Where are we going with educational technology? Twitter is awash with articles describing upcoming ed tech trends. If you have the patience to push through the click-bait, Rhea Kelly’s (2016) article 9 Trends to Watch in 2016 describes trends in higher ed such as Makerspaces, Competency Based Education, Virtual Reality (VR), Data Analytics and Machine Learning, Accessibility, Mobile First, Wearables, Video, and Wireless Infrastructure as up and coming. From a business perspective, the eLearning Industry describes eLearning Trends and Predictions for 2017. Many of these trends are related through the technology of data and analytics and, most notably, represent a shift in thinking about education delivery. Going back to the articles on Twitter, most articles about these trends describe their use in K-12 education with less focus on adult education. Interesting, though, that pedagogy for K-12 seems to be changing with ed tech. Throughout this EdTech course, and while working through the process of selecting ed tech, we've been cautious to avoid letting technology drive the pedagogy for our courses, but in the grand scheme of things, why wouldn't pedagogy change with the affordances that ed tech has to offer? We do what we can with what we have. So, when what we have changes, we can do more (and differently) with it. During my entire CACE experience, I have been thinking about the pedagogy I experienced in in my early education (Hooked on phonics worked for me!) and beyond. Things have changed significantly. I didn't even understand how to respond in a learner centered course at first! But it's not just the difference between pedagogy and andragogy. Delivery methods have changed, as evidenced not only by the articles on Twitter, but by Twitter itself. As we strive to effectively implement emerging technology in teaching and training, technology is also driving change in teaching and training. Module 11: Looking Forward
0 Comments
Looking back in summary of the educational technology selection process, there seems to be a logical and natural progression working through the elements. The elements as I've experienced them in this context: Define - The raison d'être. - What are the learning outcomes/learner needs? Explore - What is out there that could potentially meet the need? Evaluate - Match tools to pedagogy. - What are the best options (SECTIONS/CSAM analysis)? Engage - What are the impacts to learner engagement? - How can engagement be maximized? Maintain – What are the requirements to assess, update, maintain, replace? Propose – The right fit. – Why is it the best choice? This feels familiar to me; similar to the preliminary steps of project initiation or Mor’s (2013) Design Inquiry of Learning process outlined in his learning design studio framework for educational design. As such, there is still work to be done integrating the technology and ensuring its use and value for the learners. Each situation will bring its own challenges and restrictions. Working through the evaluation process from a position of inquiry ensures a multi-faceted approach to technology selection that increases the potential for maximizing the benefit of technology. For example, the elements of SECTIONS are a checklist to ensure key factors are not overlooked. Is anything missing from this list? Experience will facilitate the addition or subtraction of questions to be asked while evaluating technology and the impacts on learner engagement. Assessment and maintenance plans complete the iterative cycle to ensure best fit. From a stakeholder perspective, understanding aspects of perceived usefulness (cost, ease of implementation, likelihood of adoption, etc.) and a forward-thinking approach adds rigor to the solution proposal. Of course, this is a best case scenario, text book approach. An element of flexibility is imperative to address the previously mentioned challenges and restrictions. However, I would suggest, having a solid understanding of the selection process facilitates flexibility as well as confidence/justification in the investment of time and resources required to develop proposed enhancements. Module 5: Educational Technology Planning Cognitive load (CL) refers to the amount of mental effort learners exert to process new information in their working memory. The amount of load affects the learner’s ability to transfer the information from working memory to long-term memory i.e. Store the material to be learned. We have been exploring how technology might enhance or detract from the overall educational experience. Cognitive Load Theory would suggest, when not used well, technology itself becomes part of the extraneous load learners must manage. Christopher Pappas (2014) does a nice job describing Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design. Beyond course design, I’ve been contemplating cognitive load from a holistic perspective; specifically whether CL has an impact outside one course. I'm thinking in the context of stress, resilience, and burnout now. Does CL affect aspects of mental capacity outside of one course? Resiliency is the ability to bounce back from a stressor. The number and intensity of stressors affect the ability to bounce back. Like stress, if learners experience an intense CL, does it extend into other areas of their learning? For example, a course I completed last term had an intense extraneous load. Not only was it distracting from that course, but it affected my ability to focus on another course I was taking at the same time. The time and mental effort I invested in Course A distracted me from other aspects of my life, and not just Course B. In addition, the effects seem to have seeped into this term. I am again taking two courses and I seem to have reached my capacity for cognitive load. It's not because either course has a particularly intense load, I think it's because my resilience to that