If instructional designers have a lens with which to view or to reflect on a design process it can help support their practice altogether. This lens can be the knowledge of foundational theories, assumptions, and philosophical traditions of instructional design. Christensen (2008) writes it “helps later [to have this knowledge] when it comes to designing the instruction, but also serves as a guide for deciding how to analyze the learning tasks or content and how to assess learning.”
Smith and Ragan (2005) explain these three reasons to reflect upon philosophy and theory as an instructional designer:
Theories are the sources of principles from which many of the prescriptions for design arise, and understanding of the base helps both the learning from the text and ability to engage in application in the field.
Writers in this field need to acknowledge their bases of conclusions and recommendations.
Theories allow designers to explain why they make the decisions they do.
These justifications are all well and good, but instructional designers would be wise to take heed to the advice of Rod Sims (2006) who states you should “assess the relevance of theories and frameworks informing the design and implementation of those environments.”
Examination of the examination is a pertinent component for instructional designers who focus on the lessons and courses, but who want to think about the big picture in doing so.
References
Christensen, T. K. (2008). The role of theory in instructional design: Some views of an ID practitioner. Performance Improvement, 47 (4), 25-32.
Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1 (2), 1-7.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design, Third Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
This blog post explains the process I went through to choose a topic for a mini-dissertation. The purpose of this assignment is to reflect upon my method, to focus on grammar and citing, and forces me to deliberate upon the choices I am making.
Problem:
Today’s students are at an advantage over teachers in relation to technology. They are described by Marc Prensky (2001) as digital natives, who were born with it surrounding them, versus educators who are considered digital immigrants, because they have not had it around them their whole life. Given this information, educators still need to enable young learners with the best possible tech solutions.
Problems in technology facing the learner from an educators point of view include, but are not limited to: time constraints; availability of technology; prior knowledge; teacher’s ability and acquaintance with the technology; class size and class differentiation, which affects teachers ability to work closely with students in need of help; and outside elements, including physical surroundings, classroom management of the teacher; and more.
Robert C. Wicklei amasses 580 other issues in the paper “Identifying Critical Issues and Problems In Technology Education Using A Modified-Delphi Technique”, where he separates the difficulties into Present issues, Future issues, Present problems, and Future Problems.
This study focuses on one specific element, not addressed in Wicklei’s study, with regards to technology and early years. The issue focus is:
“How can primary education professionals use iPads to help students of early ages with fine motor skills?”
In tackling this question there need to be certain assumptions. The first is that students understand cause and effect. At a young age, students might not realize that if something takes place, a reaction to that occurrence is likely to happen. For example, a child needs to understand that a button click will turn the device on and a certain swipe of one or two fingers will render certain results. If this is not the case it needs to be taught in order for the study to work.
The second assumption is that students want to use the iPad devices. “The iPad made its debut on the electronic market in January 2010. But it was not available to the public until April. Since then, its popularity has skyrocketed.” (Ybarra, 2011)
The third assumption is that primary education professionals will use this technology. While I am working at the school I can see to it that this occurs. I hope the legacy continues when I leave. In order for it to do so, I anticipate proving the worth of iPads to educators. This, in turn, will hopefully promote their use within the community.
The fourth assumption is also my hypothesis. It is that iPads help students with fine motor skills. I need to research tools and analysis techniques that will be used to prove this conjecture. If the hypothesis demonstrates that it will be too difficult to substantiate in the constrained amount of time, I might need to restructure it.
Problem in relation to current specialization
Image via Wikipedia
Currently, I am a technology integration specialist working with Primary teachers and students from Preschool (age 3+) to grade 6. My school administration has asked me to research the question “How can primary education professionals use iPads to help students of early ages with fine motor skills?” The time allotment and dates for this research will be determined collaboratively with classroom teachers. The applications to focus upon are yet to be chosen.
Population:
Approximately 40 students aged 3-7 in Preschool, Prep and Grade 1. Students are from middle-upper class families and must hold an international passport, apart from a Turkish one.
Description:
Students, as of last year and previous years, in Preschool, Prep and Grade 1 have been going to discrete technology classes. The school has decided to incorporate technology into classroom teaching. I will pilot a study using two iPads with groups of eight to sixteen students in which I examine the ease of use, the differences between laptops and desktops, the excitement factors and the ability for gain with fine motor skills.
I plan to work with classes who are in session and pull out select students in order to record and examine results. The classes may be technology classes, or they may be other classes; for example: math, science, language, etc.
