Integrating innovative technology into the curriculum
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Integrating innovative technology into the curriculum

on

  • 143 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
143
Views on SlideShare
142
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

https://www.coursesites.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Innovation: encouraging ingenuity, creativity and discovery. I believe that most people think of “innovation” as synonymous with “novelty” or “trendiness.” When considering whatinnovation means for me, I looked at the evolution of certain products. I noticed that of the products considered the most innovative, with each new iteration of that product, it became increasingly user-friendly; that is less-complicated and easier to usewithout support. It wasn’t necessarily a new product – just a better product. The innovative product also offered increased value and benefits over previous versions, or over not using it at all. That to me is the true meaning of innovation. 
  • Many faculty members are reluctant to use technology because they have persistent doubts about the complex nature of technology and are dubious of the value it can add to their teaching. If we are to encourage faculty to integrate technology into their courses, we must select and promote the most innovative technologies – that is those which are the most-user friendly (and by that I mean both in terms of faculty and student’s use) and those that add the most value in terms of presenting content effectively and in a pedagogically appropriate manner.
  • It has been noted that where there is fear, there is no creativity (Ferlic, 2008). Previous failures can condition a faculty member to expect future failure when it comes to learning how to use technology (Barry, 2006)(Osika, Johnson, Buteau2009). When faculty members perceive that a technology will be difficult to use - or fear that it will be hard to learn - they are unwilling to invest the time and effort to integrate technology into their courses; much less to try and use it creatively. If we are to encourage faculty to integrate technology into their course we must help them see that they can become competent and self-reliant and that students will benefit from their doing so.
  • Many faculty members tend to use technology it in a way that mimics what they do in the classroom rather than taking advantage of technology’s full potential (Kreber & Kanka, 206). They stick with what is familiar and comfortable rather than creative or ingenuous. They view technology as a separate piece that is “added on” rather than a part of the overall teaching strategy. If we are to encourage faculty to integrate technology into their courses, we must help them see the relationship between content, pedagogy and technology (Koehler, Mishra, Yahya, 2005).
  • “There’s more to teacher preparation and faculty development than training teachers how to use tools – it requires appreciation of the complex set of interrelationships between artifacts, users, tools and practices. (Koehler, Mishra, Yahya, 2007)” Just as a slot-headed screwdriver is meant for a certain task, technology tools have their own set of attributes that make certain applications better for certain tasks. One must analyze the task at hand before selecting the appropriate tool. You hardly ever see people “practicing” tool usage before they have a need to perform a specific function. If I want to build a bookshelf, I get out my toolbox and select those tools the tools I need. I may realize that a tool I am using isn’t working and select another. It’s more on-the-job experimentation. To be truthful, I use a butter knife for most jobs – but that’s another story. Another problem I have is not reading the instructions first. If something seems obvious, I just try it. If I’m not sure how something works, I might consult the instructions or look it up on Google. I suspect that many faculty members might be the same when it comes to using technology. Matthew J Koehler, Punya Mishra and KurniaYahya describe an approach to developing instructors’ technology skills they call learning technology by design (Koehler, Mishra, Yahya, 2007)”. Their problem-based approach uses constructivist and collaborative learning frameworks and involves faculty in projects where they work together to solve authentic learning problems. They learn about technology and pedagogy by actually using and designing educational technology to teach specific content.Over a period of time faculty members came together to work on their online courses. They focused on meeting specific learning challenges rather than on using a certain set of tools. In fact, faculty members were exposed to several technologies, assessed their usefulness, and included some of them in their designs. Because there is often more than one right answer, sometimes different technologies were used, or used in different ways, by each of the faculty. However, all were exposed to new tools and pedagogies in the process. We could capitalize on the research data by creating a program of sessions of less than 59 minutes where faculty are given (or suggest) authentic learning problems to solve collaboratively. Each session could be stand alone or all could combine to have a complete course - such as a student orientation to online learning
  • Nancy Chism looked at educational theories, social psychology and organizational theories before offering her approach which focuses of faculty as problem-solvers who learn through their experience and by performing “natural experiments” in the classroom (Chism, 2004). She contends that by bringing faculty together to share their collective experiences and their reflections about what isn’t working in the classroom, one can create an environment where new options can be explored and peers can support and motivate each other.
