2. Working with TPACK and implications for instructors
Working with TPACK made the framework more clear than when you only read about it. We found out that the framework could be very useful for designing a lesson, because it ‘forces’ you to think very specific about all the different aspects of a lesson. Though I thought it was hard to really keep the circles separated, when you think of content it is very difficult not to think of PCK for example. The same for technology when you think of inquiry learning (PK) it is very tempting to directly think of ways technology could support this. Besides that it seemed to be difficult to start without a context, because when you think of inquiry learning, you automatically think of a broader context (and content, technology etc). But again, it did help us to consider each aspect very purposeful.
In that way it could be of help for instructors too, but I think that they maybe need some more guidance (e.g. in the way of concrete steps and sequences). The TPACK framework can help in the process of awareness of the importance of TPACK and the relationship of technology in combination with pedagogy and content. When the teacher sees the relationships and the importance of a proper integration of technology a table with activities which is presented by Harris and Hoffer (In Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009) can be a good help to choose for a specific kind of technology that fits the activity/content. So the knowledge of the TPACK framework can be used to motivate teachers to design their lessons with technology in ‘a new way’ and thus to be innovative with the use of technology in their lessons.
3. What about flexibility?
While we were working with the TPACK model, I can’t remember that we discussed about flexibility. Because it is not specifically a part of the model it is easy to forget about flexibility. But still, I think some aspects of flexibility can be found in our lesson, although it became a quite prescribed lesson.
Flexibility for the teacher
The teacher is flexible in the way he uses the lesson plan, he can use it by following each step we wrote, but he can also decide to change things according to his own view or ideas. In this way the lesson plan can for example have a better fit with the specific groups of learners. Another example is the contact via email that is mentioned in the lesson plan. The teacher can decide when he is going to answer the questions which the students emailed him.
Flexiblity for the learner
From the students perspective there is more room for flexibility, because of the inquiry learning approach. Learners are stimulated to think of questions that they are curious about and want to investigate. The question has to meet some standards which are given by the teacher, so flexibility is a little restricted here. When answering this question they are flexible in using the Internet in a way that they prefer, they can for example choose their own search engines or sources. But again, the teacher can determine whether a source is of good quality or not and they have to look for something else. Because of the time schedule, the learners have to present their answer in the next lesson. Finishing the assignment and making the presentation can be done in their own time if they can’t make it in the lesson time. But of course, there is a deadline. So flexibility sure is present for the learners, but there are restrictions given by the teacher.
Flexibility in support
Also in the instructor support there is some flexibility. Although the workshop is obligated, teachers can be flexible in the follow up of this workshop. It is for example optional if the teachers want to contact the coach with questions or if they prefer to drop by at the time the coach visits the school. He can also chose how he wants to contact the coach (e.g. email, phone, skype or face-to-face). So support is very flexible.
The participation in collaborative learning is not obligated, they are flexible in choosing which kind of collaborative learning they prefer (with their own peers via Blackboard and face-to-face, or with others via the online community of Kennisnet). They are also free how active they want to participate and if they want to make use of all the options.
Teachers are expected to do something with what they have learned in the workshop, so they have to give an inquiry lesson with internet search. When they want to give this lesson and when they want to design the lesson is up to them. The only restriction is that this has to be done within the moth after the workshop.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Reflection - part 1
1. The process of designing a lesson based on TPACK
1.1. PK (inquiry learning) as a starting point for designing
In this post I want to reflect on working with the TPACK model in practice. Together with two teammates I designed a lesson based on TPACK. As a starting point for designing, our group got inquiry learning. So, our starting point was in the Pedagogical Knowledge-circle (PK).
First of all, we looked at the concept of inquiry learning and looked for a model with several steps of the inquiry learning process:
- Knowledge attack;
- Ask questions;
- Create hypothesis;
- Gather information;
- Construct new knowledge;
- Report;
- Integration of knowledge.
Along with this model we thought about the learning activities for the learners as well as the activities for the teachers during inquiry learning.
1.2. Defining the context
After defining this pedagogical approach as a starting point we had to move on to a second circle of the TPACK model. But it appeared to be very difficult to move on without a clear understanding of the context in which this inquiry learning will take place. Therefore we first decided that we wanted to chose for secondary school education and for students in the age of 13-14 years. We chose a class size of about 20 students . We chose secondary education, because of the age of the children and the different subjects that are given to this students. We also decided that we wanted to design a lesson for geography.
A question to consider was in which dept we had to specify the context? We chose to be quite specific, but wouldn’t it be better to be more general so the lesson we designed can be given on other schools than the one who fits perfectly to our context? When you make choices as using blackboard, the school has to be familiar with this kind of technology because otherwise this lesson cannot or would not be given. I think this could be a hindering factor for designers of more general lesson material. It is progressive to design lesson with the integration of technology like computers, video (beamer/interactive whiteboard), blackboard. But a lot of schools do not (yet?) have this new technologies (enough computers/whiteboards etc). I think that it is very difficult to take that into account when you want to design lesson material with TPACK (so with the use of certain technology). As pictured in the framework, the context encloses everything and therefore influences the TPACK elements. But what if you want to design a lesson for a more general context?
1.3. Which content are we going to teach?
The second circle we wanted to define is the content knowledge-circle (CK). First we chose a subject that seemed suitable for inquiry learning. It became geography, because of the possibilities for inquiry of different topics within the subject. Choosing a specific topic for our lesson was harder to do. First we had to think of different possibilities, so we looked on the Internet for geography topics. One of the topics within geography we found was “Tsunami”. We thought this was an interesting topic for inquiry learning, because the tsunami of 2004 is well-known an lots of information is available about this topic. Besides that different questions can be investigated.
