Transforming Educational Practice

Editor's Notes

• #2: Introduce yourself
• #3: We believe that collaborative learning is powerful, and that you may already have some knowledge or information around these topics, so please share them in the “Tranforming learning” Gdochttp://bit.ly/TPCK-GDoc
• #4: This session will brieflylook at
• #7: The skills and abilities needed to do this sit in the upper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives – ieanalysing, evaluating and creating, and through ‘higher order thinking’. The need for these skills and abilities have been recognised at a systemic level through:General Capabilities in the Australian National Curriculum for schoolsEmployability Skills in Training Packages for vocational education and training sectorGraduate Attributes/Capabilities/Skills in Higher Education coursesTo enable people to develop these skills, a transformation of our current education & training systems is required.
• #8: The use of technology in education and training is enabling the delivery and assessment of learning to change. In particular, it is allowing the transformation of how and when learning happens.
• #9: In particular, technology is not only enhancing learning and allowing slight functional improvements, technology is enabling a transformation which is significantly redesigning learning, and allowing learning activities which were previously inconceivable
• #10: This transformative change is challenging our current beliefs about education and training. Challenging these beliefs is making a number of educators nervous as they try to come to terms which this means, so we are seeing a number of educators not adopting technology into their teaching and/or only doing it at a very basic level.
• #11: And technology in itself is not likely to improve ineffective teaching practice. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/tee.html
• #12: Yew Tee & Shing Lee (2011) note that educators need to re-evaluate their own teaching practice and their existing assumptions about education, the education system and their students, in order to be able to transform educational practice. Hence, learning needs to be more about being student focussed and less about being teacher-centred – this lotus of control supports a learning-centred environment, where people learn how to manage and facilitate their own learning, supported by technology. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/tee.html
• #13: However, as Abbitt recognises, educators need to know the affordances and constraints of technology if they are going to be able to effectively incorporate it into their courses/classes.
• #14: Koehler and Mishra have developed a conceptual framework (Brown, 2012 - http://ilearndifferent.com/2012/12/16/why-i-think-tpack-is-important/) called TPACK.This framework provides a ‘lens’ for integrating and examining the integration of technology in education and training (TPACK Newsletter #13, Dec 2012, pg 3), and for investigating and evaluating an educator’s knowledge (and skills gaps) for integrating technology (TPACK Newsletter #13, Dec 2012, pg 4).
• #15: TPACK stands for Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge. TPACK recognises that educators need three domains of knowledge – Content, Pedagogical and Technological - to be able to effectively incorporate technology into teaching and learning.Educators need:specialised content knowledge eg the discipline or industry knowledge they are employed to ‘teach’ others, and the ability to facilitate the learning of, or teaching of, others relevant to their discipline or industry knowledgeto know how to incorporate appropriate technology which supports their desired learning approach or pedagogyAll of this needs to happen within a given context eg understanding learners’ needs, resources available, and learning environment (both cultural-social and physical aspects).TPACK does not offer a single solution for technological integration. It provides a framework to help educators understand how technology could best used to support the pedagogical approaches for the delivery of specific discipline or industry knowledge.Because technology changes everything we do – what we teach and the way that we teach (Mishra, YouTube, 2012), TPACK recognises that online or blended learning requires educators to know how to:Present or curate information effectively online Enable learners to engage with their learning and/or content electronicallyConnect individuals with others so they can learn with and from others using technologyThe TPACK framework should also be incorporated into ALL educator training and development programs as an inclusive component for supporting the development of their Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge.
• #16: Here are some examples of TPACK:For example, DLDA – Context - PD for supporting educators/educational leaders consider ways of transforming change in education and trainingContent – Understanding the global meta-trends impacting education and training, and how this affects themPedagogy – Using a flipped teaching approach, learners are encouraged to work together to undertake design challenges to develop a change management process, and participate in creative thinking processes
• #17: So what are the pedagogies for a digital age where individuals need to have the skills and knowledge to deal with:Unscripted problemsWork collaboratively with othersBe sensitive to global and cultural differencesRemain ‘employable’ or contribute effectively to a globally competitive world
• #18: Here is a list of delivery models which are ‘learning-centred’ to enable people to develop the many and varied skills that need to be life-long and self-directed learners.This list is by no means extensive, but it does focus on active-learning opportunities, and they can all be implemented more easily through the use of technology.How you implement and assess these requires:Networks to be exposed to new ideasTime to explore new ideasEnvironments which support the implementation of new and different ways of doing thingsResources which enable the implementation of new ideasCommunication strategies to positively share how these new or different ways of doing things will benefit everybodyEtc, etc, etc,
• #19: There are a number of other ‘supporting’ frameworks which can help educators understand the journey they are on in terms of implementing technology.
