Decoding learning: the proof, promise and potential of digital education

References

Stokes, K. (2012). Decoding learning: the proof, promise and potential of digital education. Education Journal, (149), 8-12.

This article, Decoding Learning: the proof, promise and potential of digital education, proposes a plan for rethinking how technology can be used for learning via eight themes, or approaches to learning. These include the following:


Learning from experts - This theme emphasizes the opportunities available for students to communicate with experts via online discussions or tutorials.

Learning with others: - Accentuates the need for collaboration, networking, participation and performance with other learners.

Learning through making - The importance of creating and sharing through technology. This could include engineering, robotics, design, etc.

Learning through exploring - Creating the opportunities to explore information through spontaneous yet guided learning.

Learning through Inquiry - Helps learners gain new understanding by learning to ask questions, make discoveries, and test them.

Learning through practicing - Designing games to integrate knowledge, skills and learning outcomes.

Learning from Assessment - Making assessment faster, easier and more accessible to teachers and learners create significant implications for learner achievement.

Learning in and across Settings - Technology can help teachers and learners capture, store, compare and integrate material from and across different settings – whether at school, on a field trip or at home.


The article concludes with the assertion that best practice would include learning across these themes and linking them together. It goes on to warn, however, against the dangers of using technology for technology's sake and remembering the importance of context when choosing how technology is used.


I certainly recognize the themes identified in this report and appreciate the need for identifying best practice when it comes to the use of technology in the classroom. Like so many others, I often question the purpose of new technology initiatives and wonder at their effectiveness. Are we doing what's best for student achievement, or have we just discovered a new way of delivering the same material? Building an instructional technology plan that recognizes and addresses the points raised in this study could prove the basis for a more successful technology initiative. Furthermore, it could provide a foundation that will insure the success for all involved, students and teachers alike, for years to come.


http://library.aurora.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=84295104&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Five Obstacles to Technology Integration at a Small Liberal Arts University.

Spodark, E. (2003). Five Obstacles to Technology Integration at a Small Liberal Arts University. T H E Journal, 30(8), 14

I found this article during my research for my obstacles in technology integration paper.  The author addresses five key obstacles in technology integration, and while there might be slight differences in wording from some of the obstacles we discussed in class, the major themes remain the same.

The first obstacle, Lack of Clear Vision, addresses the big picture issues of technology implementation.  How will this technology will be used on larger scale, what are the expectations of the staff, how will this technology be supported, etc.?

The second obstacle addresses the intent of the school district and administrators with regard to how this technology will be used, how staff will be trained, support, etc.  Lack of Leadership is basically a lack of planning.

Critical Mass, the third obstacle, refers to the lack of available technology for teachers.  In other words, how can teachers be expected to use tech if there isn't enough to go around. 

The Lack of Incentive is the fourth obstacle.  This refers to a lack of faith in working technology, support and financial incentives for teachers.

Lastly, all of these factors combine to form the final obstacle, Lack of Faculty Participation.  This refers to staff buy-in, attitudes, etc.

I found it interesting that many of these "obstacles" were human in nature as opposed to financial.  My own experience reflects this idea, as I have often found my colleagues to be the largest hurdle in implementing new technology in my department.  Whether its fear of new tools or methods, lack of faith in the technology or support, laziness!, etc.  It seems someone is always opposed to new technology efforts.  I can usually find ways around money, administrators, and every other problem I run into.  But my fellow staff members...?  Haven't figured that one out yet :)   

Technology in the rear-view mirror: how to better incorporate the history of technology into technology education.

Hallström, J., & Gyberg, P. (2011). Technology in the rear-view mirror: how to better incorporate the history of technology into technology education. International Journal Of Technology & Design Education, 21(1), 3-17. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9109-5

I found this article particularly relevant to our own work on antiquated technology.  I know the question of "why?" we were taking the time to learn the history of these devices was raised during our class discussion, and I found the rationale or relevance points raised by the author to be very poignant.

The author breaks the need for teaching technological history into three questions.

The first question an educator should ask themselves is what they want their students to know about technological change?  The second question one should ask themselves in teaching historical technology is if the technology in question is relevant to the student's learning? Finally, is this information being used to analyze the history or development of this technology?