After deciding which content we are going to teach, we defined the overlapping circle of PK and CK: PCK. This helped us to get a clear vision of the activities of the inquiry lesson about Tsunamis. Which we wrote down in a table (with steps of inquiry learning and corresponding actions/activities)
1.4. Which kinds of technologies are suitable for our lesson?
So the context, PK, CK and PCK are clear. Time to move on to the next circle, technological knowledge (TK). In this phase the technology that we wanted to use for our inquiry lesson about tsunamis had to be defined. It became clear to us that it was easier to think about PTK and CTK first, so the connection between technology and content/pedagogy is clear. After all, the linkage between the circle is most important.
So, how do we want them to investigate about the topic? Tsunami is a topic which has been widely in the news. That’s why we choose to do something with Internet search on this topic. So the students can look for information on the Internet, using a computer. In order to stimulate prior knowledge and to motivate the students to inquire something about tsunamis a video of the tsunami of 2004 is shown. Therefore a video that is downloaded from the Internet (e.g. YouTube) is needed. Furthermore there are several other kinds of technology that we wanted to use in our lesson. These are more related to support the whole inquiry learning process. Therefore a Blackboard environment will be used to provide students with an online workspace and the teacher can easily post information/announcements etc. For the students to present their findings we thought a PowerPoint presentation would be suitable, so that’s again another kind of technology that is going to be used during the lesson. To divide the technologies under these two circles was hard. We decided to see the Internet search and the video as a mean to support the content: TCK. The other technologies (blackboard, email, PowerPoint) were more for supporting the learning process of inquiry and are not directly linked to the content. So we chose to elaborate these in combination with inquiry learning under PTK. But the Youtube video isn’t only for visualizing the content but also for stimulating prior knowledge, and internet search is a way to inquire about the topic. So, by doing this I realized that technology indeed can have a different function, one is more for pedagogical support and the other more as a way to teach the content , but that this function can also be two-dimensional. Before working with TPACK myself, this distinction was less clear. When we thought of technologies in the lectures I didn’t had this distinction in mind. But when we wanted to describe TPK and TCK this became clear.
After defining TCK and TPK we thought of the circle of TK. This appeared to be more of a summary of the kinds of technologies we used an the knowledge about how the technology works.
When we were making the presentation, we saw that the sequence in the report is TK, TPK, TCK. Actually the thinking process started from TPK to TCK and at last TK.
1.5. Moving on to TPACK
When all these circles are filled in. At last, TPACK can be described. This was a difficult last step, how can you describe TPACK? Is it a adding up of all the elements that are described before, or does it really is a new ‘competence’? We chose to define TPACK as all the knowledge that is needed to give the lesson. Therefore we made a table which consists of the steps of inquiry learning, the actions that follow these steps and the teachers knowledge about these steps and actions. In the table below you see how step one: knowledge attack is elaborated. In our case TPACK in the form of this table is sort of a summary.
1.6. Thinking of implementation and support
This assignment did not stop after designing the lesson, we had to think about how to implement it as well. Therefore we thought it would be nice if we would describe the spider web of Van den Akker for our lesson. The spider web consist of ten elements which are all related to curriculum. By describing all these ten elements we think we gave a clear vision of the rationale and arrangements our lesson needs. Next to this description, the complete lesson plan is written out. Giving activities of the teachers and the time that has to be spend on this activity. When we were busy writing this lesson plan, we thought of the way we could best describe the plan. We chose to do this specific, but not all written out in direct instructional text. An example of the way we described the lesson plan is described below:
1.1. PK (inquiry learning) as a starting point for designing
In this post I want to reflect on working with the TPACK model in practice. Together with two teammates I designed a lesson based on TPACK. As a starting point for designing, our group got inquiry learning. So, our starting point was in the Pedagogical Knowledge-circle (PK).
First of all, we looked at the concept of inquiry learning and looked for a model with several steps of the inquiry learning process:
- Knowledge attack;
- Ask questions;
- Create hypothesis;
- Gather information;
- Construct new knowledge;
- Report;
- Integration of knowledge.
Along with this model we thought about the learning activities for the learners as well as the activities for the teachers during inquiry learning.
1.2. Defining the context
After defining this pedagogical approach as a starting point we had to move on to a second circle of the TPACK model. But it appeared to be very difficult to move on without a clear understanding of the context in which this inquiry learning will take place. Therefore we first decided that we wanted to chose for secondary school education and for students in the age of 13-14 years. We chose a class size of about 20 students . We chose secondary education, because of the age of the children and the different subjects that are given to this students. We also decided that we wanted to design a lesson for geography.
A question to consider was in which dept we had to specify the context? We chose to be quite specific, but wouldn’t it be better to be more general so the lesson we designed can be given on other schools than the one who fits perfectly to our context? When you make choices as using blackboard, the school has to be familiar with this kind of technology because otherwise this lesson cannot or would not be given. I think this could be a hindering factor for designers of more general lesson material. It is progressive to design lesson with the integration of technology like computers, video (beamer/interactive whiteboard), blackboard. But a lot of schools do not (yet?) have this new technologies (enough computers/whiteboards etc). I think that it is very difficult to take that into account when you want to design lesson material with TPACK (so with the use of certain technology). As pictured in the framework, the context encloses everything and therefore influences the TPACK elements. But what if you want to design a lesson for a more general context?
1.3. Which content are we going to teach?
The second circle we wanted to define is the content knowledge-circle (CK). First we chose a subject that seemed suitable for inquiry learning. It became geography, because of the possibilities for inquiry of different topics within the subject. Choosing a specific topic for our lesson was harder to do. First we had to think of different possibilities, so we looked on the Internet for geography topics. One of the topics within geography we found was “Tsunami”. We thought this was an interesting topic for inquiry learning, because the tsunami of 2004 is well-known an lots of information is available about this topic. Besides that different questions can be investigated.