Constraints:
There are limitations with resources, with only two iPads available for use at a time. This might skew results because a more individualized mode of instruction will be applied during the study versus real life situations. Small group settings work more efficiently than large class sizes. “(a) a significant benefit accrues to students in reduced-size classes in both subject areas and (b) there is evidence that minority students in particular benefit from the smaller class environment…” (Finn & Achilles, 2011)
Reason for passion about this topic
I have six reasons that I am passionate about this topic. They are as follows:
iPads are easy to use – “The iPad and the iPhone, on the other hand, are easy to use. Much like the original iPods, they’re simply intuitive. The app store is easy to navigate. The OS, while locked up for most end users, is pretty well stable and won’t break.” (Warbiany, 2010)
iPads are fun – “The smartphones don’t disappear into our children’s rooms; rather, it is the iPad that our children (and our spouses) have decided is fun enough to grab.” (Trautschold & Mazo, 2011)
iPads have a certain status attached to them our parent demographic finds appealing – This could be a study unto itself, but I am assuming our parent demographic is largely made up of a well-to-do crowd correlating the fact that tuition costs between $20,000 – $35,000 USD per year. “As expected within the classic early-adopter profile, we identified a male skew in the 35-44 age group among these early users. In fact, among all users, men outnumber women 2:1. Given the economy, people with higher earning power were probably the first to buy the iPad” (Hung, 2010)
iPads are sturdy, if hard cases are bought for them – “If you get an iPad, make sure to buy a protective case for it. [However, c]ompared to the iPhone, Apple’s latest tech toy is more prone to easy damage. Its well-coated screen is literally scratch-proof… an average-weight adult can sit on the iPad without inflicting any damage.” (Moynihan, 2010)
iPads support education – “In a highly-controlled scientific study, ACU students who used an iPad to annotate text performed at a rate 25 percent higher on questions regarding transfer of information than their counterparts who used only paper.” (Abilene Christian University, 2011)
Apple supports education with hardware solutions – “Apple iPad Learning Labs… The cart can store, charge, and sync up to 30 iPad devices and has room for a MacBook computer…” (Apple, 2011)
Critical Thinking Path to arrive at this choice
Image via Wikipedia
As noted in the “Thinking outside the Box” discussion, the process I embarked on first utilized brainstorming with nine revisions to arrive at a color coded, connected, and refined scope where I determined that I would focus on iPads in education to help students of early ages with fine motor skills.
The process involved jotting down thoughts, organizing them, color coding for easier recognition of groups, connecting concepts, reconstructing layouts, making additions and subtractions to initial ideas, and finalizing structures to manageable results.
After this process was complete, I researched scholarly fields to find what, if any, empirical evidence was available. Very little research has been conducted, probably due to the timeframe for which this technology has been available. The iPad has only been available to consumers for over a year. Academic studies and ideas surrounding this technology are sparse to non-existent. Therefore much of the research will be generated or done using blog and website cross-referencing. The cross-referencing should ensure that sources are producing unbiased, non-promoting results.
The idea about the use of technology in education is based on the behaviorism idea that “[i]nnovations that were a part of programmed instruction include recognition that effective nonhuman mediated instruction could be developed and that evolution and revision of the materials through an empirical test of their effects could improve the effectiveness of instruction” (Smith & Ragan, 2005) Using iPads with this intention fits tightly into this notion.
Ultimately, my intention is to examine further implications intended for nonspecialist audiences. I plan to view my results alongside other similar studies looking for corollary evidence substantiating and articulating my hypothesis that iPads help students with fine motor skills. With this verification, I plan to identify best practice through an Instructional Design lens.
References
Abilene Christian University. (2011, September 19). ACU Research Sheds Light on Mobility in Teaching, Learning. Retrieved October 23, 2011, from Abilene Christian University : http://www.acu.edu/news/2011/110919-mobility-research.html
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (2011). Answers and Questions About Class Size: A Statewide Experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 173 (12), 1468-1474.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical Thinking – Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wicklei, R. C. (1993). Identifying Critical Issues and Problems In Technology Education Using A Modified-Delphi Techniqu. Journal of Technology Education, 5 (1), 54-71.
Ybarra, M. (2011, January 19). iPads instead of textbooks: College students enjoy new technology. El Paso Times . El Paso, Texas.
