Search

Technology is not an event, its just part of the everyday learning! -quotesgram.com

ESC407 Classroom Technologies

Week 6 (1 of 4) – Internet based resources – Netiquette

netiquette picture.jpg

Image retrieved from http://www.mannersmanor.com/?page_id=48

When reflecting on which of the five topics to focus on for this week’s post I found it challenging to decide which I would focus on; because there is so much crossover between them all. The underlying commonality is that they are all important to be aware off and that relevant knowledge be taught and demonstrated by teachers to allow students to make informed online decisions; to demonstrating “Netiquette” (Roblyer & Doering, 2014, p.241).

Netiquette or internet etiquette is defined by Mintu-Wimsatt, Kernek & Lozada (2010) as a way of defining professionalism through network communication (p.2). These skills will be beneficial for students throughout their learning, work life and outside school online interactions. Students understanding and demonstration of netiquette will provide a strong ethical platform of skills to equip students to respond to inappropriate materials found online, security and privacy issues, fraud, computer viruses, hacking , copyright and plagiarism.

Applying netiquette in the classroom and mandating this conduct will act as a mechanism to help mitigate issues associated with technology integration. It is suggested by Roblyer & Doering (2014, p.263) that netiquette could help prevent cyber bullying. Ensuring a class understands netiquette and is willing to act honestly and respectfully; will allow teachers to address and teach students to make informed online decisions and actively avoid issues, risks and being harmful online. Lombard & Porto (2010) suggest that the focus should be on educating individuals about Internet safety and proper use; understanding the potential threats is more important than restrictions or banning sites or particular technology use (p.218). Further evidence from surveys conducted by Luckin, Clark, Graber, Logan, Mee & Oliver (2009) state that web filtering policies are too restrictive suggesting teachers find such restrictions can exclude the use of valuable teaching resources such as educational content found on YouTube (p.99).

Mintu-Wimsatt, Kernek & Lozada (2010, p.3) referred to a guide of suggested netiquette rules that can be applied or adapted for classroom use:

* Do not dominate any discussion. Give other students the opportunity to join in the discussion.

* Do not use offensive language. Present ideas appropriately.

* Be cautious in using Internet language. For example, do not capitalize all letters since this suggests shouting.

* Avoid using vernacular and/or slang language. This could possibly lead to misinterpretation.

* Never make fun of someone’s ability to read or write.

* Share tips with other students.

* Keep an “open-mind” and be willing to express even your minority opinion. Minority opinions have to be respected.

* Think and edit before you push the “Send” button.

* Do not hesitate to ask for feedback.

* Using humor is acceptable but be careful that it is not misinterpreted. For example, are you being humorous or sarcastic?

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1497197786?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

A valuable netiquette teaching resource I have located is a Netiquette quiz (Learn the Net. n.d). I recommend taking the quiz yourselves to test what we know and experience this task as our students will.

References:

Learn the Net. n.d. The Netiquette Quiz. Retrieved from http://www.learnthenet.com/test-yourself/netiquette/index.php

Lombard, R., & Porto, S. 2010. Technology Leadership in Teacher Education: Integrated Solutions and Experiences: Integrated Solutions and Experiences. Chapter 13 Web 2.0 in the classroom.

Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. 2009. Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16‐year‐old students, Learning, Media and Technology.

Mintu-Wimsatt, A., Kernek, C,. Lozada, H. 2010. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Netiquette: Make it Part of Your Syllabus. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1497197786?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. 2014. Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: International Edition, 6th Edition, Pearson. ISBN: 978-1-292-02208-6

 

Advertisements

Week 5 (2 of 2)- Technology integration

 

tech intergration pic.jpg

Image retrieved form http://www.123rf.com/photo_16500579_abstract-word-cloud-for-technology-integration-with-related-tags-and-terms.html

Technology integration within schools has a range of benefits and associated challenges. As described by Soujah (2014) “Technology is an effective pedagogic tool if properly administered” (p.445). Technology is always changing and being updated swiftly, resulting in the challenge for teacher to stay abreast of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Roblyer & Doering (2014) recommend technology plans should be in place at schools to help support yearly upgrades and keep resources current and useful (p.79). As teachers we have a duty of care to our students to provide learning to allow for the development of lifelong learners (Soujah 2014, p.446). Naturally using technology to enable learning in this day and age is a given, however as teachers the question is how do we analysis and assess digital resources as suitable for the classroom.

