Technology Reading – #3

Source:
 
National Research Council of the National Academies.  (Ed.). (2005). How Students Learn. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.  (Chapters Introduction, 5-8).

Introduction (M. Suzanne Donovan and John D. Bransford)

       

• RQs
  1. How do students learn?
  2. What are the characteristics of an effective learning environment?
• Notes

 

1.      How Students Learn

1.1.   People are designed to be flexible learners, and from infancy are active agents in acquiring knowledge and skills.

1.2.   Much that a human knows is acquired informally, but mastery of accumulated knowledge of generations requires intentional learning often accomplished in a formal educational setting.

1.3.   3 Principles of How People Learn

1.3.1.      Principle #1 – Engaging Prior Understanding

1.3.1.1.Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works.  If initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp new concepts and info, or they may learn them for a test but revert to preconceptions thereafter or outside the classroom.

1.3.1.2.New understandings are constructed on a foundation of existing understanding and experiences.

1.3.1.3.Learning begins in infancy.

1.3.1.4.The understandings children carry with them into the classroom will significantly shape how they make sense of what they are taught.

1.3.1.5.It can also lead to conceptions that act as a barrier to learning.

1.3.1.6.Preconceptions can be difficult to change because they work well in everyday contexts.

1.3.1.7.Result in memorization of content, but use experience based preconceptions to act in the world.

1.3.2.      Principle #2 – The Essential Role of factual Knowledge and Conceptual Frameworks in Understanding

1.3.2.1.To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must:

1.3.2.1.1.      Have a deep foundation of factual knowledge.

1.3.2.1.2.      Understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework.

1.3.2.1.3.      Organize knowledge in a way that facilitates retrieval and application.

1.3.2.2.Factual knowledge (characteristics, etc.) must be placed in conceptual framework (theory) to be well understood.

1.3.2.3.Concepts are given meaning by multiple representations that are rich in factual detail. 

1.3.2.4.Competent performance is built on both factual and conceptual understanding.

1.3.2.5.Knowledge of facts and knowledge of important organizing ideas are mutually supportive.

1.3.2.6.Debate: Emphasize big ideas more and facts less????

1.3.2.7.Novices separate pieces of info in a field, while experts see them collectively.

1.3.2.8.Using concepts to organize information stored in memory allows for much more effective retrieval and application.

1.3.2.9.Memory of factual knowledge is enhanced by conceptual knowledge, and conceptual knowledge is clarified as it is used to help organize constellations of important details.

1.3.2.10.        Teaching for understanding requires that core concepts that organize the knowledge of experts also organize instruction.

1.3.3.      Principle #3 – The Importance of Self-Monitoring

1.3.3.1.A “metacognitive” approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them.

1.3.3.1.1.      “Metacognitive” refers to people’s knowledge about themselves as information processors.

1.3.3.1.2.      Includes knowledge about what we need to do in order to learn and remember info.

1.3.3.1.3.      Includes ability to monitor our current understanding and make sure we understand.

1.3.3.1.4.      Includes awareness of need to ask questions how new knowledge relates to or challenges what we already know – which stimulates further inquiry and learning.

1.3.3.2.Note that the student must take advantage of the opportunity to learn.

1.3.3.3.Helps students become more effective learners.

1.3.3.4.Can help students develop the ability to take control of their own learning, consciously define learning goals, and monitor their progress in achieving them.

1.3.3.5.To accomplish, teaching practices must emphasize self-assessment and make sure students understand that self-assessment helps promote metacognitive thinking

1.3.3.6.Some metacognitive strategies need to be taught in the context of subject area.

2.      Learning Environments and the Design of Instruction

2.1.   Four Characteristics can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching and learning environments.

2.1.1.      Learner-Centered Classroom Environments (LC) – encourages attention to preconceptions and begins instruction with what students think and know.

2.1.1.1.Close attention to students’ skills and attitudes which provide the foundation on which new learning builds.

2.1.1.2.Provide a path to new understandings about and beyond their experiences.

2.1.1.3.Students will differ in how much they’ve been encouraged to observe, think, or talk about experiences, especially when talking about social rather than natural phenomenon.

2.1.1.4.Experiences and norms regarding reflection, expression, etc. differ among families, communities, cultures, etc.

2.1.1.5.Students’ expectations regarding their own performances, including what it means to be intelligent, can differ in ways that effect their persistence and engagement with learning. 

