Challenges and Issues in Open and Distributed Education

Open online education is in its relative infancy and with that come many problems and growing pains that need to be addressed. It is important to be conscious of the way online technology bring us together socially both positively and negatively. We need to explore what work and what doesn’t and challenge ourselves to ideas that are different to our own to expand the conversation in search for truth and a better society. It is also important to consider the thing outside the social side of online education, such as data collection and the environmental and labour impacts of making technology.

 Cliques and Closed Academic Communities

Academia has been accused by some of being too politically correct to the point of stifling debate before it has begun, sometimes stopping debate on subjects of merit. In Funes and Mackness’ example of Richard Dawkins coming to speak at the University of Berkley in 2017, Dawkins was likely not going to speak about Muslims and more likely on science and evolution (his subject area). Given that, it could be said that letting him speak about his subject matter does not equal hate speech despite his opinions on other subjects (as unfortunate as they may be).

On the other hand, I believe it is important that there should be room to shut down certain topics for debate. I think most people would agree that white supremacy is wrong and would likely not wish to welcome a debate of its merits. The only thing this would do is make a bunch of white people feel some power and victimize people of colour for no good reason. Perhaps universities need weigh the benefits versus the drawbacks when disputed speakers come to their facilities and then make the judgment call.

I sympathize with the University’s as well who have to consider the school population at large. University’s have been working hard for some time to make minorities feel welcome. It does not serve that interest by alienating them with speakers who may espouse views that could be seen as offensive or even hate speech.

Non-physical Communication and Detachment

I have always felt that people are willing to say worse things on the phone than in person and that goes doubly so for texting and the internet. As technologies distance us from each other and separate us physically we lose a context sometimes that the person on the other end of the communication is a person and that we would likely never speak to them in a harsh, mean, or rude way in real life.

Also, what makes online communication arguably worse than oral communication is that we have time to concoct a rebuttal and be our most clever and (sometimes) informed than we can in the moment of an in-person conversation.

Reading:

Funes, M., & Mackness, J. (2018). When inclusion excludes: A counter narrative of open online education. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1444638

Knox, J. (2019). What Does the ‘Postdigital’ Mean for Education? Three Critical Perspectives on the Digital, with Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y

Caines, A., & Glass, E. (2019, Fall). Education before Regulation: Empowering Students to Question Their Data Privacy. EDUCAUSE Review, 54(4). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2019/10/education-beforeregulation-empowering-students-to-question-their-dataprivacy

The Other Opens (Scholarship, Data, Open Online Courses, Research)

Social media and open access online education are powerful tools for those who decide to use them. They open us to others and new information in ways that could have only been dreamt of in the past. But both of these applications of the internet are relatively new and thus are still growing and changing as we begin to figure out what works for us and what does not.

Personal and Professional Social Media

An interesting struggle that can take place when using social media is deciding what you should and should not post. This problem is compounded when you are balancing both a personal and professional/academic presence. Sometimes, when the wall between the two breaks down (context collapse) it can lead to problems. Trying to keep personal and professional separate is difficult and sometimes impossible. What you say in your personal profile to friends and family you may not want to be affiliated with your professional brand. This has led to some people even being fired for their personal use of social media which reflected poorly on the company/institution they work for or belong to. The bigger question may be, should personal and professional be separated? you are only one person and no matter what you are posting on social media, whether personal or professional, it does represent you and your character.

It is possible that some scholars are realizing that it is difficult to keep your personal and professional life separate online unless employing strict posting discipline and control or posting anonymously. I think over time people are finding it easier to not separate the two and their may be some good reason to that. It could humanize you on an academic level. It would allow others to see you as a person and not some big brained intellect who has no time for the common people. It could also open up your friends and family to understanding what you do professionally and get to know you in that regard too. Of course, this can be a double-edged sword and invite criticism and online harassment when you were not seeking it.

The Shortcomings of Online Education (MOOCs, Etc.)

The standard person may not be interested in OED or MOOCs because the are generally big, long winded courses that require time and a commitment. I believe that there is a form of education, whether legitimate or not, that is taking place in the form of short 5 – 10 min YouTube videos. The average person doesn’t want to sit down and hash out an online course. They want to solve their problem now and move on. I don’t care about the history of the automobile and its design changes over the century, I want to stop that damn ticking noise that my car makes.

The internet and media and general have trained the average person to enjoy short clips that are entertaining and then to move on. If you are going to keep people’s attention for more than 5 – 10 minutes you had better be entertaining. I’m afraid to say it but most post secondary education is not very entertaining. Often it can be a little boring and dry. It may be worth the time to reassess how MOOCs are made and the format they take. Perhaps if they were more palatable to the average person they would be more widely used. YouTube channels like CrashCourse are a good example of an engaging and entertaining way to teach bigger concepts, or at least introduce them.