load has decreased and I haven't fully bounced back from the previous term. Is balancing cognitive load important in broader sense? I fully admit that I may have "worked too hard" and extended myself beyond capacity. How much of the responsibility is on the learner to also manage the load by understanding the requirements and balancing the load for themselves as well? How does a learner acquire this skill? I'm not sure the instructional designer/facilitator can mitigate all of the load for learners' circumstances (how could they possibly know the big picture for every learner?). From a holistic perspective, it becomes even more important to consider CL when planning course delivery and technology selection. The design challenge becomes mitigating cognitive load while balancing autonomy, interaction and structure (see Maximizing Learner Engagement) to develop effective educational experiences. Module 4: Driving Engagement There is a danger in technology-mediated teaching of separation between the learners and the community in which they are learning. The distance learners feel in blended or distributed learning has potential to negatively affect the overall educational experience. Balancing the three elements, Social Presence, Cognitive Presence, and Teaching Presence, is critical in establishing a Community of Inquiry (Garrison et al, 2000) and creating an ideal educational experience for learners. A real world example demonstrating the effects of perceived imbalance of these elements recently occurred within the discussion forum of this EdTech course before we explored the concepts of this module. One of the learners commented on her perception that a social element was missing from the online discussions. Most discussion threads focused heavily on cognitive presence and lacked the social interaction required to enhance learning beyond “intersecting monologues”.
Enter the Teaching Presence and his ability to recognize the imbalance between Cognitive and Social Presence and its negative affect on Supporting Discourse. He was able to reset the climate by recommending a different approach to responding to discussion threads. The content selection was relevant to the learning outcomes, but interacting with it became less about reading to answer specific questions and more about discussing application of concepts to the learners’ contexts. The focus shifted from reiterating content to exploring its meaning. These concepts are not exclusive to Community of Inquiry. They are also reflected in recommendations made by Transactional Distance Theory (Murphy & Rodriguez-Manaznares, 2008) in creating ideal blended or distributed learning environments. Physical and perceived distances between learners, their peers, and instructors affect the learning experience. Bringing it back to technology, although physical distance cannot be controlled, it is important to consider how technology impacts the balance between interaction, autonomy, and structure. Does technology enhance or detract from the overall educational experience? Does the technology selected support the learning outcomes? How will technology be used to mitigate the potential distances learners may experience? All important considerations when selecting technology for teaching and training. Module 4: Driving Engagement In an ongoing learning activity, I am working toward recommending an EdTech tool that will enhance the learning experience for a specific course or unit of study. As described in a previous post, the course I would like to enhance is currently run in a one-day, face-to-face classroom setting. Organizational policy strictly limits technology available in the classroom (i.e. no Wi-Fi with restrictions on websites visited through the corporate network) so activities in the course are completed within those limitations (BYOD is not an option at this time). This has become an important factor in selecting technology.
The Collaborative Situated Active mLearning (CSAM) (Power, 2013) model is a framework that can be used to evaluate media selection for mobile learning activities. Working through the CSAM model, has highlighted areas for technology enhancement. Here is an overview of the face-to-face classroom before enhancement with technology: Collaborative – There is both learner-learner and learner-instructor collaboration. Content is delivered and discussed in multiple formats along with large and small group sharing of personal experiences and strategies. Situated – Learners have an opportunity to explore the content, in their own contexts, on a limited basis. To truly extend the learning in situation requires practicing the concepts outside the classroom. Active – Although in class activities allow learners to use the information they have learned, it is limited to the classroom context and activities are not fully able to meet each individual’s goals. Mobile – Not available in the classroom setting, however, may be required to enable the learner is to actively apply the information in situation. Learners need a way to extend what they learn in the classroom into their own contexts outside. One consideration is there is no classroom follow up after outside activities are completed. Therefore, the selected media will also need to provide a method for collaboration outside the classroom to close the collaborative loop. In an upcoming exercise, CSAM will be used to evaluate media selection for specific course outcomes. The results will be documented in a future blog post. Module 3: Critiquing and Evaluating Educational Technology As a framework, SECTIONS offers comprehensive categories to consider when selecting media; a foundation to facilitate the process. Understanding that “media selection does not happen in a vacuum” (Bates, pg 309), the questions within each category are meant to be a guideline used in conjunction with the course development framework.