2.1.1.6.Pay attention to students’ backgrounds and cultural differences, as well as abilities.  Make strong connections and make them explicit.

2.1.1.7.Present them with “just-manageable” difficulties.

2.1.2.      Knowledge-Centered Environments (KC) – focuses on what is to be taught, why, and what mastery looks like.

2.1.2.1.What is it important for the students to know and be able to do?

2.1.2.2.What are the core concepts that organize our understanding of the subject matter, and what concrete cases and detailed knowledge will allow students to master those concepts effectively? (sounds like my paper)

2.1.2.3.How will we know when students achieve mastery? (overlaps with KC and AC).

2.1.2.4.Need to emphasize connected knowledge.

2.1.2.4.1.      Organization of knowledge that underlies experts’ abilities to understand and solve problems.

2.1.2.4.2.      Need to understand fundamental principles and ideas.  Understand something specific as an instance of a more general case. (Personal example is computer programming.)

2.1.2.4.3.      Learned a specific thing and a model for understanding it and other knowledge like it.

2.1.2.5.KC and LC environments intersect when teachers simultaneously focus on knowledge to be mastered and the learning process of students.  Students need to be supported, not just provided with expert models.

2.1.2.6.“Enduring connected ideas” is not only a job for teacher, but for developers of curricula, textbooks, and other instructional materials; universities and teacher programs; standards creators, etc.

2.1.2.7.Essential concepts, not just detail!

2.1.3.      Assessment-Centered Environments (AC) – emphasizes need to provide frequent opportunities to make students’ thinking and learning visible as a guide for both teachers and students in learning and instruction.

2.1.3.1.Formative Assessments – ongoing assessments to make clear student thinking to teacher and student – are essential.

2.1.3.2.Central feature to LC and KC classroom that allows teacher to grasp students’ perceptions and build on them.

2.1.3.3.When knowledge to be learned is well defined, assessment is required to monitor student progress, understand where students are in the path from informal to formal thinking, and design instruction that is responsive to students’ progress.

2.1.3.4.Provide opportunities to revise and improve their thinking, helping students see their own progress and point out problems.

2.1.3.5.Students need to develop metacognitive abilities – habits of mind necessary to assess their own progress.

2.1.3.6.Important to help students assess the kinds of strategies they are using to learn and to solve problems.

2.1.4.      Community-Centered Environments (CC) – encourages a culture of questioning, respect, and risk taking.

2.1.4.1.Requires development of norms for classroom and school, and connections to the outside world that support core learning values.

2.1.4.2.Every community operates with a culture that influences interaction among individuals.  The culture mediates learning.

2.1.4.3.Norms are necessary to encourage the expression of ideas and risk taking.

2.1.4.4.Mistakes need to be viewed as helpful contributions to search for understanding. 

2.1.4.5.Encourage questioning.

2.2.   Picture (like TPCK).

3.      Putting the Principles to Work in the Classroom.

3.1.   Key findings aren’t immediately useful.

3.2.   Need to know students typical misconceptions.

3.3.   Concepts that help organize a particular topic may not be clear – not always obvious, transparent, or uncontested.

3.4.   Difficult to reduce teaching metacognition to a recipe and thus this book finds it more helpful to provide good examples as opposed to strategies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technology Reading – #2 (continued)

Source:

AACTE Committe on Innovation.  (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. New York and London: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group.  (Chapters 1, 7, 12).

Chapter #12 TPCK in in-service education Assisting experienced teachers’ “planned improvisations”  (Judith B. Harris)

• RQs
  1. What are the characteristics and methods of teacher educational programs that assist in-service teachers on how to use educational technology effectively in their classrooms?
  2. Can any programs be consistently implemented?
• Notes

1.      About Technology Integration?

1.1.   “Pervasive and productive use of educational technology for the purposes of curriculum-based learning and teaching.”

1.2.   Technology should assist with, not overshadow teachers helping students meet curriculum-based standards. 

1.3.   Recently the conception is to find curriculum-based educational uses for technology instead of using the affordances of technology. 

1.3.1.      Ex: PowerPoint – a business tool that we have found educational uses for.

1.3.2.      What should we being doing?  Examining how a program like PowerPoint affords us to advance education.  What additional skills does the tool bring to the table that a teacher couldn’t easily do or teach well himself?

