Strategies and Integrational Pedagogy for Instructional Technology

2,005 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,005
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Entry - instructor uses tech tools to deliver content, teacher is in control
    Adoption - instructor directs students in conventional, procedural use of tech, teacher makes decisions about when/how students use the technology, students need a procedural understanding
    Adaptation - instructor facilitates students exploring and independently using tech, teacher guides the students in using tech, students are able to use the tech independently without procedural instruction and begin to explore the technology
    Infusion - instructor provides the learning contexts and students choose the tech to achieve the outcome, a range of tech tools are integrated flexibly into the classroom, students make decisions about how to use technology
    Transformation - instructor encourages innovative use of tech, students are self-directed in using tech to facilitate higher order thinking and to complete learning activities not possible before
    Developed by Univ of Southern Florida for K-12 education. TIM focuses on pedagogy NOT tech tools.
    As you move up the levels, there is greater student ownership of learning, and a shift from procedural to conceptual understanding, a move from conventional to complex use, a shift from lower-order to higher-order thinking and skills
  • Active - students are actively engaged in using tech
    Cooperative - students use tech to collaborate with others
    Constructive - students use tech to connect new information to their prior knowledge
    Authentic - students use tech to link learning activities to the "real world"
    Intentional - students use tech to set goals, plan activities, monitor progress, and evaluate results
  • Big mistake - assuming students are "digital natives" and will just get it. Digital native coined by Marc Prensky in 2001. Although this terminology is thrown about frequently in popular media, it is at best simplified and at worst inaccurate. Studies show that there continues to be a "digital divide" among young people (usually due to access or parental restrictions) and that young people who do use tech use it in a very narrow way (texting, gaming, media consumption such as watching movies).There may not be as vast a difference between old and young generations as we once thought, and students certainly continue to need teachers to guide them in using tech in a relevant way.
  • Available IT resources and support
    Wireless internet access and capacity on campus
    How apps will be purchased and distributed (for iPads)
  • ASSURE starts with looking at the learner in detail. Define your audience. Understand their general characteristics Nothing you plan or design is effective unless you have taken the time to look at the learners. Knowing as much as possible about your learners is critical to design and implementation of instruction.
    Second, the second letter in ASSURE, S, refers to knowing the intended outcomes or expectations. No instruction should begin without everyone having a clear understanding of what is supposed to happen in the instruction. Objectives should be stated in terms of what the learner will do.
    The second S refers to selecting your media and materials. In steps 1 and 2, you have defined the beginning point (audience characteristics and skills) and end point (outcomes). Now you have to build an instructional bridge to connect those two points.
    The next step is Using your media and materials. Preview and practice yourself, then roll out the lesson with students.
    Require learner performance. Students need to actively use the tech, practice, and receive feedback.
    The final component is to evaluate and revise. Evaluate the entire process. Gather data on outcomes and impressions from the learners. Did the learners meet the objectives? Were the media and materials effective? Did the learners use the materials properly? Identify discrepancies between what you intended and what actually happened, and make revisions.
  • Quickly define:
    LinkedIn - professional networking
    Facebook - social network
    Twitter - microblog
    Tumblr - blogging site
  • SAMR to guide learning activities
  • Simplification, but illustrates
  • A — Analyze learners: learners are changing. Started with only 3 on Twitter and a handful with smartphones. Now majority on Twitter & almost all with smart phone, tablet, or both.
    S — State standards & objectives - reviewed with SAMR
    S — Select strategies, technology, media & materials - discussed
    U — Utilize technology, media & materials - discussed
    R — Require learner participation - have done this. Always offer alternatives, never any push back on the front end.
    E — Evaluate & revise - early objectives to inc engagement and learning outcomes. Did not show inc. Evolved to be about online professionalism communication, and considering one's digital "footprint." We are well-aligned with that goal now. None of these tools can replace an LMS - learning how to integrate these tools with Blackboard
  • Content - prof/Clin Ed was a better fit than ped PT
    Instructor - I had to know the platforms, difficulty with integration across courses due to diff instructor skill sets, various levels of interest & support from CIs
    Institution - wireless good on campus, but issues with blocked sites or wifi access at clinical sites
    Students - students know FB, but need to be taught other sites. Various levels of skill and interest. Access not an issue.
    Technology - concern with privacy, prof/pers boundaries
  • Pedagogy should drive tech use, not the other way around.
    If you are using tech well, you should leverage it to increase interaction w/ students
  • Content knowledge (CK) is knowledge about the actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught
    Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning and how it encompasses, among other things, overall educational purposes, values, and aims.
