPad to record her students during a benchmark reading assessment. She was able to observe her students using reading strategies during the test and revisited the recording to test for accuracy. This method, she reported, gave her richer and more meaningful data about how her students were learning to read, as well as valuable feedback with which to support them. Another teacher used the grading feature in the learning management tool, Desire 2 Learn (D2L) to manage, track, and report student progress. This tool helped him to understand which students needed more support and also to provide feedback not just to the students but also to their parents well before the end of a reporting period.
The teachers used technology to support the construction of personal and community understanding. One teacher used a Word document projected on the interactive whiteboard to capture brainstormed ideas about a finished presentation. With the help of her students, she then turned these collected ideas into a rubric to guide the completion of the student project. Another teacher used D2L as controllable space for knowledge construction. He found that by posing questions in the online discussion forum of D2L, he could easily monitor and track the conversation. The asynchronous nature of the conversation made it possible for his students to have the opportunity to think and then speak, thus giving the students a different level of participation than was possible in the face-to-face classroom. He also uploaded videos (historical obstacles) in D2L which allowed students to revisit the video when needed in order to work through problems.
The teachers also allowed students to access a variety of conveniently located technology. This resulted in students using iPads, laptops, classroom computers, interactive whiteboards, a document camera, and personal iPods in both classrooms. One teacher said her students “need to be able to walk into a situation and just adapt to it.” She felt what would make them successful was an ability to think critically about an appropriate piece of technology to efficiently support their needs. She explained, “It’s not about the invention as much as it’s about its use. There is a part of innovation that is about the quality of the invention but what is most important in innovation is how it is used in the classroom.” She felt it was important to plan opportunities for students to interact with technology in personal ways, “to learn what works and what doesn’t from the experience, so they can discover what is best for them based on need.” She said, “When students start thinking with the innovation and have experience with different kinds of technology then they have a power from that choice, it becomes a big thing…. It is not about choosing the right tool for the job; it is more about exploring the right tool for you in your personal situation.”
Critical Thinking
In the role of architect of learning, the task for teachers is to create the conditions for students to “critically analyze and synthesize information” (Government of Alberta, 2010b, p. 10). From the interview and observation data, it became clear that the conditions included opportunities for students to: (a) think deeply, make connections, identify patterns, and solve problems; (b) judge for themselves how to navigate information from digital and face-to-face sources; and (c) have the freedom to make mistakes and reflect on their choices.
In a large group situation, one teacher used a questioning strategy to help her grade 3-4 students dig deeper to generate a collection of story element ideas. When reading stories, she used probing questions to help expand understandings. She did not accept passive listening. Gently she said, “I’m going to pick on you.” During a reading of the story Zero (Otoshi, 2010), she stopped to point out connections to prior classroom experiences. “What do you see? What don’t you see?” At the end she asked, “What was the story about?” While validating the initial comments, she then tried to pull more information and ideas out of the students by using questions such as: “What are some other thoughts?…What does it make you think of?” She read a second book by the same author in order for the students to compare and make connections between the character and their own life.
As described in the Personalized Learning section, the interview and observation data suggested that the three teachers valued student choice. Students judged for themselves what tools to use. One teacher said, “Teachers can’t separate what they teach from the world.” He felt that learning for his students was not about gaining knowledge. “What I want to do is give them the tools to think critically, navigate, judge, and live well in the world.” The teachers wanted their students to make up their own minds in their choice of technology while occasionally encouraging the students to try something new.
One teacher told me that they structured formal time after activities for students to reflect on their technology choices. “Did this tool work for you?…Why did it?…What might be better next time?” Another teacher said, “I wait for the students to come to me.” He said he knew an experience was effective “when they come to me all excited, Look at this, look at this! I want them to grapple with that when it makes sense to them.” This reflection was meant to help the students recognize strengths and weaknesses in their reasoning.
Concluding Remarks
A key lesson taken from this study is that, it is unlikely that the implementation of any new technology will be successful without, first, a willingness on the part of the teacher to entertain unfamiliar technology. The greater educational community can support the implementation of new and emerging technology by bolstering teachers’ capacity to deal with it. A second lesson recognizes that teachers (not the technology) are agents of change in practice. It is essential to invite teacher participation into the implementation process and to listen to their concerns. A third lesson acknowledges implementation is a learning process. One size will not fit all; as learners, teachers need to personalize their approach to unfamiliar technology. Teachers will need ways of understanding and addressing the constraints that new and emerging technology generally bring with it.