As a Fine Arts Teacher, I work through the entire spectrum of traditional, hands-on learning all the way to digital instruction. Because of this, a large part of my instruction can be walking the line between traditional and technological techniques, so I can definitely relate to the relevance of new methods and technology, noting past procedures and techniques and the dreaded "WHY are we learning this?" question.  Most of the time, I simply explain to my students the importance of history and understanding where this knowledge comes from.  Still, sometimes I can't help but ask myself the same questions.  "WHY are you teaching this?"  "Is it relevant?"  "How are we going to use this information?"

In any event, this article has opened my eyes to these questions, and hopefully I can come up with the right answers when preparing my next historical lesson.    

PILOTING, POLISHING & PERFECTING: Creating and Implementing a Technology Staff Development Model.

Sanders, B., Brown, C., & Zellner, L. (2002). PILOTING, POLISHING & PERFECTING: Creating and Implementing a Technology Staff Development Model. T H E Journal, 30(2), 41


This article recalls the evolution of a technology staff development plan in a Texas school and the large role grant money played in making this model possible.  Particular attention is paid to the stages of development in this plan and the milestones required of participating teachers.  These included training at a district, building and personal level, as well as recording progress and creating artifacts.   

I was particularly interested in the timeframe noted in this article.  The intent of this model was to create a basic foundation that would be built upon, developed and refreshed over a number of years.  Creating modes of development allowed teachers to achieve milestones that allowed them to be successful as they moved through the training.

As teachers, we are very aware of the time it takes to teach our students.  We don't expect them to learn something overnight.  Learning takes time.  So why don't we apply this to our own learning?  Too often we develop new programs, hand out devices or initiate new applications without proper training or time to develop our skills.  Again, learning takes time...even for teachers.    

Podcast

http://vocaroo.com/delete/s0KtigL2cMUm/aa389e2a5d4be369


<object width="148" height="44"><param name="movie" value="http://vocaroo.com/player.swf?playMediaID=s0KtigL2cMUm&autoplay=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://vocaroo.com/player.swf?playMediaID=s0KtigL2cMUm&autoplay=0" width="148" height="44" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><br><a href="http://vocaroo.com" style="font-size:xx-small;" title="Vocaroo Voice Recorder">Audio recording and upload &gt;&gt;</a>

Teaching and Learning with Mobile Technology: A Qualitative Explorative Study about the Introduction of Tablet Devices in Secondary Education

Montrieux H, Vanderlinde R, Schellens T, De Marez L. Teaching and Learning with Mobile Technology: A Qualitative Explorative Study about the Introduction of Tablet Devices in Secondary Education. Plos ONE [serial online]. December 7, 2015;10(12):1-17. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 22, 2017.

This article discusses the impact of tablet devices used in secondary education.  The study focuses on two groups of teachers.  The first are those who modify and adapt their teaching to use tablet devices in new and creative ways.  The technology becomes an interactive, innovative part of their teaching style.   These educators are referred to by the author as "Innovative Teachers."  The second group of educators use the tablets as extensions of the already established material.  In other words, a "book behind glass" or digital copy of the predetermined text book.  These teachers are referred to as "instrumental Teachers" in this article.

I found the results of this study to be fascinating for a number of reasons, not the least of which would be the tendency of the "Instrumental Teacher" to be more conservative in their teaching practices.  The use of technology represented a lack of control for the "instrumental Teacher," a distraction that could disrupt the classroom.  Therefore, the "Instrumental Teacher" adopted a more traditional, controlled teaching environment that actually negated the purpose of the technology being used.

Also of interest was the fact that the students in the study reported no difference in their capacity to learn regarding the use of technology.  They noted the benefits of interactive materials, new presentation methods and how technology made them "excited" about learning, but all in all, did not actually increase their capacity to learn.

The last point that really stood out to me was the lack of support noted by both the teachers and students.  Both groups acknowledged lack of support and materials as being a major factor in the way technology was used in their classroom.