Before answering the SECTIONS questions, some groundwork will already have been done by answering initial questions about teaching and learning:
Using an inductive approach, answers to the SECTIONS questions will support the initial selection or highlight gaps in meeting requirements. It is important to keep an open mind to the possibility that the initial media selection may not meet the requirements. With experience, it will become easier to intuitively make initial selections and recognize which questions are not applicable to the situation (or if others may need to be added). In an upcoming exercise, SECTIONS will be used to evaluate media selection for specific course outcomes. The results will be documented in future blog post. Module 3: Critiquing and Evaluating Educational Technology I signed off my last post with the question: “How can technology selection be made based on pedagogy when pedagogy is affected by technology?”
Bates (2015, Chapter 7) discusses three core elements to consider when deciding what media to use. How should the content be represented? Different symbol systems convey different information about the same content. What we know about something comes from multiple channels. Bates uses heat as an example. We can touch it, know what temperature it is, read about it, and see its effects. So, what do we want the learner to know about the content? How should the content be structured? Should it be linear/sequential (e.g. progressive logic structure) or is there an inter-relationship between content (e.g. multiple variables happening simultaneously or branching/alternative routes). What is the intended skill to be developed? Referring to Bloom’s revised taxonomy, where does it fall between remembering and creating? In short, the specific affordances of media types provide different ways to represent and structure content as well as develop different skill levels. “Thus a first step is to identify learning objectives or outcomes, in terms of both content and skills, while being aware that the use of some media may result in new possibilities in terms of learning outcomes.” (Bates, pg. 229) The answer to my question about: It’s an iterative process. Begin by matching media to the learning outcomes and continue to explore potential learning outcomes based on the affordances offered by the media. Module 2: Bringing the Right Mix: Choosing the Right Tool As I explore the pedagogical differences between various forms of media, I am also becoming aware of a number of current educational trends. Examples include: adaptive learning, flipped classrooms, makerspaces, mobile learning, etc. Each offers different methods of delivery in and out of the classroom, and they all use media/technology to facilitate learning in a different way than traditional methods.
There also seems to be a general understanding that learning outcomes should drive the evaluation and selection of media and technology (i.e. don’t use media for the sake of using the latest new thing). However, considering these trends, and how they have the capability of enhancing the learning process, I am beginning to wonder if the availability of technology, and its different affordances through media, is actually changing learning outcomes. It seems that different outcomes would be available depending on the media selected. How can media be selected based on pedagogy if pedagogy is affected by media? Module 2: Bringing the Right Mix: Choosing the Right Tool
In an exercise listing the tools I like to use in each area of media: text, video, audio, social media, and computing, I realized how prevalent technology is in my work and life. As a result, this is a work in progress. I'll be more mindful of the media I use going forward to see where it fits within these areas.
I've used ThingLink to depict my list. Hover over the hotspots to view the lists for each area. For all of my tangents, there was a focus this week on pedagogical differences between different types of media. As we move toward methods to choose technologies for teaching and training, our first stop was considering technology from the perspective of media. Media becomes the conduit for communication, where technology is the system used to transfer it. That being said, different media have different dimensions that allow us to compare them based on their affordances. Considering the context and the content to be communicated, what is the best media used to deliver the message that allows the receiver to decode it in a meaningful way? Keeping in mind the media used to send the communication will determine how the message is received. As I type that, I find myself thinking about Marshall McLuhan’s “The medium is the message”. Over fifty years, and the concept is still relevant today. The specific media has evolved, but key dimensions remain the same. Bates (2015, p. 209-221) describes each on a continuum. In the context of education, the pedagogy determines the communication and the receivers of communication are the learners. Dynamic in their own right, each learner will perceive the message with different levels of understanding. Their outcomes become the first consideration as we move toward discovering methods for choosing media.
Module 1: Analyzing Current Trends in Educational Technology |
What's this about?Documenting my exploration of Ed Tech and how it applies to the field of Adult Education. These are my Ang-ventures. ...see more Archives
April 2017
Categories |