EDCI 571-Research in Ed Tech

October 9, 2019

EDCI 571- Assignment#1D- Videopalooza

First of all, I would like to commend everyone in the class on some amazing videos. I truly enjoyed seeing the different avenues every group took towards creating and disseminating their ideas and learning areas. I will look at the videos, and group write-ups, on a case-by-case basis:

Trevor and Emily:

There were a couple of points on your presentation that resonated with me, but none more than the idea that the new technology incorporated in the classroom has to be compatible with the teacher’s pedagogy, abilities, and beliefs. This is imperative for the tech, in my opinion, to be functional and well incorporated in a meaningful way, into the classroom. Thank you for looking into this and providing a great synopsis.

Sean, Jeremy, and Clay:

“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.” I agree with this statement as there can be disadvantages to too much tech. I loved the way you decided to film outside (though you looked quite cold). This was a valuable learning experience for me and I appreciated the video very much.

Tracey and MacKenzie:

Thank you for the look into the world of maker spaces. I agree with the idea that the reason that we are doing these things must meet most of the list you presented, to have relative validity in our practice. I find that the new curriculum in BC lends us to go into these spaces more freely.

Joanna, Nicole, and Hayley:

I love a good debate. I agree digital equity needed to layout the black-and-white issues before coming into the more gray area that is the reality of the situation. I believe that the issues are more based on the school and their resources, as you said. I would also like to put forward, that the administration in a school/district can have a huge impact on the level of tech in the school based on its perceived priority.

Jerry and Rhyanon:

Distance learning and accessibility/flexibility are huge concerns moving forward. With the internet, the idea behind access to education is growing. I would like to look at the way that Tech is affecting my classroom. In my Senior Humanities class, the students being able to share their projects with me, using google docs, has afforded them the ability to work on the bus on the way home or in the car on the way to tournaments. They are loving the idea that they have access to all their work and don’t need the actual computer programs we offer to work on assignments. In that vein, I try to use as many open-source programs as possible in my lab so the students can get them at home for no cost and continue to work. Thank you for the presentation.

Heidi, Lawrence, Dale, and Rene:

The award goes to you. A great way of making learning fun and accessible. I truly enjoyed the whole video. “The pictures and posts that people put into their profiles or news feeds are constructions, and these constructions most often do not accurately represent their true selves.” That is a very important aspect of the new digital age. As tech increases and access to information increases exponentially, we are struggling to teach students not only what is true, but in fact, what is actually real. When I am teaching my Grade 8 students the Liquify tool in Photoshop, I make sure that I bring up the picture of Jennifer Lawrence and explain how media distorts what is real to create an unattainable reality.

Faune, Leanne, and Rochelle:

I think the following quote from your pamphlet, “The next generation must be taught how to use technology positively and how to be critical when given an abundance of online information”, says it all. As I have mentioned previously in this post, we are in an information-rich world. How do we teach discernment and not blind faith in the information presented?

Cheryl, Heather, and Ben:

I love how you presented as you were exceptionally hindered by the 1000’s of km that separated you. I appreciated what you were discussing. “ Teachers need to get involved in developing and designing assessments and developments need to be shared through Open Educational Resources so progress can be made more quickly”. I echo this sentiment. Teachers PLC is not defined by buildings anymore and the desire to engage online and create positive change to assessments, in real-time (relatively), would increase the efficacy of what is seen as assessment among like-minded classroom needs and goals.

Great job everyone and thank you for the knowledge. I truly enjoyed this project and hope to see more like it, in my humble opinion.

Andrew Vogelsang

September 23, 2019

Assignment #1C 571- 2 Models and 1 Vision

Photo by Hal Gatewood on Unsplash

Technology is key in the modern classroom, that much is clear. The ability to engage more learners in a more diverse way is fundamental in the classroom today. There are many theories out there, as to how technology could be used in the classroom, and the efficacy of these theories are up for debate. However, if we believe that technology can enhance learning, and we believe that technology is becoming more prevalent and essential in modern education, than we must look at the ideas behind these 2 models, and their ability to help each of us, as both learners and teachers.Students learn in different ways, that has always been clear and this understanding has led to the differentiation of learning. Furthermore, teachers styles, and technological abilities, are just as diverse, and must also be taken into account when implementing tech in the classroom. I have told first year teachers in my building, that the most important thing, in my opinion, is that they be themselves and teach the way they teach, not how I, or others, teach. Authenticity is very important in teaching. Therefore, the key is to find a model that works for you.

Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a very interesting take on the idea of separating content, technology and pedagogy. I, as a tech teacher, generally look at this triad through a tech vein. Let’s look at an example from my class on making a poster for an event. I look at the new and older tech and see its possibilities and downfalls. I will then look at the content that I am trying to teach, poster creation. After that I look at how I am going to teach that content to a whole class of diverse learners, where they get to complete the project at their own level. If I allowed myself to be stuck to one software, I would be in trouble, as the abilities of learners and the software I choose may create challenges for some and limits for others. Therefore, I generally offer different software (Adobe In-Design, Microsoft Publisher, and Microsoft Word) as options for the students. The content as to what makes a good poster (see here for ideas) is the same, however my pedagogy, and technology use, changes based on the students individually. Increased numbers of technology options creates choice, and affords me the ability to reach all my students with the same content outcomes.

The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model is based on a more Taxonomological ideal. There are different levels, that are more transformative the farther you move up the Taxonomy. There are the base levels that are categorized as “enhancements”, those being substitution and augmentation. The upper levels are seen as “transformative” and are represented by modification and redefinition. The basis for, and the problems with, SAMR as a tool, are well laid out in the critical review by Hamilton, Rosenberg, and Akcaoglu. The idea of, “Product over Process” (Pg. 438), is one that we all face. My response would be, if the product is transformational, creating and editing a newscast on an issue of today, for example, that in most cases there has to be great learning, not only in terms of content, but also software, to create that newscast. Therefore, it is my pedagogy that would have to adapt to allow for this different process and product to take place.

I do not see SAMR and TPACK as competing theories, but instead 2 ways in capturing a diverse classroom. One does not exist in-spite of the other, as most theories don’t, but can both be used simultaneously, as I believe we all do. I am in an enviable position in that I am teaching in a technology rich room as the tech teacher. I also realize that as my job is teaching tech to classrooms with different abilities and needs. I see the validity in both these models and believe we all strive to have our learners create individualized, informative, and differentiated products that meet their understanding and ability. The possibilities for demonstrating learning are only hindered by software availability and the learners’ vision.

By Andrew Vogelsang

September 16, 2019

EDCI 571 Assignment #1B- Is it Really a Debate?

man and woman sitting on chair

Photo by Wei-Cheng Wu on Unsplash

Remember when the earth was flat? Remember when the sun rotated around the earth? Remember when we used cocaine to treat psychological issues? The idea that new media, or media in general, has NO effect on learning is ridiculous. If the argument was, to what degree media aids in education? I could see some validity in this. However, to just have a stance, and then deny any meaningful attempt (through obvious data) to change that stance, is really representative of where we are as people right now, and oddly enough, media allowed for that (but I digress). I agree that when Clark was initially writing in 1983, his view had some validity. The technology, or vehicles, maybe was not as reflective to the learning of students at that time. The “book” used in teaching poetic devices, for example, would have little to do with the teachers actual ability to teach poetic devices. These are valid arguments and it seems to me that Clark’s irritation comes with the fad of the next-big-thing. It reminds me of what we deal with in schools today. One year it is “reading power”, and now it is “PM Benchmarks” or “corrective reading” or “SRA (Student Reading Assessment)”. Do they all help with reading? Yes. Does it depend on which is used, based on the teacher using it? Yes. Are these just vehicles? Yes. Therefore, one could argue, that Clark has a point. In my example, if a teacher can, and does, teach students to read, it is therefore not as important what vehicle is used, but the fact that the teacher is successful. Point for Clark. Unfortunately, this is where Clark goes off the rails. It is his clinging dogmatically to an idea, that is constantly shown to be not relevant anymore, that leads to people frustrations.

