…is not an easy task, or there’d already be one design template or framework out there, right? Whilst invited/instructed to read considerable warnings and guidance on working legally, safely and ethically online, I haven’t read the small print that no doubt says that CQU owns the copyright to anything useful, or (more usefully) valuable that we come up with during our studies - yet. Once an ex-lawyer, always an ex-lawyer.
The course reading leads us to accept that there are three detailed, multi-faceted areas that need to overlap and combine productively, to create the best learning experience: C = Content, P = Pedagogy and T = technology. That’s why it’s complex.
 |
| From cartoonstock.com |
I’m not sure I agree that these should be seen as three distinct areas. I think there have always been technological pedagogical aids, from slates to abacuses, pencils to word processors. Certainly, there is a proclaimed technical revolution, but I think of it more as evolution, albeit very rapid. For example, we talk of the permanent nature of wikis, enabling learners and teachers to gauge progress, and to return and reflect. Think of the leap in this exact area when learning technology progressed from slate to paper. Looking more from the learner’s perspective, look at the increased efficiency from quills to Biro (and, of course, White Out ;o). Consider how much quicker a classroom could progress with the impact of that ‘basic’ technology. The current ICT evolution is astounding in the explosive nature of its growth, its breadth, its complexity, and its potential, but it still remains just one tool, one facet of a teacher’s effective pedagogical content knowledge strategy. So perhaps rather than thinking of technology as a separate T, it should be considered an integral T, integral to both P and C?
I do accept, however, that for many ‘Digital Dinosaur’ teachers this modern T is daunting, perhaps even threatening. I understand that rather than risking such teachers avoiding the Big T, pretending it’s not there or burying their heads in the sand, the Big T needs outing, emphasising and proclaiming from the rooftops. But for those with comfortable with technology, it simply becomes a part of learning design. Furthermore, for those Digital Dinosaurs, the Big T is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card. “e-learning is [not] to be used simply to enhance inherently deficient existing practices such as lecturing”, Garrison and Anderson, 2003, E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice.
So, we need to know our content and to be able to engage students and vice versa (we will only be able to engage our learners for so long if we have no content), but we should be doing this mindful of the learning tools out there, whether they be traditional T’s, such as paper, pens, paints, musical instruments, sports equipment, etc, or whether they be digital. We can look to the T for our C-ontent and for our P-edagogy. So whilst I can understand why the pendulum must be seen to swing heavily to the T side to get everyone onboard, in time TPACK should swing back to the neutral, and the bright future could look something like this:-
Where technology is the blue sky, taken for granted like air (until it’s not there) and where Content and Pedagogy live in PCK harmony. Ommmmmm.
Ok, so much for the theory, but as Yogi Berra (probably) said "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is". In practice it is rather hard. As Mishra and Koehler said, we need to move “toward the development of unified theoretical and conceptual frameworks that would allow us to develop and identify themes and constructs that would apply across diverse cases” (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge, 2006). That was 5 years ago and whilst “there are clearly many forms of learning design in use in classrooms and online settings throughout the world, there is currently no single set of learning designs that have been prescribed”: (A guide to creating learning design tools for VET, Australian Flexible Learning Framework, 2010). So, asking us to successfully design our own learning framework could be asking a bit much of a second week ICT and Pedagogy student. However, “success is a journey not a destination. The doing is usually more important than the outcome”, according to Arthur Ashe. More “ommmm” Tibetan chanting in the background: “On a long journey of human life, faith is the best of companions” (Buddha). Besides, we’re being challenged here, to more HOT stuff - design and creation. And, if we stuff it up, our learning will be further scaffolded and supported by additional readings or examples, etc, until we can again rise above the lower order thinking and retake our rightful places ;o)
Reflecting on my own learning, before I got my head around the above, I was struggling under the pressure to create a ‘perfect’ Learning Design Framework (LDF) intended to “underpin the balance of your reflections and work in this course” (Wendy Fasso, (current) Course Co-ordinator). What should it look like? What should it have in it? Everything? Pretty much. We were told to combine elements of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Kearsley & Shneiderman’s Engagement Theory, 1998 (within the over all TPACK concept). I was very impressed with Wendy’s “Prezi” exposé on TPACK as an interactive concept map, however I was probably more comfortable with the Planning Sheet she used in our VYEW tutorial. My problem is, when I’m comfortable with that framework, how do I try to reinvent the wheel when I've now got this great visual in my head of what it could look like? Moreover, why would I want to, aside from to try to show some independence of thought?
Being a connectivist, however, as well as a pragmatist, I decided to look for another wheel and then personalise it. What better place to look than the government’s Australian Flexible Learning Framework? The only drawback being that the organisation it is designed to be “the e-learning strategy for the vocational education and training (VET) sector”, so perhaps a little higher-level than my poor potential primary school learners. Still, “it provides the VET system with the essential e-learning infrastructure and expertise needed to respond to the challenges of a modern economy and the training needs of Australian businesses and workers” (from their website www.flexiblelearning.net.au), so perhaps it could be adapted to suit younger learners?
Their suggested framework (A guide to creating learning design tools for VET, Australian Flexible Learning Framework, 2010 is based on the following (my amends and thoughts added):-
1. Learning task(s) - the contexts, processes and conditions by which the learner is engaged.
and led to digest information, practise, apply, think and reflect.
E.g. reading a section of text, completing a checklist, undertaking a quiz, searching the web for information, participating in an online discussion. adding reflections to a blog, completing an online tutorial.
2. Learning resources - the materials containing the information, content and underpinning knowledge the learner needs to acquire or develop a strong familiarity with.
Examples might be hardcopy books, handouts, and digital references and resources.
3. Learning supports - the strategies and processes that assist the learner to work beyond their comfort zone which scaffolds and provides feedback, advice and provides support for reflection.
Examples might be setting up a collaborative wiki, providing templates, learning tools such as PMIs or De Bono’s hats, etc, requiring completion of a reflections diary or blog.
Whilst the guide went on later to address this point in more detail, the desired learning outcomes addressed under 1. Learning task(s) were pretty low-order thinking outcomes, which I thought strange. I would add learning outcomes from Bloom’s as the second point, before looking at Learning Resources.
Adding in another column to the above, to take in some further recommendations, and the grid starts to look like this:-
Thanks for sharing such useful information. The information provided is very very niche and this information is not available so easily. Therefore I thank the writer for the useful input.
ReplyDeleteWeb design quote