Using the TIP and TPACK models provides a strong governance framework for teachers to support sourcing and applying effective use of technologies within the classroom. Roblyer & Doering (2014) suggested that the combination of applying Tech- PACK and TIP together supports purposeful technology integration (p.78).

TPACK supports the justification and knowledge levels required to integrate different  technologies in the classroom. Although this brings a range of challenges for teachers to test and trail software and hardware for their classrooms along with balancing subject specific knowledge. Harris & Hofer (2014) Teachers planning must consider students learning needs, available technologies affordance and constraints, the realities of school and classroom context (p.211).

The following Youtube video “Talking TPACK with Dr. Punya Mishra” (Green, 2014) interview hosted by Tim Green provides some interesting and honest insights into applying the TPACK framework:

A summary of the key points made by Dr. Punya Mishra about the TPACK framework include:

  • TPACK helps to define teaching goals
  • Build in the use of technology in teaching around the pedagogy problem and have the technology solution address these problems
  • Connecting technologies to enable learning specific to the teaching area.
  • Teachers can use the TPACK framework as a way of questioning (i.e. is the technology connected to the way we want the subject to be taught?) (Green, 2014).

References:

Green, T. 2014. Talking TPACK with Dr. Punya Mishra [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/wn4ElDeZQeM

Soujah, S. 2014. Technology Integration in Schools Is We Overinvested and Underprepared?. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. Retrieved from http://www.ijiet.org/papers/447-EI3001.pdf

Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. 2014. Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: International Edition, 6th Edition, Pearson. ISBN: 978-1-292-02208-6

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. 2014. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Action: A Descriptive Study of Secondary Teachers’ Curriculum-Based, Technology-Related Instructional Planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education.

Week 5 (1 of 2) – Technology in the curriculum

 

Tech-Inspired-Fashion picture.png

Image retrieved from http://www.ebuyer.com/blog/2014/07/roundup-tech-inspired-fashion/

In order to summaries this week’s reading, I have approached my blog post in a format to capture my own brainstorm and to organise my ideas about hardware and software within my teaching area (Design and Technology). The table below has been set out in three sections to capture hardware, images & visuals and inspiration sources & websites. As suggested by Roblyer & Doering (2014) over time technology has provided tools, materials, and processes to support artists’ creative expression (p.384). The way that we harness and implement each technology within the classroom will always vary based on students needs, learning outcomes and the context of the subject area.

Hardware in the Design and Technology classroom Sewing machine

3D printer

Interactive white board

Scanner and printer

Digital camera/bring your own device

All hardware will be applied to support learning in the Design and Technology classroom. Either to facilitate learning, scaffold learning or be operated by students individually or in groups to achieve learning outcomes.
Images & visuals edraw

Google sketch

Adobe Photoshop

PowerPoint

Powtoon

iMovie (or movie maker for Microsoft)

Final Cut Pro X

Adobe Premiere 

Software tools that support creating and manipulating graphic material to support learning. Students will likely have a preference on the software they work with. Roblyer & Doering (2014) suggests that Photoshop is an excellent example of using technology to foster creativity (p.397).
Inspiration sources & websites Pinterest

World of Wearableart

Fabriclink

WordPress (to create blogs)

Wikispace

The world wide web has a wealth of sources for visual inspiration, these are a few suggestions. Blogs can serve as a great way for students to capture digital portfolios of their work. Along with the visual nature of Pinterest provides an interesting platform for engaging learners (BBC Active 2010).

When applying technology within the classroom; it is always important to reflect on technology integration, student’s needs (including special education) and the content/curriculum requirements. Using the Tech-PACK methodology is a way to review, assess and enhance lesson plans to meet the unique needs of each students (Roblyer & Doering, 2014, p.446).