Just because something was “true” in the past, becomes untrue or less relevant, with the advent of new technology and knowledge, does not diminish what was once true. At the time Clark wrote, maybe media was not the reason for student success. However, to fully deny the implications, and gains, that technology and new media has on the learning of today’s students, is just asinine. As Katrin Becker’s 2010 article states, “…discussing the effectiveness of media, potential or otherwise in 2007 using reports from more than 10 years ago is like discussing today’s traffic issues using data from 1820” (pg. 2). I could list all the ways new-media changes have helped students of various abilities, access the same knowledge in my school. I won’t (because who has time for that on a Sunday), but I could. Kozma’s argument was, by-far, the easiest to make. It is obvious that both technology and media have a drastic effect on student learning and access to that learning. For example, students with life threatening illnesses, who for their own safety cannot attend school physically, can learn from a school online. Therefore, media has affected that student’s learning. Kozma wins. Thus, the basis for this debate, because Clark made it a dichotomy (either/or), is therefore laughable; the idea should be, that media use itself is not as effective as the teacher’s use of that media. That is, if a teacher is being forced to use a platform, or resource, that they are not comfortable with, than the students learning will not be better.

Though Kozma acknowledges that, at the time of writing his response, the data needed to show the value of media was constrained by acceptable scientific practice. Kozma states in his 1994 article that, “[m]issing in these studies are the mentalist notions or descriptions of the cognitive, affective, or social processes by which learning occurs” (pg. 2). That issue speaks more to how science was run than what is effective. It is plain to see that the “debate” is really not a “debate” at all, but merely a moot point. The idea of what a good teacher is, and what an effective lesson is, greatly depends on the teacher’s ability. It would be as much a mistake to say that textbooks are bad, as it would be to say all media is good. The need to “pick a side” is so pervasive in our world, but one thing is clear; students need support, and not all students learn the same. Furthermore, not all media is the same. Therefore, to lump them together is non-functional. There are many different ways to access information today and it is incumbent as the teacher, and learner facilitator, to help students find the pathways that work for them.

Andrew Vogelsang

September 9, 2019

571 Assignment 1A- Technology: Lessons for the Future

Photo by Samuel Zeller on Unsplash

In Holland and Holland’s Article, they reference a quote from Willard stating, “To have mobile learning work well, power has to shift from instructors and managers to the learners themselves” (Pg. 19). As a technology teacher, my classroom is structured towards personal discovery by tapping into their passions for software and/or a possible future vocation. It is essential, in my opinion, that the students are engaged in their work, and that is enhanced by choice. My classroom is based on the ideas of: problem-solving, work ethic, adaptability, and working well with others. I have spoken to people in the technology fields and they have all said to me that the skills I mentioned earlier are more important to their success than learning a certain programming language or software. They further explained that each of their companies have software they design and use. This means that a new hire will have to use the software and they are willing to teach them that.

As a teacher, having that interaction with the industry people, really shaped what and how I taught computer classes at my school. I stopped the “stand and deliver” mode of teaching as I realized that I was teaching to the 25% of the class that was actually interested in that software, or area, of computers in general. It is my mission to acquire more software options that they can delve into, if it meets their interest and, for some, their future goals. This means I have to release full control over my students’ learning and become a facilitator. I do this by helping to guide them towards their own goals, through design phases and creation, while teaching time management. With all this said, the students are challenged with the same issues we as educators are challenged with, the short-lived relevance of any particular software.

There are always the standards in software, Adobe and Microsoft, being a few. However, I get frustrated, and so do my learners, with the ever changing new-big-thing in technology. It makes designing learning for the future problematic when the field always changes. Instead of allowing our frustrations to get the best of us, we are working, as a class community, to not look at the software itself but in the growing trends of technology and areas of growth. 3-dimensional printing and graphic design are growing fast in my class, as is architecture and interior design. We use a variety of software to meet the learning outcomes, as they advance. Designing on Google Sketch-Up leads some students to move on to CAD programs through Autodesk. All of these enhancements could not be possible if the students are not engaged and passionate.

Holland and Holland state, “the current workplace knowledge-based economies are requiring more high-level creative thinking skills with workers adept in problem-solving…” (Pg. 18). The technology industry is exploding, and so is the need for the employees ability to persevere and problem solve. Most jobs will require some form of computer literacy and in my opinion, computer literacy is more than the ability to type and navigate search-engines and folders (though that is very important). Computer literacy involves understanding why something may not be working, and the ability to rectify this situation by problem-solving. Software and Hardware glitches happen, what do you do now? Software updates can lead to a totally different user-interface (see Blender 2.7 to 2.8) and you will have to learn and adapt. Even Adobe can throw some curve-balls when they update to a new version. We are in a world that is as technologically dynamic as ever before, and we would be remiss to think this is going to slow down anytime soon.

Andrew Vogelsang