The three teachers, each in their own way, made sense of the iPad as architects within a similar collection of internal and external enablers. While constraints were seen as frustrating, the data suggested the three teachers had an internal quality (teacher capacity) to over look the constraints and successfully use unfamiliar technology. They did so mainly through their own determinations, as they were more than willing to spend the extra effort to learn and use the iPad. The three teachers were committed to life-long learning, they had skills, knowledge and experience teaching with technology. They had a belief in the value of technology. They were flexible towards diversity and change and they had a collaborative spirit. The three teachers were willing to entertain unfamiliar technology, they even referred to it as fun. In a role of architect of learning, the task for teachers is to design enriched learning experiences within a responsive environment where the learning need drives the use and choice of technology. This role incorporates the idea that if the changing nature of technology is to be beneficial, new and emerging (unfamiliar) technologies will have to be explored by teachers.
The study revealed an enhanced understanding of the potential of the capacity of teachers as architects. In this role, the value of the iPad did not drive its use in the classroom. Rather, it was the pursuit of knowledge that determined how and why the iPad was used. The implication for teachers is a commitment to life-long learning, a willingness to act, and an openness to possibilities. Teachers who do not have the opportunity to see themselves as learners will find it more and more difficult to cope with the ever-changing landscape influenced by educational technology. Therefore, a need is revealed to empower teachers with dynamic professional development experiences that are personally meaningful as well as connected in a collaborative culture of lifelong learning.
The observation and interview data also revealed that the three teachers made sense of unfamiliar technology within a constructivist teaching and learning environment that reinforced their beliefs about teaching and learning. The three teachers made sense of the iPad with their students as intellectual partners. They also participated in a supportive collaborative culture. An implication of this suggests it is not enough to focus only on the device when making sense of unfamiliar technology and putting new technology in classrooms will not automatically lead to meaningful use. The study also underlines the importance of teachers’ participation in the process of teaching and learning. However tempting it might be to focus on the hype and glamour of new gadgets, the focus should remain on the constructivist process of teaching and learning.
How then might we bolster every teachers capacity to become architects of learning? School districts, school administrators and teachers each need to approach this issue as an interconnected responsibility to nourish the development of this role. The process of bolstering teacher capacity will benefit first, if teachers can build personal pathways for sense making of unfamiliar technology. Teachers can think of themselves as participants in the learning of their classroom. Consider how you are committed to life-long learning and how this might reveal itself in your teaching. As a teacher what opportunities can you create to learn in front of their students. How can you to take advantage of their experience and demonstrate how to grapple with unfamiliar technology? Teachers also need to experience the same affordances that they themselves provide for their students by following constructivist learning principles in their professional development. School administrators can consider how their current teaching and learning environment invites the development of teacher/architect. How are your teachers able to personalize their own learning? While technological change continues to accelerate and takes a broader role in our classrooms, how can you provided time for teachers and make it fun for them to make sense of unfamiliar technology within their work day? School districts can also consider how the jurisdictions’ human and technology infrastructure is flexible enough to cope with new and emerging technology. How are teachers allowed to grapple with constraints within their teaching and learning environment?
Dewey (1916) noted that in a democratic society we should make provision for participation. Education, Dewey envisioned, should give individuals a personal interest in social relationships and control. MacDonald and Shirley (2009) also contend that the situation for teachers only improves when they themselves have opportunities to become more reflective. As society adopts new technologies, teachers have an obligation to bring them into their classrooms. If the journey is valued over the arrival, if curiosity is valued over the object discovered, if exploration is valued over acquisition of knowledge, and if we shift value away from the glamour of new technology as these teachers did, something different happens. While the three teachers were provided with affordances for learning, most importantly they saw themselves capable of it and jumped at the opportunity to learn.
References
Allen, G. (2008). Practicing teachers and web 2.0 technologies: Possibilities for transformative learning. Columbia University, New York.
Derry, J. (2008). Technology-Enhanced learning: A question of knowledge. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 505–519.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Stilwell, KS: Digireads.com Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: McMillan.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for techno. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 25–39.
Glassett, K., & Schrum, L. (2009). Teacher beliefs and student achievement in technology-rich classroom environments. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 138–153.
Government of Alberta. (2010a). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/inspiringeducation.aspx
Government of Alberta. (2010b). Inspiring action on education: A discussion paper. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from http://engage.education.alberta.ca/uploads/1006/20100621inspiringact86934.pdf
Howland, J., Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningful learning with technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. ITFORUM Paper 1. Retrieved June 21, 2012, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper1/paper1.html
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Molenda, M., Rezabek, L., & Robinson, R. (2008). Facilitating learning. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 15–47). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olsen, J., Recker, M., Robertshaw, B., Sellers, L., & Walker, A. (2011). Designing for problem based learning: A comparative study of technology professional development. The Instructional Architect Research Group, (Paper 7). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/iagroup/7
Schoepp, K. (2004). Technology integration barriers in a technology-rich environment: A CBAM perspective. University of Calgary Graduate Division of Educational Research, Calgary, AB.
Shepherd, C. (2011). The new learning architect. Amazon Digital Services, Inc.: Onlignment.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Willis, J. (2001). Foundational assumptions for information technology and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(3), 305–320.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)