  • She talks about the outgrowth of this community; having a pool of ideas from which faculty members can choose, idea-seeding, and a best-practices database. She feels that short workshops can be used to expose faculty to easy-to-use technologies that might not be used immediately, but may be implemented later when an instructional need arises or might be shared with a colleague. She also believes that having “testimony” from a faculty member about the effectiveness of a particular technology can help diffuse and spread a culture that emphasizes innovation.
  • One important thing to note it that most of the faculty do not formally assess the effectiveness of technology. To get deeper information evaluations should be done on the impact of technologies on student learning. We should help faculty approach their experimentation in a scholarly way so that they would also be able to.We should foster a sense of common goal and community among faculty transitioning into the online learning environment.
  • The research suggests that the reality is quite different from the “Functionalist” and technical knowledge proficiency or competencies perspective. Approaches to online teacher preparation and support, therefore, need to regress from the technology-focused programs. What is needed is the creation of transformative learning experiences for teachers who would engage in pedagogical problems-solving and discovery.Through this process, faculty need to be provided with collaborative working environmentswhere their needs are listened to and solutions suggested according to variables in their teaching contexts. Technology staff and instructional designers should constantly engage in a dialogue about solving problems and making decisions regarding the design and teaching processes of online courses. ID “townhall” meetings where faculty can ask questions and request suggestions from staff and other faculty.
  • Traditional training is given by a trainer that faculty may feel is not in tune with what they need but is only trying to train them to use tools. The assumption is that faculty will take what they learn and then apply it in a way that accommodates their needs. Current research shows that the most effective training occurs when it incorporates peer-to-peer training, manifesting in shared ideas and practices among faculty. Further recommendations include small, departmental groups with trainers who understand the learning process and are familiar with pedagogical strategies. The main idea is to make technology training options as available as possible using newsletters, campus-wide forums, and just-in-time resources.
  • “A [faculty development] program will succeed if it moves faculty from simply being aware of instructional technology to fully integrating it in his/her teaching and research.” I think it will also need to move faculty to share their knowledge and their content/products and the research on those artifactsTo facilitate the transition from teacher-centered approach to one that is more learner centered faculty development must evolve from simply teaching about software to “training faculty how to use the software in a learning environment”
  • This slide shows some of the characteristics of technology and the reasons why a peer may be the best person to help move another faculty member to use a technology. They can explain how the technology improved their teaching. They can give a demonstration of a product and show that it will be easier to use than it was thought. And they can hear from someone who shares their values and philosophy, rather than a “trainer” who may have no actual practical experience.
  • Self-efficacy, particularly about computer self-efficacy, can provide a theoretical framework for understanding technology integration into instruction. It is an individual’s belief of their capabilities to us technology in the course.
  • Effective technology training must be hands-on, systematic and on-going. Additionally it must address a variety of models, approaches, needs, schedules and learning styles. Teachers must have uninterrupted, on-demand access to technologies they intend to use.A program should include showcases where faculty could demonstrate their use of technology and seminars where interested faculty could discuss issues surrounding technology. The showcases and seminars are designed to provide verbal persuasion and build faculty confidence through performance attainment.The program should also make faculty more aware of available technologies and how to integrate those technologies into their instruction.
  • Familiarization comes first. Utilization is second. Integration is third. Reorientation and Evolution are fourth and fifth.
  • Innovators are the first group to adopt technology. Little faculty development is needed for themNext is early majority. They will adopt innovation based on the recommendation of others. *Forth is the late majority. They will earn and apply new technology but only if it is required or makes their immediate work more efficient. Mandates may be required. The laggards are the final category. These are the most difficult to move and support.When faculty lack vision about how to use technology, mentoring is the most effective ways to support faculty technology integration efforts. Early adopters and innovators become trainers in a type of “guild” The early majority are very responsive to demonstrations by early adopters.
  • Certain subject areas are most likely to profit from technology enhancements. Those with high-volume of students, standardized content, and well defined outcomes. New technologies have created learning opportunities outside of the classroom by removing time and space dependencies. Technology can improve the quality of instruction by concentrating talents and efforts on developing instructional materials used by many students.
  • A facility where faculty can work with staff to evaluate the technology, hands-on with support for questions and/or troubleshooting. Starts with needs assessment and then provides training, consultation and support for exploration.
  • Here are the references for this presentation