    Technology knowledge (TK) is knowledge about standard technologies.
  • PCK - knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to the teaching of specific content. This knowledge includes knowing what teaching approaches fit the content, and likewise, knowing how elements of the content can be arranged for better teaching. This knowledge is different from the knowledge of a disciplinary expert and also from the general pedagogical knowledge shared by teachers across disciplines.
    Technological content knowledge (TCK) is knowledge about the manner in which technology and content are reciprocally related. Although technology constrains the kinds of representations possible, newer technologies often afford newer and more varied representations and greater flexibility in navigating across these representations. Teachers need to know not just the subject matter they teach but also the manner in which the subject matter can be changed by the application of technology.
    Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) is knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and conversely, knowing how teaching might change as the result of using particular technologies. This might include an understanding that a range of tools exists for a particular task, the ability to choose a tool based on its fitness, strategies for using the tool’s
    affordances, and knowledge of pedagogical strategies and the ability to apply those strategies for use of technologies.
  • Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three components (content, pedagogy, and technology). TPCK is the basis of good teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help
    redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.
  • Instructivism
    Teacher- and institutionally-centered. Knowledge is created by instructors and institutions and is delivered to students. Teachers and institutions create the processes and conditions for success.
    Constructivism
    Teacher moves into facilitator role, promoting peer-to-peer learning. Students create and construct their own knowledge, building on foundations of previous learning.
    Knowledge is socially constructed
    Knowledge is external to the user and learning is the act of internalizing knowledge
    Learning is a social process
    Meaning is created by the learner
    Connectivism
    Lots of overlap with constructivism. Relationships and networks are a primary source of learning. Focuses on building a network of knowledge sources to access whenever you need them.
    Knowledge rests in diversity of opinions
    Learning is a process of connecting information sources & may reside in non-human devices
    Capacity to know is more critical than what is known
    Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning
    Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill
    Decision-making itself is a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality (meta-cognition).
  • Instructivism
    Teacher- and institutionally-centered. Knowledge is created by instructors and institutions and is delivered to students. Teachers and institutions create the processes and conditions for success.
    Constructivism
    Teacher moves into facilitator role, promoting peer-to-peer learning. Students create and construct their own knowledge, building on foundations of previous learning.
    Knowledge is socially constructed
    Knowledge is external to the user and learning is the act of internalizing knowledge
    Learning is a social process
    Meaning is created by the learner
    Connectivism
    Lots of overlap with constructivism. Relationships and networks are a primary source of learning. Focuses on building a network of knowledge sources to access whenever you need them.
    Knowledge rests in diversity of opinions
    Learning is a process of connecting information sources & may reside in non-human devices
    Capacity to know is more critical than what is known
    Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning
    Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill
    Decision-making itself is a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality (meta-cognition).
  • Bloom's to guide objectives
  • SAMR to guide learning activities
  • Open and showcase Explain Everything.
    YouTube channel
  • LinkedIn profile
  • Required,June 2012
    3 weekly tweet chats + #FF, 7 total tweets required
    All 36 students, 9.36 tweets/student (range 7-18)
    60 outsiders
    Optional, April 2013
    4 weekly live tweet chats, none required
    19.06 tweets/student (range 2-79)
    4 additional faculty, 3 alumni, 9 outsiders
  • Future outcomes - rubric for quality of tweets/posts, quality of social media profiles
  • Strategies and Integrational Pedagogy for Instructional Technology

    1. 1. Strategies for integration of instructional technology Kendra Gagnon, PhD, PT @KendraPedPT
    2. 2. Where in the world is Kan pollev.com/kendragagnon
    3. 3. What instructional technologie pollev.com/kendragagnon
    4. 4. “Technology decisions are...teaching and learning decisions.” –McKeachie's Teaching Tips
    5. 5. Technology use vs. technology integration http://babieswithipads.tumblr.com
    6. 6. Using technology... http://babieswithipads.tumblr.com • Arbitrary • Random & sporadic • Focused on the technology • Used mostly by instructor to deliver content & information • Used individually
    7. 7. Technology integration http://babieswithipads.tumblr.com • Planned and purposeful • Part of the culture/environment of the classroom or program • Supports learning objectives • Used mostly by the students to create, construct, and connect knowledge • Used to facilitate collaboration
    8. 8. SAMR Model
    9. 9. 5 levels of technology integration fcit.usf.edu/matrix fcit.usf.edu/matrix Transformation Transformation Instructor encourages the innovative use of tech Instructor encourages the innovative use of tech Infusion Infusion Instructor provides the learning contexts & students choose the tech to achieve the Instructor provides the learning contexts & students choose the tech to achieve the outcome outcome Adaptation Adaptation Instructor facilitates students exploring and independently using tech Instructor facilitates students exploring and independently using tech Adoption Adoption Instructor directs students in conventional, procedural use of tech Instructor directs students in conventional, procedural use of tech Entry Entry Instructor uses tech tools to deliver content Instructor uses tech tools to deliver content
    10. 10. 5 essential elements of meaningful learning with technology (Jonassen et al 2008) (Jonassen et al 2008)
    11. 11. Technology Integration Matrix http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix.php Entry Adopti on Adapt ation Infusio n Transforma tion Active Constru ctive Coopera tive Authenti c Intention al Where are you?