After deciding which content we are going to teach, we defined the overlapping circle of PK and CK: PCK. This helped us to get a clear vision of the activities of the inquiry lesson about Tsunamis. Which we wrote down in a table (with steps of inquiry learning and corresponding actions/activities)
1.4. Which kinds of technologies are suitable for our lesson?
So the context, PK, CK and PCK are clear. Time to move on to the next circle, technological knowledge (TK). In this phase the technology that we wanted to use for our inquiry lesson about tsunamis had to be defined. It became clear to us that it was easier to think about PTK and CTK first, so the connection between technology and content/pedagogy is clear. After all, the linkage between the circle is most important.
So, how do we want them to investigate about the topic? Tsunami is a topic which has been widely in the news. That’s why we choose to do something with Internet search on this topic. So the students can look for information on the Internet, using a computer. In order to stimulate prior knowledge and to motivate the students to inquire something about tsunamis a video of the tsunami of 2004 is shown. Therefore a video that is downloaded from the Internet (e.g. YouTube) is needed. Furthermore there are several other kinds of technology that we wanted to use in our lesson. These are more related to support the whole inquiry learning process. Therefore a Blackboard environment will be used to provide students with an online workspace and the teacher can easily post information/announcements etc. For the students to present their findings we thought a PowerPoint presentation would be suitable, so that’s again another kind of technology that is going to be used during the lesson. To divide the technologies under these two circles was hard. We decided to see the Internet search and the video as a mean to support the content: TCK. The other technologies (blackboard, email, PowerPoint) were more for supporting the learning process of inquiry and are not directly linked to the content. So we chose to elaborate these in combination with inquiry learning under PTK. But the Youtube video isn’t only for visualizing the content but also for stimulating prior knowledge, and internet search is a way to inquire about the topic. So, by doing this I realized that technology indeed can have a different function, one is more for pedagogical support and the other more as a way to teach the content , but that this function can also be two-dimensional. Before working with TPACK myself, this distinction was less clear. When we thought of technologies in the lectures I didn’t had this distinction in mind. But when we wanted to describe TPK and TCK this became clear.
After defining TCK and TPK we thought of the circle of TK. This appeared to be more of a summary of the kinds of technologies we used an the knowledge about how the technology works.
When we were making the presentation, we saw that the sequence in the report is TK, TPK, TCK. Actually the thinking process started from TPK to TCK and at last TK.
1.5. Moving on to TPACK
When all these circles are filled in. At last, TPACK can be described. This was a difficult last step, how can you describe TPACK? Is it a adding up of all the elements that are described before, or does it really is a new ‘competence’? We chose to define TPACK as all the knowledge that is needed to give the lesson. Therefore we made a table which consists of the steps of inquiry learning, the actions that follow these steps and the teachers knowledge about these steps and actions. In the table below you see how step one: knowledge attack is elaborated. In our case TPACK in the form of this table is sort of a summary.
1.6. Thinking of implementation and support
This assignment did not stop after designing the lesson, we had to think about how to implement it as well. Therefore we thought it would be nice if we would describe the spider web of Van den Akker for our lesson. The spider web consist of ten elements which are all related to curriculum. By describing all these ten elements we think we gave a clear vision of the rationale and arrangements our lesson needs. Next to this description, the complete lesson plan is written out. Giving activities of the teachers and the time that has to be spend on this activity. When we were busy writing this lesson plan, we thought of the way we could best describe the plan. We chose to do this specific, but not all written out in direct instructional text. An example of the way we described the lesson plan is described below:
- Ask the learners to think of (sub)questions and to write them down on one side of the paper they got.
- While the learners are busy write down the names of the groups, so you can make groups on blackboard etc..
Besides that we thought of hindering and stimulating factors for implementation, and came up with some stimulating ideas to support implementation.
After that another important issue for a successful implementation is the support that is given to the teacher. Therefore we thought of a one-shot-workshop with follow up support. By thinking about the way we wanted to support our teachers I learned to think about factors as costs/time/availability etc. Even we could choose our own context, we chose to think in ‘real life terms’ for money and time and not to idealistic. Therefore the workshop and follow up support we chosen seemed suitable and cost efficient.
What seemed hard in thinking of support is taking into account the factors that Natalie Pareja mentioned in her lecture, the factors to consider. Like, time, costs, etc. It is very appealing to think of a idealistic world, because we had the freedom to make up our own context. But we wanted to stay close to a realistic world and therefore these factors are very important. To make choices based on these key factors, the support is much harder to design. The costs for the workshop and the follow-up are not very high (1800 euro), but it’s a lot of money for a school. Time is always a difficult aspect for teachers. They don’t have much time for activities next to the classroom practice. This workshop and the follow-up take up about 10 hours spread over 1 month, it’s important that the school provides that time. Lastly commitment and ownership from the teachers might be difficult if participating is obligated. We decided to make it obligated though, because otherwise the school might spend a lot of money on the project, while only a few teachers decide to participate. As mentioned before to get teachers motivated even though it’s obligated it is important that the school leader is supportive (time, costs, but also vision).
After that another important issue for a successful implementation is the support that is given to the teacher. Therefore we thought of a one-shot-workshop with follow up support. By thinking about the way we wanted to support our teachers I learned to think about factors as costs/time/availability etc. Even we could choose our own context, we chose to think in ‘real life terms’ for money and time and not to idealistic. Therefore the workshop and follow up support we chosen seemed suitable and cost efficient.
