“A creative product is novel, effective and whole” (Mishra & Koehler).
At the beginning of this semester I designed a new learning platform for my Psychology 12 course. My intention was to create a course that facilitated a deeper understanding of the content, provided for personalized learning opportunities, constructed opportunities for students to connect to the world outside of the classroom using technology, and ultimately, to promote student engagement. Integrating technological tools into the curriculum is becoming an inseparable part of good teaching, and it became obvious to me that it is necessary to enable all students to benefit from the dynamic and transformative nature of technology and connectedness. For my teaching practice, this meant working on a thoughtful plan for implementation of technology through specific content related activities.
In reconfiguring my teaching practice, the biggest challenge is to reflect on its effectiveness in terms of student engagement. My ruminations into the foray of teaching a blended course (online and face-to-face) are situated in Mishra and Koehler’s, TPAC model; these educational theorists understand the need to integrate technology to support content knowledge and pedagogical practice. The phrase, “technological pedagogical content knowledge” has been used to describe “an understanding that emerges from an interaction of content, pedagogy and technology knowledge” (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). This conceptualization implies that teachers must engage with content, pedagogy and technology in tandem to develop knowledge of how technology can help students learn specific concepts.
Prior to changing this course, I had come to the realization that my previous teaching methodology was lackluster and inadequate for many of my students; the course was paper-based, where students utilized their textbooks and technology was used infrequently, primarily in the form of PowerPoint lectures. Lecture (and discussion) was the primary “learning tool” in my classroom. In spite of the insufficiencies in the course, there were opportunities for hands-on-learning and self-exploration, and of course I chose hold on to these activities. Much of this self-knowledge about my teaching practice came from personal reflection about student behaviour and output, along with further exploration and understanding of theoretical models for effective teaching practices.
Initially, I set out to identify the problems associated with the typical face-to-face learning environment (specifically with teaching high school psychology), and to identify ways in which I was able to address these issues. In my previous Psychology teacher incarnation, I thought that my most important job was to fill the student up with content, as this was how I was taught psychology (in university). As well, the textbook is laden with so much content-rich information, that it was my job to impart this knowledge onto my students. This is the heart of the problem with my face-to-face classroom; instead of seeing the students as co-collaborators in this learning process—they were empty vessels just waiting for me to fill with knowledge.
Educational literature, specifically constructivist theory, illustrates that the learner must take an active role in constructing knowledge through contextual and collaborative or social learning activities. In becoming aware of “knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to the teaching of specific content” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), I was able to shift my mindset from being strictly a content delivery person (teacher) to create an environment that provided for student-ownership and autonomy over learning, whereby students become co-designers of the learning environment. This approach is consistent with the idea that the content provider is growing obsolete due to the rise in vast online information and technology, like Google. This relates to Siemens theory of connectivism which helps us to understand that learning is about making connections with ideas, facts, people, and communities. The use of technology allows users to both find and utilize these connections.
Students must be liberated from the traditional “passive” role to an active role in which they help to design the educational opportunities. This relates to Moore’s (1996) transactional distance theory, whereby the educational benefits are tremendous when students are given the opportunity to interact with other learners, to take control over the direction of their learning and given the opportunity to represent what they know in a variety of formats. It is empowering for students to construct their own knowledge through inquiry and problem-based learning. When given the opportunity to show what they know, they have defied my expectations—devoting their time and energy into work that is worthy of attention. Throughout this process, I have noticed that students have proven themselves to be competent researchers, reflexive learners, thoughtful and persuasive writers and thinkers.
Over the past semester, I have been endeavoring to expand my understanding about 21st century information technology and have been working to help my students grow as digital citizens. This required tackling a complete understanding of new technologies and how to use technology effectively and ethically within the parameters of specific content. Koehler and Mishra (2009) speak to the fact that “teachers need to understand which specific technologies are best suited for addressing subject-matter learning…and how content dictates or perhaps even changes technology….” Analogous to this fact, is that research suggests learning is more influenced by the content and instructional strategy than by the type of technology used to enhance learning, such that technology does not influence student achievement. The key factor is to understand the interplay between content, pedagogy and technology that supports meaningful learning experiences.