References:

BBC Active. 2010. Using Pinterest for Education Retrieved from http://www.bbcactive.com/BBCActiveIdeasandResources/UsingPinterestforEducation.aspx

Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. 2014. Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: Pearson New International Edition. ISBN: 978-1-292-02208-6

 

Week 4 (4 of 4) – QR Codes

 

QR-codes picture.jpg

Image retrieved from http://www.qrcodepress.com/qr-codes-will-complete-hdfc-bank-mobile-payment-transactions/8530485/

In my opinion QR codes they are both a fad and a useful tool. QR codes could be a useful tool in the classroom if applied effectively, as suggested by Karen Mensing in The magic of QR codes in the classroom (Mensing, 2013). Mesing (2013) states that “if used appropriately, QR codes have the potential to awaken a student, transform a lesson and bring down the walls of your classroom creating the ultimate 21st century learning opportunity”. The other side of the argument is that over time the interest level from students could diminish; therefore using effectively to promote active learning is critical. Sound judgment by the teacher is required to determine when they are most appropriately applied with pedagogy and to assess the level of interest from students when applied in learning contexts. There use may continue for many years to come or they may become redundant by other new/improved or different technologies. Which stresses the need for teachers to stay abreast with latest and greatest technologies; to determine when and how they might enhance learning outcomes or learning experiences.

To highlight the most interesting teacher suggestions from Kathy Schrock’s QR codes in the classroom (Schrock, 2016) relevant in my teaching area of Design and Technology are:

  • Adding QR Codes to students homework which link to video tutorials to help students if they are stuck on the problems.
  • Creating an interactive art show.
  • To promote the art room and website. All displays has a QR code with the display to take the viewer to information about the art history, culture or artist. (Schrock, 2016)

References:

Mensing, K. 2013. The magic of QR codes in the classroom [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRgWRXFXLQs

Schrock, K. 2016. Kathy Schrock’s guide to everything. QR codes in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.schrockguide.net/qr-codes-in-the-classroom.html

 

Week 4 (3 of 4) – Bring Your Own Device

byod

Image retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141007090833-288437041-smb-s-boost-productivity-with-byod

The Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy is an interesting approach to integrating technology across schools and more and more commonly within work places. Some benefits and challenges are outlined below:

Benefits

BYOD is a tool that provides access to information quicker and more broadly than ever before. With just the click of the mouse learner’s can engage with information much quicker than previous times (DEAG, 2013, p. 36).

Knowledge has become accessible through many sources, for most the easiest and quickest way to access knowledge is via a portable device. Adhikari, Mathrani & Parsons (2015) refer to these digital skills as the third most important life skills together with numeracy and literacy (p.1).

Sharples, Adams, Ferguson, Gaved, McAndrew, Rienties, Weller & Whitelock (2014) suggests an additional benefit is that teachers can create online polls where students respond immediately in a lesson via their web-enabled devices (p.18). But interacting and engaging students via their devices this supports formal and informal learning and allows “students to become more independent in their information seeking” (p.18).

Challenges

Security issues associated with BYOD are software updates, the use of public wifi, loss of data and personal information through hacking. Roblyer & Doering (2014) suggest schools must constantly educate teachers and students on strategies to prevent such attacks (p.28).

The Beyond the Classroom: A new Digital Education for young Australians in the 21st Century (DEAG, 2013) report states that in order sustain BYOD support material need to be refined by government for interoperability, technical and ethical standards (p.16).

Sharples, Adams, Ferguson, Gaved, McAndrew, Rienties, Weller & Whitelock (2014) also suggest further challenges include disadvantaged learners; if they cannot afford the multimedia devices needed to participate fully, or if they have to monitor and restrict their data usage (p.19).

Overall the BYOD is a policy to help facilitate learning, by encouraging a device as a learning tool. Teachers will always need to consider and apply effective learning and teaching pedagogy to support everyday social learning in the classroom (Sharples, Adams, Ferguson, Gaved, McAndrew, Rienties, Weller & Whitelock 2014 p.19).

References:

Adhikari, J., Mathrani, A., & Parsons, D. 2015. Bring Your Own Devices Classroom: Issues of Digital Divides in Teaching and Learning Contexts.