All in all, I think this article speaks to many of the points we've raised in our class discussions.  It also addresses the same concerns I raised in my previous post.  The attitude of the educator regarding the use of teaching materials, regardless of that material, has a major impact on student learning.  Technology is here to stay.  Yes, it may be over-hyped from time-to-time and the need to use it at every turn overstated, but fighting against this turn in educational methods is simply counterproductive.  I know it can be scary - new things always are - but we shouldn't let our prejudices as educators prevent us from utilizing a new tool.  Better to learn when and how to use it.        

Altering Perspectives: How the Implied Reader Invites Us to Rethink the Difficulty of Graphic Novels

Connors S. Altering Perspectives: How the Implied Reader Invites Us to Rethink the Difficulty of Graphic Novels. Clearing House [serial online]. January 2012;85(1):33-37. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 20, 2017.

This article addresses the effects of predisposed opinions on the validity of Graphic Novels as a learning tool for readers at the secondary level.  The author used a control group of "pre-service" teachers in a young adult literature course to explore the opinion of educators regarding Graphic Novels as a viable source of literacy.  While the opinions on the subject varied greatly, the author observed that the background of the pre-service teacher greatly influenced their position.  Those who had never been exposed to the Graphic Novel format dismissed the work as juvenile or less challenging, giving little thought to the visuals (artwork, typography, page layout, etc.) and the role they play in enhancing the overall narrative.  On the other side of the argument, the subjects with previous exposure to the Graphic Novel format were more receptive to the validity of the literature and were more likely to recognize the value of the visual elements included in the work.

As both an educator and a life-long comic book aficionado, I have a very strong opinion regarding the validity of Graphic Novels, comic books and their value as a tool of literacy.  I believe my lifelong interest in writing, fiction, etc. is born specifically from this format.  I consider myself to be well-read, well-spoken and of considerable creative spirit.  I have read Graphic Novels and comic books that have made me excited, angry, laugh and cry.  I have been introduced to incredible scientific concepts, psychological insights and words that have increased my vocabulary exponentially.  And while I could debate the validity of this format ad nauseam, I would rather use this space to warn against the dangers of educational bias and remind any who would read this that we are ALL lifelong learners. As educators, we should be open to new experiences and careful not to pass our predisposed opinions onto our students.        

Open Educational Resources

Open Educational Resources (OER) are defined as educational tools, materials, etc. that can be shared, altered, modified and reproduced without violating copyright laws.  This concept, in of itself, seems to be a sound one and has many obvious benefits.  These include ease of access for students from anywhere in the world, vetted research materials from expert instructors and new presentation strategies and assessments for teachers.  And while the idea of a shared educational community seems beneficial to all parties, it does raise some concerns.

Of greatest concern would be the willingness and ability of school district administrators to support an OER based curriculum going forward.  While the immediate impact of technology replacing paper, printing and books seems to be cost effective, ongoing support for hardware, software, support staff, etc. is very expensive and may prove prohibitive long term.  Furthermore, the ability to provide training to existing staff in new technology, updates and advancements seems to be beyond the ability of most school districts.  In other words, even if schools were willing to adopt the OER culture, it may be beyond their ability to maintain it.

Another concern of mine lies in the very nature of the OER model.  The fact that these shared materials are created by professionals - teachers - who are expected to generate curriculum, assessments, etc. as a way of contributing to the greater educational community without thought of ownership, compensation, etc. just seems wrong to me.  I have dedicated countless hours to my students.  I created my classes from the ground up, from presentations to projects and assessments.  Yes, I have willingly shared materials with my colleagues.  I have also "borrowed" many ideas from online resources.  But at the end of the day, I have used everything in my power to create a strong program for my students, one that my administrators are constantly pushing me to archive, share, reproduce, etc. so that my efforts can be used by other teachers.  But to what avail????  I'll tell you why, as I've been told this many times...

My administrators want my class to accessible and easy to understand for both themselves and any NEW teachers who would be assigned to my classes.  In other words, prepare a curriculum that ANYONE could understand, adapt and present.

I know they say this is good practice, meant to stimulate the best teaching and learning environment possible, but somehow it still doesn't seem to sit right...  

PUTTING FAIR USE ON DISPLAY: ENDING THE PERMISSIONS CULTURE IN THE MUSEUM COMMUNITY.

CHANDLER R. PUTTING FAIR USE ON DISPLAY: ENDING THE PERMISSIONS CULTURE IN THE MUSEUM COMMUNITY. Duke Law & Technology Review [serial online]. January 2016;15(1):60-83. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 19, 2017.


