Week 18 - Future-oriented Learning and Teaching

I will be reflecting on my positive future-oriented teaching practice change using Gibb's model for reflection (Finlay, 2008, p.8).

Description

At the start of Mindlab I believed I was a skilled 21st-century learning teacher due to the fact I was a 1:1 digital class and up to date with the latest ICT teaching ideas. Little did I know, the approaches for the 21st-century learning had been around for quite some time and are practiced by many educators.  Bolstad, Gilbert, McDowall, Bull, Boyd & Hipkins (2012) stated that it is important to note that many 21st century ideas about what meaningful learning looks like, and how to support it, are actually not new. I did not have as deep of an understanding around the 21st-century learning skills as I thought I had.

My students spent a lot of time on the Chromebooks, approximately three blocks a day gaining what I believed at the time was valuable future 21st century ICT skills. Through doing Mindlab I shifted away from students using Chromebooks often to really questioning the effectiveness of my ICT learning tasks. The subtheme that identified with the change I made was "The role of current and emerging technologies" (Bolstad, Gilbert, McDowall, Bull, Boyd & Hipkins, 2012).

Feelings

During my postgraduate journey, I felt that after looking at the TPACK and SAMR framework models that I had in a sense been taking advantage of this tool (ICT). I began to question myself and the quality of the tasks I had set on the Chromebooks. Were they spending to much time on the Chromebooks? Did they actually need the Chromebook to complete this task? So I decided to shift my thinking and beliefs about the use of Chromebooks in teaching and learning always being a good thing. I started to understand that it was the way the children were using them to learn that made a difference and prepared them for their future.

Evaluation

I planned using the TPACK theoretical framework to ensure teaching and learning outcomes were maximized (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). I used the SAMR model to ensure the use of technology created learning opportunities that were personalized, situated and connected (Romrell, Kidder & Wood, 2014). Through using these frameworks to plan, during teaching I observed a shift in engagement levels across the class. They respected the Chromebooks a lot more and saw them as a significant tool for learning. Parents were happy as I prepared flipped learning tasks for at home so that time spent on the Chromebook at home was also purposeful. On the flip side, some children prefer working on the Chromebooks. For example, some would prefer to type on google docs rather than writing in their books. The change has improved my practice by causing me to reflect more deeply on the quality of the tasks on the Chromebook rather than the quantity or time spent on them.

Analysis

I now see that I am 'non-resistant' to adapt my current approach and teaching because I was triggered by the fact that by using TPACK and SAMR to inform my planing, it would lead to richer learning tasks and overall better student outcomes. Educational thinking has moved away from simply introducing new ICT tools to identifying beneficial and meaningful educational change (Bolstad, Gilbert, McDowall, Bull, Boyd & Hipkins, 2012). Bolstad, Gilbert, McDowall, Bull, Boyd & Hipkins, 2012 state that the potential of new technologies to transform teaching and learning depends on educators seeing the affordance and capabilities of ICT and is further dependent on schools having the right infrastructure, opportunities for innovation, and knowledge to achieve these kinds of teaching and learning.

Conclusion & Action

In conclusion, I have successfully and positively enhanced some of my 21st-century teaching skills through implementing a higher level of ICT tasks that are at the modification and redefinition stage of the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2010). However, I am well aware that this is just the beginning as ICT goes beyond the use of Chromebooks. As an action, moving forward I will be exploring the use other technologies and how they can enhance teaching and learning. In particular the technologies from the ‘5 Technologies That Will Change Classroom Education’ video, 2015 (virtual reality, 3D printing, cloud technology, biometrics, and holograms).

References:

AJT, 2015. ‘5 Technologies That Will Change Classroom Education’. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loFL5gT_m8I

Bolstad, R., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching — a New Zealand perspective. Report prepared for the Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/109306

Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on reflective practice. PBPL. Retrieved from http://www.open. ac.uk/opencetl/sites/www.open.ac.uk.opencetl/files/files/ecms/web-content/Finlay-(2008)-Reflecting-on-reflective-practice-PBPL-paper-52.pdf

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/29544/article_29544.pdf

Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advanced practice. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf.

Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), n2.