Digital Education Advisory Group. 2013. Beyond the classroom: A new digital education for young Australians in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/deag_beyond_the_classroom_2013.pdf

Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. 2014. Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: Pearson New International Edition. ISBN : 978-1-292-02208-6

Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. 2014. Innovating Pedagogy 2014: Open University Innovation Report 3. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/iet/main/sites/www.open.ac.uk.iet.main/files/files/ecms/web-content/Innovating_Pedagogy_2014.pdf

Week 4 (2 of 4) – Interactive Whiteboard

iwb

Image retrieved from http://deweycsi.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/a-massive-lobbyist-driven-smartboard.html

Whilst I have no hands on experience in using an Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) I can present my informed opinion on using and applying the IWB in an educational context. Some benefits and challenges in effectively applying the IWB in the learning context are outlined below:

Benefits

The benefits of the IWB, most commonly reported are the value in displaying and working with visuals aids, flexibility in learning and the acquisition of knowledge and increased students engagement.

McKendrick & Bowden 1999; Smith & Blankinship 2000 share as cited in (Winzenried, Dalgarno & Tinkler, 2010) that various researchers have highlighted the capabilities of the IWB in displaying visual representations as being of major importance for learning, consistent with earlier studies exploring the value of visual representation more broadly for learning (p.535).

Lacina (2009) shares that applying the IWBs in the classroom meets the needs of visual learners (p.271). Based on my own personal experience in the learning environment and as a visual thinker the IWBs would have provided very beneficial to my learning style.

Challenges

The challenges of the IWB, most commonly reported are there cost, wide range of issues associated with the range of boards available and their impact on teaching pedagogy.

Winzenried, Dalgarno & Tinkler (2010) share that there are two main types of IWBs seen in schools the Smartboard and the Panasonic board. Stating that the key difference being that Panasonic boards requires the use of a special pen, whereas Smartboards could be used either with a purpose designed pen or with a finger (p.539). Lacina (2009) makes a great point in the drawbacks of the IWBs include the cost of equipping classrooms with the technology (p.271).

Whilst there are arguments in how IWB’s can be applied in teaching. Winzenried, Dalgarno & Tinkler (2010) shared that a teacher had attended a number of professional development activities run by the NSW Department of Education and Training, but felt that he needed time to immerse himself in a project to really learn to use it well (p.541). As a result of implementing the IWB in schools there is an expectation that teachers are skilled up in the functionality in order to apply them effectively in an educational context.

References:

Lacina, J. 2009. Technology in the Classroom. Interactive whiteboards: Creating higher-level, technological thinkers? Childhood Education. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=RELEVANCE&docType=Essay&prodId=EAIM&tabID=T002&searchId=R2&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&contentSegment=&currentPosition=1&searchResultsType=SingleTab&inPS=true&userGroupName=csu_au&docId=GALE%7CA198931292&contentSet=GALE%7CA198931292&authCount=1&u=csu_au

Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. 2010. The Interactive Whiteboard: A Transitional Technology Supporting Diverse Teaching Practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.

Week 4 (1 of 4) – Learning Theories

learning theories.png

Image retrieved from http://www.harapnuik.org/?tag=learning-theories

Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism are all learning theories that provide a lot or some benefit to most learners at any one point in time. The point that I would like to stress most is that shared by Dr George Siemens in Overview of connectivism (Siemens, n.d) and Connectivism: Socializing Open Learning (Siemens, n.d) that is the importance of knowing our students, connecting concepts and ideas to drive meaningful learning. The logic and theory that underpins teaching pedagogy is never a one size fits all, the need to be flexible in understanding individual learning styles of students in our classrooms and sets the critical foundation in learning. Starkey (2012) shares the idea that knowledge can underpin learning theories and pedagogical practice which therefore can influence teaching and learning (p.26).

Learning is a process; an individual process that each student will create their own version of by applying their own knowledge and experiences. Duke, Harper & Johnston (2013) state that a learning theory tries to classify what is known about learning (p.6). Starkey (2012) states that “teachers commonly switch between different teaching strategies and draw on a range of learning theories, however their core values and beliefs about knowledge, how students learn and the role of the teacher will influence the goals of their teaching and their pedagogical decision making” (p.24).