Integrating innovative technology into the curriculum Integrating innovative technology into the curriculum Presentation Transcript

  • LaVonne M. Grandy, M.Ed. INTEGRATING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY INTO THE CURRICULUM Promoting Faculty Self-Assurance and Creativity
  • Innovation: encouraging ingenuity, creativity and discovery.
  • TEACHING TOOLS VS. MEETING GOALS We should encourage the use of innovative technology to accomplish specific learning goals.
  • PRECONCEPTIONS We should help faculty overcome their preconceived notions about technology and their technology competence.
  • GUIDANCE We should guide faculty in the ways that they use technology.
  • LEARNING BY DESIGN We should involve faculty in projects where they work together to solve authentic learning problems  focus on meeting specific learning challenges rather than on using a certain set of tools  Expose them to several technologies,  Allow them to assess their usefulness, and whether to include some of them in their designs 
  • FACULTY LEARNING COMMUNITIES  We should bring faculty together to share their collective experiences and their reflections about what is or isn’t working in the classroom  Create an environment where new options can be explored and peers can support and motivate each other.
  • FACULTY LEARNING COMMUNITIES Short workshops could be used to expose faculty to easy-to-use technologies that might not be used immediately, but may be implemented later when an instructional need arises or might be shared with a colleague  “Testimony” from a faculty member about the effectiveness of a particular technology can help diffuse and spread a culture that emphasizes innovation 
  • FACULTY LEARNING COMMUNITIES  Research should be done on the impact of technologies on student learning.  Share the data with colleagues  Outgrowth includes: a Pool of Ideas, Idea Seeding, Best Practices Database
  • PEDAGOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING We need to regress from the technologyfocused programs. What is needed is the creation of transformative learning experiences for teachers who would engage in pedagogical problems-solving and discovery  We need to create collaborative working environments where their needs are listened to and solutions suggested according to variables in their teaching contexts. 
  • AUTHENTIC FACULTY TRAINING     Faculty may feel that traditional training given by a trainer is not in tune with what they need but is only trying to train them to use tools. Current research shows that the most effective training occurs when it incorporates peer-to-peer training Recommendations include small, departmental groups with trainers who understand the learning process and are familiar with pedagogical strategies We should make technology training options as available as possible using newsletters, campuswide forums, and just-in-time resources
  • FROM AWARENESS TO USE  We should move faculty to share their knowledge and their content/products and the research on those artifacts.  To facilitate the transition from teachercentered approach to one that is more learner centered faculty development must evolve from simply teaching about software to “training faculty how to use the software in a learning environment”
  • CHARACTERISTICS OF TECHNOLOGY      Relative advantage – the degree to which a faculty member perceives a new technology as superior to existing methods. Perhaps best explained by a peer? Trialability - can a faculty member learn how to use a technology quickly and implement a trial. Can they “test drive” it? Perhaps a peer could demo what they have done or share a resource so the faculty could judge whether or not to invest time in learning a technology. Observability – the ease, by which the technology can be observed, imagined or described to a potential user. Complexity – difficulty to understand or use? Often perceived as harder than it is. Faculty peers can ease fears. Compatibility – does it fit in with faculty values or philosophy? Will it assist him/her in achieving goals?
  • SELF-EFFICACY individual’s belief of their capabilities to us technology in the course An
  • EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING Must be hands-on, systematic and on-going.  Additionally it must address a variety of models, approaches, needs, schedules and learning styles.  Showcases where faculty could demonstrate their use of technology  Seminars where interested faculty could discuss issues surrounding technology 
  • STEPS TO INTEGRATION AND BEYOND  Familiarization comes first.  Utilization is second.  Integration is third.  Reorientation and finally  Evolution
  • STEPS ON THE PATH TO ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY Innovators are the first group to adopt technology. Little faculty development is needed for them  Next is early majority. They will adopt innovation based on the recommendation of others. *  Forth is the late majority. They will earn and apply new technology but only if it is required or makes their immediate work more efficient. *  The laggards are the final category. 
  • ACADEMIC PRODUCTIVITY  Certain subject areas are most likely to profit from technology enhancements. high-volume of students  standardized content, and  well defined outcomes  New technologies have created learning opportunities outside of the classroom by removing time and space dependencies  Technology can improve the quality of instruction by concentrating talents and efforts on developing instructional materials used by many students. 
  • INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY CENTER A facility where faculty can work with staff to evaluate the technology,  Work hands-on with support for questions and/or troubleshooting.  A place where faculty can come to hear from other faculty members.  A place (both real and virtual) where ideas are shared 
  • REFERENCES           Antonacci, D. (2002) Integrating Technology into Instruction in Higher Education, University of Missouri-Kansas City, IS Training and Communications, Dec. 11, 2002. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2012 at http://associations.missouristate.edu/assets/mohighedweb/IS-TechnologyIntegrationinHigherEducation.pdf Baran, E., Correia, A., Thompson, A. (2011) Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32:3, 421-439 Bennett, J. Bennett, L. (2003) A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. The Internet and Higher Education, 6 (2003) 53-63 Chism, N. (2004) Using a framework to engage faculty in Instructional Technologies, Educause Quarterly., Nov, 2004 39-45 Ferlic, K., (2008) Releasing Your Unlimited Creativity: Dealing with Fear. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from: http://ryuc.info/common/recreating_oneself/dealing_with_fear.htm Georgina, D., Olson, M. (2007) Integration of technology in higher education: A review of faculty self-perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 11 (2008) 1-8 Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Yahya, K. (2005) Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers and Education, 49 (2007) 740-762 Osika, E., Johnson, R., Buteau, R. Factors Influencing Faculty Use of Technology in Online Instruction: Case Study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume XII, Number I, Spring 2009. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2012 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring121/osika121.html Perry, B. (2006) Fear and Learning: Trauma-Related Factors in Adult Education Process. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 110, Summer 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Spotts, T., (1999) Discriminating factors in the faculty use of instructional technology in higher education. Educational Technology and Society, 2(4) 1999