Reflecting on What Makes a Good Task (EDER 679.14 Post #4)

Educators want examples, models, evidence of how a method or framework can be implemented in their own classrooms. As I began to think about my final project, I felt as though I was missing a piece of the process necessary for moving forward. While reading Chapter 9, Bransford, Brown and Coxing (2000) provided actual examples of inquiry-based units. Having a fairly strong background in integrating technology to support learning, I focused on the examples of actual teacher lessons and tasks to deepen my personal understanding of how to develop a good task.

Caswell (2014) in the video Knowledge Building states:

“Inquiry is about creating equitable, inclusive, engaging and active learning environments 
that spark children’s natural curiosity, that makes students’ thinking visible and that transform classrooms into communities of learners.”

With this statement at the forefront, I began to think about what actually makes a good inquiry-based task. Historically, educating students has followed an assembly line model (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000, Ch 9) where students would sit in rows, learning the same information and demonstrating understanding in the same way. I do believe a lot of progress has been made in the last 5 years and since our textbook was written. In my experience visiting many different classrooms, students are more active in their learning and technology is embedded throughout the day to enhance their learning. When I ask junior and high school students about the way they use technology, many of them are able to articulate clearly the various devices, programs and tools that support their learning experience. Of course, there is a fairly broad range of skills from one classroom to the next due to teacher style, comfort and preference. However, in my school district where every school has wifi and either a computer lab, laptops, iPads or Chromebooks, significant professional development opportunities are offered. Yet some teachers are still considerably "behind the times". How do we communicate the importance of designing accessible learning environments through the use of technology? How do we encourage educators who are not as tech savvy to learn about the methods and benefits of leveraging technology to support learning?  

Developing a “good” task that incorporates content, pedagogy and technology can be challenging, but I believe that ideas often come from students. Teachers need to be okay with letting go and being flexible so that student exploration may evolve. An example of this is an experience I had with my students a few years ago. The general curricular outcome being addressed was understanding tax in grade 8 mathematics. I had demonstrated in numerous ways through examples, videos, and practice of how to calculate tax. Yet, many of my students still struggled with the concept and repeated practice on worksheets had no value. Then the inevitable question arose, “When are we ever going to use this in real life?” I knew the answer and could easily have listed a number of examples, but instead I spent the evening developing an authentic task to help students understand the importance of tax. The following morning students arrived in the classroom at Calculations Cafe where tables were arranged and set with tablecloths, tea lights, ‘u-pen-sils’ (pencils taped to plastic forks) and takeout menus from a popular chain restaurant. At each table grouping, scenarios were printed on a card for students to understand the purpose of their dining experience and who they were dining with. Together the diners needed to order items from the menu and calculate the overall cost of the meal, including tip. In retrospect, research on the service industry and the concept of tipping would have enhanced students learning. The discussion that may have evolved around what was an acceptable tip percentage in North America at various service industries, including restaurants and salons would have been beneficial. Because students bring with them their own opinions and cultural beliefs (Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000, Ch. 6), this discussion could have been more fruitful and helped students with the overall concept and connection to community.

This week's readings have helped me to understand the types of inquiry-based tasks that can be developed to enrich and enhance learning. As a consultant, how can I carry over my course learnings into planning professional development for district staff? How do I develop inquiry-based learning in the workshops and sessions I provide to other educators?

References

Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). The design of learning environments. How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (pp. 131-154). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. (Chapter 6)

Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). Technology to support learning. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (pp. 206-231). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. (Chapter 9)

Knowledge-building.org, (2014). Knowledge Building. [online] Available at: http://www.knowledge-building.org/ [Accessed 24 Jul. 2014].

Image borrowed from

http://d1mpb3f4gq7nrb.cloudfront.net/img/toons/cartoon6795.png

TPACK: Is it the Total PACKage? (EDER 679.14 Post #3)

This week’s readings involved some heavy content and serious metacognition, despite having been introduced to TPACK two years ago. I decided to focus on the question: What is TPACK and how can it assist purposeful integration of technology into learning?  TPACK is a model that brings together technological pedagogical content knowledge. It is a framework that encourages the metacognition of strong teaching strategies that meet the needs of students, while covering curricular content and selecting appropriate technologies. Graham (2011) stated that the theoretical research into TPACK is lacking which has an impact on the effective implementation of the TPACK model. Yet, my own research into TPACK uncovered a great deal of information and research. Doering et al. (2009) indicate that TPACK is a useful framework when teachers are provided with professional development to support implementation. The problem lies in access to and delivery of  the necessary professional development. When teachers do attend professional development they are often shown what tools and strategies are available, but rarely how to use them in their classrooms with their students (Doering et al., 2009). When provided with effective professional development and follow up support, teachers feel empowered and willing to change and implement new practices.

“Learners differ in the ways they perceive and comprehend information that is presented to them” (National center on universal design for learning, 2014). Visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners are present in every classroom. One method of presenting information to everyone can provide a substantial barrier to many learners. Digital technology has the capacity to change teaching and learning. Access to multimedia and digital tools makes content accessible and output flexible. Embedding technology supports strong pedagogy by offering multiple means of representation, developing background knowledge, increasing learner independence and is often motivating and engaging.

