Sunday, September 20, 2009

Integration of e-learning

It was interesting reflecting on Tony’s study guide notes on “Changes In E-Learning”. He writes about the journey of schools use of computers. On reflection the early use of computers in schools parallels my own experiences of computers in teaching. I first had computers in my classrooms in the 1980s and have been using them ever since. I remember utilising the CD encyclopedias, databases and games prior to accessing these functions from the web. In the early 1990’s we were involved in the Telecom project where the students had regular contact with scientists working in Antarctica.

Kellow (2007,24) states “ Computing in education has changed dramatically since those early days when all we could do was basic programming and play a few games. Then the computer was mainly cast in the tutor role and used for computer assisted learning, Now the range of information and communication technologies being used has dramatically increased, the Internet being, in my opinion, one of the most influential”.It is the responsibility of every primary and secondary school in New Zealand to develop students into “confident, connected, actively involved lifelong learners” (MOE, 2007, p4). To fulfil this responsibility every school needs to ensure that all students are becoming digitally capable, and confident.

The challenge for me these days as a principal of a large urban school is to facilitate the vision, motivation, school culture and resources to make this happen.

Dias , (1999,11), exploration of the typical stages teachers work through towards technical integration (integrated e-learning) and pedagogy is interesting to reflect on. Dias poses four questions that she contends are not commonly raised as school implement e-learning into their curriculum. Dias (1999), suggests that addressing these questions could assist schools to clarify their expectations.
1. “What is technology integration, and what isn’t it?
2. Where does technology integration happen?
3. What are the barriers to technology integration?
4. What are the stages of technology integration?”

Dais also makes the point that integration takes time. In my experience it is an iterative journey not only for the school but for each individual teacher. I believe it is up to each school to provide the vision, culture, leadership and resources to give the motivation for teachers to want to move forward on this journey. Dias makes the point that it is important to have clarity around what do the teachers see as important to define what e-learning integration will actually look like in their school.

These questions would certainly be useful when conducting a school review on this area.
Misha and Koehler (2009) article promotes a framework called TPACK which could be utilised to as a way of conducting a school review to establish a way forward in the integration of e-learning and pedagogy journey. “The TPACK framework suggests that content, pedagogy, technology, and teaching / learning requires continually creating, maintaining, and re-establishing a dynamic equilibrium among all its components. It is worth noting that a range of factors influences how this equilibrium will be reached.” (2009, p 67)

The implications of the TPAK framework for educators is to be able to clarify the professional development ( either content, pedagogy, technology ) contexts or their interactions both in terms of review and subsequent action plans to meet teachers needs.This framework enables schools to clarify what is needed to encourage a more ecological approach to e-learning practice.

Both these readings have given me ideas on how we can approach our review of our e-learning development at our school and the development of our action plan for 2010 – which is my focus for assignment 2 of this course. The challenge is how to bring these big picture ideas down to a framework that is manageable and useful in a way that will engage both teachers and learners!


References:
Dias, L. B. (1999). Integrating Technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology , 27 (3), 11-13, 21.


Hunt, T. (2009). Study Guide 6: Vision and Policy for E-Learning, Part A - Integration of E-Learning. Retrieved September 17, 2009 from University of Auckland course, Edprofst 714: Educational Technologies in Practice

Kellow, J. M. (2007). Inquiry Learning in an ICT- rich Environment. Computers in New Zealand Schools , 19 (1), 24-31.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media Limited.

Mishra P., & Koehler M.J., (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technolgy and Teacher Education , 9 (1), pp. 60-70.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Sandy
    Thanks for your comment on my blog. I think perhaps we'll be using Dias (1999) to approach a knotty problem from different ends of a spectrum. You seem to be engaged in the vision for elearning and the way in which that vision and action plan can provide a platform from which to launch initiatives which hit home at the chalk face and really cause effective schoolwide change for your staff and ultimately your students - I think this is entirely appropriate given your position as the school's leader - to this end, I'm imagining that you will be able to draw from TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2009) theory and some of Dias' ideas (plus plenty of others I'm sure) to paint a theoretical backdrop which supports your action plan.
    My own position is to look at similar challenges (i.e. how to implement schoolwide change) but from a bottom-up perspective. This is highly relevant to my position as the ICT lead teacher as I will be heavily involved in the practical implementation of our PD in school and am interested in creating something which is both sustainable and, ultimately self-fulfilling.
    I'll probably be dealing with the practical implications of TPACK and ways in which to overcome the obstacles outlined by Dias and I'm intending to draw on literature which covers effective models for PD, which may not necessarily be linked to NET (Darling-Hammond & Richardson (2009) springs immediately to mind) in order to draft specific and practical ideas for our BoT and Principal to use in implementing an elearning action plan.
    As I mentioned in the forum, I'm sure our work will overlap in many ways and we may well benefit from sharing some pointers to relevant readings - it will be an interesting journey which, hopefully, will result in some longterm transformations for both of our schools.

    Louis

    refs
    Darling-Hammond, L. and Richardson, N. (2009).Teacher Learning: What Matters? Educational Leadership, Feb2009, Vol. 66 Issue 5, p46-53

    Dias, L. B. (1999). Integrating Technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology , 27 (3), 11-13, 21.

    Mishra P., & Koehler M.J., (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technolgy and Teacher Education , 9 (1), pp. 60-70.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Louis for your post. It is like you say in schools we have to work top down and bottom up and every other which way too! When I saw the TPACK activities I was blown away by the simplicity of the approach, and to be frank, I want a bit more those in my school. I want the activities to be linked to higher order thinking and have some degree of collaboration as that is where the two-ness of web 2.0 is.

    You can see from my post yesterday I am thinking about our school action plan and where we are at and I do think that the planning process with teachers can be strengthened towards collaboratively creating appropriate learning activities that link with our curriculum and pedagogy.

    I hope you find the TPACK links I have posted useful.

    Schmidt, D., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009, February). K-6 literacy learning activity types. Retrieved from College of William
    and Mary, School of Education, Learning Activity Types Wiki: http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/K-
    6LiteracyLearningATs-Feb09.pdf

    K-6 Literacy Learning Activity Types” by Denise A. Schmidt, Judi Harris and Mark Hofer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

    Based on a work at activitytypes.wmwikis.net

    ReplyDelete