Category: EdTech Research (page 1 of 1)

For the past several weeks I have been questioning how impactful and relevant educational research is. Two questions have come to the forefront for me: Who is reading the research?  Who is conducting the research? I am troubled by the fact that as I spend more and more time looking into the research it becomes apparent that it often does not reflect the complexities and realities of the classroom. Is this because it is not written by the classroom teacher?  Or is it because it is not intended to inform the classroom teacher?

I am confident that the trademark of a great teacher is their emotional and relational competencies rather than the tools, strategies, or even the content. So, when researchers talk about the effectiveness of using technology, whether it is for assessment, formal or informal learning, or collaboration I believe it is impossible to separate the tool from  the educator that utilizes it.  Teachers should be more involved in the research as they recognize how vital trust and relationships are to the learning process. Teachers should also have more access to the research, which I believe would help direct research to be more relevant and applicable in the K-12 setting.  Currently, research is not widely read by the classroom teacher unless they are doing graduate studies.  Research seems to be aimed at University academics and policy-makers, but this is not where the largest gains will be realized.  The full potential and influence of research will be realized when the educator in the K-12 classroom has access to the research and views the research as relevant and applicable. It is with these three things in mind (accessibility, relevance, and application) that I reviewed the research presented by my peers in EDCI 570/571.

Access: Research needs to be available to everyone.

Cheryl, Heather and Benjamin mention several times in their summary of “Using Information Technology for Assessment: Issues and Opportunities” (pp 577-648) that

 developments need to be shared through Open Educational Resources so that progress can be made more quickly in this emerging field.

Joanna, Nicole and Hayley’s summary of “Issues and Challenges Related to Digital Equity” (pp 981-1098) points out that open educational resources have led to an increase in equity in learning. I propose that access to research also needs to be ‘open’ so that there is equity between the educator and the researcher.

Jerry and Rhyanon’s summary of “Flexible, Open and Distance Learning in the Twenty First Century” (681-776) identifies that one of the key aspects in a successful blended learning program is Professional Development through workshops and hands on experience. This would seem like a perfect opportunity to encourage educators to access relevant research, however the divide between practicing teachers and research is once again strengthened by this omission.

Relevant: K-12 teachers need to be more involved in research to make it more relevant. 

Faune, Leanne and Rochelle’s summary on the research of “Curricular Challenges of the Twenty-First Century” (pp 3-120) appears to be very relevant for current educators.  Points such as “young learners lack the ability to critically evaluate the information found on digital medias” and  there needs to be improvement in “teacher skills and competencies to educate students on digital literacies” are obstacles that need to be addressed and overcome before technology can be used effectively. It is noted in their summary that the authors, Voogt and Erstad,

discuss the mismatch between research on how people learn and how schools are organized, the lack of professional development, the overcrowding of the curriculum, access to and availability of technologies, the differing agendas of stake holders, lack of teacher skill

These acknowledgements add relevance to their research as these challenges also need to be recognized and tackled in order to effectively implement technology.  A quick google search reveals that Voogt has 194 research items and 3828 citations. I would like to read more articles by Voogt as her research appears to be quite relevant which leads me to be optimistic that it is also applicable.

The summary presented by Dierdre, Gary and Andrew on “Advanced Principles in Multimedia Learning” (pp 371-390) was challenging for me to appreciate (not the presentation itself, but the material).  I quickly dismissed the relevance of the research as it was clearly directed towards the academic and not to the practicing teacher. Many of the areas suggested for further research regarding the implementation of guided discover learning in multimedia learning was predictable and obvious for the experienced teacher.  Given that I struggled to find the relevance in the research, it might also be expected that I struggled to identify how to apply the research (although the intellectual in me certainly enjoyed the detailed organization of ideas and principles).

The topic of flexible, open, and distance learning covered by Jerry and Rhyanon is very relevant in today’s educational landscape. In their summary I recognized that the models presented resembled the TPAC and SAMR models.  It appears that the models are helpful for policy makers and administrators of on-line or blended learning institutions, and that the models are valuable for evaluating the effectiveness of a blended learning experience. As noted by Jerry and Rhyanon:

As a teacher reading this information, I am encouraged that our school providing Blended learning classes supports the flexibility of pedagogy, environment, learner, and teacher role. The area that  can be developed further is the flexibility of content and technology to further personalize the learning experience for our students.