• #20: Just as all educators once started as a novice or beginner with their content and pedagogical knowledge, they will start as a novice or beginner with their technological knowledge when they start to incorporate technology into their teaching/facilitation.This may be difficult for an proficient or expert educator to cope with, and may need many strategies to support them ‘hold face’ in front of their peers and learners until they become more competent and confident.More on continuums of learning and integration later.
• #21: Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) developed the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix.php The TIM incorporates five interdependent characteristics of meaningful learning environments: active, constructive, goal directed (i.e., reflective), authentic, and collaborative The TIM associates five levels of technology integration with each of the five characteristics of meaningful learning environments. entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion, and transformation Together, the five levels of technology integration and the five characteristics of meaningful learning environments create a matrix of 25 cells.However, these meaningful learning experiences can easily be adapted for any discipline or industry.Example lesson outlines for maths, science, social science and language are provided
• #22: Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) has developed an interactive version of the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) at http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix.php
• #23: Arizona K-12 Center has also developed an online version of the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) http://www.azk12.org/tim/together with lesson outlines etc.
• #24: You can see that the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) is also a continuum. When placed together with Dreyfus’ model of skill acquisition, it can be inferred that educators will need to have high technological and pedagogical knowledge to be successfully and/or confidently infusion and transform their educational practices when integrating technology into learning activities.
• #25: There are a number of other ‘supporting’ frameworks which can help educators understand the journey they are on in terms of implementing technology.
• #26: Just as all educators once started as a novice or beginner with their content and pedagogical knowledge, they will start as a novice or beginner with their technological knowledge when they start to incorporate technology into their teaching/facilitation.This may be difficult for an proficient or expert educator to cope with, and may need many strategies to support them ‘hold face’ in front of their peers and learners until they become more competent and confident.More on continuums of learning and integration later.
• #27: TheSAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) Framework helps educators understand how they progress along the TPACK continuum to where technology is transforming learning experiences.Most educators will initially feel most comfortable using technology to enhance their current educational practice by using new technologies to ‘substitute’ or ‘augment’ what they are currently doing For example – Using word processing software to produce a report or write a poem rather than handwriting the report/poem would be using technology as a direct substitute for an existing activity. While augmenting the process would be to use the spell checker and/or include the use of an online thesaurus or synonym finder or embedding photos or hyperlinks. These activities remain teacher-created or controlled.Whereas when the learning activity requires a significant redesign or ‘modification’ eg incorporation of writing a blog or contributing to a online discussion forum or group, or creating an info-graphic. While the redefinition of a learning activity requires learners to use technology to discover, design, and manage their own learning, which they can then share with others. Learners become ‘pro-consumers’, both consumers and producers of information.These activities are then learner-created or controlled.
• #28: This image shows theSAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) Framework mapped against Gartner’s Hype Cycle - http://www.flickr.com/photos/timklapdor/8448164657/sizes/c/in/photostream/ where initial engagement and excitement to incorporate technology is high, followed by a trough of disillusionment when the reality of the limit of incorporating technology emerges, and a whole new ‘re-think’ of their learning design needs to occur. Those willing to take the leap find themselves enlightened and engaged in designing learning for the digital age.
• #29: Ruben Puentedura developed SAMR and shares the resources he develops for his SAMR workshops on his blog. This blog also contains other interesting and using information about using technology in education, as Ruben is part of the New Media Consortium (NMC), which produces the Horizon Report - http://www.nmc.org/horizon-project, and the Global Meta-trends impacting education and training.It is recommended that you review his slides from his presentations in Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, and Perth, as well as Singapore, Bangkok, and Abu Dhabi in 2012 to get a solid understanding of SAMR: “Building Upon SAMR” - http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/09/03/BuildingUponSAMR.pdf“SAMR: Thoughts for Design” - http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/09/03/SAMR_ThoughtsForDesign.pdf
• #30: Videos by Mark Glynn and Tim Holt also provide excellent explanations and useful introductions to the SAMR model.The SAMR Model – an introduction to the SAMR Model by Mark Glynn – YouTube Video Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYXNGcjbNlcDigital Discoveries – Intro to SAMR By Tim Holt – YouTube Video - Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn1nHgFesUsBoth presenters also supplement these videos with individual videos which explain each of the stages of the SAMR model in more detail.
