Reflecting on teaching another term

Every semester the university conducts formal course evaluations which enquire about the course as well as the lecturer. This past semester was my second to last term teaching W200 where I could incorporate student feedback into my teaching practices. Since I began position as an Associate Instructor teaching W200: Computers in Education I have struggled with a few repetitive issues which include a lack of clarity in giving project directions and my unapproachable personality. One of the big changes I have made in my instruction is bringing in specific examples of my k12 teaching experience and to explicitly describe my instructional decisions. I believe that making the learning environment authentic, by drawing my experiences, would make the content more approachable. Also by explaining to the student why I make certain teaching decisions I believe that will help them become better educators. While I felt as though I had improved on these aspects they were negatively commented up on in my fall 2015 evaluations. Again this semester, some of my students felt that I wasn’t giving clear enough directions on the major projects and that my personality was blunt and overly sarcastic. Despite these negative remarks the students ranked my instruction fairly positively. Overwhelmingly, the students didn’t like the course load and the 3 hour classes. My students believed that I was an outstanding instructor (3.4/5 and 2.9/5) and promoted an “atmosphere conductive to learning” (3.6/5 and 3.5/5). The students stated that I motivated them to do their best work (3.3/5 and 3.1/5) and I emphasized student learning and development (3.7/5 and 3.4/5).

System Update Available for Education 3.0

“Education 3.0 is characterized by rich, cross-institutional, cross-cultural educational opportunities within which the learners themselves play a key role as creators of knowledge artifacts that are shared, and where social networking and social benefits outside the immediate scope of activity play a strong role” (Keats & Schmidt, 2007, as cited by Lwoga, 2012).

The notion of Education 3.0 was first introduced in the literature circles in a First Monday article by Keats and Schmidt (2007) and then later expanded upon by Professor Lengel (2013). In short, Education 3.0 is a shift in how information is generated, communicated, validated and disseminated within a technology supported learning environment. The progress from education 2.0 to 3.0 mirrors the progress from web 2.0 to web 3.0 technologies. The move towards Education 3.0 is a result from the growing dissatisfaction of current education paradigms and a need to design a system that meets the challenges of today’s society (Abas, 2010; Daggett, 2012; Toffler, 1984; Watson, Watson, & Reigeluth, 2013).

According to Lengel (2007) education 3.0 describes transformative practices while education 2.0 focused on industrial age skills and education 1.0 focused on agricultural talent. Harkins (2008) takes this notion one step further by describing education 3.0 as “knowledge-producing” and education 4.0 is marked as “innovation-producing” education (p.19). However, Harkin (2008) disagrees with Lengel (2007) historic description of how education 3.0 was established, he writes that education 2.0 was internet enabled, while education 1.0 was focused on memorization. Moravee (2008) and McPheeters (2010) mark the shift into education 2.0 with the emergence of 21 century learning skills. Gerstein (2013) writes that education 3.0 is a connectivist, heutagogical approach to teaching and learning, where as education 2.0 was a cooperative and social teaching and learning process. Siemens (2005) defines connectivist learning as one that is connected, interactive and transformative. Additionally, Gerstein (2013) calls for educators to implement Education 3.0 practices instead of “talking about doing eduction 2.0” and actually doing education 1.0 (n.p.).

One of the fundamental backbones of Education 3.0 is the shift in openness and expansion of the learning environment (Paskevicius, & Ng’ambi, 2011), where the students are producers and collaborators using new tools and information available to them (Keats & Schmidt, 2007). With the shift towards Education 3.0 Free and Open Education Resources (FOERs) (Blackall, 2009; Heller, Chongsuvivatwong, Hailegeorgios, Dada, Torun, Madhok, & Sandars, 2007; Lwoga, 2012), mobile learning (Gerstein, 2013), and social networks have become imperative to successful implementation (Blackall, 2009). Furthermore, Keats and Schmidt (2007) claim that the interactivity of emerging technologies has the potential to connect students to larger “socio-political learning environments” (Carmichael & Farrell, 2012). Instructors are seen as conductors and facilitators of learning, while the student armed with internet resources contribute to the classroom experiences. Furthermore, the roles of institutes are also changing; the primary role has shifted to one of “accreditation” (Bradwell, 2009), moving away from the role of information gatekeepers. Several reports and texts (e.g. Davidson & Goldberg, 2009; Wiley, 2009) echo the call to restructure education to meet the changing students and society.

The chart below is aggregated from several readings, including: Moravec (2008b), Gerstein (2013), Keats and Schmidt (2007), and Lengel (2013). It discusses how the purposes and values of certain instructional elements has changed over time.  For example: the way in which meanings are constructed have differed; the technology competencies of the learners has grown; the learning pathways have changed, in that students no only learn from instructors; the space in which learning occurs has also changed; as have the instructor roles.