1.3.3.      Current use of educational technology is unsophisticated and the view differs significantly between ed. tech. leaders and practitioners. 

1.3.3.1.Technology is used more as “efficiency aids” and “extension devices” than “transformative devices”.

1.3.3.2.That’s not to say that the above is wrong, it depends on the school’s situation, and a program should be developed to meet its needs. 

1.4.   Organized technology efforts are difficult to sustain. 

1.5.   Keys to professional development are the following characteristics: recognizable, content, structure, and advantage for teacher and students.  The same applies to TPCK.

1.6.   “…matter of thoughtful creation, not mere unaided instinct.” – Ellington quote about jazz music.

2.      About TPCK

2.1.   Content knowledge is not enough, teachers must also have knowledge in discipline, general pedagogy, and pedagogical content knowledge.

2.1.1.      Based on Schullman theory.

2.1.2.      Together it makes up the “Content” of teacher expertise.

2.2.   PCK is focused on how students understand subject matter.   A teacher’s PCK is “how to select representations, analogies, and activities that assist learners’ content-related conceptualizations. 

2.3.   What does this say about TPCK?

2.3.1.      According to a growing number of scholars, TPCK is what teachers must develop to effectively integrate use of technology tools into curriculum-based instruction.

2.3.2.      Teacher educators help teachers develop TPCK and integrate educational technology use in their practice by reflecting the interdependences of TPC so that each is developed concurrently and philosophically, pedagogically, and contextually flexbile.

2.3.3.      Experienced teacher knowledge is situated, event-structured, and episodic and developing TPCK should accommodate these characteristics.

2.3.4.      Developing TCPK for experienced teachers should be different than that for novices and need flexible designed based scaffolds to assist them with dev and practice of TPCK.

3.      Leads – One Approach to developing TPCK for experienced teachers.

3.1.   Leads is a jazz reference and analogic to short-hand lesson plans.

3.2.   Create awareness of range of possible learning activity types and helping teachers know how to select and combine them in ways that are differentiated for the students’ learning needs and preferences.

3.2.1.      There are identifiable TPCK-related activity types that work within and across disciplines.

3.2.2.      Commonly called activity structures.

3.3.   Activity Structures – definition, characteristics, classroom use

3.3.1.      Cognitive structures that experienced teachers use regularly to plan and carry out instruction.

3.3.2.      Set of classroom activities and interactions.

3.3.3.      Specific roles, rules, practices, etc.

3.3.4.      Applicable across multiple contexts.

3.3.5.      Cultural tools that standardize interaction patterns.

3.3.6.      Many are based on dominant course patterns from a teacher’s own childhood experience.

3.3.6.1.This could be a reason new approaches meet resistance.

3.3.6.2.Could represent a mismatch between teachers’ and students’ differing socio-culturally based expectations for teacher-student,student-student interactions.

3.3.7.      Should be selected from as culturally competent stance as possible.

3.3.8.      Should be conceptualized and presented thematically (familiar ways of explaining a topic) in terms of particular disciplinary courses.

3.4.   Examination of Use of Activity Structures in Professional Development

3.4.1.      Kolodner and Gray recommend ritualizing activity structures at both strategic and tactical levels – sequencing both steps for participating and ordered succession of activities in a project or unit.

3.4.1.1.Specific to skills for students to develop.

3.4.1.2.Caution – too many activity structures overwhelm students and teachers.

3.4.1.3.Fine-grained differentiation helps learners and instructors know what to expect, how to participate, and how each activity type is connected to the development of content-specific processes.

3.4.1.4.“Articulate[ed] and normalize[ed] a sequence of activities and setting expectations about how and when to carry them out.

3.4.2.      I-R-E Type – Teacher Initiation, student reply, teacher evaluation

3.4.3.      Polan discovered B-N-I-E

3.4.3.1.Students “bid” by suggesting topics to research.

3.4.3.2.Then “negotiated” details of project.

3.4.3.3.Then “instantiated” their understanding with work on the project.

3.4.3.4.Then received considered formative feedback (evaluation) the formed a basis for a new recursion.

3.4.3.5.Can be adapted to other curricula areas.

3.4.4.      Studies have shown that shared research lessons may offer opportunities for teachers to collectively build and refine instructional technology and norms about what is good instruction.

3.4.4.1.Points to successful use of activity structures as design tools.