• #31: Pete Brown SAMR presentation slides contain information from a workshop he has run for South Coast Baptist College, and provide some good examples for each of the four levels of SAMR.The SAMR Model – Tool Set, Skill Set or Mind Set? by Pete Brown – Slides in DropboxSource: https://www.dropbox.com/s/20z5czq81p5buif/SAMR%20Tool%20Set%20Skill%20Set%20or%20Mind%20Set.pdf
• #32: Pete Brown second workshop presentation uses Prezi to look at how educators can progress their teaching approaches by changing their learning design using technology by progressing up the four levels of the SAMR model.The SAMR Ladder – Tool Set, Skill Set or Mind Set? by Pete Brown – PreziSource: http://prezi.com/vacgqbnjnmgl/the-samr-ladder/?auth_key=6c7fef9a9c09d9cb3adda2c9be7f585f1f586e2d
• #33: To find out more information go to (and subscribe to) my Diigo bookmarks tagged “SAMR” – http://diigo.com/user/theother66/SAMRAnd, if you have any other information or resources please share them – http://bit.ly/TransformingLearning
• #34: But what other things are available to support the TPACK model?
• #35: SCOT Theory or the ‘social construction of technology’ theory can provide a framework around the ‘context’ in which technology is used in education and training because - "the ways (in which)a technology is used cannot be understood without understanding how that technology is embedded in its social context“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_technologySCOT Theory recognises that there is no ‘one way’of using technology, and like all education and training, it is different for different people and the stakeholders who are involved (Wood, 2011, Teachers’ creation of blended learning environments at a campus-based university: A New Zealand case study) - http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/4298/WoodYI.pdf?sequence=3 SCOT theory also offers an alternative way to conceptualise the relationship between education and technology.
• #36: SCOT Theory analysis how groups/stakeholders define or interpretthe use of technology within a given context or environment.This “definition of use” can determine:criteria as to whether incorporating technology within education and training has been ‘successful’which methodology will be used to analyse the success or failure of technology use,iethe steps and principles which will be followedwho will determine whether the implementation has been successful according to that criteria, and which methodology will be used,iethe steps and principles which will be followed to analyse the success or failure of technology use.Given that we live in a world of ‘power plays and relationships’, the person or group involved in defining the use of technology in an educational context is:actually ‘setting the scene’ for how the technology will (or will not) be used eg in a transformative/redefined way or as a ‘substitute’ / augmented wayThey can also be the one who is giving the ‘green light’ or otherwise to the successful implementation of the technologyAll of this could be influenced by culture, values and beliefs, and how we each interpret the work and construct new meaning
• #37: There are four stages in the SCOT model:The key stakeholders or ‘Relevant Social Groups or RSG’ of the technology implementation are identified eg: students, IT services, educators, leadership team, employers, parents etcThe different ways in which the technology implementation can occur are explored through the ‘interpretive flexibility stageWhen it is determined which implementation approach will be undertaken, ie how the technology will be used to support learning, to form a shared definition of use, this is considered to the ‘closure stage’Once the technology is implemented and its use accepted or embedded or taken for granted, then the final SCOT theory stage of ‘stabilisation’ has been reachedSCOT Theory can be used to structure a technology implementation process, so to learn more about it go to:Read - Wood, 2011, Teachers’ creation of blended learning environments at a campus-based university: A New Zealand case study) - http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/4298/WoodYI.pdf?sequence=3 View – Bijker’s 2012 Global education conference entitled “Social Construction of Technology in Elementary Schools: Case Studies from India and the United Kingdom” webinar recording - https://sas.elluminate.com/drtbl?sid=2008350&suid=D.02B241CA0304207AEA310B735ED328
• #38: More and more educators are expected to demonstrate their skills, experiences and abilities against ‘professional standards’ or hold mandated qualifications, however, embedding the use of technology is not yet entrenched in all of these.Local and National Professional Standards for school teachers which are embedded technology in education as core requirement in a school teachers’ skills set. Unfortunately, this can not be said for educators involved in VET, ACE or Higher Education, not industry based trainingInternationally, the ‘International Society for Technology in Education’ (ISTE) - https://www.iste.org/ have the ‘National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) http://www.iste.org/standards for:StudentsTeachersAdministrators etcThese recognise the need to advance ‘digital age learning’ and can provide some support in developing a ‘digital age’ teaching and learning strategy.