Readings:

Open Scholarship 

Veletsianos, G., & Shaw, A. (2018). Scholars in an increasingly open and digital world: Imagined audiences and their impact on scholars’ online participation. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2017.1305966

Open Data 

Atenas, J., Havemann, L., & Priego, E. (2015). Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Towards Transversal Skills and Global Citizenship. Open Praxis, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.233

Massive Open Online Courses

Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. (2015). MOOCs and the Claim of Education for All: A Disillusion by Empirical Data. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2033

Open Access Research 

Couture, M. (2017, July 12). Academic Publishing at a Crossroads. University Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-myopinion/academic-publishing-crossroads/

A Look at Online Learning

The Basic Online and Offline Framework

When reading this week’s journals, I was struck by how much of online learning requires pretty much the same traditional educational methods at its core. Both require:

  • student-teacher contact
  • encouraging cooperation among students
  • encouraging active learning
  • giving prompt feedback
  • emphasis on task time
  • communicate (high) expectations
  • respect diverse talents
  • respect differing ways of learning

As a teacher, whether online or off, your goal is to design an effective program and material, have clear assessment and evaluation methods, and facilitate the course. The approaches to these concepts may differ when online compared to off but the core framework appears to remain relatively the same.

So, what does that mean for the online teacher? First it is important to use the appropriate pedagogical approach to the delivery method you have decided to use. Secondly, you need to facilitate participation dand provide validation of the student gained knowledge. Third, if appropriate, facilitate a virtual classroom or other online learning methods, promoting collaborative, active, reflective, authentic, and constructive forms of learning. Again, for the most part a seasoned educator would say this framework is very similar to that of a traditional classroom.

Struggles and Problems in Online Learning

I have taken a handful of online courses over the years and I have seen some be extremely successful and other, not so much. Ní Shé et. al. (2019) stresses the point that achieving a social presence right from the beginning of an online course is important and will ensure student presence throughout the course. This is something I have personally seen go wrong in an online course I participated in. I felt lost and less invested because I had little to no interaction with the instructor and superficial interaction with other students. There was no sense of community and limited my investment in the course. This could be said about any form of education, but I feel it goes doubly so for an online course.

I have taken online courses which required me to post a certain amount of times about a subject with a word count, etc. I am not sure how effective this was for students who had not bought in or were not engaged by the course. Most students appeared to parrot what others wrote and replies were often weak and were half-hearted agreements of what the original poster had said. I’m not sure this works very well (or maybe it’s just me).

Ní Shé et. al. (2019) further recommend that online educators post regularly (three times a week or more) and include feedback and support individual students posted offerings. This is a tall order for any instructor, and I am not sure how easy it would be to accomplish depending on the teachers work load. I agree that it is important, but I have never had a teacher/instructor do this.

When using exploratory learning in an online context, Dabbagh (2005) asserts that there is more student-generated learning via exploration and problem solving requiring limited guidance and instruction from the teacher. Through this method, students learn how to set, manage, and achieve their goals. A problem that can crop up with student generated learning is that less creative/less imaginative/more apathetic students not become engaged with the work and fall behind or even give up. Furthermore, some students can become overwhelmed with the freedom of choosing the direction of their learning and may become crippled with choice. It is important that the instructor communicate regularly and make themselves available with students to make sure this is avoided.

The Positive Online Experience

There are many online forums/websites/groups which encourage learning through sharing experiences and ideas and helping others through their projects and exploration of knowledge and ideas. Websites like www.instructables.com and www.thingiverse.com provide the average person with access to many ideas and projects (all user made) and allow others to comment and exchange ideas and critiques. This approach can be utilized in an online course setting or even as a resource to better facilitate learning by allowing students to ask questions, share their work, gain feedback, and make changes. I often use these kinds of websites with my shop classes when helping my students find project ideas and when trying to find answers to problems and questions they may run into. Students generally find them easy to explore and often can find the answers and ideas they were seeking.

The use of “educational worlds” can create an experience that could not otherwise be done in the real world or can be done for with less resources. Educational worlds can take the form of a virtual reality space where students can create avatars and interact with others and virtual objects. Being a shop teacher, I find myself more attracted to the real-life application of skills rather than virtual. There are subjects such as robotics and electronics that could lend themselves well to the virtual approach. Students could use virtual spaces to design and build robots and parts to see if they work like they think they should. I have even seen the use of games such as Minecraft used to teach electronic concepts such as binary and circuits, having students collaborate on large working electronics concepts such as a calculator or even a basic computing “machine”.