Your school needs technology integration specialists, if it doesn’t already have them. Gone are the days that tech teaching is left to tech teachers in discreet technology classes. Everyone, especially teachers, needs to understand how tech is an integral tool to the education process. They need to understand that technology should be emphasizing, rather than working perpendicular to classroom objectives and projects. This blog post looks at how technology can and should be implemented by a Technology Integration Specialist.
First, we need to look at whether technology should be used and why, as well as how it should be thought of.
Proof:
Should technology be used?
Harold Wenglinsky’s study, “Does it Compute: The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics,” concluded that for 4th and 8th graders technology has “positive benefits” on achievement as measured in NAEP’s mathematics test. But it is critical to note Wenglinsky’s caveat to this conclusion. He argues that not all uses of technology were beneficial. Wenglinksky found using computers to teach low order thinking skills, “…[W]as negatively related to academic achievement….” Put another way, this type of computer use was worse than doing nothing. (http://home.blarg.net/~building/strategies/technology/foltos.htm)
The answer seems to be yes and no. The Atlantic says these are the Important Skills for the 21st Century Learner and lists them from most important to least important:
Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, Questioning
Accessing, Analyzing, and Synthesizing Information
Communication
Innovation, Creativity, Curiosity, Imagination
Ethical Decision-Making
Agility, Adaptability, Flexibility
Global Citizenship, Social and Cross-Cultural Interaction
Referring back to this list, we, as educators, need to consider how to properly implement technology to cater to the highest skills authentically.
Larry Cuban has been quick to note that his surveys suggest that fewer than 20% of teachers use technology several times a week, and up to half of all teachers didn’t use technology at all. (Cuban, et al., Winter 2001; Cuban, August 1999) Even if teachers used the technology, Cuban concluded, few employed these tools in ways that would improve teaching and learning. “[M]ore often than not,” he noted, “their use sustained rather than altered existing patterns of teaching practice” (Cuban, et al., Winter 2001).(http://home.blarg.net/~building/strategies/technology/foltos.htm)
Strategy:
What does this mean?
I am coming from an IB perspective. With this guise, the skills critical to ICT are: Investigating, Creating, Communicating, Collaborating, Organizing, and Becoming responsible digital citizens. For each of the six Programmes of Inquiry (POI) units, they might have this focus. With that focus, the best tools (See:Edorigami list of Web 2.0 tools, Edorigami ICT Tools & Online Collaborative Tools) can be used to enable the work of students.
In deciding the best tools, the Technology Integration Specialist, along with the classroom teachers needs to discern whether technology should actually be used. The question: WHY? and TO WHAT END? should be posed alongside any decision to implement the use of technology
Along with deciding the best tools to use with the skills for each POI, the approaches the Technology Integration Specialist takes are as follows:
School meeting integration –
Technology should be showcased at each meeting. There is so much new hardware, software, online and off that is developed every day, if there isn’t a glimpse of it every week or so, everyone is getting left behind.
Tech integration specialist should be doing their homework, finding solutions, collating and deciding which are the best available to showing other educators.
In-class push-ins –
TIS can be Leading – Class is lead by the TIS
Supportive – Class is co-hosted by the TIS
Reflective – Class is observed and reflected upon by the TIS
One-on-one* – Classroom teachers may want prior teaching about technologies in order to present these ideas as their own to their classes
Individual meetings with educators –
The primary focus for teachers follows these guidelines from John D’Arcy of CDNIS
“there is no rush”
pragmatic and compassionate (have expectations of teachers, they have to be on the journey)
curriculum and pedagogy
teachers and students first
If a school has a PYP/MYP/DP coordinator, TIS should be sitting down with their perspective coordinators and with the classroom teachers. This should occur before each unit and ideally weekly or bi-weekly to reflect upon best approaches.
Organization of technology groups –
The IBO states this about the the ICT committee: “Different stakeholders in the school community could be members of an ICT committee. However, it is essential that the pedagogical leaders of the school are members of this committee as they are responsible for the effective management of resources (people, time, equipment and money).”
The TIS might also structure mixed high-level/low-level groups with team leaders to help disseminate learning and obtain feedback from staff
Online presence –
To reiterate, backup, and showcase all things tech a TIS should have a major presence online. This would be through, but is not limited to:
Blogs – like this one
Websites
Prezis
Scribd
LinkedIn
Dropbox
Facebook
Google+, Docs & Calendars
Forums
the IBO OCC
Voicethread
Youtube
Netvibes
Twitter
Professional Development –
The TIS should search out technology professional development opportunities that are applicable to all stakeholders. They might post these on a common calendars, email them, or even talk to educators directly.