3.4.4.2.Best used flexibly and in the context of active teacher and discourse communities.

3.4.4.3.See tables on pages 260 – 262 for examples.

3.4.5.      Viable way to think about design and curriculum-based learning that integrates appropriate tools and online resources.

3.5.   TPCK Activity Structure Combinations

3.5.1.      Learning activity structures should not be classified by technology type, as it is very limiting.

3.5.2.      Combine the advantages of using design-based conceptual tools for planning, differentiated by curriculum area while considering the full range of technology available.  This is called the curriculum-based activity types approach.

3.5.2.1.Teachers learn to recognize, differentiate, discuss, select, combine, and apply TPCK oriented activity types in standards based curriculum instructional design.

3.5.2.2.Teachers can thus function as designers in time efficient ways.

3.5.2.3.Taxonomy of TPCK related activity types.

3.5.3.      Knowledge-Building Activities – students build content-related understanding through info-based processes.

3.5.4.      Knowledge-Expression Activities – helps students deepen their understanding of content-related concepts through various types of communication.  (Hmmm, blogging, online learning/collaboration, etc.)

3.5.4.1.Convergent – take info and summarize in another form.

3.5.4.2.Divergent – extend content-related understanding via alternate forms of communication.  (Ex. presentations, film-making, etc.)

3.5.5.      In identifying and sharing activity types, the intention is to help teachers become more aware of the full range of possible curriculum-based learning activity options and different ways digital and non-digital tool support each other.  Can combine, customize, to meet the students’ needs and contextual realities.

3.5.6.      In-service teachers need to improve in TPCK like they do in PCK.

3.5.7.      Professional development must emphasize flexibility to accommodate full range of teaching philosophies, styles, and approaches.

3.5.8.      Share within discipline area.

3.6.   Teaching Teachers

3.6.1.      Take a andragocial, not pedagogical approach to teaching teachers, as they learn differently than students.

3.6.1.1.Need to know why and the benefits.

3.6.1.2.Resist to imposing skills.

3.6.1.3.Respond better if paste experience is acknowledged and built upon in present learning activity.

3.6.1.4.Direct ties to real-life situations.

3.6.1.5.Internally motivated.

3.6.1.6.Accustomed to dependent forms of learning.

3.6.2.      Promote autonomous and collaborative instructional decision making while encouraging open-minded consideration of new instruction methods, tools, and resources.

3.6.3.      Activity types are keyed directly to required curriculum standards and can provide flexible scaffolding and purpose for teachers’ TPCK learning.  It acknowledges expertise.

3.6.4.      Beware that teacher sin TPCK development may still lend to similar activity types that they are already familiar with instead of newer ones that deepen knowledge.

3.6.5.      TPCK professional development does not preference any particular teaching philosophy or approach, which in turn could possibly lead to teachers sticking with what they already know and are familiar with.  This is not necessarily a problem, depending on the goals of the in-service program.

3.6.6.      Remember that pedagogical development is a process that is additive, recursive, and expansive.

3.7.   General Comments

3.7.1.      I had a class that focused on the use of activity structures.  It was reading in secondary education taught by Dr. Kender.

3.7.2.      The activity structures were divided up by curriculum type and focused on incorporating reading skills specific to the subject.  The activities did not always use technology, but you could add it in.  For example, an activity used a concept map, so the student presenting it used Inspiration and took the concept map to a whole new level.

3.7.3.      Each of the class members had to present 2 activity types related to their content area. 

3.7.4.      Very interesting class, and I learned a lot about structures and using combinations of activities and how to use them in a unit.

 

Technology Reading – #2 (continued)

Source:

AACTE Committe on Innovation.  (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. New York and London: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group.  (Chapters 1, 7, 12).

Chapter #7 Perhaps a matter of imagination TPCK in mathematics education (Neal F. Grandgenett)

• RQs
  1. What makes an effective mathematics teacher with TPCK?
  2. How do we adequately train a mathematics teacher to be effective with TPCK?
• Notes

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.  For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
- Albert Einstein

1.      Effective use of technology

1.1.   Expectation that in-service and pre-service teachers will be able to design creative and effective learning activities that take full advantage of educational tech.