What seemed hard in thinking of support is taking into account the factors that Natalie Pareja mentioned in her lecture, the factors to consider. Like, time, costs, etc. It is very appealing to think of a idealistic world, because we had the freedom to make up our own context. But we wanted to stay close to a realistic world and therefore these factors are very important. To make choices based on these key factors, the support is much harder to design. The costs for the workshop and the follow-up are not very high (1800 euro), but it’s a lot of money for a school. Time is always a difficult aspect for teachers. They don’t have much time for activities next to the classroom practice. This workshop and the follow-up take up about 10 hours spread over 1 month, it’s important that the school provides that time. Lastly commitment and ownership from the teachers might be difficult if participating is obligated. We decided to make it obligated though, because otherwise the school might spend a lot of money on the project, while only a few teachers decide to participate. As mentioned before to get teachers motivated even though it’s obligated it is important that the school leader is supportive (time, costs, but also vision).
Monday, October 19, 2009
Reflection on how TPACK can be combined with the topics that have been discussed so far
In previous posts and lectures the topics flexibility, pedagogy and technology are discussed.
Collis & Moonen (2001) state that especially higher education institutions have a collective desire to change towards more flexible learning mediated by technology. But it’s the instructor who must ultimately make it happen, and many instructors do not yet make use of technology (Collis & Moonen, 2001). The TPACK model gives insight in the knowledge that is needed to do make use of technology in lessons (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). In a previous post I talked about five different kinds of pedagogical approaches, in the TPACK model this corresponds to the pedagogical knowledge. The choice for a particular pedagogical approach influences the other parts of the model. The approach has to be suitable for the content you want to teach and the approach also influences the choice for the use of technology. All this knowledge together forms TPACK.
But what is the added value of TPACK? I think the added value is the insight that according to this model only giving instructions to teachers about how to use a particular kind of technology is not enough (when focused on skills). As Harris, Mishra & Koehler (2009) say: ‘learning about technology is different than learning what to do with it instructionally’. The same is true for only learning about particular pedagogical approaches or content knowledge. The combination between the three circles is very important and cannot be seen separately. When a teacher learns about technology it is important that he or she also learns how to use technology to teach more effectively (TPK) and how technology relates to the specific content (TCK). Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) say that overall it is important that the teacher learns how to help students meet particular curriculum content standards while using an appropriate kind of technology (TPACK).
So this model is very useful, but it remains a framework for teachers knowledge about TPACK. Teachers themselves does not have so much profit from this model, it is merely a theoretical model. How can teachers benefit from this TPACK framework in practice? Because the model does not specify how this TPACK should be accomplished. I think it is the task of educational designers of professional development to take this model into account and design learning activities which fits the TPACK framework. In their article Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) also describe several learning activities for teachers according to the TPACK model.
It can therefore be concluded that TPACK is off added value when one is designing professional development on how to use technology in the classroom in a right way. It gives insight in this complex phenomenon. Moreover I think it provides a way to look further than the approach that sees technology as a factor on itself, rather than an integrated part. It very clearly shows the relation between technology, content and pedagogy.
But.. where is the flexibility in this model, because this course is focusing on flexible learning, and flexibility is not explicitly part of the model. Like we said in class I think flexibility is all over the model. Think back of the five kinds of flexibility I mentioned in my first post, flexibility related to time, content, material and resources, instructional approach and delivery and logistics.
Content and instructional approach represent two of the circles of the TPACK model and the technology circle is related to flexibility in delivery and logistics. Time and materials relate to the context of the teacher which can be found in the outer circle of the TPACK model.
I think that flexibility can grow as the teacher has more knowledge of each domain and the combinations of the domains. When the knowledge of these domains become bigger, the more room there is for flexibility to be integrated. So knowledge about flexibility is an integral part of the model and can be found in each circle, when the circles get bigger, the more room there will be for flexibility.
References
Collis, B.. & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Friday, October 16, 2009
What is TPACK?
In this post I want to give insight into the TPACK concept. TPACK stands for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Mishra and Koehler (2009) have first introduced this model in 2006 (see figure 1). TPCK is the knowledge of the teacher on how to integrate technology in their lessons. To achieve TPACK the teacher has to have knowledge about (a) technology: the teacher has to know what kinds of technologies are available and how these technologies work. This part is thus about knowledge and skills about technology. (b) Pedagogy: the teacher has to have knowledge about teaching strategies, pedagogical approaches, how to use resources and the teacher needs insight in how the students learn. (c) Content: the teacher also has to know something about the content or subject that he or she is teaching. This knowledge is not only the knowledge that the students have to learn about the subject but goes broader than that. It’s the knowledge about, for example, theories, facts, frameworks and procedures.
(Source: http://www.tpck.org/)
As the model shows Pedagogy and Content are overlapping each other and form Pedagogical Content Knowledge, which is about how to teach specific subjects and about students misconceptions and difficulties about this subject. Pedagogy is also overlapping with Technology forming Technological Pedagogical knowledge. This is the knowledge about how to teach with the use of ICT, how to adapt your pedagogical strategies to technology. Besides that Technology is overlapping with Content, forming Technological Content Knowledge. This is the knowledge about how to use technology for teaching a particular subject. Which kind of subject is suitable for teaching with what kind of technology.