Another concept that I had never considered presented by Dabbagh (2005) is the use of role play in an online setting. The idea is that students would take on different situations and imagine themselves apart of them, making decisions as the situations change. This can take many forms and I like the idea of having the student imagine themselves as a contractor or an electrician and then going through what it takes to do those jobs. With guidance this could be a lot of fun and lead to a in depth understanding of the skills and knowledge of those positions and what it takes to be in that career and explore some of the lesser known things that those careers must take on. The roles could even be less realistic and more metaphorical in practice. This approach could be extremely entertaining and engaging for both students and teachers.

Readings:

  • Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Computers & Education, 43(1–2), 17–33. via.hypothes.is/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.01 8
  • Dabbagh, N. (2005). Pedagogical Models for E-Learning: A Theory-Based Design Framework. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 25–44. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.475 .4593&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  • Conole, G. (2018). Learning Design and Open Education. International Journal of Open Educational Resources. Retrieved from https://www.ijoer.org/learning-design-andopen-education_doi-10-18278-ijoer-1-1-6/
  • ShĂ© NĂ­, C., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., Costello, E., Donlon, E., Trevaskis, S., & Eccles, S. (2019). Teaching online is different: Critical perspectives from the literature. Retrieved from Dublin City University website: http://doras.dcu.ie/23890/

Open Educational Resources

I find the concept of massive open online courses, otherwise known as MOOC’s, to be an interesting concept. Allowing people to access college and university level courses in a flexible online manner open the door for many people and possibilities. In time, this approach to education could make a drastic change on the way some people learn and how we credit students for knowledge learned.

The first thing that came to mind when reading about MOOC’s is that they do have their limits. One of the biggest draw backs is that they require both a computer and internet connection which not everyone can afford. In time, as computers become more affordable and available, it is possible that this problem may be lessened but for now it can be a roadblock for some who want to learn but cannot afford to. Online learning can even be a struggle in the K-12 classroom as not all students have access to a computer or smart phone and schools rarely have computers for all students to use.

One thing that I had not considered about MOOC’s is that even if you do complete a course there is no means of recognizing the time and effort you put in. As far as I know there is no degree which can be obtained by taking a degree worth of MOOC courses. In theory, a person could learn an entire degree through MOOC courses but then receive no accreditation for their work, thus not opening the potential doors that it should. As MOOC courses become more acknowledged, perhaps some for of accreditation will become common. I would posit that by making that an option it would make MOOC based learning far more popular.

An interesting idea posed by Canole and Brown is the potential that in the future students could make their own degrees. Students being able to pick and choose what they learn and gaining accreditation for it instead of being forced into focused degrees sounds very appealing and could create more well-rounded individuals and unique combinations of knowledge. This could be especially useful in a future that appears less certain in its opportunities than the past did.

Readings:

  • Friesen, N. (2009). Open Educational Resources: New Possibilities for Change and Sustainability. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.664
  • Conole, G., & Brown, M. (2018). Reflecting on the Impact of the Open Education Movement. Journal of Learning for Development – JL4D, 5(3). Retrieved from http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/314

History of Online Learning

I noticed when reading this week’s papers that there is a theme of education adapting slowly as time passes. I can see why this can be frustrating for some who wish to see change in the education system, but I believe that the slow pace of change happens for many reasons and many of them for the greater good. It is important that as new technologies and educational approaches develop (which they are doing rapidly) we, as educators, approach them critically and take the time to reflect on their effectiveness/appropriateness.

Social Media

I would agree with the observation, stated by Weller, that social media has a negative and positive effect on education. Social media services, such as Facebook and Twitter, have their pros and cons. They allow people to connect and communicate in ways they have not been able to in the past which we have discovered can be both good and bad. For example, I am apart of a group on Facebook that has over 400 members who are all shop teachers in BC. This group shares project ideas, teaching experiences, and is an open forum to problem solving in Technology Education. Overall, I would state the group as extremely helpful and positive. Meanwhile, Facebook itself has been gaining a reputation for spreading misinformation and being a forum for people to “yell” at everyone else about everything they disagree with in uncivil ways. It is not surprising to hear that younger people are not interested Facebook as much as they used to be with these kinds of user practices.

Oddly enough we hear often that we need to educate our students how to safely navigate the internet and to not be cyber bullies. Meanwhile, many internet comment sections break down in ad hominem attacks and other general silliness.

Wikis and Open Source

Meanwhile, open resources like Wikipedia are often scoffed at by academia but provide students and the general public an easy source to begin researching a subject of interest. The basics of a topic can be quickly found and learned and open the door for further research, if the user feels so inclined. Wikis and open source material are a disturbance to the well-established publisher system that does not want to lose its position of power or its monetary income. There are people/groups working towards changing this but only time will tell what will happen.