1.2.   When should a student be able to use a calculator? It depends!

1.2.1.      That is the answer to most math tech. questions.

1.2.2.      Depends how context, pedagogy, and tech. best interact with learning a particular math topic.

1.2.3.      Depends on needs of individual learners with diverse needs and backgrounds.

1.3.   Mathematics is a moving target that technology has an impact on. (Ex. Sierpinski’s Triangle and Fractal Mathematics, probability and statistics, graphing, etc.)

1.4.   Pedagogy and content must be interwoven to achieve dynamic and effective educational environments within the evolving contexts of math and teachers need to figure out where tech. fits in.

1.4.1.      If left out, might miss an opportunity for understanding or misrepresent concepts closely tied to computers.

1.4.2.      If used inappropriately, might deepen misconceptions or bad habits.

1.5.   TPCK must be addressed carefully in teacher prep because it could be the difference between an effective/ineffective math teacher.

2.      What is the study of mathematics?

2.1.   Rich and dynamic excursion into trying to know and control our world through its patterns.

2.2.   Math teachers must be able to interweave the following:

2.2.1.      Know content to be able to appreciate and represent it.

2.2.2.      Comprehend enough of the pedagogy of teaching it to help students systematically build towards an understanding of mathematics similar to the teacher’s.

2.2.3.      Understand and use the tech. of math in instruction.

3.      Math teaching and TPCK

3.1.   Impossible to gain knowledge in all possible combinations of TPC.

3.2.   Must “imagine” possibilities and develop an open mind for using a variety of approaches and strategies with students.

3.3.   Strong sequence of math coursework for teachers and all levels, as there is a correlation between this and the student achievement of these teachers.

3.4.   Carefully chosen examples go a long way toward providing teachers with strategies for approaching various math topics.  Experiences can have strong influence on teacher strategies and attitudes.

3.5.   Building PCK is basically related to providing “the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations” to make a subject accessible and comprehensible.  (Schullman)

3.6.   Providing examples that connect to tech. will be important for addressing the changing nature of mathematics due to tech.

3.7.   Renewed focus on algebraic thinking because of the role it plays in tech. careers and its usefulness in comprehending symbolic nature of how computers process info.

3.8.   NCTM principles provide a ‘vision’ for equity in student expectations, coherent curriculum, dynamic teaching, constructivist learning, and formative assessment.  NCTM principles contain:

3.8.1.      Content standards dealing with the content to be learned.

3.8.2.      Process standards – dealing with ways and strategies math might be used (i.e. problem-solving, representations, etc.)

3.8.3.      Provides the foundation for P and C

3.8.4.      Take positive position towards TPCK – “using tools of technology to work within interesting problem contexts can facilitate a student’s achievement of a variety of higher order learning outcomes, such as reflection, reasoning, problem posing, problem solving, and decision making”

3.8.5.      Recommend pre-service programs and in-service development strive to instill ideas of openness to experimentation with tech tools and their pervasive impact on math education.

3.8.6.      “Imagine” Involve students in experimentation with tools in context of learning.

3.9.   Research consistent with TPCK as unifying theme of teaching good math with tech.

3.10.  Take advantage of administrative role of tech. as it can help make pedagogical decisions.

3.11.  TPCK is critical tool for facilitating effective doing and learning of math (AMTE).

4.      Qualities of a math teacher with TPCK – ability to “imagine”

4.1.   Ability to imagine potential applications of tech. and weigh the benefits.  Understand the when and how.

4.2.   Make math more relative, engaging, and imaginative.

4.3.   Reaching more students might be more steadily linked with effective tech. use and could potentially narrow achievement gaps.

4.4.   Teacher will need the knowledge of which tech. and pedagogy to use for which content.

4.5.   Characteristics

4.5.1.      Open to experimentation.

4.5.2.      On-task for content being taught.

4.5.3.      Clear and systematic pedagogical strategies.

4.5.4.      Make periodic connection for students as to why a tech. is useful for instructing a math topic.

4.5.5.      Embrace administrative capabilities of tech. to help guide instruction and assessment.

4.5.6.      CARE.

5.      Math teacher education programs and TPCK

5.1.   Foster a disposition for use of technology in a flexible, experimental, thoughtful way.

5.2.   Dynamic, reflective, and transformative.

5.3.   Focus on foundation for learning math.

5.3.1.      Engage student prior understanding

5.3.2.      Help students build a deep foundation of factual knowledge and help organize it.

5.3.3.      Help students take a meta-cognitive approach in taking control of their own learning.

5.4.   Strongly grounded in content prep and practiced in multiple contexts and field experiences.

5.5.   Take advantage and address cultural contexts.

5.6.   Characteristics

5.6.1.      Encourage “imaginative openness” for classroom experimentation.

5.6.2.      Don’t overly separate T, P, C.

5.6.3.      Carefully select TPCK examples. (Modeling)

5.6.4.      TPCK as framework for restructuring the professional development experience for teachers.

5.6.5.      TPCK experiences that are culturally relevant.  All strategies do not work for all students.

5.6.6.      Not all effective uses of tech. are tied directly to content and pedagogy. (i.e. classroom management, parent communication)