Mishra and Koehler (2008) argue that “greater emphasis should be placed on the idea of teachers as curriculum designers.” Many teachers have embraced computer technology and have allowed it to reinvent ways in which we tailor our teaching practice; as technology allows new ways to discover, create, exchange and even think about information. But we do need to be careful not to see technology as just an add on to the learning continuum —technology must permeate the entire learning process. I believe that it is critical for students to use technology to communicate, collaborate, to conduct research, to think critically and to demonstrate creativity and innovation. Implementation in my “test” classroom involved using social bookmarking during research (Delicious), creating common documents (Prezi presentations, Google Drive/Docs, PowerPoint), creation of shared technology projects (Weebly), open discussion forums (blogging) and ongoing collaboration between peers. In the educational literature, researchers, Mishra and Koehler (2008) emphasize the fact that “Teaching with technology is a wicked problem… standard approaches don’t work, and there is no perfect solution, but creativity becomes key to surviving in this new media ecology.” They go on to say that “…creativity needs to be useful, integrated and complete…” in order to make it powerful. Overall, the experimentation and eventual evolution of the Psychology website was an effective tool to for learning the content. From my observations, students were able to capitalize on the dynamic nature of technology infused learning environment, and students were able to see their place in the wide-world of psychology, including knowledge that this field of human behavior is multifaceted and pervasive in the world; thus bringing together the “complex interaction” (Mishra and Koehler, 2008) among content, pedagogy and technology.
PowerPoint Overview of Course: 502 Final Project
Works Cited:
Anderson, T. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Edmonton, AB: AU Press, 2008. Athabasca University. Web. 13 December, 2012 from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/99Z_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Gonzalez, C. (2004). “The Role of Blended Learning in the World of Technology.” Benchmarks Online. Web. 13 December, 2012 from http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2004/september04/eis.htm
Koehler, M.J. & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Knowledge. In AACTE (Eds.). The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators . Web. 15 December, 2012 from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/koehler_mishra_08.pdf
Koehler, M.J. & Mishra, P. (2008). “Thinking Creatively: Teachers as Designers of Technology, Pedagogy and Content.” Keynote Speech. Web. 08 December, 2012 from http://site.aace.org/conf/archive/2008/mishra-keynote-08.mov
Mishra, P. (2012). “Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century: Crayons of the Future.” Techtrends. Web. 20 December, 2012 from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Mishra-crayons-techtrends1.pdf
Mishra, P. “Punya Mishra’s Web.” Web. 13 December, 2012 from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/research/tpck/
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J (2006). “Technololgical Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework or teacher knowledge.” Teachers College Record. Web. 15 December, 2012 from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/2008/01/12/mishra-koehler-2006/
Mueller, C. (1997). "Transactional Distance." The Ultimate Instant Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 15, 2012 from http://distancelearn.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf9698/mullerc/3/transact.html
Siemens, G. (2004).“Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.” Elearn space: Everything Elearning. Retrieved December 13, 2012 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
At the beginning of this semester I designed a new learning platform for my Psychology 12 course. My intention was to create a course that facilitated a deeper understanding of the content, provided for personalized learning opportunities, constructed opportunities for students to connect to the world outside of the classroom using technology, and ultimately, to promote student engagement. Integrating technological tools into the curriculum is becoming an inseparable part of good teaching, and it became obvious to me that it is necessary to enable all students to benefit from the dynamic and transformative nature of technology and connectedness. For my teaching practice, this meant working on a thoughtful plan for implementation of technology through specific content related activities.
In reconfiguring my teaching practice, the biggest challenge is to reflect on its effectiveness in terms of student engagement. My ruminations into the foray of teaching a blended course (online and face-to-face) are situated in Mishra and Koehler’s, TPAC model; these educational theorists understand the need to integrate technology to support content knowledge and pedagogical practice. The phrase, “technological pedagogical content knowledge” has been used to describe “an understanding that emerges from an interaction of content, pedagogy and technology knowledge” (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). This conceptualization implies that teachers must engage with content, pedagogy and technology in tandem to develop knowledge of how technology can help students learn specific concepts.
Prior to changing this course, I had come to the realization that my previous teaching methodology was lackluster and inadequate for many of my students; the course was paper-based, where students utilized their textbooks and technology was used infrequently, primarily in the form of PowerPoint lectures. Lecture (and discussion) was the primary “learning tool” in my classroom. In spite of the insufficiencies in the course, there were opportunities for hands-on-learning and self-exploration, and of course I chose hold on to these activities. Much of this self-knowledge about my teaching practice came from personal reflection about student behaviour and output, along with further exploration and understanding of theoretical models for effective teaching practices.
Initially, I set out to identify the problems associated with the typical face-to-face learning environment (specifically with teaching high school psychology), and to identify ways in which I was able to address these issues. In my previous Psychology teacher incarnation, I thought that my most important job was to fill the student up with content, as this was how I was taught psychology (in university). As well, the textbook is laden with so much content-rich information, that it was my job to impart this knowledge onto my students. This is the heart of the problem with my face-to-face classroom; instead of seeing the students as co-collaborators in this learning process—they were empty vessels just waiting for me to fill with knowledge.