It is important to remember that it is inevitably society which decides what is important and what is not. We may get excited about a technology and it may even be a great resource and/or education tool but that does not mean it will be adopted and implemented. If a new technology does no get buy in it will likely fail or become a novelty or find niche specialty use. For example, many different companies have tried to create new

Blogs

Blogs can serve an educational purpose just like how in this program we are able to document our thoughts on papers and explore ideas with others. That being said, I would be curious how many people use them regularly after the class/program is completed. I can only speak from my own experiences and I have not found myself attracted to recording my thoughts, new concepts, and journals I’ve read online. I don’t find myself interested in the idea of opening myself to complete strangers about everything I learn. I honestly don’t know who would want to read that either.

Blogs can be used well for educational purposes, but I do not believe they are for everyone. I would be interested to see the statistics of how many people who use blogs in a course/program continue to use them after.

Conclusion:

In the last 20 years that has been a large boom of technologies being touted as the next new big thing to revolutionize the way we learn. Many of these technologies appear to be promising and in time may develop and evolve to find a home in education. There is one constant that can be seen through the analysis of education technology, adoption will take time and there will be growing pains as we implement new technologies into the classroom.

Readings:

  • Weller, M. (2018, August). Twenty Years of Edtech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/7/twenty-years-of-edtech
  • Zawacki-Richter, O., & Naidu, S. (2016). Mapping research trends from 35 years of publications in Distance Education. Distance Education, 37(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1185079
  • Peter, S., & Deimann, M. (2013). On the role of openness in education: A historical reconstruction. Open Praxis, 5(1), 7– 14. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.23

Games and Equity in the Classroom

After watching my classmates’ videos on varying topics of technology education research, I found myself most interested in gamification and digital equity. Both topics interest me for different reasons but I think both are important topics to consider in both the current and future state of education.

Gamification

Video games have been a household reality for many decades now and, in recent years with the advent of smart phones, video games have made their way into the classroom, whether educators like it or not. This new reality should not be despaired though, as it creates an opportunity for greater engagement for many students who would otherwise have little interest in more traditional forms of teaching/learning. When I was in high school (the age range I teach) I was very into video games. I have a pretty good memory of being bored to death in classes while being able to go home and play video games for hours on end. I did not interrogate this until much later in my life and I have found that video games offered something that school was not, letting me take control and explore at my own pace and with minimal pressure to perform perfectly.

Games in the classroom can take many forms, from being as simple as a Kahoot quiz, to open building with Minecraft, to scientific modeling/simulators. All of these examples are relevant but what a teacher needs to ask themselves before implementing a game is, “is it worth it? Does the game meet the students needs and is it effective beyond more traditional methods of educating?” These are not easy questions to answer and require some serious time and criticism of the game.

Games in Action

In the past I had a student who was struggling in my electronics class to complete some hands-on work addressing the application of digital electronics. The class took place in a computer lab and the student had been avoiding class work by playing Minecraft.  Fortunately, I knew a little bit about the game and knew that there was an aspect in the game that could be used very similar to digital electronics using switches. I asked the student if they wanted to use the game instead of doing it by hand to demonstrate the concepts being learned.  They were extremely happy to do that and ended up not only completing what I asked them to but also built upon it, expanding the scope of what they learned. I was very surprised at the success. It is important to note that not all students would initially have the same success as this student did. They were well versed with the game and did not require tutorials. In the end, I was glad to offer an option, even an out of the box one, to help the student learn and show the digital electronics concepts.

This example only worked because I and the student had a foundation in games and that game. If that had not been the case it would have likely not have been such a success. Therefore, it is important for educators to receive support and training in the implementation of gaming in the classroom. It is also important to select educational games that meet all students needs equitably. Most games are made in a way to be as accessible as possible but sometimes some students differing abilities may leave some behind and this needs to be factored into any gamification usage.

Digital Equity

Digital equity is a real concern in the public-school system. Students come from a range of backgrounds and have a range of varying abilities. This can quickly lead to some students having and some having not. To further compound this, most schools’ budgets for new tech is not high and often spent strictly on maintaining the current equipment rather than addressing new technology options.

Internet access has become nearly common place but in communities, such as in the one where I work, not every student has reliable internet at home. This limits options such as inline learning or flexible classrooms. The internet is a great thing to have access to, but internet literacy is still a thing being learned by adults, let alone kids. When I was growing up, I recall being told that anyone can write a book so make sure you think about it critically and don’t just believe it. That concept is a hundred-fold more important now with the internet and it is giving everyone with an opinion a platform to say whatever they wish, whether they know what they are talking about or not. This creates a very dangerous reality and can lead students to finding incorrect knowledge and believing it to be true.