5.6.7.      Tech. must never overshadow the focus students as individuals. 

5.7.   Important to recognize association recommendations. (NCTM, AMTE).

 

Technology Reading – #2

Source:

AACTE Committe on Innovation.  (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. New York and London: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group.  (Chapters 1, 7, 12).

Chapter #1 Introducing TPCK (Matthew Koehler and Punya Mishra)

• RQs
  1. What is TPCK?
• Notes

1.      Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge – a framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration that is critical to effective teaching with technology.

1.1.   Based on Schulman’s construct of PCK

1.2.   Describes how teacher’s understanding of technology, pedagogical, and content knowledge interact to produce effective teaching with technology

2.      The Teacher and Teaching

2.1.   Has the power to influence appropriate (or inappropriate) integration of technology in teaching.  Primary conduit for change.

2.2.   Teaching is an ill-structured, complex domain, meaning it is dependent on flexible access to and application of highly organized systems of knowledge that constantly evolve based on the context in which they are applied.

2.2.1.       Must integrate knowledge of student thinking and learning, subject matter, and knowledge of tech., making it like many other real world problems.

2.2.2.       Hard to generalize.  (Ex. Physics to engineering in building a bridge)

3.      Technology

3.1.   The sum of tool, techniques, collective knowledge applicable to education.  It includes analog and digital.

3.2.   Particular technologies have specific affordances and constraints, making them more suitable for certain tasks than others.  They are inherent to the tech. AND the user.

3.3.   Functional Fixedness is how the ideas we hold about an object’s function can inhibit its use for a different function.  It stands in the way of creativity.

3.4.   Needs to be applied creatively to be effective.

3.5.   Technology Integration is the act of including technology in teaching, complicating the process.

3.6.   Protean in nature (usable in many different ways)

3.6.1.       Tech. exists in almost every field of human activity.

3.6.2.       Means different things to many different people.

3.6.3.       Makes it complex and difficult to use and learn.

3.7.   Opaque makes it like a different language.  Many apps are built for the business world, and need reconfiguring for pedagogical purposes.

3.8.   Unstable. Hardware/software is changing so rapidly that it makes for tech problems, lack of robust apps, too much to know/learn, and expensive.  LIFE-LONG LEARNING IS REQUIRED.

3.9.   Social and contextual issues

3.9.1.       Inadequate teacher experience/training.

3.9.2.       Tech is considered someone else’s problem.

3.9.2.1.Tech people think teachers are dumb about tech.

3.9.2.2.Educational people are in charge of instruction/pedagogy which the tech people don’t know/understand.

3.9.2.3.Ruled by different people who can’t always communicate very well.

3.9.2.4.Need to break down false dichotomy b/n pedagogy and tech.

3.9.3.       Classroom contexts are varied and diverse. 

3.9.3.1.Need custom design for subject matter and students.

3.9.3.2.Digital Divide

4.      “Knowledge as design” – knowledge is a tool that is designed and adapted to purpose.  What you do with it is important.

5.      TPCK Components

5.1.   Content Knowledge (CK)– knowledge about actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught.

5.1.1.       Teachers need to have deep understanding of fundamentals to prevent misconceptions/incorrect info from being taught.

5.1.2.      Differences among CK domains are reflected in strategies to integrate educational technology in teacher education and classroom practices.

5.2.   Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) – deep knowledge of teaching and learning theory.

5.3.   Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) – covers the core business of teaching, learning, curriculum, assessment, and reporting (i.e the conditions that promote learning, links between curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy).

5.3.1.       Applicable to teaching specific context.

5.3.2.       Aware of common misconceptions and practices and the importance of forging links between content ideas, prior knowledge, alternative teaching strategies, etc.