This article addresses some of the issues we discussed in class today regarding Fair Use Copyright.  The question pertains to the use of technology in museum virtual tours.  The author argues the need for a "permissions culture" amongst the museum community that allows for technological applications to apply Fair Use with regard to virtual tours, phone applications, etc.  The article notes how this "understanding" has been common practice in the museum community for many years, but emerging laws regarding copyright infringement, etc. may threaten the use of broadcast technology.  Furthermore, the cost of licensing visual works and images for these applications would be incredibly expensive making the entire endeavor all but impossible.


All in all, I would have to say I agree with the author.  Copyright laws are meant to protect the original, intellectual property of the creator.  Fair Use, however, allows for certain exceptions to be made when applied to educational practices.  I would argue that a "virtual tour" of a museum, an institution dedicated to both the preservation of important works and educating the public as to their importance, an institution whose location may be beyond ones means to actually visit in-person, would fall well within these parameters.  I think most museums and their curators would agree with that assessment and recognize that perhaps a new standard of practice or "permissions culture" needs to be investigated.

         

Facial Proportions

The Aesthetic Status of Technological Art.

Mandelbrojt, J., Fremiot, M., & Malina, R. F. (1999). The Aesthetic Status of Technological Art. Leonardo, 32(3), 211.


The focus of this article was the impact of technology on the visual arts and the part the viewer plays in this new art form. How does a piece that does not physically exist - say a digital image - compare to a more traditional work that takes up space or can be visited in a museum somewhere? Does the fact that the viewer can alter the piece through interaction or choice, thus creating something completely new and individualized, alter the intentions of the creator?  Is the designer an artist or an engineer?  Does the viewer become the creator as well?  Is an interactive work just entertainment, or does it become something more?

The editors of this article attempted to address some of these questions by breaking them down into several categories:

The first topic is examined through the colloquialism of Childhood Illnesses and Youthful Enthusiasm.  This term is used to describe the "baggage" or ideas the artist brings with them to the digital media.  Are they simply trying to recreate their traditional techniques via digital means, or are they just playing with a new toy?

The second point was the role of the spectator.  How will this technology be used?  What role does the viewer play in the was the piece is constructed?

This question was expanded upon in the next topic which was the question of interactivity.  When a work is designed to be used or modified, what role does the viewer take in that experience?  If a work changes depending on the person who interacts with it, what does that work then become?  Is it completely new and unique?  Does it continue to evolve into something different and personalized? In other words, what role does choice play in art?

That question poses another point.  What role does communication play in the art world.  The digital world allows the global community to communicate in new and exciting ways.  A viewer can take a virtual tour of a museum from anywhere in the world.  Likewise, they can communicate with other viewers, thus influencing that same digital experience for other people without every leaving their home.  This level of interactivity is unprecedented in the world of art and creates a multitude of new possibilities.

Next, what is the role of the artist?  If the designer is allowing their work to modified by the spectator, is the piece still intrinsically the same?  Does it still elicit the same response?  Does it follow the vision of the artist as intended or is it something else engineered by the viewer?  Again, is the artist a creator or simply a designer who develops a medium for the interactive party?

The last question of interest was the most simple: "Is it art?"  Is a video game art?  Does a technological work demonstrate a poetic quality? Does the work still convey the vision or intent of the artist if it can be changed?  Is the idea still original and creative?

I found this article to be absolutely fascinating!  It presented questions that are very pertinent to my work and how my profession will evolve going into the future.  The idea of art as an interactive experience is not a new one, but technology has taken that interaction to a whole new level.  Furthermore, we've only begun to scratch the surface of this dynamic new field.  It will be very exciting to see how it continues to develop in the future and the impact it wall have on my student's learning. 
         

Tech Time Savers!

Loved the font size increase / decrease!  I will also use the "black out" on my power point slides.  I often use the shift - command - 4 option to screen capture a selected area on my Mac.