Teachers and Technology

Teachers have a tough job at the best of times but add on keeping up with their discipline, their teaching methods, and new technologies and there is little time for a life outside of the job. Therefore, it is important for teachers to be supported when implementing new tech in the classroom by their administration. Without training, tech being put in the classroom is almost surely doomed to fail. Only the teachers most interested in the tech will likely put in the time and effort to learn and implement it.

Basic Principles Of Multimedia Learning (EDCI 570/71 Assignment) – Sean, Jeremy, Clay

In the introduction article, multimedia is defined by presenting both words (spoken or printed text) and pictures (illustrations, photos, animation or text). Multimedia teaching is presenting words and pictures that are intended to promote learning by building mental representation from words and pictures, in order to teach a deeper understanding of concepts rather than words alone. There are over 20 principles of multimedia instructional design .

 

Split-Attention Principle

The split attention principle happens when the learner must focus on two or more sources of instructional information simultaneously to understand the material. This in turn adds a stress to the cognitive load of the learner which slows the learning process. For example, a worksheet with instructions on one side of the page and a diagram on the other requires the learner to read the instructions, hold that knowledge, scan the diagram (while still holding that knowledge), and then attempt to apply/combine that knowledge with the diagram. If the concept is too complicated for the learner, their attempts at understanding the information may be slowed or halted.

By integrating separate instructional material into a single form, the cognitive load is lessened, and learning and performance generally increases. To build on the previous example an educator could take the information from one side of the page and break it into parts, applying it to the diagram when and where it is required to be the clearest. This in turn will allow the learner to focus in one place and see where that information will be applied as well.

There has been some interesting research done into the split attention principle. Some surprising research by Sweller and Chandler (1994) and Chandler and Sweller (1996) suggested that students learning to use a computer program who initially learned strictly from using integrated learning techniques and no computers met greater learning outcomes than students who learned using a computer-based information and a manual. This initially sounds counter intuitive to the learning process but demonstrates the effect split attention instruction can have on a learner.

 

Modality Principle 

The modality effect or principal exists when learning occurs through a mixed-mode (partly visual and partly auditory) presentation instead of a single mode of presentation. This creates a balance in the visual and auditory pathways and does not create an extraneous cognitive load.

  • Mousavi, Low and Sweller (1995 )The modality principle works under the same conditions of the split-attention principle.
  • It is essential that the auditory information is necessary to understand the visual information and that it is not redundant (Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller ( 2000 ).
  • Modality effect depends on the logical relationship between the sources of information and that the information is connected, similar to the split attention effect. 
  • Mayer & Moreno (1998) Modes that over-stimulate the visual or auditory pathways inhibits the learning process.
  • Using graphics and narration in lessons establishes a balance between visual and verbal channels, allowing processing in working memory. 
  • An example of the above, is showing a screenshot of information (graphic) and narrating (auditory) along with it which allows a balance between the visual and verbal processing channels. This allows for essential information to be processed and avoids creating an extraneous cognitive load. 
  • Alternatively, animations (graphic) grouped with only text (visual) can overload the visual channel making it much more difficult for the learner to process the information.   

With teachers using technology in the classroom it is important to keep the modality principle active in your practice. Children can easily become overwhelmed by stimulation from media and by controlling the modes by which information is communicated you increase the opportunities for successful learning. 

 

Redundancy Principle

The redundancy principle effect happens when information is presented in multiple forms simultaneously, such as a picture with words describing said picture. By adding further information to a full body of information learners may become confused.  A further example would be, adding a summarization to a full body of information. Excluding this info may be better for learning, by eliminating redundancy.

Much like the split-attention principle, having to coordinate resources (i.e. visual and audio) requires a heavy cognitive load and may prevent learning success. To prevent redundancy, any repeated information should be removed.

Often, educators feel that presenting information in varying forms is more advantageous (or at least neutral) to having only one. This assumption has been proven incorrect by current research into students and the cognitive loads they can handle during the learning process.  

 

Signaling principle

The signalling principle explains how a signal or cue can have a learner fixate on information that is deemed important or crucial in a topic. Fixating is a way to view how a learner can focus on one particular component of what they are trying to learn in order to lessen their cognitive load during a lesson.

While learning something which is delivered or supplemented with multimedia, a teacher can use the technological properties of the media to cue fixation. For example, a student could be presented with a diagram of an internal combustion engine. The first part of the lesson could be to learn what a piston is. Using an animation or slideshow, the main block of the engine could be greyed-out or fogged and only the details of the piston would remain.

