Week 3.3 Outlining a personal pedagogy to structure analysis of the affordances of technology

1.           Context based framework for analysis

While the Dimensions of Teaching and Learning (DoTL) form the necessary foundation of my schools pedagogical framework I don’t believe they are sufficient to cover all of the aspects of pedagogy within a school. As an example the DoTL does not provide specific advice around the use digital technology, However, the Pedagogical Framework website developed by EQ as a guide for schools in developing comprehensive and effective frameworks for their own context does provide this advice.

The pedagogical framework background paper produced by DETE ( 2013c) identifies ten core principles necessary for effective teaching and learning. The tenth element “Safe, supportive, connected and inclusive classroom environment” includes connecting classrooms with practices outside the classroom using digital technologies. The “Contemporary learning” section of the website also presents digital technologies as an overarching consideration of pedagogy.

Positioning learning with digital technologies under the umbrella of connecting fits well with my previous reading and reflections on the SAMR model and connectivism.  In short, the potential to connect students with teachers, communities of learners, the wider community, experts within particular fields of study and workplaces across the globe is the most effective use of technology in education.

With this in mind the guiding questions of DoTL can be safely interpreted to include considerations of learning with technology

• What do my students already know?
•  What do they need to learn?
•   How do I teach it?
•   How will they demonstrate their learning?
•   How will I know how well my students have learned it?
•   Where to next?

It must also be acknowledged that when considering student centred pedagogy and contemporary learners, technology adds yet another layer to student diversity. While generalisations about digital natives are useful when discussing socio-cultural trends and what these mean for education, they are not representative of the students who make up our everyday classrooms. Being part of a generation of “digital natives” does not necessary mean that individual students will be familiar with the use of technology or even have access to technology at the same level.(  DETE ( 2013c) background paper ). This needs to be taken into account when planning and teaching using technology.

The DoTL ( DETE 2013)  provide outlines of different teaching methods ( as listed in my previous posting) . Using these as one framework for analysing the pedagogical affordances of the technological tools I am about to explore fits with my personal understanding of pedagogy – that teachers choose teaching methods that will support their learning goals.

In this vein it may be useful to make a distinction between different types of learning goals :

1. Where the goal of for students to replicate the teachers knowledge or understanding

2. Where the goal is for students to construct their own understandings. 

A more in depth explanation can be found in Knight(2009).

The teaching methods outlined as part of the DoTL can be grouped accordingly.

1.       Students replicate teacher’s knowledge (Behaviourist / cognitivist approaches)	2.       Students construct own understandings – either individually or in groups (Constructivist/social constructivist approaches)
·       Direct Teaching	·       Indirect teaching ·       Interactive teaching ·       Experiential teaching

 

Taking into the account that analysis of the affordances of technological tools should focus on their potential for transformation of learning  in order to describe their full potential and that teaching methods that involve the social construction of knowledge arenecessary to support the development of successful 21st Centurylearning,  my analysis will necessarily include a focus on teaching and learning activities from column 2.

REFLECTION

In their 2008 keynote presentation Mishra & Koehler point out that the methods we use to store and present information shape our relationship to it and our thinking processes. With the vast masses of information available to students via the internet I think the point Kylie makes regarding the importance of  students becoming producers rather than only consumers of digital content is timely and relevant.

2. Other useful frameworks

I am also attracted to the DiAL-e framework  used by Burden & Atkinson (2008) in their analysis of VoiceThread and would like to make use of it in my analysis of affordances. In my exploration of other students’ blogs I noticed that Brett also used this framework.

Attributes that make this framework useful are that it

•         Focuses beyond content to HOW students use the tool or material ( to develop higher order skills).

This should allow me to analyse the affordances of each technology without being limited by a particular subject/ content area perspective.

•   Can be organised into activities for Engagement, Knowledge Construction and Reflection

These learning activities are similar to phases of learning I have used previously in planning units of work – although they are not linear they could be matched to similar phases within a unit.

•  Takes into account learning spaces.

Consideration of this aspect of learning may help me to broaden my thinking beyond my current (classroom) context.

I have accessed further information about this framework in order to better understand the ten learning designs. http://dial-e.net/

In conclusion – at this point I will attempt to use these two frameworks when analysing the affordances of various technologies.

Burden,K., Atkinson,S. (2008). Evaluating pedagogical affordances of media sharing Web 2.0 technologies: A case study. Asclite, 2008 Melbourne, Retrieved December 23 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/burden-2.pdf

http://dial-e.net/

Knight,J. (2009). The big four: A simple and powerful framework to dramatically improve instruction. Strategram, 21(4), 1-7. The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. Retrieved December 23 from http://www.instructionalcoach.org/images/downloads/articles/Strategramsv21no4_BigFour.pdf 

Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment.(2013a). Dimensions of teaching and learning. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from  https://learningplace.eq.edu.au/cx/resources/file/f093f249-05ce-0bde-465a-dbc537683e7a/1/index.html

Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment.(2013c). Pedagogy and pedagogical frameworks in Education Queensland-A background paper. Retrieved December 21,2013, from https://learningplace.eq.edu.au/cx/resources/file/f66ebbde-9978-4bfd-e445-b0f06cf4849f/1/section-03/s03-01.html