It is imperative that learners have a positive experience with the learning tools and environments in that the resources are user-friendly and accessible (Wang, 2013). Additionally, as individual learners have varying preferences, instructors leveraging Education 3.0 techniques need to consider learning styles (Oblinger &Oblinger, 2005). Kolb (2005) identifies four different learning modes: concrete experiences are a receptive and experience-based model; abstract conceptualization is an analytical and conceptual model; active experimentation is an authority-directed and impersonal learning model; and reflective observation is a reflective model. These four approaches can be further combined to include additional learning models. The ways in which people interact with technology also differs and produces varying opportunities ingrained in the world around them (Orlikowski, 1992). Watson et al. (2013) call for reform to current educational practices to better engage students.  Furthermore, Wang’s (2013) empirical study found that students engaged in traditional learning displayed less satisfaction than students using web 3.0 technologies.

 References

Abas, Z. W. (2010). A framework for higher education 2.0: 21st century education for 21st century learners.

Blackall, L. (2009). Open educational resources and practices. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3(2), 63-81.

Bradwell, P. (2009). The edgeless university. London, UK: Demos.

Carmichael, E., & Farrell, H. (2012). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1), 4.

Daggett, W. R. (2010). Preparing students for their technological future. International Center for Leadership in Education.

Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Gerstein, J. (2013, May 13). Education 3.0 and the Pedagogy (Andragogy, Heutagogy) of Mobile Learning. Retrieved September 8, 2014.

Harkins, A. M. (2008). Leapfrog Principles and Practices: Core Components of Education 3.0 and 4.0. Futures Research Quarterly, 24(1), 19-31.

Heller, R. F., Chongsuvivatwong, V., Hailegeorgios, S., Dada, J., Torun, P., Madhok, R., & Sandars, J. (2007). Capacity-building for public health: http://peoples-uni. org. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(12), 930-934.

Keats, D., & Schmidt, J. P. (2007). The genesis and emergence of Education 3.0 in higher education and its potential for Africa. First Monday, 12(3).

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education, 4(2), 193-212.

Lengel, J. G. (2012). Education 3.0: Seven Steps to Better Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lwoga, E. (2012). Making learning and Web 2.0 technologies work for higher learning institutions in Africa. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 90-107.

McPheeters, D. (2009, October). Cyborg learning theory: Technology in education and the blurring of boundaries. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (1), 2937-2942.

Moravec, J. (2008a). Moving beyond education 2.0. Education Futures.

Moravec, J. (2008b, September 29). Toward Society 3.0: A New Paradigm for 21st century education. Retrieved September 12, 2014.

Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. (Eds.), (2005). Educating the Net Generation, Educause. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization science, 3(3), 398-427.

Paskevicius, M., & Ng’ambi, D. (2011). The Potential for Education 3.0 in a Developing Context using Giddens’ Structuration Giddens’ Structuration Theory. Retrieved from: http://www.bluelightdistrict.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/mpaskevi_Research_Paper_v2.pdf

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Toffler, A. (1984). The Third Wave: The Clasic Study of Tomorrow. New York, NY: Bantam Publishing Group.

Wang, J. E. N. N. Y. (2013). Education 3.0: Effect learning style and method of instruction on user satisfaction. European Academic Research I 1(5), 755-769.

Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Education 3.0: Breaking the mold with technology. Interactive Learning Environments, (ahead-of-print), 1-12.

Wiley, D. (2009). Openness, Disaggregation, and the Future of Schools.TechTrends, 53(4), 37.

Real-Time Audio Reflection of Video Analysis for Action Research

A right of passage for many teachers is a foundational video case analysis of their teaching, recorded and previewed by external faculty and staff members.  This practice is in place for pre-service teachers, teachers under review at new schools, and even associate instructors at the university level. While often viewed as a slightly intimidating process, the video review process is integral in establishing action research ideals for teachers.

The reflection process is crucial to not only the teacher’s development but also for enhancing their instructional approaches.  Many teacher preparatory programs strive to teach future teachers reflective practices that directly inform their action (Hatton & Smith, 1995).  Teachers need to think critically about, and learn from their past experiences through meaningful reflective practices.

While reflections can take place through listening, speaking, drawing, and any other way imaginable, the most meaningful reflections often take place after watching yourself perform tasks.  The idea is for teachers to video record themselves and capture objective descriptions of what happened, discuss feelings, ideas and analysis, and discuss how they reacted as a result of the experience.  The figure below represents the reflection process (adopted from Quinsland & Van Ginkel, 1984).

According to Quinsland and Van Ginkel (1984), processing is a practice that encourages one to reflect, describe, analyze, and communicate their experiences. The processing and reflection will not only allow for an enhanced learning experience but will also contribute to the teaching and learning of future students.  Past literature has shown that critical reflection will increase learning, understanding, and retention (Daudelin, 1996).  Additionally it invokes a process of taking meanings and moving them into learning (Mezirow, 1990).

The process of reflection is critical to action research (Kemmis, 1985), and action research need to be systematic (Gore & Zwichner, 1991; Price, 2001) that creates questions and answers them in the teaching context.  Historically, many teachers use a variety of tools such as observation logs and reflective journals (Darling-Hammond, 2012).

This activity will walk you though that process:

The first step is to insert the video observation into ELAN.  Give the video an initial viewing and add in annotations.  Annotations should be reflections of your teaching and immediate methods, they can also be ideas that you wish to further explore and revisit.