My own teaching practice changed when I began to explore how technology could support pedagogy and content knowledge. Without knowing it, I was using components of TPACK to develop programming. TPACK guides teachers to match effective strategies with various technologies that enhance the learning and demonstration of content knowledge. What is missing is the exposure to such a valid model that has the potential to improve teaching and learning. How do we emphasize or highlight the validity of TPACK?  How do we encourage administrators and educators to attend professional development on yet another educational framework? With the multitude of educational frameworks and models, not one can be coined the “Total PACKage”.

References

Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319-346.

Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953-1960.

National center on universal design for learning. (2014). Principle I. Provide Multiple Means of Representation | National Center On Universal Design for Learning. Retrieved 19 July 2014, from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/principle1

What Do We Want Our Kids To Be When They Grow Up? (EDER 679.14 Blog Post #2)

According to 13 year old Logan Laplante during his Ted Talk in 2013, the question “What do you want to be when you grow up,” continues to be one that adults ask kids...a lot. Yet, the traditional responses adults expect are seldom what is heard from kids. The responses are often abstract, creative, and innovative because children respond based on what they know and are interested in. In fact, Jenkins (2006) shares stories of a number of youth who have made significant, innovative contributions to various communities through digital technologies and social networking.

Laplante (2013) explores the idea of “hackers” who in essence are inquisitive thinkers. They are “...people who challenge and change the system to make them work differently, to make them work better” (Laplante, 2013). Students who are given the opportunity to be “hackers” and explore their passions and interests, will have an increased motivation to collaborate and contribute to their community.

One aspect of digital technologies which facilitates the creativity of young people is social networking. Participatory culture is one in which individuals, including children and youth, have the opportunity to make meaningful contributions to various online communities. The reason that a participatory culture is so intriguing for students is that it is flexible; you do not have to contribute to be a member but can contribute when ready. It is also an accessible, supportive environment that offers mentorship, value and social connection to its members (Jenkins, 2006).

In my previous blog post, I was concerned about covering curriculum. I am beginning to see that through hands on, meaningful tasks explored by students, essential outcomes can still be achieved. This format may work in a small group or home school setting, but will it work in a larger classroom with 30 students? How can a teacher have all of their students working on different projects at one time? Jardine (1999 - 2014) explains that an inquiry-based topic is one that can be explored by the diverse range of students in the classroom and choosing the right topic will lend itself to differentiation. I still struggle with this idea in that a topic on ice hockey, for example, may be of interest to some, but not others. As well, how do educators foster a participatory culture where students are encouraged to “hack” into their interests? What digital technologies should a teacher begin with and do they need to be an expert in all technologies to effectively implement a participatory culture?

When my kids grow up, I hope they continue to be “hackers”.

References

Jardine, D. (1999-2011). On the nature of inquiry: Choosing a topic. Retrieved from http://www.galileo.org/tips/inquiry_topic.html

Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. An Occasional Paper on Digital Media and Learning. John D. And Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation.

Laplante, L (2013, February 12). Hackschooling makes me happy. Retrieved from  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h11u3vtcpaY

Raising the Roof, Not the Bar (EDER 679.14 Blog Post #1)

Raising the Roof Not the Bar (Blog Post #1)

Traditional teaching methods include stand and deliver, reading from a textbook and paper pencil assessments which can cause significant barriers for many students. Teachers often set the bar of achievement at the ceiling, rather than the floor (Clifford & Marinucci, 2008). Unfortunately, this means that levels of success are pre-determined for students and creativity and questioning are stifled.  

Limited exposure to an inquiry-based educational model contributed to my lack of understanding of this approach. Teaching at a segregated site for students with learning disabilities, my administration mandated that programming focus on remediation and acquiring skills that had not yet been mastered. In fact, the emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills resembled that of the early 20th century education system (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000). Fundamentally, I knew that a remedial model was not going to help students in junior high school be successful and I began to focus my teaching on a compensatory framework that gave students the skills they would need to access grade level curriculum. An inquiry-based learning model would have provided my students with further real life applications and queries that spark interest and conceptualize learning. Motivation is a key component of learning and can affect how devoted students are to the task (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000). An inquiry-based model is motivating in that it “...evokes powerful, stimulating questions that lead to further questions” (Clifford & Marinucci, 2008, p. 3). Becoming an expert learner based on one’s own queries and discoveries is truly empowering.

The initial concept of an inquiry-based method can be overwhelming for educators. Despite the research, teachers are required to cover a huge amount of curricula. Fear of veering off or not covering material can be a barrier to implementing an inquiry-based model. Yet, the deep learning that takes place is much more authentic and purposeful than simply answering questions in a textbook.

As I reflect on my own career, there were many creative and unique lessons that had an inquiry feel to them. Lessons that students were the most engaged in, worked collaboratively, questioned processes and had the most fun. What was missing from my teaching model being truly inquiry-based was student driven questions of inquiry, as I was the one identifying limited understandings of curriculum and developing the questions of discovery.

This leaves me to wonder, with a curriculum as complex and vast as ours in Alberta, how do administrators and educators facilitate an inquiry-based model of teaching? How do we utilize cross-curricular connections when our model in divisions 3 and 4 are subject specific? How do we encourage educators to allow students to raise the roof by setting the bar at floor level?

References:
Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). Learning: From Speculation to Science. How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (pp. 3 – 28). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. (Chapter 1) Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). Learning and transfer. How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (pp. 51-78). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. (Chapter 3)
Clifford, P. & Marinucci, S. (2008). Testing the waters: Three elements of classroom inquiry. Harvard Educational Review, 78(4), 675-688. Retrieved from http://library1.ucalgary.ca/u.php?id=3209