At last in the heart of the model all this comes together and forms TPACK. Therefore TPACK is the broad knowledge about how to use technology in a lesson about a particular subject according to the pedagogical approach you use. Looking at the model the circle can start at several points. A teacher can start with a specific subject and looks for a suitable approach for teaching this subject and thereby searches a kind of technology which fits with this subject and approach. He can also start with a specific approach, for example inquiry learning and then search a topic that is suitable for inquiry learning and a technology which fits this approach and subject. The starting point can also be technology, e.g. the teacher wants to do something with a simulation and searches for a suitable subject and approach to teach with a simulation. I think the model gives a clear overview of all the factors that are related with and influence proper teaching with the use of technology. In the next post I will discuss the added value of the TPACK model.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Reflection on the combination of the three topics 'Flexibility', 'Pedagogies' & 'Technologies'
When I was thinking about the combination of technology, pedagogy and flexibility an experience of the course Atelier 1 came to mind. Petra gave us lectures about multimedia, those lectures where recorded and placed on the blackboard environment so students could look at it when they want and where they want. What surprises me when I look back is that all students still showed up at the lectures. They didn’t skip the lecture and choose to look at it in their own time at their own location. That makes me wonder about the statement of Collis and Moonen (2001) about who wants flexible learning. They say that students want flexible learning because they require educational programs to be tailored to their own situation, rather than fitting a standard model. Table 2.1 of Collins and Moonen show implications of being virtual as a way for flexible delivery, they show the pay-offs of doing so. But how can we explain that students didn’t made (fully) use of this flexible delivery? (Or is the way of using I described not the goal of this kind of flexibility?) What did you, Petra, as a teacher expected when you were going to work with this recordings?
Maybe this example is a case of implementation of flexible learning and getting used to flexible learning. The same way for using this kinds of technology to support flexible learning, or pedagogical approaches, as we saw last week (Nintendo, Wikipedia, Online games). In Atelier 1 this type of flexibility was introduced to this students for the first time and strange enough, I never saw it again in other courses. I’m interested in how to introduce flexible learning and how to get started. I hope to learn more about this and the factors influencing this process of implementation. And how about students saying they want flexible learning, but don’t use it when it’s available? Another important aspect I think is how to support teachers in providing flexible learning and to let if fit with their pedagogical approach.
Maybe this example is a case of implementation of flexible learning and getting used to flexible learning. The same way for using this kinds of technology to support flexible learning, or pedagogical approaches, as we saw last week (Nintendo, Wikipedia, Online games). In Atelier 1 this type of flexibility was introduced to this students for the first time and strange enough, I never saw it again in other courses. I’m interested in how to introduce flexible learning and how to get started. I hope to learn more about this and the factors influencing this process of implementation. And how about students saying they want flexible learning, but don’t use it when it’s available? Another important aspect I think is how to support teachers in providing flexible learning and to let if fit with their pedagogical approach.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Webquest as an example of a technology supported pedagogical approach
As a preparation for this weeks’ session I looked for an example of a pedagogical approach that is supported by some kind of technology that can be used in education.
I directly thought of an interesting concept for inquiry learning/ problem based learning: Webquests. In the first year of my study, I designed such a webquest myself. It’s a learning environment in which the learner is stimulated to solve a problem through several resources which are given in the webquest.
Technology is here used to provide a rich learning environment for a constructivism approach of learning.
See: www.webquests.nl
I directly thought of an interesting concept for inquiry learning/ problem based learning: Webquests. In the first year of my study, I designed such a webquest myself. It’s a learning environment in which the learner is stimulated to solve a problem through several resources which are given in the webquest.
Technology is here used to provide a rich learning environment for a constructivism approach of learning.
See: www.webquests.nl
Friday, October 2, 2009
Pedagogical approaches supported by a CMS
For this assignment I looked for five different kinds of pedagogical approaches:
- Workplace learning
- Collaborative learning
- Inquiry learning
- Problem based learning
- Task oriented learning.
Each of these approaches will be shortly described and the use of a Course Management System (CMS) to support these approaches will be discussed.
Workplace learning
Education and training is no longer seen as being solely the realm of educational institutions, but has to involve workplaces too. Workplace learning is always strongly related to practice and often driven by a specific problem which the learner wants to solve. Workplace learning can be divided in to two types of learning: informal- and formal learning. Formal learning are trainings and workshops on the workplace, arranged by management and often obliged to follow. Informal learning are all the kinds of learning at the workplace which are not structured. Peers or colleges play an important role in this. Examples of informal learning are: asking help from others, observing others, corridor conversations and mentoring relationships.
As mentioned before, social networks play an important role in solving these problems, this is where a Course Management System (CMS) could be providing possibilities to communicate with one another via a discussion forum or chat function. For observing work from peers and ask for feedback from peers or teachers a CMS could also be helpful.
Collaborative learning
Collaborative learning is an umbrella term for a variety of approaches in education that involve joint intellectual effort by students or students and teachers. Collaborative learning refers to methodologies and environments in which learners engage in a common task in which each individual depends on and is accountable to each other. Groups of students work together in searching for understanding, meaning or solutions or in creating an artifact of their learning such as a product. Collaborative learning activities can include collaborative writing, group projects, and other activities. Collaborative learning if often seen in many different pedagogical approaches and is mentioned above within several approaches. Because of the collaboration communication options can be provided in a CMS, like a forum ,chatting (response is faster). In a workspace students can save their documents and see documents of their peers to organize the learning process and easily put separate parts together.
Inquiry learning
Inquiry-based learning or also called discovery learning is learning that is based on student’s questions and curiosity. Pedagogy requires students to work together to solve problems, instead of receiving direct instruction from the teacher. The teacher’s job is to help students along the process of discovering knowledge themselves, they function as facilitators of learning instead of providing knowledge.
A CMS can offer support in creating a learning environment where learners can find resources for information to solve the problem. A teacher can provide learners with helpful documents, but the learners have to select and look for useful information themselves. Because of the collaboration a discussion forum or a shared workspace could be helpful.
Problem based learning
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered instructional strategy in which students collaboratively solve problems and reflect on their experiences. Problem based learning is driven by challenging open-ended problems and students work in small collaborative groups to solve them. The teachers takes on the role of facilitators, like it is the case with inquiry based learning. Students are encouraged to take responsibility for their group and organize the learning process themselves. To organize this learning process a workspace within a CMS can be helpful and as mentioned earlier for collaboration a discussion forum or chat-space could be useful. Information and resources can be provided in a CMS in the same way as with inquiry learning.