Joanna, Nicole and Hayley note in their summary of “Issues and Challenges Related to Digital Equity” that technology provides options for those with learning difficulties, and that digital technology can actually promote cultural diversity. Both of these findings are very relevant to educators, and also very applicable as several assistive tools were suggested. I appreciate that shortcomings of technology were also noted in their summary, thereby increasing the relevance of the research for educators.

Applicable: K-12 teachers need to be involved in the development of technology and the construction of educational models.

Cheryl, Heather and Benjamin note in their summary of “Information Technology for Assessment” that

teachers and students need to be included (and see themselves) as co-creators in shaping and directing the development of new tools for assessment.

In particular, Cheryl points out that “there is a whole other career out there in the designing of interactive software for assessment and teaching based soundly on cognitive principles and theory-based domain models”.  The difficulty here lies in not removing the developer from the educational practice so that the technology responds to the demands and challenges experienced in the classroom.

Jerry and Rhyanon’s summary of “Flexible, Open and Distance Learning in the Twenty First Century” (681-776) notes that there is limited research on designing and implementing blended learning at elementary and secondary school levels. I believe it is important that the research be conducted by elementary and secondary teachers so that the findings will be relevant and applicable to these unique age groups.

The summary provided by Sean, Jeremy and Clay on “Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning” (pp 149-368) has left me questioning the application of their research. Clay mentions that the results of the research depended on many variables so the outcomes were somewhat unpredictable. Herein lies my assertion that the research often lacks relevance in the context of the classroom and the experienced educator might be more effective relying on their expertise rather than strictly relying on the research.

This past few weeks have given me an opportunity to question the purpose and audience of educational research, identify what it is that I value and look for in research, and consider how I want to design and implement my research in the future. Above all else, I hope that my research will be relevant and applicable for current educators, and also that it will challenge and inspire educators to try new things in order to further develop their expertise.

It’s been an exciting week for me with respect to my academic and professional journey. My focus for my master’s project has shifted, I have been inspired in my practice to re-evaluate my pedagogy with renewed intention of meeting my learners’ needs, and I have considered two new models that can significantly contribute to the development and evaluation of using technology in my teaching practice.

My original question for my educational research was centered around how collaborative practices can influence student engagement.  While reading Voogt, et al. (2018) and their chapter titled “Developing an Understanding of the Impact of Digital Technologies on Teaching and Learning in an Ever-Changing Landscape” from the Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, I was introduced to research regarding the contributions of technology to formal and informal learning. I am excited at the potential for this area of research to inform and guide my interest on how technology can facilitate and transform the learning environment for my students in Environmental Science.  I am excited to pursue the research on formal and informal learning, to consider how this can contribute to lifelong learning, and to utilize the TPACK and SAMR models as frameworks from which I can plan, support, and evaluate the use of technology in my teaching practice.

As a trained AVID teacher, I have built my teaching practice upon the goals of encouraging and facilitating critical thinking in my students.

I begin every class I teach with a lesson on Costa’s framework for higher level thinking, followed by practice developing and recognizing higher level questions. It is an underlying and constant theme in my classes to encourage students to engage in higher level thinking and questioning, and it is through this lens of higher level thinking that I have come to appreciate and process the information I have read this week on TPACK and SAMR.

I view both models as valuable tools for informing my teaching with respect to the use of technology, however they are unique in their potential contributions and shortcomings. I will outline each of the models, summarize their key strengths and weaknesses, and consider how each model facilitates critical thinking of technology use in the classroom.

TPACK: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

I appreciate the TPACK model as outlined by Koehler and Mishra (2009) for the elegant framework it provides educators to analyze their teaching practice from the three areas of content knowledge, technology, and pedagogy. This model is refreshing as it recognizes the importance of these three individual skill-sets, and then encourages the educator to improve and grow in their practice by considering how these skill-sets interact and complement each other. Ultimately, the TPACK model is easy to use and student-centered, prompting the educator to be intentional in their planning. As I am a linear thinker, I found myself wanting to order the skill-sets from foundational to that of highest development, much like Costa’s levels of thinking. That being said, I have come to value the holistic representation of the TPACK model as it honors the complexities of teaching and learning. I recognize that the development of an educator is not linear, and I am reminded by the TPACK model that I will continually need to analyze and adjust my practice with respect to these three cornerstones of teaching.