• #39: To support the TPACK framework, a number of evaluation tools have been developed to determine whether the
• #40: There are a number of tools which can be used to evaluate educators’ TPACK and the environments they are working within, some are ‘self-assessment tools’, and others are performance-based tools. Both measures are highly complementary Performance based measures:Technology integration assessment rubric (Harris, 2010) –http://ites.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/file/view/TPACK%20Integration%20Rubric.pdf/370723208/TPACK%20Integration%20Rubric.pdf Technology Integration Observation Instrument (Harris, 2011) – http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/TPACKObservationInstrument.pdf/317400318/TPACKObservationInstrument.pdf
• #41: Self-reporting tool = TPACK Confidence Survey (TCS) – (Albion, 2010) evaluates:Interest in and Attitudes toward using ICTConfidence in using ICT with students for teaching and learning Competence inICT ApplicationsDigital Technologieshttp://eprints.usq.edu.au/7351/3/Albion_Jamieson-Proctor_Finger_SITE_2010_AV.pdfPaper summary and alternative formats - http://eprints.usq.edu.au/7351/
• #42: Self-reporting tool = Professional Capabilities of TPACK Vocational Self-Efficacy – (Albion, 2010) could also be used to evaluate or construct capability frameworks for the fundamental capabilities of all educators around their professional values, relationships and practice in using technology within their programs.http://eprints.usq.edu.au/7351/3/Albion_Jamieson-Proctor_Finger_SITE_2010_AV.pdfPaper summary and alternative formats - http://eprints.usq.edu.au/7351/
• #43: Self-reporting tool = Survey of Pre-service Teachers' Knowledge of Teaching and Technology, (Schmidt, 2009)-This is quite an extensive evaluation tool, which examines the three domains (eg TK, CK, and PK) individually, and then at the TPACK cross over points (eg TCK, PCK, TPK). This tool is also directed at non-specialised school teachers eg covers, maths, social science, science and literacy – so it would need contextualised for different educator groups.http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/unprotected_readings/TPACK_Survey/Schmidt_et_al_Survey_v1.pdf
• #44: Performance based-measures -Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (Harris, 2010) can be used to ‘assess’ the integration of technology into a teaching program, where the use of technology can be on the continuum of ‘strongly aligned’ to ‘not aligned’ at all or that it ‘supports / doesn’t support’ instructional strategies.This instrument is not designed to assess the knowledge of technology integration but is designed to focus upon the use oftechnology integration knowledge in observable teaching.This could be used as a self-assessment tool or through third-party observation/evaluation- http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/TechIntegrationAssessmentRubric.pdf
• #45: Performance based-measures -Technology Integration Observation Instrument (Harris, 2011) – is an extension of the ‘Technology Integration Assessment Rubric’ in that it incorporates the additional evaluation categories of ‘instructional use’ and ‘technology logistics’, as well as prompts for additional information to be recorded about the technology integration per se.http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/TPACKObservationInstrument.pdf/317400318/TPACKObservationInstrument.pdf
• #46: Performance based-measures -Finger et all (2010) synthesis the Queensland College of Teacher’s Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (2009), Lee and Gaffney’s (ND) characteristics of traditional paper-based and digitally-based paradigms, and Newhouse et al.’s (2005) stages of teacher development, and teacher education programs in this table to present another way of evaluating at what stage of development educators and schools are at, and what elements a pre-service educator PD program should be focussing on to enable a fully integrated and/or transformative learning environment producing digitally capable learners.This evaluation tool emphasis that all existing and future educators need to develop their TPACK.Finger (2010), Beyond pedagogical content knowledge: The importance of TPACK for information preservice teacher education in Australia - http://eprints.usq.edu.au/8740/
• #47: Collective Challenge is based on the SECI Framework (Yew Tee and Shing Lee, 2011) where in small groups you will go through a series of tasks to help you socialise, externalise, combine and internalise ways to support transformative change in your organisation by using the IDEAL model (Yew Tee and Shing Lee, 2011) ofIdentifying and define problem/issueDefining outcomes/resultsInvestigating possible solutionsAnticipating possible outcomesLooking back and learning (IDEAL Model)Yew Tee & Shing Lee (2011) - http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/tee.html