The second step is to create an audio-based discussion. As the video is playing, create an audio recording of your immediate reflections.  During the second video run-through, stop the recording periodically to voice record your thoughts.

Place the audio recording into the ELAN platform, synchronizing the wave with the video observation.  Once you silence your observational video you will be able to listen to your thought process overlayed to your observational data.  Another way of looking at this overlay: The reflected audio file replaces the audio component of the video observation.  This will allow you to pair your analysis to the observation, reflecting the moments of instruction.

Once audio and video, with annotations, are embedded and synced, add a second layer of annotations based on the alignment between your audio reflections.  This can be areas for improvement, implications for future practices, and moments that surprise you.  By integrating aspects of verbal, visual, and kinesthetic cues, teachers can establish retrieval systems that will allow them to change practices on the fly.

These approaches will allow teachers to self-reflect and create keys that indicate needs for change.  This systemic approach to identifying problems and providing solution, take a critical approach to teacher-based action research.  The benefit of using video and audio based reflections is the fluid and organic nature of reflection that allow teachers to improve their instructional techniques effectively (Altrichter, Feldman, Posch, & Somekh, 2013).

References

Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2013).Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions. New York, NY: Routledge.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2012).Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Daudelin, M. (1996). Learning from Experience Through Reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36-48.

Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States.Teaching and teacher education,7(2), 119-136.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation.Teaching and teacher education,11(1), 33-49.

Kemmis, S. (1985). Action research and the politics of reflection. In D. Boud, R. Keogh & D. Walker (Eds.),Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning(pp. 139-164). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood, 1-20.

Price, J. N. (2001). Action research, pedagogy and change: The transformative potential of action research in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies,33(1), 43-74.

Quinsland, L. K. & Van Ginkel, A. (1984). How to Process Experience. The Journal of Experiential Education, 7 (2), 8-13.

 

Cellphones in your class?

There is a breadth of literature out there that states users, even teachers, will not use technological tools if they do not see value in the larger concept (e.g., Ertmer, 2005). They won’t even go near a new tool.  Granted there is more to adopting new technology than seeing value. For example, if someone consistently has issues with a specific browser they are more likely to switch to a different one.

I once gave a question to a group of teachers, “How do you think cellphones can be used in your classroom?” I posted this question as a presentation slide and made all of the teachers in the room text their responses in; below is a snapshot of a few of their responses.  (Note that the teachers had to use their phones to submit their answers!)

Many of the teachers commented that cellphones were a distraction and should not be used unless it was an emergency. A few teachers saw value in students using their mobile devices to look up information, and a handful mentioned that students might be able to use tools like the calculator or dictionary apps. Despite having just taken a poll via their phone none of the teachers mentioned students using their devices for real-time feedback or assessments…funny how that works out. Their value system for cellphones is so set in a particular mode that it became difficult to expand their concept into one of a useful tool.

Straub (2009) in his work, adopted from Anderson (1997), Hall (1979) and Hord et al. (1987), on technology adoption and diffusion describes 7 stages: 0) Awareness; 1) Informational; 2) Personal; 3) Management; 4) Consequence; 5) Collaboration; and 6) Refocusing. Most of these teachers haven’t acknowledged this tool as having additional uses, in fact their use in framed in with real-time assessment or feedback.  Their use of this tool is guided by their fundamental and “semantic knowledge of object function” (Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525), centered around traditional use, further enhanced by years of using this tool in set ways.  In fact, Gibson (1979) mentions that generally individuals perceive tools as having a set focus and particular mode of interaction when in fact it can be “used in a multitude of other ways” (as cited in Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525).

So how do we allow for these teachers to expand their understanding of how tools can be used differently, particularly in their context of instruction? Add meaning.  If models and discussions are presented to instructors that let teachers add value to a tool, then they are more likely to adopt it for their purposes.

Suppose you show a teacher that cellphones can be used for more that texting, facebook stalking, and can become valuable tools…suppose you show them that incorporating tools makes the teaching-learning process more engaging, efficient, effective, and enhances the environment. Simple right? Easier said than done.  If truth be told, instructional tools haven’t changed all that much in the past century (Cuban, 1983).  Think about it, the same means of presenting information are used. Davis (1989) mentions that teachers are more likely to incorporate tools when they are low effort, easy to work with, and are viewed as enhancing performance.

Clue to the application developers: make it easy to learn and adopt into the instructional practices.  But simple tools like polleverywhere and geddit aren’t complicated to use, in fact there are a bunch of help guides and videos to walk users through creating questions.  While there are hundreds of research papers that display real time feedback as valuable, instruction tools that allow for simple data aggregation seem to be a ‘no, no’ – why so?

References

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331–367.

Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890–1980? Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 159–166.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Hall, G. E. (1979). The concerns-based approach to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57, 202–208.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Osiurake, F., Jarry, C. & Le Gall, D. (2010). Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychological Review 117(2), 517-540.

Straub, E.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research 79(2), 625-649.

Looking for other tools that can serve a new purpose? Try using your search bar as a calculator, no really – type out “= 6*2”