    12. 12. McKeachie's Teaching Tips, 14e (2013)
    13. 13. Content • What do you expect the students to learn? • What skills and knowledge do you want them to have by the end of the course? • What teaching strategies will best help your students achieve those objectives?
    14. 14. Students • What are the students' expectations of technology? • What are the students' experience with technology? • Can all students access the technology? • How will technology affect the roles and responsibilities of the students? • What factors may influence student perception and use of technology?
    15. 15. Technology Adoption Model Davis et al, 1989 Davis et al, 1989 Perceived Perceived Usefulness Usefulness External External Variables Variables Perceived Perceived Ease of Use Ease of Use Behavioral Behavioral Intention to Intention to Use Use Attitude Attitude Towards Towards Using Using Actual Use Actual Use
    16. 16. Instructor • How much skill/experience do you have using technology? • How much time do you have? • What is your role as an instructor? • What are your expectations of technology?
    17. 17. Institution • Is the infrastructure in place for students to use the technology? • What support services are available for the students and instructor? • What is the technology "culture" of the institution?
    18. 18. Technology tools • Communication & collaboration • Presentation & information sharing • Information searching & resource management • Learning management systems
    19. 19. ASSURE good learning Smaldino et al (2012) Smaldino et al (2012) A — Analyze learners S — State standards & objectives S — Select strategies, technology, media & materials U — Utilize technology, media & materials R — Require learner participation E — Evaluate & revise
    20. 20. Evaluation • Did the use of technology help students achieve objectives? • How did the use of technology help change students' engagement in learning? • How did the use of technology change teaching behaviors and practices? • Did the technology improve teaching effectiveness and efficiency?
    21. 21. Strategy for integrating social media into DPT education LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Evidence du Jour LHLR
    22. 22. Social media integration Entry Active Constru ctive Coopera tive Authenti c Intention al Adopti on √ Adapt ation √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Infusio n √ √ √ Transforma tion
    23. 23. Social media integration A — Analyze learners S — State standards & objectives S — Select strategies, technology, media & materials U — Utilize technology, media & materials R — Require learner participation E — Evaluate & revise
    24. 24. Considerations • Content • Instructor • Institution • Students • Technology
    25. 25. Integrative pedagogy Kendra Gagnon, PhD, PT @KendraPedPT
    26. 26. “Any teacher that can be replaced with a computer, deserves to be.” –David Thornburg
    27. 27. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge T P C
    28. 28. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge T P C
    29. 29. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge T TPC K P C
    30. 30. Learning Theory Instructivis m Constructivis m Connectivis m
    31. 31. Learning Theory Connectivism Constructivism Instructivis m
    32. 32. Share 3 things you've learned today that pollev.com/kendragagnon
    33. 33. Questions & Discussion @ericrobertson ekrdpt@gmail.com @KendraPedPT kendragagnon@gmail.com @mpascoe mike.pascoe@ucdenver.edu
    34. 34. Selected references 1. Churches A. (2009) Bloom's Digital Taxonomy. http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v3.01.pdf 2. EDUCAUSE: www.educause.edu 3. Florida Center for Instructional Technology http://fcit.usf.edu 4. Kathy Schrock's Guide to Everything http://www.schrockguide.net 5. Jonasson et al (2008) Meaningful Learning with Technology. 6. McKeachie's teaching tips, 14th ed (2013) 7. Mishra & Koehler (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6): 1017-1054. 8. Ruben R. Puentedura's Weblog http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/ 9. Siemens (2004) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm 10.Smaldino, S.E., Lowther, D.L., & Russell, J.D. (2012). Instructional technology and media for learning (10th ed.) 11.University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching: http://www.crlt.umich.edu/teaching-technology/gettingstarted

    ×