5.4.   Technology Knowledge (TK) – fluency of information technology.

5.5.   Technology Content Knowledge (TCK) – understanding of the manner in which tech. and content influence (and constrain) each other.

5.5.1.       Progress in fields of discipline strongly coincide with development of technology. (Ex. X-Ray, digital computers, physics/mathematics)

5.5.2.       Have lead to changes in the discipline itself.

5.5.3.       Need to understand the impact of tech. on educational practices and knowledge of a discipline in order to develop appropriate tech tools for educational purposes.

5.5.4.       Tech. adds and constrains types of content ideas that can be taught, as can content decisions limit the tech. that can be used.

5.5.5.       Tech. constrains the types of representations but affords construction of newer, more varied representations.

5.6.   Technology Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) – is an understanding of how teaching and learning changes when particular technologies are used.

5.6.1.       Includes knowing the constraints and affordances of a range of tech. tools as they relate to disciplinary and developmentally appropriate pedagogy designs and strategies.

5.6.2.       Developing a creative flexibility with tools to repurpose them.

5.7.   Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) – is an understanding that emerges from an interaction of content, pedagogy, and technical knowledge.

5.7.1.       Different from all 3 concepts individually.

5.7.2.       Basis of effective teaching with tech., and requires:

5.7.2.1.An understanding of representation of concepts using tech.

5.7.2.2.Pedagogical techniques that use tech. in constructive ways to teach content.

5.7.2.3.Knowledge of what makes concepts easy or difficult to learn and how tech. can help with some of those problems.

5.7.2.4.Knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology.

5.7.2.5.Knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.

5.7.3.       No single tech. solution that applies to every teacher, course, or view of teaching.

5.7.4.       Solutions lie in the ability of the teacher to flexibly navigate the space defined by the 3 elements (TPC) and the complicated interactions between them in specific contexts.

5.7.5.       Dynamic equilibrium – changes in one area will affect the others. (Ex. Online learning)

6.       Be inventive.

6.1.   Teachers are curriculum designers.  Curricula do not exist independently.

6.2.   Teaching is shaped by personalities, history, ideas, beliefs, and knowledge.

6.3.   Teachers negotiate the balance between TPC in ways appropriate to the constantly changing context.

6.4.   Practice and develop gradually.

6.5.   Greater emphasis on demands subject matter because the tech. will be different depending on the subject and pedagogical approach.

 

 

Technology Readings – #1

Primary Source:
Trotter, Andrew. (2008, March 26). Software Industry Promotes Goals for School Technology. Education Week. Vol. 27, Iss. 29, 10.

Secondary Source:
www.siia.net/visionk20

• Research Questions
  1. What, if any, are the univeral goals for school technology?
  2. What individual progress has been made and what are the best practices? 
• Participants
  • Software & Information Industry Association
  • School Personnel (teachers, administrators, etc.) Nationwide
  • Schools, Educational Companies, Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other outside sectors.
• Treatment = Vision K-20 Initiative is a survey to measure a school’s progress in meeting the goals establised by the SIIA.  The goal of the survey is to better define the role of technology in the 21st century.
• Take-away
  •  The goal of this survey is to persuade schools to incorporate the SIIA goals into their educational missions and setting a common agenda.
  • The survey could also help educational companies get a better handle on the needs of schools.
  • It will be interesting to see the results of this survey, which will come out at the end of 2008.
  • The SIIA website provides a great list of clear universal goals for technology in education, which is listed in the ‘Notes’ section below, as well as why the educational sector needs to catch up in its use of technology.
  • Would like to see some specifics on “best practices”.  There are many generalizations like “… use technology for assessments and differentiated learning…”

Notes: (From SIIA website)

“To remain relevant and effective in a century marked by rapid innovation and global competition, the education community must understand how learning can be improved through the use of new technologies, and use the data gathered with help from these technologies, to guide educational decisions. Until now, the investment in technology has led to the discovery and development of “best practices,” but these success stories have not yet led to large-scale systemic change.”

SIIA Vision for K-20 Education
By the end of the decade, we believe that every K-20 institution can—and should—have an instructional and institutional framework that embraces technology and e-learning in order to:
• Increase student engagement and achievement
• Provide equity and access to new learning opportunities
• Document and track student performance
• Empower collaborative learning communities
• Maximize teaching and administrative effectiveness
• Build student proficiencies in 21st Century skills

Our SIIA Vision calls for a coalition of stakeholders, including educators, business executives, policymakers, and academic leaders to recognize this Vision and to work together to realize this opportunity.