Image based on the original on TPACK.org

The TPACK model is quite simple in its presentation, vocabulary, and application. For this reason, I believe the TPACK model is favorable over the SAMR model for professional development opportunities within schools. It is general enough to allow all teachers to identify their unique strengths and consider technology from a new perspective in order to work towards more effective and meaningful technology use in the classroom.

Perhaps a shortcoming of this model is that it appears to be teacher centered and focused on lesson development. As with all strong pedagogical practices, one must remain student-centered in their lesson development, implementation, and evaluation.

SAMR: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition

Image Modified from Original by Lefflerd’s on Wikimedia Commons

The SAMR model is specific to mobile devices rather than technology as a whole, and appears to be more prescriptive and specific than the TPACK model. Whereas the TPACK model emphasized the importance and interactions between technology, content and pedagogy, the SAMR model is intended to be “used to classify and evaluate mLearning activities” Romrell, et al., (2014). I believe focusing on mLearning is a limiting view of educational and learning, as it simplifies the complexity of teaching by omitting the important aspects of content and pedagogy from the model. For the inexperienced teacher, it may lead to frustration as they work to integrate technology without adequate consideration of content, pedagogy, and the appropriateness of using technology. For these reasons, the SAMR model may be met with skepticism if it were utilized for school-wide professional development as teachers may be resistant to technology being a focus rather than an aspect of effective lesson planning and development.

The SAMR model is presented in a linear manner, and resembles that of Costa’s house of higher learning as pictured above. It appears that the introduction of technology might progress from substitution to augmentation, to modification and finally to redefinition but I  believe this places unnecessary limitations on the model. By being represented as a taxonomy the focus is directed away from the process and towards the final product. Viewing the levels as separately rather than a progression can help the educator be intentional about their use of technology and assess their lessons while looking for new and innovative uses of mobile devices. The SAMR model is gaining momentum, but it is still a relatively recent framework that has inconsistent representations on the internet that might complicate its productive application (Hamilton, Rosenberg & Akcaoglu, 2016). Hamilton, et al.’s article also outlines three potential challenges of the framework, namely an absence of context, a rigid structure, and that it emphasizes product over process.

A strength of the SAMR model is the identification of three key characteristics of mobile devices: they are personal, situated and connected. It is these three characteristics of mobile technology that have the potential to redefine learning for my Environmental Science students. In fact, the analysis conducted by Romrell et al. (2014) found that

If learning activities involving a mobile device are purposefully designed to be personalized, situated, and connected, the resulting mLearning activities have the potential to redefine and transform learning.

My hopes for my students include that they might build on their experiences with social media to create a PLN that will contribute to global collaboration and awareness of environmental issues. With technology, students have the ability to influence global audiences through the construction of blogs and videos and they can produce artifacts as evidence of critical and higher level thinking (application of knowledge) that can have a global impact.

Twenty years ago when I started teaching my strengths were in the content areas of Math and Biology. Almost 10 years ago, I had the privilege of participating in three consecutive years of AVID training which significantly enhanced my pedagogical practice. Recently I have embarked on being intentional about the use of technology with my students. I appreciate the TPACK model for honoring the three contributing aspects of my practice (content, pedagogy and technology) and their interactions as I consider how I can incorporate technology effectively.  The SAMR model provides me with a framework that will facilitate a critical analysis of the use of technology in my teaching practices and how it contributes to learning.  Even though the content area I teach may change and technology continues to evolve, my ultimate goal for myself and my students remains the same – to become higher level questioners and thinkers. It is as a critical thinker that I approach models such as SAMR and TPACK and identify ideas and inspiration that will help guide my teaching practice and facilitate transformational learning.

Additional articles to read re: Formal and Informal Learning

Cochrane, T.D. (2012). Secrets of mlearning failures: Confronting reality. Research in Learning Technology, 5 (2012 Conference Proceedings – A confrontation with reality), 123-134.

Cornelius, S., Marston, P., & Gemmell, A. (2011). SMS text messaging for real-time simulations in higher education. In J. Traxler & J. Wishart (Eds.), Making mobile learning work: Case studies of practice, 13-17. 

Pfeiffer, V. D. I., Gemballa, S., Jarodzha, H., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Situated learning in the mobile age: Mobile devices on a field trip to the sea. Research in Learning Technology, 17(3), 187-199.

Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 149-160