Task oriented learning
Characteristics of task-oriented learning are that a structured or open task (e.g. problem description, assignment, study tasks, small cases etc) is available within a meaningful context. A series of actions are needed to come to the desired result and different information tools are available.
Task oriented learning can be supported by a CMS by introducing the task in a meaningful context. The context and information tools can be made by several resources in the CMS as articles, websites or videos. The task description can also be placed in an ‘assignment’ space in a CMS. This can provide a description of the actions needed to come to the desired results. Methodologies, literature and theories can also be placed in a CMS.
Summary
As mentioned in this overview many ways of supporting a pedagogical approach via a CMS are possible. The main ways of support can be divided into (a) providing information and (b) providing communication options. With providing information you can think of: placing literature, methodologies, task descriptions and other contextual information. With providing ways to communicate with peers or teachers, a discussion forum, workspace, feedback space and a chat room are discussed. An example of a Course Management System which provides these functions is BlackBoard.
- Workplace learning
- Collaborative learning
- Inquiry learning
- Problem based learning
- Task oriented learning.
Each of these approaches will be shortly described and the use of a Course Management System (CMS) to support these approaches will be discussed.
Workplace learning
Education and training is no longer seen as being solely the realm of educational institutions, but has to involve workplaces too. Workplace learning is always strongly related to practice and often driven by a specific problem which the learner wants to solve. Workplace learning can be divided in to two types of learning: informal- and formal learning. Formal learning are trainings and workshops on the workplace, arranged by management and often obliged to follow. Informal learning are all the kinds of learning at the workplace which are not structured. Peers or colleges play an important role in this. Examples of informal learning are: asking help from others, observing others, corridor conversations and mentoring relationships.
As mentioned before, social networks play an important role in solving these problems, this is where a Course Management System (CMS) could be providing possibilities to communicate with one another via a discussion forum or chat function. For observing work from peers and ask for feedback from peers or teachers a CMS could also be helpful.
Collaborative learning
Collaborative learning is an umbrella term for a variety of approaches in education that involve joint intellectual effort by students or students and teachers. Collaborative learning refers to methodologies and environments in which learners engage in a common task in which each individual depends on and is accountable to each other. Groups of students work together in searching for understanding, meaning or solutions or in creating an artifact of their learning such as a product. Collaborative learning activities can include collaborative writing, group projects, and other activities. Collaborative learning if often seen in many different pedagogical approaches and is mentioned above within several approaches. Because of the collaboration communication options can be provided in a CMS, like a forum ,chatting (response is faster). In a workspace students can save their documents and see documents of their peers to organize the learning process and easily put separate parts together.
Inquiry learning
Inquiry-based learning or also called discovery learning is learning that is based on student’s questions and curiosity. Pedagogy requires students to work together to solve problems, instead of receiving direct instruction from the teacher. The teacher’s job is to help students along the process of discovering knowledge themselves, they function as facilitators of learning instead of providing knowledge.
A CMS can offer support in creating a learning environment where learners can find resources for information to solve the problem. A teacher can provide learners with helpful documents, but the learners have to select and look for useful information themselves. Because of the collaboration a discussion forum or a shared workspace could be helpful.
Problem based learning
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered instructional strategy in which students collaboratively solve problems and reflect on their experiences. Problem based learning is driven by challenging open-ended problems and students work in small collaborative groups to solve them. The teachers takes on the role of facilitators, like it is the case with inquiry based learning. Students are encouraged to take responsibility for their group and organize the learning process themselves. To organize this learning process a workspace within a CMS can be helpful and as mentioned earlier for collaboration a discussion forum or chat-space could be useful. Information and resources can be provided in a CMS in the same way as with inquiry learning.
Task oriented learning
Characteristics of task-oriented learning are that a structured or open task (e.g. problem description, assignment, study tasks, small cases etc) is available within a meaningful context. A series of actions are needed to come to the desired result and different information tools are available.
Task oriented learning can be supported by a CMS by introducing the task in a meaningful context. The context and information tools can be made by several resources in the CMS as articles, websites or videos. The task description can also be placed in an ‘assignment’ space in a CMS. This can provide a description of the actions needed to come to the desired results. Methodologies, literature and theories can also be placed in a CMS.
Summary
As mentioned in this overview many ways of supporting a pedagogical approach via a CMS are possible. The main ways of support can be divided into (a) providing information and (b) providing communication options. With providing information you can think of: placing literature, methodologies, task descriptions and other contextual information. With providing ways to communicate with peers or teachers, a discussion forum, workspace, feedback space and a chat room are discussed. An example of a Course Management System which provides these functions is BlackBoard.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Preparation for pedagogy session
As a preparation for the session about 'Pedagogy' I searched an interesting article about a pedagogical approach. I found: ‘An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing
and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor’ by Aleven and Koedinger (2002).
Summary
This article is about a Cognitive Tutor, which is intelligent instructional software that supports guided learning by doing for learning ‘self explanation’. The authors investigated whether self-explanation can be scaffolded effectively in a classroom using the cognitive tutor. They found that students who explained their steps during problem-solving practice with a cognitive tutor learned with greater understanding compared to students who did not explain steps. They stat that these results show that the benefits of self-explanation can be achieved in a relatively simple computer-bases approach that scales for classroom use.
Relevance
I think this article is relevant for the session about pedagogy because it describes a pedagogical strategy, which is supported by technology. Learning by doing and explaining can be supported by an computer-based tutor, which guide the students in the process of self-explanation. As the results show, such tutors can be beneficial and enhance deeper understanding of the problem solving practice. Such a tutor can support the teacher in teaching different strategies, like self explanation, by letting students work with a computer-based tutor.
Link to article:
http://pd.ilt.columbia.edu/papers/AlevenV2002MetaStrategyLearnByDoWithComputer.pdf
Reference
Aleven, V. & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive science 26, 147-179.
and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor’ by Aleven and Koedinger (2002).
Summary
This article is about a Cognitive Tutor, which is intelligent instructional software that supports guided learning by doing for learning ‘self explanation’. The authors investigated whether self-explanation can be scaffolded effectively in a classroom using the cognitive tutor. They found that students who explained their steps during problem-solving practice with a cognitive tutor learned with greater understanding compared to students who did not explain steps. They stat that these results show that the benefits of self-explanation can be achieved in a relatively simple computer-bases approach that scales for classroom use.
Relevance
I think this article is relevant for the session about pedagogy because it describes a pedagogical strategy, which is supported by technology. Learning by doing and explaining can be supported by an computer-based tutor, which guide the students in the process of self-explanation. As the results show, such tutors can be beneficial and enhance deeper understanding of the problem solving practice. Such a tutor can support the teacher in teaching different strategies, like self explanation, by letting students work with a computer-based tutor.
Link to article:
http://pd.ilt.columbia.edu/papers/AlevenV2002MetaStrategyLearnByDoWithComputer.pdf
Reference
Aleven, V. & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive science 26, 147-179.
Assignment about flexibility
Flexibility is a hot topic in education these days, but its definition is not always clear. As Collis and Moonen (2001) state: ‘Flexibility is not just about distance’. Therefore this is an overview of five different kinds of flexibility. Each aspect is shortly described and some advantages and disadvantages of this kind of flexibility will be discussed. For making this overview I made use of the literature of Collis and Moonen (2001) about flexible learning. They present five dimensions of flexible learning which have formed a basis for my five kinds of flexible learning which are presented below.
1. Flexibility related to time
The first kind of flexibility focuses on flexibility in time. For example the starting time and finishing time of a course or the flexibility in time for submitting assignments and interacting within the course. Another aspect related to time is the pacing of studying and the moments of assessment (Collis & Moonen, 2001).
So flexibility can be seen in more simple ways as for example submitting assignments through mail, whenever you like, but before a deadline (and not only during a face-to-face meeting). But the learner can for example also do an assignment when he is ready for it, while another student is already at the next assignment. This flexibility offers studying in one’s own tempo, which allows students to study at times and pace that they prefer. Especially for non-regular students this would be great, because the course is more user-specific. But this kind of flexibility asks more of the organizational skills from the instructor of the course. When the learner is given more choice in time, it requires the instructor to respond and individualize rather than to plan and deliver. This could be liberating, he or she has more freedom in organizing his own time, but more tailored training is more time- and effort-consuming than standardized approaches for the instructor (Collis & Moonen, 2001). Beside that if time flexibility is promised, how to schedule lectures and make sure there is a room available? This kind of logistic aspects can quickly become unmanageable for the instructor and the institution (Collis & Moonen, 2001).
2. Flexibility related to content
Another aspect of flexibility is related to content of learning, this content could be fixed or flexible. For example the topics of the course could be flexible, students can pick their own topics or co-determine which topics they want to be part of the course. Another aspect could be the sequence of the topics, this could be fixed or flexible. Besides that, the assessment standards could be more flexible also, so it is not fixed by the teacher what to be assessed en when it is sufficient (Collis & Moonen, 2001).
Flexibility in choosing one’s own content makes a leaner more like a client in the supermarket, picking up the course or topics he or she wants (Collis & Moonen, 2001). This can motivate learners and empowers them. However, it also asks a lot of self-direction and self-motivation from the learners. Some learners just need or appreciate an expert making this choices for them. So considering this balance is important in thinking about flexibility of content. This ‘supermarket-concept’ could be related to content but also to all the other aspects of flexibility which are mentioned in this overview. Too much choice is often not beneficial, both for the learner and the instructor.
3. Flexibility related to learning material and resources
Learning materials could be fixed, or there could me more space for choosing one’s own material. This choice could be on supplements of material to the core resource (for example a textbook). Options are articles provided on a learning environment , educational software or resources via the WWW (Collis & Moonen, 2001). Students can also be partly responsible for providing appropriate additional information or resources for the course instead of the teacher only. An important question is how to guarantee quality of this material, which is provided by students. The quality of the course should not be diminished by making the course more flexible. Besides that the assessments should fit the content. So when different learning materials can be used and learners can choose their own, it have to be made sure that everyone gets the same information and that the assessment fits this information. Or flexible assessments are necessary, or the consequence of using different and own material for testing the knowledge has to been taken into account by designing a test.
4. Flexibility related to instructional approach
The instructional approach could be flexible in a way that it is flexible in the social organization of learning. For example flexibility in variation of face-to-face meetings, grouping or individual meetings. Another example of flexibility in instructional approach is the language that is used during the course. This could be fixed in using one language, or flexible in accordance of the composition of the group or preferences of the group. Besides that, the instructional organization of learning can be flexible, there can be made use of assignments or other ways like monitoring. But also the choice in working on these assignments can be flexible: individually, in groups or a combination of both (Collis & Moonen, 2001). An advantage of choosing your own work form (individual or group) is that you are free in choosing what fits you the best. But beside that it is important that students learn to collaborate and that learning is often a social happening. If a learner is socially not very strong, it would prefer to work alone, but he or she never learns to work in a group when he can always choose to work individually.