Research was conducted to ascertain which method of multimedia signalling was the most beneficial to learning. Some examples are: Visual paragraphs with colored words, visual paragraphs with narration, pictures with colored portions, pictures with on-screen text bubbles…and so forth. 

The researchers found that there was no ‘perfect’ method for multimedia delivery, and suggested that it was likely that certain delivery methods would have their own best fit for use, depending on the content.

In relation to the theme of the chapter, I found it quite that this principle and research offered some answers to questions about multimedia learning, such as:

  • What are the consequences of adding pictures to words? 
  • What happens when instructional messages involve both verbal and visual modes of learning? 
  • What affects the way that people learn from words and pictures? 

However, I believe the most important part of the signalling principle research was the use of eye-tracking. When possible, researchers tracked the physical position and fixation of participants’ eyes in order to ascertain what cues they responded to. Mayer favors learner-centered approaches in regards to multimedia learning. Perhaps, in subsequent research, the development and improvement of eye tracking software could be used to answer his question “How can we adapt multimedia to enhance human learning?”

 

Click here to watch explanatory video

Research, Technology, and the Classroom

This week I read K-12 online learning journal articles: trends from two decades of scholarship by Arnesen et al, Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016 by Qing-Ke et al, and Developing an Understanding of the Impact of Digital Technologies on Teaching and Learning in an Ever-Changing Landscape by Voogt et al. These articles/chapters offered insight into the trends of research in the last two decades in relation to technology in the classroom. They offered insight into important topics such as group demographics, group size, tech and mental load, and technology and the teaching profession. The articles offer a interesting look into how educational technology is being researched, by who, and what methods they are using to do it.

Research on Technology in the Classroom:

It is suggested in the articles that there is a growing trend for technology in education and that the trend will continue to grow in the coming years. This mean that educators need to be aware of what their options are and know how to implement them. This sounds easier than it is as technologies can come and go so quickly that it can be difficult to know what will stick around and what won’t. I personally hesitate to jump on a new technology until it proves itself and finds a footing in the field. There are many reasons for this, but a large factor is prep time and school budget restraints. Ultimately, this growing trend for tech in education will require more research into education technology which means a growing need for more researchers.

One thing that struck as interesting when reading the articles is how a relatively small group of authors can have such a large impact on an area of study. As educational technology in its modern form is relatively new it is to be expected that there would be few contributors to researching in the discipline. They are assets to their area of study, but I feel the subject matter would be better served with more input from a more well-rounded group of researchers to allow the introduction of other approaches to the subject matter. This opinion is not to take away from the work researchers have done and are doing. More collaboration and sharing of different ideas and take on the subject would help broaden the research in the area.  After all, is it not the take of the authors to encourage collaborative learning?

In recent years there has been extra emphasis put on collaborative learning in education circles. This is generally a positive thing as it is realistic of most jobs and careers students will take on in adulthood. There are very few jobs where you don’t work with others in some capacity to a goal. It also allows students to socialize and work together to overcome problem or achieve a goal. The struggle most teachers run into is deciding how to best make up said groups for the best learning dynamics.

Group Demographics and Size:

Research into group lessons using tech has found that most teachers group students of similar knowledge levels in the same groups to maximize their learning potential. This allows the students to make learning progress without retreading old, already learned, territory. In my robotics classroom we group up often to take on challenges. Usually I try mix my groups levels of skill, knowledge, and learning styles despite the research focusing on otherwise. My reasoning is that a mixed group will allow the more knowledgeable students to take on a leadership role and share their knowledge with the others in the group. Also, having students with different skills and approaches is well suited to robotics as there are many roles that need to be taken on and requires many different types of skills. For example, a robotics competition requires a team to build a robot, program it, journal daily progress, and even raise funding for parts and trips. I have not met a student yet who could take on all those roles by themselves. I couldn’t do it myself either. This is where having a diverse group helps. It is unfortunate that there isn’t more research into students being grouped based on their learning styles.

Most research shows teachers usually group students into pairs or groups of 4, allowing for students to pair off. Most teachers avoid not have larger groups for fear of student redundancy, but it is suggested that technology allows for extra students to remain involved, via self learning, despite a groups size. This is under the assumption that the student is engaged to begin with. It also allows a student who is less social an easy way out of group work. I find large groups to be overwhelming and without someone taking charge of organizing, students become lost or choose to slip through the cracks.

I have found in my robotics class that when doing group work which utilizes technology that I have to have groups of preferably 4 because robots are expensive, and my budget cannot cover having one for each student or even for them to work in pairs with one robot to share. Furthermore, 4 makes a good number because it allows everyone to have a job, whether that be robot builder, programmer, leader, or documentation keeper/organizer. There is also room for those four students to do a little of all the other jobs as well, of course.

