Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Earli 2015 dli

274 views

Published on

Presentation on Earli 2015 about the course Digital Learning Innovation in the Master of Learning and Innovation Zwolle University of Applied Sciences

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Earli 2015 dli

  1. 1. designing effective digital pedagogical innovation from: designing as a teacher to designing as an innovator
  2. 2. MLI/DLI [2015] [context] [master learning and innovation] [for teachers in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education] [60 ECTS] [parttime, two year] [about 120 students] [since 2009] [accreditation: good - good - good]
  3. 3. Competent in Research Competent in Design Competent in Change Competent in Reflection
  4. 4. Year 1 1st period 2nd period 3rd period 4th period Integrated learning line competency exam 1 change in perspective of learning innovative educational design projects & quality in education research
  5. 5. Year 2 1st period 2nd period 3rd period 4th period Integrated learning line competency exam 2 supervising change in education digital learning innovation prepare competency exam research
  6. 6. Year 2 1st period 2nd period 3rd period 4th period Integrated learning line competency exam 2 supervising change in education digital learning innovation prepare competence exam research
  7. 7. Competent in Research Competent in Design Competent in Change Competent in Reflection
  8. 8. MLI/DLI [2015] [test] [report] —> research a recently completed digital innovation (in the classroom or in the organization) [design] —> a it-related innovation [evaluate] —> the design and your role
  9. 9. MLI/DLI [2015] [test] [report] ⌘ the research of the innovation-history in your organization: what are the enabling and hindering factors in your organization? Can you divide the population into sub- populations? On what rationale? Function? Acceptance of the innovation? ⌘ what are the innovation goals (for the new innovation) for the distinguished sub-populations? ⌘ design a innovation program ⌘ evaluate your role as a innovator
  10. 10. Digital [technology] Learn [people] Innovate [organise] research - design - reflect
  11. 11. MLI/DLI [2015] [key principle] Digital innovation is people work Two key authors: Fullan & Donnelly (2013) Kreijns (2010)
  12. 12. MLI/DLI [2015] [Fullan & Donnelly]
  13. 13. MLI/DLI [2015] [Kreijns] ‘when teachers do not use digital learning materials, see it as problem behavior’ addiction care model —> intervention mapping model
  14. 14. MLI/DLI [2015] [Kreijns] understand the problem behavior intervention innovations goals per subpopulation based on research design
  15. 15. MLI/DLI [2015] [learning path] [1] setting the canvas [2] what would you research, how to get your data [3] instruments [4] analyse [5] design & evaluate
  16. 16. MLI/DLI [2015] [results] test results: ⌘ in most of the schools: IT-related innovations (VLE’s, test-software, student-tracking-sytems, social media, etc.); ⌘ variations of IT-use between teachers and institutes ⌘ less (or no) relation between the IT used and the pedagogic/content: structuring education, marketing reasons.
  17. 17. MLI/DLI [2015] [results] test results: ⌘ less creative design: generally, innovation programs consists of describing vision (plans), professional development and making agreements of the use of IT
  18. 18. MLI/DLI [2015] [results] evaluations: ⌘ students likes the module, especially the balance between us as a model and the content ⌘ but complain about the amount of work, ⌘ they appreciate the structure in the colleges ⌘ liked that the teacher is a role-model
  19. 19. MLI/DLI [2015] [literature] Fransen, J., Bottema, J., Goozen, B. van, Swager, P. & Wijngaards, G. (2012). Acceptatie en duurzame implementatie van de didactische inzet van ICT. Rapportage van een onderzoek naar de relaties tussen persoonlijke en contextuele factoren en hun invloed op brede acceptatie en duurzame implementatie van ICT in de praktijk van het onderwijs. Rotterdam: Inholland Lectoraat eLearning. Verkrijgbaar op: http:// goo.gl/kIkYF5. Fullan, M. & Donnely, K. (2013). Alive in the Swamp: Assessing Digital Innovations in Education. London: Nesta. Verkrijgbaar op: http://goo.gl/NnNv1c. Kennisnet (2015). Vier in balans monitor 2015. De laatste stand van zaken van ict in het onderwijs. Zoetermeer: Kennisnet. Verkrijgbaar op: https://goo.gl/x3LDhT. Kreijns, C.J. (2009). Als ICT een meerwaarde heeft, waarom gebruiken leraren dit dan niet in hun lessen en wat kunnen wij daar aan doen? Eindhoven: Fonthys Hogeschool. Oratie. Verkrijgbaar op: http://goo.gl/ XPf2uK. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M. & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practicies in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington: U.S. Department of Education (https://goo.gl/PFNLGX). New Media Consortium (2015). The NMC Horizonreport. Austin: New Media Consortium (http://goo.gl/ 6pmzLN). Kies het rapport dat het beste past bij de sector waarin je werkt. Vermeulen, M., Acker, F. van, Kreijns, C.J., Buuren, H. van (2012). Leraren en hun intentie tot het gebruik van digitale leermiddelen in hun onderwijspraktijk. Pedagogische Studiën 2012 (89), 159-173. (http:// goo.gl/wggbmC). Vanderlinde, R., Van Braak, J. & Dexter, S. (2012). ICT Policy planing in a context of curriculum reform: Disentanglement of ICT policy domains and artifacts. Computers & Education 58(2012), 1339-1350. (http:// goo.gl/G2E1zJ). Vermeulen, M., Acker, F. van, Kreijns, C.J., Buuren, H. van (2012). Leraren en hun intentie tot het gebruik van digitale leermiddelen in hun onderwijspraktijk. Pedagogische Studiën 2012 (89) 159-173. Voogt, J. (2015). Docent en ICT, een constructieve relatie. De lectorale rede ten behoeve van het lectoraat ‘Onderwijsinnovatie en ICT’. Zwolle: Windesheimreeks kennis en onderzoek, nr. 51. (http://goo.gl/ Ypn4ps)
  20. 20. MLI/DLI [2015] [design questions] As a designer and teacher i’m satisfied with evaluations, although: ⌘ how can we increase creativity in the design? ⌘ how can we increase M- or R-innovations according to the SAMR-model? ⌘ how can we increase appropriate innovations?: appropriate between the needs and the solution? ⌘ is the outline of the test appropriate?

×