The most important thing stated in the whole video, however, was the point that our tech does not come with comprehensive instructions!  Every piece of tech I've ever owned has come with little time savers, shortcuts, etc. that you have to learn about from somebody else.  Thank god for the internet :)

The Future Ready Framework - Curriculum, Instruction, And Assessment

The part that stood out to me in the Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment section of Future Ready Framework dealt with the matter of personalized and relevant learning.

I have often wondered about the importance of "real world" lessons and how applicable our teaching is to what students will encounter in their lives.  We live in a digital age.  Employers have made it very clear they want potential employees to be tech savvy, creative thinkers.  Using the resources available to us, we have made great strides in exposing our students to the possibilities of the digital world.  Still, while everyone seems to agree on the necessities of technological learning, preventative factors such as cost, accessibility, professional training, etc. seem to marginalize the importance of this learning outcome.  Talking about the importance of one-to-one learning and actually implementing it are two different issues.  Even more so, how will we use this technology?  If we were to follow societal trends, would we forgo the need to learn spelling, languages, speech, simple math, social cues, etc.  Are those things still relevant in the digital world?  We don't teach kids about the abacus, type writers, cursive writing, check books, etc. anymore because they aren't relevant.  I'm not sure everything needs to be that "personalized."  Is tech a trend?  Are we pushing too hard too fast? I know we want people to take responsibility for their own learning, but what are we sacrificing to "engage" them?  I don't want to throw away the importance to learning just to dangle an expensive, shiny carrot in my student's faces.  I guess time will tell.    

Art Therapy and Technology

Darewych O, Carlton N, Farrugie K. Digital Technology Use in Art Therapy with Adults with Developmental Disabilities. Journal On Developmental Disabilities [serial online]. December 2015;21(2):95-102. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 9, 2017.

This article details the study of technical applications in Art Therapy for adults with developmental disabilities.  The author goes into great detail regarding the technology used in the study, the digital applications used in the assessments and the response of the subjects.

According to this study, there are five notable advantages derived from using technology in Art Therapy for adults with developmental issues:

1. No mess and easy clean up.
2. Choice.  Participants had access to a wide variety of digital tools with which to make their projects.
3. Music was readily available and made for a more conducive working environment
4. Cognitive development resulted from the use on touch screen devices (motor skills) and memory recall.
5. Reflection and collaboration.
6. Step-by-Step instruction enhanced daily routines.

As a Digital Art Teacher I was quite interested in the results of this study.  I am familiar with the advantages/limitations to using technology in the classroom.  Some of my students are engaged through the use of tech, while others struggle with the very nature of the course.  Its an issue I'm sure I will struggle with for many years to come.  This article was helpful in confirming some of the issues I encounter everyday, and provided some insight into the thinking of these challenged learners. 

Mac vs. PC?

Herrman, J. (2011). Mac vs PC. Popular Mechanics, 188(11), 82.

This article attempts to address the "age" old question: Mac versus PC?  And while the information may be a bit dated - this article dates back to 2011 after all - I believe most of the main points still stand today.

Using laptop computers of a similar design, the research team put both devices through a battery of tests meant to determine which computer was ultimately better.  The tests were conducted in three different areas: User experience, hardware / price and software availability.

The user experience was very insightful.  While "gamers" were aware of specific hardware limitations in both machines, most users noted aesthetic differences in the operating systems.  It would appear the greatest determining factor is a consumers familiarity and comfort with their machine.  In other words, if you prefer the organizational ease of a Mac, you'll stay with the Mac, and vice versa.

While an argument can be made for the well-built design of the Mac, the hardware / price category went to the PC for its extensive adaptability.  PCs can be modified in hardware, applications, ports and device.  That with a markedly higher price tag for the Mac seemed to set the PC as the winner in this bracket.

Finally, the software availability seemed to be a bit of a tossup.  The Mac offered more built in applications and features, but the PC has endless amount of content available online.

All in all, the author believed both machines were of tremendous ability with only the inflated price of the Mac as a determining factor in which computer to buy.  Still, at the end of the day, the PC was the winner by a hair.

I found this article to be quite interesting.  We are facing a similar situation in our school.  Our current Fine Arts curriculum is based around the Mac Desktops we currently have in our labs, while tech and administration would like to move to the more "network friendly" PCs.  This article provided some much needed insight into this subject and helped solidify some of the research my colleagues and I have been conducting.