Educational literature, specifically constructivist theory, illustrates that the learner must take an active role in constructing knowledge through contextual and collaborative or social learning activities. In becoming aware of “knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to the teaching of specific content” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), I was able to shift my mindset from being strictly a content delivery person (teacher) to create an environment that provided for student-ownership and autonomy over learning, whereby students become co-designers of the learning environment. This approach is consistent with the idea that the content provider is growing obsolete due to the rise in vast online information and technology, like Google. This relates to Siemens theory of connectivism which helps us to understand that learning is about making connections with ideas, facts, people, and communities. The use of technology allows users to both find and utilize these connections.
Students must be liberated from the traditional “passive” role to an active role in which they help to design the educational opportunities. This relates to Moore’s (1996) transactional distance theory, whereby the educational benefits are tremendous when students are given the opportunity to interact with other learners, to take control over the direction of their learning and given the opportunity to represent what they know in a variety of formats. It is empowering for students to construct their own knowledge through inquiry and problem-based learning. When given the opportunity to show what they know, they have defied my expectations—devoting their time and energy into work that is worthy of attention. Throughout this process, I have noticed that students have proven themselves to be competent researchers, reflexive learners, thoughtful and persuasive writers and thinkers.
Over the past semester, I have been endeavoring to expand my understanding about 21st century information technology and have been working to help my students grow as digital citizens. This required tackling a complete understanding of new technologies and how to use technology effectively and ethically within the parameters of specific content. Koehler and Mishra (2009) speak to the fact that “teachers need to understand which specific technologies are best suited for addressing subject-matter learning…and how content dictates or perhaps even changes technology….” Analogous to this fact, is that research suggests learning is more influenced by the content and instructional strategy than by the type of technology used to enhance learning, such that technology does not influence student achievement. The key factor is to understand the interplay between content, pedagogy and technology that supports meaningful learning experiences.
Mishra and Koehler (2008) argue that “greater emphasis should be placed on the idea of teachers as curriculum designers.” Many teachers have embraced computer technology and have allowed it to reinvent ways in which we tailor our teaching practice; as technology allows new ways to discover, create, exchange and even think about information. But we do need to be careful not to see technology as just an add on to the learning continuum —technology must permeate the entire learning process. I believe that it is critical for students to use technology to communicate, collaborate, to conduct research, to think critically and to demonstrate creativity and innovation. Implementation in my “test” classroom involved using social bookmarking during research (Delicious), creating common documents (Prezi presentations, Google Drive/Docs, PowerPoint), creation of shared technology projects (Weebly), open discussion forums (blogging) and ongoing collaboration between peers. In the educational literature, researchers, Mishra and Koehler (2008) emphasize the fact that “Teaching with technology is a wicked problem… standard approaches don’t work, and there is no perfect solution, but creativity becomes key to surviving in this new media ecology.” They go on to say that “…creativity needs to be useful, integrated and complete…” in order to make it powerful. Overall, the experimentation and eventual evolution of the Psychology website was an effective tool to for learning the content. From my observations, students were able to capitalize on the dynamic nature of technology infused learning environment, and students were able to see their place in the wide-world of psychology, including knowledge that this field of human behavior is multifaceted and pervasive in the world; thus bringing together the “complex interaction” (Mishra and Koehler, 2008) among content, pedagogy and technology.
PowerPoint Overview of Course: 502 Final Project
Works Cited:
Anderson, T. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Edmonton, AB: AU Press, 2008. Athabasca University. Web. 13 December, 2012 from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/99Z_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Gonzalez, C. (2004). “The Role of Blended Learning in the World of Technology.” Benchmarks Online. Web. 13 December, 2012 from http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2004/september04/eis.htm
Koehler, M.J. & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Knowledge. In AACTE (Eds.). The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators . Web. 15 December, 2012 from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/koehler_mishra_08.pdf
Koehler, M.J. & Mishra, P. (2008). “Thinking Creatively: Teachers as Designers of Technology, Pedagogy and Content.” Keynote Speech. Web. 08 December, 2012 from http://site.aace.org/conf/archive/2008/mishra-keynote-08.mov
Mishra, P. (2012). “Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century: Crayons of the Future.” Techtrends. Web. 20 December, 2012 from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Mishra-crayons-techtrends1.pdf
Mishra, P. “Punya Mishra’s Web.” Web. 13 December, 2012 from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/research/tpck/
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J (2006). “Technololgical Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework or teacher knowledge.” Teachers College Record. Web. 15 December, 2012 from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/2008/01/12/mishra-koehler-2006/
Mueller, C. (1997). "Transactional Distance." The Ultimate Instant Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 15, 2012 from http://distancelearn.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf9698/mullerc/3/transact.html
Siemens, G. (2004).“Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.” Elearn space: Everything Elearning. Retrieved December 13, 2012 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm