Instructional Technology Continuum

Hi Technology Educators,

I've been working on a continuum of Instructional Technology.

I think that I may be somewhere in the middle--leaning more towards the constructivist side. Although, I do like to learn visually for some things.

I think that the interaction and constructivism has to be meaningful to the learner and since all learners are different, then the "ideal" place may not be possible on the continuum-only the place for each individual.

I do think that interactive technologies and constructivist learning do tend to go with higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy (Analysis, Evaluation, and Creativity). However, interaction alone does not do it. The technology should be meaningful and provide greater opportunities to learn

in new ways than before.

Tim

Final Thoughts on Pedagogy

Hi,

Just a few final thoughts on "Pedagogy" as it pertains to Technology instruction:

1. Pedagogy encompasses instructional methods, learner needs and preferences, and
the learning environment. It is complex and fascinating. It always involves some types
of technology...even back to the "old days" of only using media such as books or scrolls for
information or teaching resources.

2. Technology can be utilized in many methods as part of pedagogical approaches to
learning, the question is how is it BEST utilized for the learner, content, and intended
learning goals/outcomes. This varies depending on availability, complexity, developmental
appropriateness, philosophy, individual learning style, and of course time and money/resources
required for implementation. To assess this, a resources vs. outcome assessment has to be
made including all of the options available and how well they will improve instruction or
align with the pedagogical approach.

3. The matrix format is quite helpful in evaluating and assessing the technological use in
any one area. However, I urge caution in that ultimately the "flow" should go from:
Educational Philosophy/Values to Pedagogical practices to Technological instructional choice...
The major source of angst in teachers, administration, students, and parents seems to happen
when this flow is disrupted or placed "out of order". So, I suggest a hierarchy: Start with your
roots (Philosophy/Mission), follow up the tree (Pedagogy), and select the branches and leaves
(technologies and instructional strategies) that will ultimately produce the most blooms (student learning) and eventually bear the best fruit (greater achievement). In this way, the education
"tree" grows at the proper rate and acts to disseminate resources at the sites that will best
allow it to flourish and grow in the future. Nuture your tree and respect it, technology may
only be the latest form of "fertilizer" to aid in acceleration of growth or greater proliferation
of larger fruit.

Like my allegorical technology metaphor?

Enjoy.

Tim

Teaching with Technology

Hiya,

I've been reading the Hooper and Rieber article "Teaching with Technology" and thinking about how technology is used in teaching.

I like the philosophical learning continuum of behavioral to cognitive with instructive and constructive learning at either ends. Deeper cognitive processing is important (aka. Bloom's taxonomy) in learning and utilizing technology effectively will help to elicit this deeper cognitive gain.

As a middle school science teacher, I have lived principle #1: Learning is an ACTIVE process alright! I used to say "science is a verb", to instill in many of my students that to really understand something you must not only be able to explain it to your grandmother, but you must be able to effectively show her what you mean through a demonstration or model. To do this, you must be an active learner...not a couch potato or a limp absorbent type material (like a sponge...) I like that they point out that technologies do not in and of themselves increase activity or processing...and that the overall benefit goes back to student ability to incorporate idea technologies (not product technologies) into the learning process. The synthesis of thinking and interacting with technologies produces the most learning, I think...(did Descartes say this?) The product technologies often have titles that say they will "make learning fun", but do they really IMPROVE cognitive outcomes? (Learning is not always "fun"...as one of my favorite critics of technology use, Dr. Cliff Stoll, often points out...read his book "Silicon Snake Oil" and see what I mean...)

Principle #2 is to include multiple perspectives to increase the durability of instruction...hmmmm...cooperative learning must be MANAGED carefully to be utilized for greater learning outcomes...I like that it eventually gets to this...I can give MANY testimonies as to how hypermedia type group projects MUST have good management to produce better learning than other methods. The boundaries must be clear along with the level of depth for the connectivity of the ideas through technological use. I have concerns that too many perspectives overwhelm students and do not provide anything but a cacophony of noise that they must sift through to get to the important "stuff". This article was written in 1995, and since then the explosion of internet/cell phone use has produced a much wider technological world, but it also has made it more difficult to sometimes find what you really need. The capitalization of the internet and investment in advertising technologies has served to hamper some of the more cognitively beneficial connections through net technologies. Management is thus key here for hightest effectivity.

Principle #3: Building on student knowledge...sounds like day 1 in instruction class...the word "educate" means to be brought out, and incorporating what students already know is basic to moving them forward in cognitive learning outcomes. Technology can be very useful to change misconceptions of students by using real-time experimental responses to real environmental conditions (like digital probes). The use of familiar contexts even with technology is also a "given" for any instruction.

Adaptive virtual environments...interesting, but too much of this may "spoil" our children into believing that they can just "engineer" their own world if they don't like the real one...this strikes me as being both empowering (if they take it as a mandate to apply these ideas in the REAL world) or very frigntening (if they prefer the virtual world so much that they retreat from reality). In science, we often use models to understand things, but we always remember that WE created the models and manipulated them to see what is happening in the REAL world...(we create the "Golem" and see what it does...respect it and treat it well or it may overwhelm you! )

Well, my brain thermometer has popped up to say that I am done for today. I'm blogged out.

Tim

4 Steps to Standards

Hi bloggers,

Some reflections on 4 steps of Technology integration readings...

The 4 steps: 1. Inventory, 2. Set Curriculum goals, 3. Set Teaching Strategies, and 4. Matrix! I like the idea of a matrix to match up the available technology with the goals and available teaching strategies. It seems that it can also lead to expansion later as more technology or teaching methods are added or as curriculum goals change. The matrix provides (literally) a "framework" to springboard into a plan of action for integration of technology standards for teachers in a certain area. Frameworks are good--skeletons onto which we place flesh and form.

I also liked the mention of how the pedagogical aspects of the teaching can be incorporated as an additional part of the matrix. The student's learning styles can then be matched up with the available strategies and technologies that the teacher has in order to maximize the opportunity for student learning.--Way to go!

The matrix as an evaluation tool also sounds very intriguing. I think that a scale of sorts might be included in a matrix for evaluation of future needs in terms of curriculum, technologies to add, and where $$ can be best spent to maximize impact with the most students. It also allows the technology to be evaluated in its effectiveness as it can be used in various areas of the matrix--the technology is then a PART of the overall plan for learning and not viewed as a panacea. It is a vehicle for learning with the student and teacher as pilot and co-pilot, it is not on "auto-pilot". (you like my metaphor/allegory here?)

For my area (science), I can see places where a matrix framework and this exercise would definitely help to evaluate present and future needs in integration of standards. I enjoyed this.

Tim

1st blog

Hi,
Welcome to my blog for 505 Technology class.

Happy days.

Tim