They ensure that development is taking place at the school. It could be through traditional approaches or online. Check these out.
They do PD themselves and then come back to present the ideas and reflections during meetings
*This idea was presented to me by a classroom teacher as a way I could support them.
As a technology integrator, I made this presentation to a school to describe what a TIS was versus a traditional technology teacher.
You might not sound as smart as you think, especially if you consider how you sound in a foreign country. Maybe you think your pronunciation is great, but you can’t understand why no one gets what you are trying to say. There are things that you can do to practice. One of the best sources I have recently been referred on to was Rosetta Stone (RS). The reason I like it is because the software ensures reading, writing, connecting thoughts, listening AND SPEAKING!
It does not translate words for you. At first I thought this was a silly way of learning, but after going through the RS system for a while I realized that building upon reference ideas and then repeating them was a great way to learn. The drawback, however, is the cost. (£149.00) In that case, I have a workaround answer for you, but I will get to that after I have shown you proof that the RS system works.
Proof:
While researching for proof that Rosetta Stone was the best way to learn online or off out on the market, I found some contrasting evidence. Some people spoke very highly of the product, such as these reviews:
Without a doubt the highest praise went to the ease with which reviewers were learning. Courses were described as being instinctive and natural, even though many had been skeptical about there being no English on the Rosetta Stone software. A lot of learners said that their children were also following their course and were enjoying the quizzes and games. Rosetta Stone seems to be engaging for any age group. The pace seemed to be appropriate, and many users liked a feature of the CD-ROM where it automatically started each session with a quick review of what was previously studied. (http://www.therosettastonereviews.com/)
Rosetta Stone helps you learn 31 various languages spoken all round the world. It dishes some different and interesting techniques to get accomplish to the languages you want in your armory. People who want to study languages difficult to understand for fun or individuals who loves incomprehensible languages, should also give Rosetta Stone a try. (http://judgesreviews.com/software/rosetta-stone-reviews)
However, this review was only a partial glimpse:
Some people will get benefit out of Rosetta Stone. I can see how it would happen. I did indeed learn something from this program, including having my first ever conversation in Dutch, which gave me an enormous boost of confidence.(http://www.fluentin3months.com/rosetta-stone-review/)
A further read of this same reviewing would show you this review as well:
With that said, I have to personally say that I can see the benefit and enjoyment factor present with the RS method. If you have time, it is worth giving it a try to see if the slightly expensive system is worth it to you. If not, read on and maybe I have some alternative solutions.
Strategy:
There are many free websites to learn another language. A good example of an English site for this is learn-english-online.org Like most, it allows you to read, to write and sometimes even listen, but the sites do not include speaking.
Along comes Google!
I figured this out when my wife, who is not a native English speaker was trying to use the Google VoiceSearch found when you are using Chrome as your browser.
She was having the toughest time. It was a little funny, especially when I heard what she was trying to say and what was coming up on Google. For example, she might try to say, “Samui, Thailand” and it comes up, “Simile Highland”. It takes some practice. Sometimes it is even necessary for me, as a native English speaker to hear what she is saying and tell her to say the word(s) with more enunciation or inflection on a certain part. How Google works well, is it confirms automatically where I might say to her, as her teacher, that she is saying something incorrectly, but she doesn’t hear it herself. She might insist she is saying it correctly, but I have no proof.
Well, now I do.
This Google App is available on iPhones, iPads and I am sure lots of other devices. Because of this, it means teachers can carry it around for students who are trying to pronounce something for immediate confirmation about whether what they are saying is said correctly or not.
All-in-all, I love the idea. I hope to apply it through technology integration in classrooms, by carrying around a smart phone and pulling it out when the need is there.
Who says we should ban phones in schools? With enough ingenuity there are plenty of authentic applications for them. Now, if I can justify spending $15,000 for Microsoft’s MS Surface Table to the school, that would be neat.
If instructional designers have a lens with which to view or to reflect on a design process it can help support their practice altogether. This lens can be the knowledge of foundational theories, assumptions, and philosophical traditions of instructional design. Christensen (2008) writes it “helps later [to have this knowledge] when it comes to designing the instruction, but also serves as a guide for deciding how to analyze the learning tasks or content and how to assess learning.”
education | technology | ai & NOT A.I. | design 