Mobile Learning and Mental Load

There is little research about mobile collaborative learning that focus’ on cognitive load and learning anxiety often attributed to subjects like mathematics. Focus is generally on sciences and social sciences where learning is generally more relaxed and freer. Although I do feel more research needs to be done in this area, I am curious if the overall cognitive load and anxieties around math, even without mobile learning, already suggests an answer. Most students are very stressed about mathematics, even without technologies involvement. Student depending, I’m not sure adding mobile tech would alleviate that.

Technology and Teaching

It is disappointing that there is little research into teacher and professional development using mobile technology. It seems backwards and perhaps a little hypocritical to not implement tech in the profession and then expect it in the classroom. There are likely a couple factors as to why this is the case. First, if the teacher and administration are not prepared to buy into such a thing then it will never happen. Last year our school introduced an app for students and teachers to use to keep track of students for a “focus block,” a class where students can go to any teacher for extra help or special lessons. Fortunately, the school embraced the app and it is now in its second year running. Meanwhile another school in the district did not so lovingly embrace the app and this year they have discontinued its use.

 

References:

Arnesen, K.T., Hveem, J., Short, C.R. West, R.E.  & Barbour, M.K.  (2019) K-12 online learning journal articles: trends from two decades of scholarship, Distance Education, 40(1), 32-53, https://DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2018.1553566

Qing-Ke Fu, Q-K., & Hwang, G-J. (2018). Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016.  Computers & Education, 119, pp. 129-143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.004.

Voogt, J., Knezak, G., Christensen, R., & Lai, K-W. (2018). Developing an Understanding of the Impact of Digital Technologies on Teaching and Learning in an Ever-Changing Landscape. In J. Voogt, G. Knezak, R. Christensen, & K-W, Lai (Eds.) Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, pp. 3-12. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9

Battle of the Education Technology Models

Koehler & Mishra’s Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge model (better know as TPACK) presents a method for teachers to develop technology into their teaching practice while trying to maintain a balance of its primary elements: technology, pedagogy, content, and knowledge. By understanding TPACK’s main principals a teacher will be better able to understand the different types of technology levels, when they should be best utilized, and how. These levels are outlined in Romrell, Kidder, & Wood’s Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition model (SAMR).

 

TPACK Model: Koehler, M & Mishra, P. (2009)

 

The SAMR model is broken into its four core sections:

Substitution – Technology is used as a substitute for a lesson with no real change to the way the lesson is done.

Augmentation – Technology is used as a substitute for a lesson with functional changes to the way the lesson is done.

Modification – Technology allows for a redesign of the lesson

Redefinition – Technology allows for the lesson to be done in a way it could not have been done without the technology

SAMR, as outlined by its authors, breaks down the varying levels in which technology can be applied to a lesson or learning activity. If applied correctly SAMR and TPACK can work well together in guiding educators to finding and implementing tech into their classroom.  But that does not mean that everything that SAMR and TPACK offer is appropriate or correct.

When reading about how the authors of SAMR felt it should be implemented I felt they went a little too far and were rigid in their assessments.  They claim that redefinition, and to a lesser extent modification, are what educators should be always striving to achieve in their technology focused lessons. I hesitate to agree with them under the principle that it is important not to lose sight of the goals of your lesson/exercise. If the goal is to learn the tech, then these focus’ may be appropriate but otherwise it is possible for the tech to suddenly overshadow the point of the lesson. When building a lesson with tech a teacher should ask themselves, is the tech distracting from the point of the lesson and the research methods? If so, it may be necessary to reassess the use of said tech. The SAMR model appears to focus on the tech over the learning goals/outcomes and that is why it needs to be paired with the TPACK model.  Together, an educator will have a guideline in which to assess and implement tech into their curriculum.

SAMR further pushes mLearning as the future of tech in the classroom. I mostly agree with the merits of the technology and do see in the future a greater implementation of the tech but, for now, we are limited by budget and equity concerns.  Schools have limited budgets and, in the school I teach at, a device is not supplied or available for every student. Because of this, their can be a divide among the students who have devices and those who do not. Due to this reason I occasionally hesitate to endorse the strict use of mobile learning without a way for the “have not” students to participate as well.

MLearning does have its advantages as outlined by Romrell, Kidder, & Woods. Mobile devices do allow for students to be situated and connected with a personalized device of their own. This can help students learn quicker and with more familiarity than if they used an unfamiliar device. A drawback of personalization is that students can have apps and games on their devices that distract from the learning process. Most students I have interacted with can overcome the temptation to play games but there are a few that cannot make it through a class without playing one much to the detriment of their engagement and education.