5. Flexibility related to delivery and logistics
In this category of flexibility there is the aspect of distance, which many people associate first with flexible learning. The time and place where contact with the instructor and other students occur can be fixed or flexible by for example providing lectures via skype. Besides that there could be flexibility in using different communication channels, apart from face-to-face contact. For being flexible in doing so there has to be a certain flexibility in using different kinds of technology to deliver information or to make contact (Collis & Moonen, 2001). An example is blackboard where learning material can be placed and assignments can be delivered, without face-to-face contact or on a specific time. An advantage is that learning is no longer restricted to a particular place, a learner could look at a taped lecture behind his computer at home, which gives him much more freedom in where and when to study. By using different kinds of technology the flexibility could be raised significantly, but teachers and students are often not used to online learning and have to possess the skills needed to use these technologies for learning. Dorrian and Wache (2008) state that reducing anxiety and resistance by providing support for students who may not feel comfortable operating in the online environment is essential for successful flexible learning.
References
Collis, B.. & Moonen, J. (2002). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.
Dorrian, J. & Wache, D. (2008). Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning for on-campus and distance education students: lessons learned and ways forward. Nurse education today 29, 157-167.
1. Flexibility related to time
The first kind of flexibility focuses on flexibility in time. For example the starting time and finishing time of a course or the flexibility in time for submitting assignments and interacting within the course. Another aspect related to time is the pacing of studying and the moments of assessment (Collis & Moonen, 2001).
So flexibility can be seen in more simple ways as for example submitting assignments through mail, whenever you like, but before a deadline (and not only during a face-to-face meeting). But the learner can for example also do an assignment when he is ready for it, while another student is already at the next assignment. This flexibility offers studying in one’s own tempo, which allows students to study at times and pace that they prefer. Especially for non-regular students this would be great, because the course is more user-specific. But this kind of flexibility asks more of the organizational skills from the instructor of the course. When the learner is given more choice in time, it requires the instructor to respond and individualize rather than to plan and deliver. This could be liberating, he or she has more freedom in organizing his own time, but more tailored training is more time- and effort-consuming than standardized approaches for the instructor (Collis & Moonen, 2001). Beside that if time flexibility is promised, how to schedule lectures and make sure there is a room available? This kind of logistic aspects can quickly become unmanageable for the instructor and the institution (Collis & Moonen, 2001).
2. Flexibility related to content
Another aspect of flexibility is related to content of learning, this content could be fixed or flexible. For example the topics of the course could be flexible, students can pick their own topics or co-determine which topics they want to be part of the course. Another aspect could be the sequence of the topics, this could be fixed or flexible. Besides that, the assessment standards could be more flexible also, so it is not fixed by the teacher what to be assessed en when it is sufficient (Collis & Moonen, 2001).
Flexibility in choosing one’s own content makes a leaner more like a client in the supermarket, picking up the course or topics he or she wants (Collis & Moonen, 2001). This can motivate learners and empowers them. However, it also asks a lot of self-direction and self-motivation from the learners. Some learners just need or appreciate an expert making this choices for them. So considering this balance is important in thinking about flexibility of content. This ‘supermarket-concept’ could be related to content but also to all the other aspects of flexibility which are mentioned in this overview. Too much choice is often not beneficial, both for the learner and the instructor.
3. Flexibility related to learning material and resources
Learning materials could be fixed, or there could me more space for choosing one’s own material. This choice could be on supplements of material to the core resource (for example a textbook). Options are articles provided on a learning environment , educational software or resources via the WWW (Collis & Moonen, 2001). Students can also be partly responsible for providing appropriate additional information or resources for the course instead of the teacher only. An important question is how to guarantee quality of this material, which is provided by students. The quality of the course should not be diminished by making the course more flexible. Besides that the assessments should fit the content. So when different learning materials can be used and learners can choose their own, it have to be made sure that everyone gets the same information and that the assessment fits this information. Or flexible assessments are necessary, or the consequence of using different and own material for testing the knowledge has to been taken into account by designing a test.
4. Flexibility related to instructional approach
The instructional approach could be flexible in a way that it is flexible in the social organization of learning. For example flexibility in variation of face-to-face meetings, grouping or individual meetings. Another example of flexibility in instructional approach is the language that is used during the course. This could be fixed in using one language, or flexible in accordance of the composition of the group or preferences of the group. Besides that, the instructional organization of learning can be flexible, there can be made use of assignments or other ways like monitoring. But also the choice in working on these assignments can be flexible: individually, in groups or a combination of both (Collis & Moonen, 2001). An advantage of choosing your own work form (individual or group) is that you are free in choosing what fits you the best. But beside that it is important that students learn to collaborate and that learning is often a social happening. If a learner is socially not very strong, it would prefer to work alone, but he or she never learns to work in a group when he can always choose to work individually.
5. Flexibility related to delivery and logistics
In this category of flexibility there is the aspect of distance, which many people associate first with flexible learning. The time and place where contact with the instructor and other students occur can be fixed or flexible by for example providing lectures via skype. Besides that there could be flexibility in using different communication channels, apart from face-to-face contact. For being flexible in doing so there has to be a certain flexibility in using different kinds of technology to deliver information or to make contact (Collis & Moonen, 2001). An example is blackboard where learning material can be placed and assignments can be delivered, without face-to-face contact or on a specific time. An advantage is that learning is no longer restricted to a particular place, a learner could look at a taped lecture behind his computer at home, which gives him much more freedom in where and when to study. By using different kinds of technology the flexibility could be raised significantly, but teachers and students are often not used to online learning and have to possess the skills needed to use these technologies for learning. Dorrian and Wache (2008) state that reducing anxiety and resistance by providing support for students who may not feel comfortable operating in the online environment is essential for successful flexible learning.
References
Collis, B.. & Moonen, J. (2002). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.
Dorrian, J. & Wache, D. (2008). Introduction of an online approach to flexible learning for on-campus and distance education students: lessons learned and ways forward. Nurse education today 29, 157-167.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)