To better prepare our nation’s students to compete globally, we must combine proven, well-implemented and well-supported technologies with solid educational approaches. As a result, we will sharpen the innovative edge of our individuals and institutions and increase the opportunity for each person to fulfill their promise through education.

Reflections

Reflections on my project – There are many things to take away from this project; too many to list them all here.  But here are the most important:

1. I like to teach, but I like to create and incorporate technology tools as well.  It seems as though a person needs to chose one or the other.  There is so much demand on teachers’ time that makes it very difficult to incorporate technology if you do not really know what you’re doing.  There really isn’t the time to learn it well and then incorporate it appropriately.  Just looking at my experience in this project, my teacher had her hands totally full with the students and their own issues.  She didn’t have the time to learn, incorporate, and plan out instruction using technology by herself, not to mention the school’s technology set up holding her back.  There is also no one there to help her and it’s hard to find the time to research the tools.  It’s also hard to do implement a project using the tool all by yourself.  How do we make the barriers easier for teachers to incorporate technology and do it appropriately?

2. You absolutely MUST incorporate in detail the characteristics of the learners into any technology you plan to use with the students, whether they are passive or active and creating with the technology.

3. Never make assumptions of the technology that a school has (geared more towards pre-service teachers).  Get in there and have a look for yourself to make sure the technology you are incorporating will work with the school’s technology set up and philosophy.

Discusses a classmate’s project – I thought Terri’s project was really neat.  I loved how they used the handheld technology – it’s so much less bulky that moving laptops or organizing kids with PC’s into groups.  I also thought it was extremely well thought out and executed.  I would like to see the results from an objective test to see if they all learned the material.  Sometimes kids just slide by when it comes to learning in groups.   Interesting to note that they needed 2 people to run the classroom.  This seems to be recurring.  It would have been difficult for the teacher to do without help unless the students were pretty proficient with the handhelds.  I like how Terri countered this issue by trying to stay to the side and encourage the use of student tech buddies.  Very well done!

Project Progress — 11/26/07

Progess this week -

I’ve finalized and produced the audio clip (podcast) for my project.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~trw205/files/wpguide.mp3

I’ve also finalized and produced the subraction video clip (vodcast) for my project.  I created the video in Scratch and recorded it with Camtasia.  It came out pretty decent.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~trw205/files/subtraction_video.mov

 This week I’ll be working on the surveys and webquests.  I’m leaving the actual assessment up to the teacher (Margie), but I’ll be providing input.

Project Progress — 11/12/07

Sorry this is late – I was working on my presentation…

 I met with my teacher on Sunday and started her blogging (yeah).  I finalized some questions on her classroom/school demographics and other classroom questions.  We determined some assessment strategies for the tools I’ll be creating.  So basically we will have pretest and post tests and examine the results.  We will also conduct surveys.  We’ve determined that the podcast will be introduced first, probably late this week or next Wednesday (the students are off on Monday and Tuesday next week for conferences).  The video on multiplication will be post-poned b/c she will not being doing multiplication until after X-mas.  The addition/subtraction video tool (we also discussed content) will be introduced the week of 11/26 and the WebQuest (which will be on $ for a trip to a themepark), will be done the following week  (12/3).  It will have it’s own activity for assessment, which will be graded with a rubric (maybe entirely so).

 That’s all for now!

My Project With Margie

This post is for project communications with Margie.

Project Progress — 10/29

I didn’t get as far as I would have liked (stymied by a trip to the in-laws and a 4 year old birthday party, but I wouldn’t change that).  I did, however, manage to do the following:

1.) Update my project documentation draft with comments/suggestions from Dr. Hammond.

2.) Communicated (via email) with my teacher and got comfirmation/finalization on cirriculum for the months of November and December.  This is good because you never quite know what havoc is going to enter into your unit/lesson plans as the school year plays out.  Now that the year is a little further on, she has a much better grasp on where they’ll be in my timeframe for this project.  They’ll be just about right in line with our tool ideas, though I might tweak them just a bit.

3.) I’ve gotten the 3rd grade textbook for use with this project.

4.) I’ve created a written rough draft for my podcast on solving word problems.  I’ll be recording it and passing it on to Margie (my teacher) this week.

 That about covers it!