 

Romrell, Kidder, & Woods (2014)

 

It’s important to remember that the realities of teaching are that most educators are generally not well versed in making mobile apps or building with technology and it is not reasonable to expect them to be. Teachers can utilize apps and tech, but it is unlikely they will have the time, resources, or knowledge to create them. Most teachers are at the mercy of tech developers and generally they are not giving their products away without a price tag or other monetary motives which can open up questions of ethics among other things.

TPACK offers the superior model for implementing tech into lessons when compared to SAMR. SAMR does have its merits in outlining what levels of tech implementation are available and what they are. The real challenge id for educators to apply the correct level of tech with the pedagogical goals of their lessons.

To conclude I will leave you with this quote from Koehler & Mishra (2009):

“Teaching with technology is a difficult thing to do well. The TPACK framework suggests that content, pedagogy, technology, and teaching/learning contexts have roles to play individually and together. Teaching successfully with technology requires continually creating, maintaining, and re-establishing a dynamic equilibrium among all components.”

 

References:

Hamilton, E.R., Rosenberg, J.M. & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and Suggestions for its Use.

Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education.  https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/29544/.

Romrell, D., Kidder, L.C., Wood, E. (2014).The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Online Learning Journal, 18(2).https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1036281.pdf

TechTrends 60(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

The Relationship of Educational Instruction and Technology

Clark and Kozma’s great media debate raises the question, does the medium in which instruction is given effect the learning of students or is it instructional method that dictates a lessons success? It’s an intriguing question that I believe both Clark and Kozma make good points to back up their respective arguments. These arguments were last made in the mid-nineties and now, in a much more technological age, Becker chimes in with their opinion focusing on games used for educational purposes.

Clark, Kozma, and Becker’s Positions

Clark sees media as a tool to present instruction in a more efficient manner.  He further adds that media does not influence learning under any circumstance. Media may save money, time, and be convenient but it is only traditional instructional methods being implemented to a new medium.

Kozma argues to the contrary of Clark saying, a student’s style of learning can be best suited using specific types of media and help an educator present information in a meaningful and more understandable way than if using other forms of media or tradition education methods.

Becker adds to the argument that a good educational game requires both good educational design and game design. They cannot be forced onto each other. So, it is more than using traditional instructional methods and becomes its own entity.

Reflections on the Debate

Upon initially reading Clark’s position I felt that what he was saying made sense to a point.  Certainly, traditional instructional methods are reused and adapted to new medias. I think it is fair to say that educators don’t want an emphasis on medium over instruction. Often when this happens, the new technology is embraced and then quickly fades into obscurity. Tradition instructional methods have their merits and need to be considered when using various mediums for the best learning outcomes. It is still important to the learning process that information be demonstrated, learned, and then applied in some relevant manner.

Kozma’s position felt more insightful and predictive of what future technology was going to have to offer education in the coming years. It’s important to recognize that not all students learn the same way and that some methods are more engaging than others. Essentially, different methods can have better results in important ways. I know in my practice, that students respond far better to me showing them a concept rather than talking about it.  Arguably, new media can be used in a way of showing/doing a lesson that essentially ups the ante. Students become more engaged, it allows them to participate or even, gods forbid, be entertained, with the lesson.

We are in a very different age than the mid 90’s when Clark and Kozma were having their “Great Media Debate.” Then, the internet was a baby and household computers were not overly common. Now, we have smart phones and portable gaming devices. Students are surrounded by competing mobile entertainment! As an educator it can be difficult to keep student’s attention when they can check social media on their phone and interact with their friends whenever they want via text message. Educators have an uphill battle at times. Employing the same or similar media to educate, or fighting fire with fire, may be required to combat this new reality.

Adding to the debate Becker points out, and I think Kozma would agree, there is a reason that NASA employs simulation machines and doesn’t just require astronauts to only read up on spacecraft control theory.  Interactive mediums offer the opportunity allow practice and skills growth when it otherwise could not be done or would not be cost effective.

Booker further notes that gamification in education is not only an alteration of instructional methods. Gamification utilizes traditional instructional methods, but it requires a serious understanding of how a good video game is made to make a good/effective educational game. Even standard entertainment-based video games use (usually subtle) instruction to teach the user how to navigate the game. But games can take on a life of their own.  You are no longer a passive learner. You are making the learning happen, you are a part of it, and I think that is the key point to understand. Educational video games allow the user/learner to be actively engaged in a way no other medium does.

References:

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 42 (2),  21-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development. 42 (2), 17-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087

Becker, K. (2010). The Clark-Kozma Debate in the 21stCentury. Paper presented at the Canadian Network for Innovation in Education 2010 Conference. Published under Creative Commons. (http://mruir.mtroyal.ca:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11205/143/clark_kozma_21century.pdf?sequence=1)