Siemens (2005) shares that connectivism provides insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners to flourish in a digital era. In an ever changing global environment with interaction via the web and social networks the needs of education is shifting, the priority for teachers is to determine students needs and foster their learning in a way that prepares them for their futures in the workplace and an informed citizen.

References:

Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. 2013. Connectivism as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Review, 4-13.

Siemens, G. 2005. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Siemens, G. n.d. Connectivism: Socializing Open Learning [Video file]. Retreived from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqL_lsogeNU

Siemens, G. n.d.Overview of connectivism [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx5VHpaW8sQ

Starkey, L. 2012. Teaching and learning in the digtial age. Oxon: Routledge.

Week 3 (3 of 3)- Software in the classroom

software-pic

Image retrieved from http://www.metanoiasolutions.net/coe/testing/

When should students start word processing?

Children are usually exposed to word processing at a reasonably young age as they work through speech development and onto written skills. The use of devices at a young age will help children develop and mature their word processing skills much earlier than I did as growing up. Roblyer & Doering (2014) suggest schools can introduce word processing to students as young as 4 or 5 years old (p.136).

Is it necessary to teach keyboarding skills?

It is important for students to develop and maintain their foundations skills, foundation meaning the skills that are needed to participate a class lessons. An article called The Importance of Teaching ‘Traditional’ Typing Skills in 2015  (Lee 2015) discuss how schools have begun to assume keyboarding skills from students. Lee (2015) states “this assumption has led to a situation where students are coming into their classrooms without the keyboarding abilities they need, and leaving the classroom equally unprepared for further educational or professional development”.

What effect does world processing have on handwriting?

Handwriting has become less and less common as we move into the digital future. Roblyer & Doering (2014)  suggest that “computer users commonly complain that their handwriting isn’t what it used to be, ostensibly because of infrequent opportunities to use their hand- writing skills” (p.136). The fact that handwriting is becoming less common means that some may perceive it as an unnecessary skill. Roblyer & Doering (2014) refers to handwriting being seen as labor (p.66) and a time consuming manual skill (p.70).

What impact does word processing have on assessment?

Word processing in some cases and certainly in my experience, can create a barrier between how thoughts and ideas are expressed. I personally still enjoy jotting down my ideas on a post-it note through its development stage until I can form my idea into a statement, hand writing allows me to think and explore ideas on a more personal level. Roblyer (1997) as cited in (Roblyer & Doering 2014 p.136)  reviewed research that found that students’ word-processed compositions tend to receive lower grades than handwritten ones.

Is the auto correction of spelling a problem?

Auto correct can be seen as a problem, I’m sure we have all experienced issues with a word changed by spell check this is incorrect. Spell check can play a role in identifying potential grammatical issues which should then be seen to by its author to analysis and determine its true context. Roblyer & Doering (2014) suggests “teachers and students must be aware of this built-in feature and either turn it off or proofread even more carefully” (p.136).

Reference:

Lee, C. 2015. Emerging EdTech. The Importance of Teaching ‘Traditional’ Typing Skills in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.emergingedtech.com/2015/02/teaching-traditional-typing-skills/

Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. 2014. Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: International Edition, 6th Edition, Pearson. ISBN: 978-1-292-02208-6

 

Week 3 (2 of 3)- Affordance

 

affordance-picture

Image retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/competence-frameworks-european-approach-teach-and-learn-21st-century-skills

Affordance describes the features that a piece of software or hardware has in order to achieve a particular outcome or enable a particular learning. Laffey (2005) as cited in (Bower 2008, p.8) shares “that educational designers should focus on both selecting collaborative technologies that match the pedagogy of the instruction and design instructional practices that take advantage of the technological tools.“

My version of how affordance can be applied, is through a criteria based approach. To analyse the software or hardware’s scope to identify what learning outcomes this can provide and equally as important to identify the gaps.  For example affordance may be meet in the way that a piece of software allows students to share their ideas however it may not provide the ability to author or document an ideas, these two pieces of software teamed together may then met an appropriate level of affordance. Bower (2008) suggests that affordance is present as long as the organism is physically able to undertake the required action (p.4).

References:

Bower, M. 2008. Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International. 45:1, 3-15, DOI: 10.1080/09523980701847115

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